/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230130.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, January 30, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 22

                            Headlines

A.J. BOGGS: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines & Hearings
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Class Cert Hearing Continued to Feb. 23
ALLERGAN PLC: DeKalb Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 2nd Cir.
ALTER ECO: Dark Chocolate Bars Contain Heavy Metals, Rodriguez Says
ALTERRAON PHILLIPS: Arnstein Seeks Class Certification

ALTICOR INC: Faces Class Suit Over Retirement Plan Mismanagement
AMERICAN HONDA: Court Narrows Claims in Quackenbush Suit
ARKK FOOD: Counts Sues Over Mislabeled Wahlburgers Pickles
AUTOFAIR INC: Class Settlement Approval in Chechowitz Suit Affirmed
AXA EQUITABLE: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in COI Suit

BECTON & DICKINSON: Lead Plaintiff Files Class Certification Bid
BESHAY FOODS: Fails to Provide Proper Meal & Rest Breaks, Suit Says
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Loses Bid to Consolidate Kavon & Burbank
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Loses Bid to Consolidate Kavon, Burbank Suits
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Bacher Suit Moved to Connecticut Super. Court

BOOKSY INC: Dominguez Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Parties in Dutra Seek OK of Proposed Schedule
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Castleberry Suit
BRAGG COMMUNITIES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Thomas Class Suit
BRIDGEBIO PHARMA: SMART Local Appeals Suit Dismissal

CALIFORNIA: Judge Recommends Denial of Wilson's Bid for Class Cert.
CANADA: Agrees to Settle Indian Residental Schools' Suit for $2.8-B
CCFI LLC: Zanabria Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
CEREBRAL INC: 1st Amended Debono Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
COCA-COLA CO: Orange Juice Drinks Have Toxic Chemicals, Suit Says

COCA-COLA COMPANY: Letoski Sues Over Mislabeled Soda Water
CONSUMER REPORTS: Wallen Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Cir.
DAVID KUSHNER: Denial of Bids to Dismiss in Rosenshein Suit Upheld
DOLGENCORP LLC: Davis Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DOORDASH INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Mullo Class Suit Granted

ENDANGERED SPECIES: Rodriguez Hits Cocoa Bars' Lead Content
ENTRADA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Probes Potential Securities Claims
FATE THERAPEUTICS: Portnoy Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
FIELDWORKS LLC: Bid to Remand Swans Suit to Superior Court Denied
FLUOR CORP: N.D. Texas Grants Bids to Dismiss Locascio ERISA Suit

GLEN MILLS: $3-M Settlement Reached Over School Abuse Claims
HANESBRANDS INC: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Roman Says
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Jimenez Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
IKEA US: Dukich Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 3rd Circuit
ILLINOIS FARMERS: Bid to Amend Certified Class in Taqueria Denied

INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: McDermid's $44MM Class Deal Wins Final OK
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Pomerantz Probes Potential Securities Suit
IOVATE HEALTH: Moore Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
JETSUITEX INC: McKeehan Suit Remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court
JOHNSON'S TREE: Arredondo FLSA Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla.

L'OREAL USA: Gethers Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Hair Products
L'OREAL USA: Hair Products Contain Harmful Chemicals, Bridges Says
LABCORP DRUG: Kaba Suit Removed to S.D. Ind.
LATCH INC: Rosen Law Named Lead Counsel in Brennan Securities Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Files Motion to Dismiss M274 Engine Class Suit

MRS BPO: Faces Blum Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
NATIONAL RESTAURANT: Gallagher Hits Deceptive Business Practices
NAVY FEDERAL: Wilkins Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
NEWAGE INC: Taylor Sues Over False Registration Statements
NORTHERN TRUST: Emerson Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.

PACE ASSEMBLY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beechboard Says
PATERSON CAR: Court Approves Revised $8K Class Deal in Vidal Suit
REALPAGE INC: Faces Another Rental Price Fixing Suit in Florida
ROCKWELL COLLINS: Alvarado Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SOFT-LITE LLC: McCall Stayed Until 6th Cir. Resolves Holder Appeal

SYNGENTA CROP: Graham Sues Over Anticompetitive Loyalty Programs
TEXAS: Bid to Dismiss Shafer v. Rutledge of TDCJ Granted in Part
UNITED STATES: Appeals Judgment in Micu Suit to Fed. Circuit
UROLOGY OF GREATER: Bland Files Suit Over Data Breach
VALLEY HEALTH: Doe Suit Removed to D.N.J.

VERIZON DATA: District Court Denies Bid to Remand Kendall Suit
VRDOLYAK LAW: Bid to Dismiss Alholm Class Suit Granted in Part
WALMART INC: Adelstein Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Appeals Final Judgment in Bowles Suit
WELLS FARGO: Court Consolidates Six Discrimination Class Suits

WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Commission Offered to Halt Suit, Lawyers Allege
WESTERN EXPRESS: Hendricks Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
WEXFORD HEALTH: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Blossom Class Suit
Y-MABS THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due March 20
Y-MABS THERAPEUTICS: Corwin Sues Over Share Price Drop

[*] Submission of $56-M Dementia Drug Settlement Claims Set Feb. 3

                            *********

A.J. BOGGS: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines & Hearings
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Doe v. A.J. Boggs &
Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-01464 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara
A Mcauliffe entered an order setting class certification deadlines
and hearings as follows:

  -- The parties shall file a Joint Scheduling Report, proposing
     dates for class discovery and motion for class
     certification briefing, one week prior to the conference.

  -- The parties shall appear at the conference remotely either
     via Zoom video conference or Zoom telephone number.

  --The parties will be provided with the Zoom ID and password
     by the Courtroom Deputy prior to the conference. The Zoom
    ID number and password are confidential and are not to be
    shared.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.

AJ Boggs is an IT company specializing in software development
services.[CC]






ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Class Cert Hearing Continued to Feb. 23
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAMEDA COUNTY MALE
PRISONERS And Former Prisoners, DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al. on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, as a Class, and
Subclass, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al, Case No.
3:19-cv-07423-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott
Corley entered an order that the hearing date of February 9, 2023
for plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be continued
for hearing to February 23 2023, at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 8, 19th
Floor of the above Court at 9:00 a.m. by a Zoom videoconference.

The hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
originally set for January 19, 2023. In order to accommodate
defendant Aramark's request to file a sur-reply, the Court reset
the hearing for February 9, 2023.

The Plaintiffs' counsel is unavailable on February 9, 2023, as she
has prepaid plans to be out of state on a much delayed vacation.
The parties request that the hearing be reset for February 23, 2023
or anytime thereafter, at the Court's convenience.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HjmLLh at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yolanda Huang, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG
          Berkeley, CA 94705
          Telephone: (510) 329-2140
          Facsimile: (510) 580-9410
          E-mail: yolanda@yhuanglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charles Reitmeye, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501

ALLERGAN PLC: DeKalb Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff DeKalb County Pension Fund filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order and Judgment dated December 12, 2022,
entered in In RE ALLERGAN PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
1:18-cv-12089-CM-GWG, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit is a federal securities class action brought on behalf
of the Class for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
It asserts that Allergan misled investors by boasting about various
"pharma and device approvals" while concealing from investors the
fact that the Company's CE Mark for its textured breast implants
and tissue expanders was expiring in Europe. The truth was revealed
on December 19, 2018, when the Company announced that it had
suspended the sale of these products and that it was withdrawing
all remaining supplies from European markets, says the suit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Colleen
McMahon granted Allergan's motion for summary judgment, and
dismissed the plaintiff's case in its entirety on December 12,
2022. The court held that the plaintiff had not produced sufficient
evidence to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact on
three of the required elements of a Section 10(b) claim: falsity,
materiality, and loss causation.

First, the court concluded that none of the alleged misstatements
were either literally untrue or misleading in context, given that
the science available at the time of the disclosures had not
concluded that Allergan's textured implants in fact carried an
increased risk of the disease as compared to textured implants
produced by other manufacturers. With respect to two of the four
challenged statements, the court criticized the plaintiff for
making a "'Hail Mary pass' of an argument" that was "arguably bad
faith." Second, the court concluded that the plaintiff had failed
to produce evidence that the disclosures about Allergan's textured
implant business, which constituted less than 1% of Allergan's
total revenues, were material to investors. Finally, on loss
causation, the court said that the plaintiff had produced "not a
scintilla" of evidence showing that the recall of Allergan's
textured implants in December 2018 by a French regulator was driven
by concerns that Allergan's textured breast implants carried a
heightened risk of the disease as compared to other manufacturers'
textured implants.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's attempts to introduce new
or recycled theories of fraud in support of its claims. Even if it
were to consider those improperly raised theories, the court stated
that it would reject them based on the undisputed evidence. The
court concluded that while it had let the case proceed past the
motion to dismiss phase when drawing all inferences in favor of the
plaintiff's theories, following discovery the plaintiff had failed
to produce the required evidence to support its allegations.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Allergan PLC Securities
Litigation, Case No. 23-59, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on January 11, 2023.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DeKalb County Pension Fund is represented by:

          James Milligan Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330

Defendants-Appellees Allergan PLC, William Meury, Maria Teresa
Hilado, Brenton L. Saunders, Matthew M. Walsh, Frances DeSena, Mark
Marmur, and Paul Bisaro are represented by:

          Abena Ayowa Mainoo, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 225-2785

ALTER ECO: Dark Chocolate Bars Contain Heavy Metals, Rodriguez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. ALTER ECO AMERICAS
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00053-L-AGS (S.D. Cal., January
11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
California Business and Professions Code and the California Civil
Code concerning the presence of lead and cadmium in dark chocolate
bars.

According to the complaint, Alter Eco's conduct with respect to the
labeling, advertising, and sale of the Alter Organic Dark Chocolate
Classic Blackout 85% Cacao dark chocolate bar was unfair because
consumers, including Plaintiff, who purchased the product were
injured by its acts and omissions concerning the presence of lead
and cadmium in its product. No reasonable consumer would know, or
have reason to know, that the product contains heavy metals. Worse,
as companies across the industry have adopted methods to limit
heavy metals in their dark chocolate products, Alter Eco has stood
idly by with a reckless disregard for its consumers' health and
well-being, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this action against Alter Eco on behalf of
herself, similarly-situated Class Members, and the general public
to enjoin Alter Eco from deceptively marketing the product, and to
recover compensation for injured Class Members.

Alter Eco Americas Inc. produces food products. The Company
operates an online stores that offers chocolates, coconut clusters,
truffles, quinoa, sugar, cacao, and rice. Alter Eco Americas serves
customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Caroline S. Emhardt, Esq.
          FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 215-1741
          E-mail: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                  paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                  melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                  trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                  caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com

ALTERRAON PHILLIPS: Arnstein Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH
ARNSTEIN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. ALTERRAON PHILLIPS, ESQ. And APLAW LLC, a Florida
limited liability corporation, Case No. 9:21-cv-82516-AMC (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff Arnstein asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "All individual or entities who are or were condominium
      unit owners at The Sterling Villages of Palm Beach Lakes
      Condominium Association, Inc.

        (a) to whom the Defendants sent collection letters dated
            between December 20, 2021 and the present; or

        (b) whose condominium units were the subjects of liens
            the Defendants recorded in the Official Records of
            Palm Beach County on October 14, 2021, November 19,
            2021, or April 19, 2022; or

        (c) who were defendants in lawsuits the Defendants filed
            in the County Court of Palm Beach County between
            December, 2021 and the present; or

        (d) who sold their Sterling condominiums between
            December 20, 2019 and the present, and received an
            estoppel certificate from the Defendants related to
            the sale of the condominium.

   2. appointing her as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Steven H. Meyer as class counsel.

This is a putative class action brought under 15 U.S.C. section
1692, et seq., known as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA) and Chapter 559, Fla. Stat., et seq., known as the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA).

The Plaintiffs request that the Court certify this action as a
class action pursuant to Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P., appoint them as
class representatives, and appoint their counsel as class counsel.


The Plaintiffs all own or formerly owned condominium units in The
Sterling Villages of Palm Beach Lakes Condominium Association,
Inc., a residential condominium association in the City of West
Palm Beach, Florida.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3XgV4sbat no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven H. Meyer, Esq.
          STEVEN H. MEYER, P.A.
          401 West Fairbanks Avenue, Suite 100
          Winter Park, FL 32751
          Telephone: (407) 289-0803
          E-mail: steven@thefirm.legal

ALTICOR INC: Faces Class Suit Over Retirement Plan Mismanagement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Miller at mlive.com reports that a group of retirees is
suing Amway's parent company, Alticor Inc., alleging that the
company mismanaged a retirement plan, offering investment options
with unusually high fees and failing to remove underperforming
funds or explore less costly, better performing alternatives.

The lawsuit, filed in 2020 in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Michigan, has already survived two attempts by the
Ada-based corporation to dismiss the case.

The plaintiffs are now asking U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney to
certify it as a class action, saying the pool of current and former
employees impacted could be more than 5,000 people.

They are alleging that the Amway Retirement Savings Plan "suffered
millions of dollars of losses due to excessive costs and lower net
investment returns," as a direct result of the company's
mismanagement, according to the complaint.

They have asked the court to order Alticor "to make good to the
Plan all losses to the Plan resulting from Defendants' breaches of
their fiduciary duties."

Amway said in a statement released that "This litigation is part of
a nationwide wave of hundreds of cases filed that target large
companies with sizable 401k plans.

"We believe the suit is without merit and are in the process of
defending it," the company said.

Don Reavey, an attorney with the Harrisburg, Pa., law firm Capozzi
Adler who is representing the plaintiffs, declined to comment
beyond what has been submitted in court documents.

The retirement plan includes employees from Alticor as well as
several subsidiaries, including Amway Corp., Amway International,
Amway Management Services, Amway Global Services, Access Business
Group, Pyxis Innovations, Access Logistics, ABGI Corp.,
Merchandising Productions and Trout Lake Farm.

The plaintiffs argue that the retirement plan, which manages assets
of well over $1 billion, is one of the largest in the U.S. but
hasn't used the bargaining power that comes along with its size to
reduce the fees and expenses charged against participants'
investments.

Instead, the annual recordkeeping fees sometimes exceeded $300 per
participant when those fees for similar plans were closer to $35
per person, they said, and many of the plan's investment funds had
high management fees, noting that "in some cases, expense ratios
for the Plan's funds were 246% above the [Investment Company
Institute] Median."

Plan administrators also failed to remove five underperforming
funds, the plaintiffs said.

Alticor has denied any wrongdoing. It argued in a motion to dismiss
the case filed in 2021 that the complaint is "is a cut-and-paste
copy of a standard pleading filed nationwide.

"Plaintiffs' counsel filed at least forty similar class action
lawsuits in 2020 and 2021, alleging the same claims regardless of
the plan's investment options, process, or design," they said.

Maloney rejected that argument, saying "There is no rule against
hiring counsel that specialize in one cause of action or type of
lawsuit, and the Court declines to dismiss the complaint on this
ground alone."

Alticor argued further that the plaintiffs had based their
arguments on imperfect comparisons between investment funds, that
nothing in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
requires the company to offer a specific mix of investment options
and that the company did ultimately swap a higher-cost fund for a
lower-cost one.

But, in denying the first motion to dismiss, and he would stick to
the same logic in the second denial, Maloney said some of the
disagreements on the facts of the case - for example, on whether
the less expensive investment funds noted by the plaintiffs were
really comparable to the ones offered by the retirement plan -
would be better adjudicated later in the process.

The "bigger picture," he wrote, is the plaintiff's allegation that
Alticor "was not reviewing the Plan's options regularly, not acting
in the best interest of Amway's employees, and using higher-cost
vehicles to pay for revenue sharing.

"Taken together, Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the Committee
breached its duty of prudence," he said, "so the motion to dismiss
Count I will be denied."

Maloney has not yet ruled on the whether to certify the case as a
class action. A settlement conference in the case has been set for
November of this year, with a bench trial scheduled for January of
2024. [GN]

AMERICAN HONDA: Court Narrows Claims in Quackenbush Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY QUACKENBUSH, MARISSA
FEENEY, and ANNE PELLETTIERI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.,
and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., a Japanese Corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-05599-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered
an order resolving the defendants' summary judgment motion as
follows:

    (1) Feeney's and Pellettieri's individual implied warranty
        claims are dismissed;

    (2) Quackenbush's individual implied warranty claim under
        Section 2314 is dismissed;

    (3) the Illinois New and Used Purchaser Class's fraudulent
        omission and ICFA claims are dismissed;

This order is persuaded by In re General Motors' holding that where
the injury has not and will not manifest for a large majority of
the class, it makes little sense to allow a damage calculation
based on the cost of repair.

The Defendants attempt to resolve all class and individual
plaintiffs' claims by globally arguing that there is in fact no
safety-related defect.

American Honda develops and manufactures automobiles.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3WfMet9 at no extra charge.[CC]

ARKK FOOD: Counts Sues Over Mislabeled Wahlburgers Pickles
----------------------------------------------------------
KYLE COUNTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARKK FOOD COMPANY, a Michigan corporation
and WAHLBURGERS I, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00236 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 16, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment and
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act and State Consumer Fraud Acts.

This is a class action lawsuit regarding Defendants' manufacturing,
distribution, advertising, marketing, labeling, distribution, and
sale of Wahlburgers pickles that are sold in grocery stores
nationwide and marketed as, among other things, "fresh," "all
natural," and containing "no preservatives." Unfortunately for all
reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, these claims are false
and misleading, says the suit.

Had Defendants not made the false, misleading, and deceptive
representations and omissions alleged herein regarding the Pickles,
the Plaintiff would not have been willing to purchase the Pickles.
Accordingly, Plaintiff was injured and lost money due to
Defendants' mislabeling and deceptive conduct, the suit asserts.

Arkk Food Company is in the business of creating and producing food
products and is the distributor for Wahlburgers Pickles and the
exclusive licensee of Wahlburgers' retail products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC
          737 Bainbridge Street #155
          Philadelphia, PA 19147
          Telephone: (215) 789-4462
          E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

AUTOFAIR INC: Class Settlement Approval in Chechowitz Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXIS CHECHOWITZ & others v. AUTOFAIR, INC., &
another, Case No. 22-P-40 (Mass. App.), the Appeals Court of
Massachusetts affirms the order of a Superior Court judge approving
the settlement of a class action lawsuit.

Chechowitz and others similarly situated brought a class action
lawsuit in Middlesex Superior Court against Defendants-appellees
Autofair and Haverhill Ford, LLC, alleging claims for unpaid
wages.

Ryan Daly, David C. Thomas, Paul T. Silva, and Diane Ingram
(collectively, the Objectors), who are four members of the class of
former sales employees of the Defendants, learned of the class
action and brought a similar action in Essex Superior Court. The
Objectors then initiated arbitration of their claims against the
Defendants.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants negotiated a
settlement of the Middlesex Superior Court class action. On the
Defendants' motions, the four arbitrators stayed the arbitrations
of the Objectors' claims on the grounds that the settlement of the
Middlesex class action would, if approved, resolve those claims.

In Middlesex Superior Court, the Plaintiffs moved for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement, as amended, assented to by
the Defendants. The Objectors moved to intervene, pursuant to Mass.
R. Civ. P. 24, 365 Mass. 769 (1974).

After a hearing, a judge (first judge) denied the motion to
intervene, noting that the lawyers for the Objectors are positioned
for larger fees if they can stay the lawsuit and complete their
clients' arbitrations, but that is not a factor for consideration
in the intervention analysis. On June 1, 2021, the first judge
allowed the motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement
and certified the class, noting that the requirements of Mass. R.
Civ. P. 23(a), as amended, 471 Mass. 1491 (2015), are
well-established and uncontested. The Objectors did not appeal.

Also on June 1, 2021, the Objectors filed in Federal District Court
an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to compel
the Defendants to arbitrate their claims and to enjoin the
Defendants from settling the Middlesex class action. A District
Court judge denied relief, concluding that the Objectors were
seeking to stay the Plaintiffs' class action in favor of their own
individual arbitrations, but the arbitrators had ruled that the
claims raised in arbitration would be resolved by settlement of the
class action. The Objectors appealed to the Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit, but then stipulated to dismissal of the appeal.

In Middlesex Superior Court, the Plaintiffs moved pursuant to Mass.
R. Civ. P. 23(c) for final approval of the class action settlement,
assented to by the Defendants. The Objectors filed an objection to
final approval of the settlement. After a hearing at which the
Objectors' counsel was present, a second Superior Court judge
approved the settlement. The Objectors appeal from that order.

The Appeals Court begins by noting a procedural issue not briefed
by the parties or the Objectors. None of the parties to the case
filed any notice of appeal. Although the Objectors style themselves
as appellants, they are not parties to the case in the trial court.
In these circumstances, it may be questioned whether the Objectors
have standing to bring the appeal. The Appeals Court need not pause
to consider that issue, because in any event the Objectors' claims
are meritless.

The Objectors then argue that since their arbitration agreements
mandated that the Defendants arbitrate their dispute, the
Defendants were precluded from settling the class action with the
Plaintiffs. The arbitration agreement states that the parties agree
to submit to binding arbitration any dispute concerning the
arbitrability of any controversy or claim.

The Appeals Court holds that when the arbitrators stayed the four
arbitration proceedings with each of the Objectors, they clearly
contemplated that the class action in Superior Court might resolve
the Objectors' claims, making further arbitration proceedings
unnecessary. The arbitrators plainly interpreted the arbitration
agreement to give them the power to stay the arbitrations pending
that settlement. The Appeal Court defers to the arbitrators'
interpretation of the arbitration agreement. It concludes that the
judge did not abuse his discretion in determining that the
settlement was in the best interests of the class as a whole, and
in approving the final settlement.

Autofair has requested that the Court awards it costs incurred in
defending the appeal, pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 26(a), as
appearing in 481 Mass. 1655 (2019), and further requests that those
costs be doubled on the grounds that the appeal was frivolous,
pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 25, as appearing in 481 Mass. 1654
(2019).

The Appeals Court agrees that such a remedy is appropriate.
Consistent with the requirements of Fabre v. Walton, 441 Mass. 9,
10 (2004), Autofair may file a request for its costs, along with
supporting documentation, within 14 days of the issuance of the
decision in the case. The objectors will have 14 days thereafter
within which to respond.

Based on the foregoing, the Order dated Dec. 14, 2021, approving
settlement of class action, is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4jrk3cum from Leagle.com.


AXA EQUITABLE: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in COI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY COI
LITIGATION. This Document Relates to All Member Cases, Case No.
16-CV-740 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York denies AXA's
request for decertification.

In this litigation, life insurance policyholders bring claims
against AXA arising from an increase in the "cost of insurance" or
"COI" -- a monthly charge deducted from the value of a
policyholder's account -- on a subset of universal life insurance
policies. Over two years ago, the Court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and certified two nationwide
classes, a Policy-Based Claims Class and an Illustration-Based
Claims Class, as well as a New York Sub-Class of the
Illustration-Based Claims Class.

The Illustration-Based Claims Class, as originally certified, was
defined as: All individuals who, on or after March 8, 2016, owned
an AUL II policy unaccompanied by a Lapse Protection Rider that was
issued by AXA and subjected to the COI rate increase announced by
AXA on or about Oct. 1, 2015, excluding defendant AXA, its officers
and directors, members of their immediate families, and the heirs,
successors or assigns of any of the foregoing, and the plaintiffs
in the Related Actions.

Last year, however, the Court ruled (on AXA's motion for partial
reconsideration of a ruling largely denying the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment) that Wells Fargo, the
registered owner of many of the life insurance policies at issue,
lacks standing to pursue the illustration-based claims. It ordered
supplemental briefing on whether, in light of that ruling, the
Illustration-Based Claims Class should be decertified or modified.

The Plaintiffs argue that the class should be modified to
substitute the underlying entitlement holders for the registered
owners that are securities intermediaries. AXA contends that the
class must be decertified.

Judge Furman agrees with the Plaintiffs. He says most if not all of
AXA's arguments in favor of decertification proceed from a single
premise: that, following TransUnion v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190
(2021), the class cannot remain certified because at least some of
the entitlement holders lack Article III standing. That premise is
wrong.

In TransUnion, the Supreme Court held that every class member must
have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages.
But it explicitly declined to address the distinct question whether
every class member must demonstrate standing before a court
certifies a class. Thus, TransUnion did not alter the
well-established law in this Circuit -- reaffirmed by the Court of
Appeals only a few months ago -- that standing in a class action is
satisfied so long as at least one named plaintiff can demonstrate
the requisite injury, and that "each member of a class" need not
"submit evidence of personal standing" to certify a class that
meets Rule 23's requirements.

To be sure, modifying the class definition will require some
additional discovery and, to that extent, granting the Plaintiffs'
request would prejudice AXA. But, Judge Furman opines that the
resulting prejudice would not be enough to warrant the "extreme
step" of decertification. In the near term, the discovery required
is likely to be limited. In the longer term, more substantial
discovery may be required, but, again, the difference is one of
degree, not kind. Moreover, such discovery could arguably be
deferred until after trial on the common questions, in no small
part because the outcome of such a trial (or a settlement) may moot
the need for such discovery altogether.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Furman denies AXA's request for
decertification.

Instead, he modifies the Illustration-Based Claims Class to
include: All individuals who, on or after March 8, 2016, are or
were registered owners of an AUL II policy unaccompanied by a Lapse
Protection Rider that was issued by AXA after July 10, 2006 and
subjected to the COI rate increase announced by AXA on or about
Oct. 1, 2015, unless the registered owner of such policy is a
securities intermediary, in which case the securities intermediary
is not a class member but the entitlement holder with respect to
that policy is.

The definition of the New York Illustration-Based Claims Sub-Class
can and does remain the same: "all members of the
Illustration-based Claims Class who reside in New York."

The parties shall meet and confer and, within two weeks of the date
of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, file a joint letter
addressing (1) what, if any, discovery is needed in light of this
ruling and a schedule for such discovery; (2) whether and how to
provide renewed notice to the class; (3) whether, in light of this
ruling, the parties adhere to their previous positions with respect
to a trial plan and schedule; and (4) relatedly, whether trial of
the class claims should be bifurcated into liability and remedies
phases.

The parties, including the remaining the Plaintiffs in the related
individual actions, will then appear on Feb. 15, 2023, at 12:00
p.m. for a conference to discuss these and any other relevant
issues, including settlement. Unless and until the Court orders
otherwise, the conference will be held in person in Courtroom 1105
of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre
Street, New York, NY 10007.

The Clerk of Court is directed to docket this in 16-CV-740,
17-CV-7751, 17-CV-4767, 17-CV-4803, and 18-CV-2111.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2023 Memorandum Order &
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfk72fu from
Leagle.com.


BECTON & DICKINSON: Lead Plaintiff Files Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDUSTRIENS
PENSIONSFORSIKRING A/S, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, VINCENT A.
FORLENZA, THOMAS E. POLEN, and CHRISTOPHER R. REIDY, Case No.
2:20-cv-02155-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.), the Lead Plaintiff Industriens
Pensionsforsikring A/S asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the action as a class action pursuant to
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), on
      behalf of the following class:

      "all persons and entities who, from November 5, 2019 to
      February 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
      purchased or otherwise acquired Becton, Dickinson and
      Company ("BD") common stock or call options, or sold BD
      put options, and were damaged thereby (the "Class");

   2. appointing Industriens as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Class
      Counsel and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C.
      as Liaison Counsel for the Class.

Becton & Dickinson is an American multinational medical technology
company that manufactures and sells medical devices, instrument
systems, and reagents.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iVtFwQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Lead Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
          BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecci@carellabyrne.com
                  decklund@carellabyrne.com

                - and -

          Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
          David A. Bocian, Esq.
          Joshua E. D’Ancona, Esq.
          Vanessa M. Milan, Esq.
          Nathaniel C. Simon, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ
          MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: snirmul@ktmc.com
                  dbocian@ktmc.com
                  jdancona@ktmc.com
                  vmilan@ktmc.com
                  nsimon@ktmc.com

BESHAY FOODS: Fails to Provide Proper Meal & Rest Breaks, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law attorneys, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that
Beshay Foods, Inc. violated the California Labor Code. The Beshay
Foods, Inc. class action lawsuit, Case No.
37-2023-00000327-CU-OE-CTL, is currently pending in the San Diego
County Superior Court of the State of California.

According to the class action complaint, the company's non-exempt
employees were allegedly unable to take off-duty meal breaks due to
their rigorous work schedules. California labor laws require an
employer to provide an employee required to perform work for more
than five (5) hours during a shift with, a thirty (30) minute
uninterrupted meal break prior to the end of the employee's fifth
(5th) hour of work and a second uninterrupted meal break when
employees are required to work ten (10) hours. The Complaint claims
that the company did not provide their employees who forfeited meal
breaks additional compensation.

The Complaint further claims Beshay Foods, Inc. failed to pay
employees their accurate sick pay wages, which violates California
Labor Code Section 246. Employees routinely earned
non-discretionary incentive wages which increased their regular
rate of pay. However, when paid sick pay wages, it was allegedly
paid at the base rate of pay rather than the higher regular rate of
pay.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against Beshay
Foods, Inc., call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an experienced
California employment attorney today.

Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento,
Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in
collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being
wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims,
contact one of their attorneys today. [GN]

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Loses Bid to Consolidate Kavon & Burbank
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM KAVON, ERIN CAMDEN,
DAVID VENNER, CRAIG GELLER, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No.
2:20-cv-15475-KM-ESK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Edward S. Kiel
entered an order denying the the Defendant BMW of North America,
LLC's (BMW) renewed motion to consolidate:

  -- Kavon v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-15475,
     with Burbank v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No.
    21-cv-01711 under a single complaint.

Kavon and Burbank shall continue to be consolidated for purposes of
discovery and case management.

The current procedural posture of Kavon and Burbank is
significantly different from when the Initial Consolidation Motion
was pending.

Since Burbank involves a claim for the express breach of warranty,
whereas Kavon does not, Burbank is no longer completely subsumed
within Kavon.

In opposition to the Initial Consolidation Motion, the Burbank
Plaintiff had expressed concern that the Kavon Plaintiffs would not
be committed to maintaining a truly separate California subclass.

This concern arose from the Kavon Plaintiffs pleading the
California subclass in the alternative just three days before BMW's
filing of the Initial Consolidation Motion and only in the event
that the Kavon Plaintiffs' preferred nationwide class was denied.

The Burbank Plaintiff had claimed that the Kavon Plaintiffs added
the California subclass purely to aid the Initial Consolidation
Motion and worried that California class members would be
ill-served by a nationwide class because California law offers
remedies superior to the MMWA.
The Burbank Plaintiff's concern for the state law claims being
"second in line" to the nationwide claims no longer exists.

However, the Burbank Plaintiff's apprehension over the Kavon
Plaintiffs' insistence that they will not consider his express
warranty claim less-worthy of prosecution should not be brushed
aside. There may be duplicative briefing at the class-certification
and summary judgment stages and slightly more
inefficiency in proceeding with two complaints consolidated for
case management and discovery purposes.

This, however, does not outweigh the California subclass's
potential prejudice from being bunched together with different
claims of other subclasses from different states.

BMW initially moved to consolidate Kavon and Burbank through one
complaint on March 26, 2021 (Initial Consolidation Motion). While
the Kavon Plaintiffs did not oppose the Initial Consolidation
Motion, the Burbank Plaintiff specified that he opposed full
consolidation but consented to consolidation for discovery and case
management purposes only.

The Court found Kavon and Burbank to be "nearly identical class
action cases." However, since a question as to the viability of the
nationwide class in Kavon existed at that juncture, I determined
that "any consideration of consolidating the parties' complaints
for all purposes should await resolution of BMW's [anticipated]
motion to dismiss."

BMW of North America is a automotive company that manufactures
luxury and performance vehicles.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Xp3EF8 at no extra charge.[CC]

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Loses Bid to Consolidate Kavon, Burbank Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Edward S. Kiel of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey denies BMW's renewed motion to consolidate
the cases, ADAM KAVON, ERIN CAMDEN, DAVID VENNER, CRAIG GELLER, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant; and WILLIAM MARTIN
BURBANK, individually and on behalf of all thers similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case
Nos. 20-cv-15475-KM-ESK, 21-cv-01711-KM-ESK (D.N.J.), under a
single complaint.

BMW initially moved to consolidate Kavon and Burbank through one
complaint on March 26, 2021. While the Kavon Plaintiffs did not
oppose the Initial Consolidation Motion, the Burbank Plaintiff
specified that he opposed full consolidation but consented to
consolidation for discovery and case management purposes only.

Judge Kiel found Kavon and Burbank to be "nearly identical class
action cases." However, since a question as to the viability of the
nationwide class in Kavon existed at that juncture, he determined
that any consideration of consolidating the parties' complaints for
all purposes should await resolution of BMW's anticipated motion to
dismiss.

BMW filed its motions to dismiss Kavon and Burbank on Aug. 30,
2021. On March 21, 2022, Judge Kevin McNulty resolved BMW's motion
to dismiss Burbank and dismissed only the breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. Judge McNulty
otherwise preserved the Burbank Plaintiff's claims under California
law for: (1) injunctive relief under the California Legal Remedies
Act; (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act (SBA); (3) breach of implied warranty under the SBA;
and (4) fraud under the California Legal Remedies Act and Unfair
Competition Law.

On June 3, 2022, Judge McNulty resolved BMW's motion to dismiss
Kavon. Relevant to the Motion, Judge McNulty dismissed the claims
for: (1) a nationwide class under the Magnuson-Mass Warranty Act
(MMWA); (2) a nationwide class and California subclass for breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) breach of
express warranty under California law. He permitted various state
based class claims to proceed, including claims for breach of the
implied warranty under the SBA for the California subclass.

As it stands, the Burbank Plaintiff's breach of express warranty
claim is alive, while the Kavon Plaintiffs' same claim was
dismissed. The difference in outcomes on the motions to dismiss
stems from the Burbank Plaintiff plausibly alleging, and the Kavon
Plaintiffs failing to plausible allege, a "nonconformity" under the
SBA.

BMW makes a multifaceted argument for consolidation. First, it
argues that consolidating Kavon and Burbank under a single
complaint is the only way to advance the goals of streamlined
pre-trial proceedings. The Burbank Plaintiff argues that avoiding
duplicate filings does not justify consolidation and suggests that
a consolidated briefing schedule is an easier means to resolve
BMW's concerns.

BMW also argues that because the proposed consolidation is neither
permanent nor irreversible and the claims that are left to be tried
(if any) can be separated and tried separately, the Burbank
Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice. The Burbank Plaintiff argues
that full consolidation poses a risk of undue confusion and
prejudice.

Finally, BMW argues that since the nationwide class claims in Kavon
are now dismissed, the Burbank Plaintiff's California law claims
are no longer second in line to the Kavon Plaintiffs' nationwide
class ambitions. The Burbank Plaintiff argues that since the
nationwide class in Kavon has been dismissed, the issue as to
whether the Kavon Plaintiffs can sufficiently represent the Burbank
Plaintiff is more pronounced than ever.

Judge Kiel opines that while there may be substantial similarities
between Kavon and Burbank, the Burbank Plaintiff's concern as to
the significant difference between the cases is not unreasonable.
Furthermore, to the extent there may be some inefficiency for
briefing at the class-certification and summary judgment stages, he
is confident, with the counsels' input, the briefing will not pose
an excessive burden on the Court. He points out that the denial of
the Motion is neither permanent nor irreversible. After the
resolution of the anticipated motions for summary judgment and
class certification, the Court may revisit whether it is advisable
to consolidate these actions into a single complaint.

For these reasons, Judge Kiel denies the Motion. Kavon and Burbank
will continue to be consolidated for purposes of discovery and case
management.

An appropriate order accompanies Judge Kiel's Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2cjnuz9t from Leagle.com.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Bacher Suit Moved to Connecticut Super. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BETH BACHER, et al., Plaintiffs v. BOEHRINGER
INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-01432 (JAM) (D. Conn.), Judge Jeffrey Alker Meyer of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut grants the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court.

The action is one of nine separate lawsuits involving highly
similar personal injury claims by a total of more than 800
plaintiffs against several companies that manufacture or distribute
a pharmaceutical product known as Zantac. All nine of the actions
were initially filed during the Summer of 2022 in the Connecticut
Superior Court for the Judicial District of Danbury, and each
action includes somewhere between 80 to 99 plaintiffs.

In the Fall of 2022, the counsel for the Plaintiffs and for one of
the Defendants communicated with respect to the Plaintiffs'
proposal to file a motion to consolidate the actions and for
transfer of the actions to the specialized Complex Litigation
Docket ("CLD") of the Connecticut Superior Court.

On Oct. 21, 2022, the defense counsel wrote to the Plaintiffs'
counsel that it appears all the Defendants are comfortable with
recommending: 1) Hartford and 2) Stamford under CLD. The Plaintiffs
filed a motion in the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial
District of Danbury to consolidate all nine actions.

The motion stated that it was filed pursuant to Conn. Prac. Book
Section 9-5 and set forth verbatim the following grounds:

      1. These actions are all against the same Defendants.

      2. All of the actions involve the same legal claims sounding
in product liability related to the heartburn medication Zantac.

      3. It is likely that issues raised in any one of the cases
could impact the other cases.

      4. Consolidating these actions will allow for the court to
manage all of them in an orderly and efficient manner.

      5. Plaintiffs are filing similar consolidation motions in
each of the above-listed actions.

      6. All Defendants consent to this proposed consolidation.

There is no record that the state court acted on the motion to
consolidate. Instead, on Nov. 4, 2022, the chief administrative
judge for the Connecticut Superior Court sua sponte issued an order
conditionally ordering the transfer of the nine actions to the
Complex Litigation Docket. But that transfer never happened because
on Nov. 10, 2022, the Defendants filed notices of removal for all
nine actions. The Plaintiffs in turn have moved to remand all of
the actions to the Connecticut Superior Court.

The Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") generally allows for federal
jurisdiction over cases that qualify as a "mass action." As
relevant in the present case, a "mass action" includes any civil
action in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are
proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs'
claims involve common questions of law or fact.

The Defendants invoked this "mass action" provision as grounds to
remove the case and eight similar cases that the Plaintiffs
initially filed in Connecticut state court. They filed their
notices of removal after the Plaintiffs filed a motion in state
court to consolidate all nine of the cases. The Defendants argue
that by filing their motion to consolidate the Plaintiffs proposed
a joint trial of the claims of more than 100 persons.

The Plaintiffs do not agree. They have moved to remand, arguing
that they proposed consolidation solely for the purpose of
pre-trial case management and not for a joint trial.

Judge Meyer finds that the Defendants have not carried their burden
to show that there was a "mass action" to trigger federal
jurisdiction under CAFA, because they have not shown that the
Plaintiffs proposed a joint trial of their claims. Accordingly,
there was no proper ground for the Defendants to remove the action.
Therefore, he grants the Plaintiffs' motion to remand and denies as
moot the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to withdraw and/or clarify
their motion to consolidate.

Judge Meyer will enter docket orders in the eight related cases
adopting the result and reasoning of his ruling for the parallel
motions to remand filed by the Plaintiffs in each case. Absent a
timely motion for reconsideration or further court order, the Clerk
of Court shall remand the action and the eight related actions in
accordance with the timeline and procedures set forth by Rule 83.7
of the District of Connecticut Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yvaw2w5k from Leagle.com.


BOOKSY INC: Dominguez Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOOKSY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2022-023360- CA-01, was removed from the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
January 13, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-20158 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's single-count complaint seeks relief from Defendant,
on behalf of himself and a putative class of similarly situated
persons, for allegedly making or causing to be made multiple text
messages to Plaintiff and the putative class members from a number
that was not capable of receiving inbound telephone calls or
messages, and that these calls were sent without his consent, in
violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

Booksy, Inc. designs and develops software solution.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Josh A. Migdal, Esq.
          Yaniv Adar, Esq.
          MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
          80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 374-0440
          E-mail: josh@markmigdal.com
                  yaniv@markmigdal.com

BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Parties in Dutra Seek OK of Proposed Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dutra v. Trustees of
Boston University (RE: BOSTON UNIVERSITY COVID-19 REFUND
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:20-cv-10827-RGS (D. Mass.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order granting their proposed schedule for
finalizing expert discovery, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, and the Parties' dispositive motions:

          Event                     Current         Proposed
                                    Deadline        Deadline

  Complete Expert Discovery     Jan. 16, 2023     Feb. 2, 2023

  Motion for Class              N/A               Feb. 27, 2023
  Certification

  Dispositive Motions           Feb. 6, 2023      Feb. 27, 2023

  Opposition to Class           N/A               Mar. 20, 2023
  Certification

  Oppositions to Dispositive    Feb. 27, 2023     Mar.27, 2023
  Motions

Boston University is a private research university in Boston,
Massachusetts.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 16, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XEJwOW at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  pmadden@bm.net
                  emdrake@bm.net

                - and -

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com

                - and -

          Conor B. McDonough, Esq.
          Kathryn Lee Boyd
          HECHT PARTNERS LLP
          125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 851-6821
          E-mail: cmcdonough@hechtpartners.com
                  lboyd@hechtpartners.com

                - and -

          Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
          Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 614-8888
          E-mail: Roy@akimlawfirm.com
                  Eric@akimlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Richard E. Levine, Esq.
          STANZLER LEVINE, LLC
          65 William Street, Suite 205
          Wellesley, MA 02481
          Telephone: (617) 482-3198
          E-mail: RLevine@stanzlerlevine.com

                - and -

          Kristie LaSalle, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
          LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          E-mail: kristiel@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com
                  dank@hbsslaw.com
                  whitneys@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

          Andrew Levetown, Esq.
          IVEY & LEVETOWN, LLP
          6411 Ivy Lane, Suite 304
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (703) 618-2264
          E-mail: asl@iveylevetown.com

                - and -

          Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
          FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW,
          MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
          BBO #681401
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231-7829
          E-mail: mforrest@forrestlamothe.com

                - and -

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Blvd., Ste. 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

                - and -

          Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq.
          Crystal Nix-Hines, Esq.
          Shon Morgan, Esq.
          Marina Lev, Esq.
          Harvey Wolkoff, Esq.
          Alex H. Loomis, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
          SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone:: (213) 443-3000
          E-mail: crystalnixhines@quinnemanuel.com
                  kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com
                  shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
                  marinalev@quinnemanuel.com
                  harveywolkoff@quinnemanuel.com
                  alexloomis@quinnemanuel.com

BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Castleberry Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACQUELINE CASTLEBERRY, ET AL. v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., Section: D (1), Civil Action No. 17-4154
(E.D. La.), Judge Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana grants:

   a. BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of
      Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook;

   b. the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   c. dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.

Before the Court is the Daubert Motion to Exclude filed by
Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production
Co., and BP p.l.c. as well as the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean Holdings,
LLC, Transocean Deepwater, Inc., and Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") have joined in both
motions. Plaintiffs Jacqueline Castleberry and Jancey
Castleberry-Fort, individually and on behalf of her minor child,
JJC, oppose both Motions. The Defendants have filed Replies in
support of their Motions and Plaintiffs have filed a Supplemental
Memorandum in Opposition to BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude.

The case arises from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico in 2010 and the subsequent cleanup efforts of the Gulf
Coast. On Jan. 11, 2013, United States District Judge Carl J.
Barbier, who presided over the multidistrict litigation arising out
of the Deepwater Horizon incident, approved the Deepwater Horizon
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "MSA").
However, certain individuals, referred to as "B3" plaintiffs,
either opted out of or were excluded from the MSA. The Plaintiffs
opted out of the MSA and, accordingly, are B3 plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs filed this individual action against the Defendants
on April 28, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of the oil spill.

For approximately nine months in 2010 and 2011, Plaintiff
Jacqueline Castleberry worked as a cleanup worker, tasked with
cleaning up oil and oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal
areas in and around Dauphin Island and Bayou La Batre, Alabama.
Jancey Castleberry-Fort alleges that she, and her minor child, JJC,
were exposed to oil and dispersants for nine months when picking up
her mother, Jacqueline Castleberry, from work in Bayou La Batre,
Alabama.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' negligence and
recklessness in both causing the Gulf oil spill and subsequently
failing to properly design and implement a clean-up response caused
them to suffer myriad injuries including abdominal cramps,
abdominal pains, diarrhea, dizziness, headaches, eye burning, eye
irritation, sinus or facial pain, nasal congestion, nasal
discharge, throat irritation, chronic sinusitis, shortness of
breath, wheezing, URI, skin itching, blurry vision, eye irritation,
pleurisy, acute wheezy bronchitis, asthma, coughing, acute
costochondritis, nausea, vomiting, skin rashes, allergic rhinitis,
and anemia. Specifically, they seek to recover economic damages,
personal injury damages -- including damages for past and future
medical expenses and for pain and suffering—punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

To help support their claims that exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused their particular health
symptoms, the Plaintiffs offer the report and testimony of Dr.
Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise
specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. His
Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiffs' claims; rather,
Dr. Cook's generic causation Report has been utilized by numerous
B3 plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before the Court
as well as in other cases before other sections of the Court.
Accordingly, Dr. Cook's Report pertains only to general causation
and not to specific causation.

The Defendants filed the instant Motion in limine and Motion for
Summary Judgment on Sept. 19, 2022. In their Motion in limine, they
contend that Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying due to,
inter alia, Dr. Cook's failure to identify the harmful level of
exposure capable of causing the Plaintiffs' particular injuries for
each chemical that the Plaintiffs allege to have been exposed to.
Because Dr. Cook should be excluded from testifying, the Defendants
argue, the Court should grant their Motion for Summary Judgment as
the Plaintiffs are unable to establish general causation through
expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling Circuit
precedent.

The Plaintiffs oppose both Motions, arguing that Dr. Cook's Report
satisfies the Daubert standards for reliability and relevancy and,
therefore, that summary judgment is inappropriate.

Judge Vitter explains that the burden of proof is on the B3
plaintiffs to prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or
illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the
response. To prove causation, the B3 plaintiffs are required to
provide reliable expert testimony. A plaintiff in such a case
cannot expect lay fact-finders to understand medical causation;
expert testimony is thus required to establish causation.

The Court has previously considered the June 21, 2022 version of
Dr. Cook's Report offered by the Plaintiffs, finding that the
Report fails to meet the Daubert standards for reliability and
helpfulness to the trier of fact. For the same reasons set forth in
detail in that Order and Reasons, Judge Vitter determines that the
Plaintiffs have failed in their burden of establishing the
reliability and relevance of their expert's report and finds it
appropriate to grant the Defendants' Motion in limine to exclude
Dr. Cook's Report. The Plaintiffs accordingly lack expert testimony
on general causation.

Without expert testimony, which is required to prove general
causation, Judge Vitter holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding their
claims that their injuries were caused by exposure to oil. When a
plaintiff has no expert testimony to prove his medical diagnosis or
causation at trial, the plaintiff's suit may be dismissed at the
summary judgment stage. Thus, the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment must be granted as the Defendants are entitled to judgment
as a matter of law due to the Plaintiffs' failure to establish
general causation.

For these reasons, Judge Vitter grants the Defendants' Daubert
Motions to Exclude and for Summary Judgment. She dismisses the
Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3xzj3cwx from Leagle.com.


BRAGG COMMUNITIES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Thomas Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SSG EZRA THOMAS, and RACHEL THOMAS, individually and
as parents and guardians of E.T. and E.T., Plaintiffs v. BRAGG
COMMUNITIES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-CV-226-D
(E.D.N.C.), Judge James C. Dever, III, of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division,
grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

On June 6, 2022, Plaintiffs Army Staff Sergeant Ezra Thomas and his
wife, Rachel Thomas, individually and on behalf of their two
children, E.T. and E.T., filed a complaint in this court alleging
breach of warranty of habitability, violations of North Carolina's
Unfair and Deceptive Trade/Practices Act ("UDTPA"), breach of
contract, negligence, violation of Residential Lead-Based Paint
Hazard Reduction Act, and temporary recurrent private nuisance
against Defendants Bragg Communities, LLC, Corvias Management-Army,
LLC, Bragg-Piceme Partners, LLC, and Corvias Construction, LLC.

Thomas and his family moved into a rental residence on the United
States military base at Fort Bragg in January 2013. The Defendants
constructed, marketed, and maintained the residence. Upon move-in,
the Plaintiffs discovered an infestation of box elder beetles in
the residence and backyard. Over time, they noticed more defects in
and around the residence. At some point, the Plaintiffs learned of
lead paint in the residence, defective light switches that
"crackled and popped" when plaintiffs attempted to use them, an
outlet in the wall that exploded, defective windows that either
would not open or would "slam shut like a guillotine," uncleaned
HVAC air ducts, and mold feeding into the ventilation ducts, among
other defects.

When the Plaintiffs attempted to contact the Defendants to have
them remedy these defects, the Defendants failed to remedy the
problems or fixed them much later. As for the mold, the Defendants
did not attempt to properly clean the mold. Instead, they simply
painted over the wall. I

Faced with the Defendants' repeated failure to maintain the rental
residence, the Plaintiffs sought help from politicians and the Fort
Bragg Garrison Commander. In 2019, they moved out of the residence.
Upon moving out, an inspector came to the residence and noted mold
around the air ducts and a lack of insulation in the attic.

On Aug. 29, 2022, the Defendants moved to dismiss and filed a
memorandum in support. On Sept. 19, 2022, the Plaintiffs responded
in opposition. On Oct. 3, 2022, the Defendants replied.

The Defendants argue that the applicable statutes of limitation
bars all of the Plaintiffs' claims.

The Plaintiffs respond that the Court should toll any applicable
statute of limitations pursuant to the June 24, 2020 filing of the
class action suit in Page v. Corvias Group, LLC, No. 5:20-CV-336,
2021 WL 4163562 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 21, 2021) (unpublished). In
support, they cite American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414
U.S. 538 (1974), and its progeny. Under American Pipe, "the
commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of
limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have
been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class
action.

Judge Dever finds that the complaint is unclear about when the
Plaintiffs discovered defects in the lighting and windows. It also
is unclear about when they discovered the clogged HVAC duct. The
complaint also alleges that the Plaintiffs did not discover the
mold problems and lack of insulation until early 2019 when an
inspector came to the residence. Therefore, because it is not
apparent on the face of the complaint that the Plaintiffs
discovered all alleged problems with the rental residence before
the expiration of the statute of limitations, as tolled by Page,
Judge Dever declines to dismiss all claims as time-barred.

As for the Plaintiffs' Residential Rental Agreements Act ("RRAA")
claim, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claim is
time-barred and, alternatively, that to be actionable, purported
violations of the RRAA must have existed during the limitations
period. The Plaintiffs respond that the statute of limitations
under the RRAA only limits the recovery period and does not bar
their RRAA claim outright.

Judge Dever finds that the Plaintiffs' RRAA claim is not
time-barred, but the Plaintiffs are limited in their recovery to
the three-year statute of limitations as tolled by the filing of
Page. The complaint plausibly alleges that the residence was still
in unacceptable condition within the statute of limitations period.
Therefore, although the amount of recovery may be limited, Judge
Dever declines to dismiss the Plaintiffs' RRAA claim.

The Defendants argue that the four-year statute of limitations bars
the Plaintiffs' UDTPA claim given that the marketing of the rental
property to them occurred in 2012. The Plaintiffs respond that
allegedly poor conditions existed during the limitations period and
later unfair or deceptive acts, including the Defendants allegedly
painting over the mold, are sufficient to maintain their UDTPA
claim.

Judge Dever finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged their
UDTPA claim within the applicable four-year statute of limitations.
Therefore, he declines to dismiss the Plaintiffs' UDTPA claim based
on the four-year statute of limitations.

The Defendants argue that the three-year statute of limitations
bars the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. The Plaintiffs
respond that a breach of contract claim can be timely if new acts
or breaches occur within the limitations period or there are
continuing violations.

Judge Dever determines that the Defendants' initial failure to
provide the Plaintiffs a residence "reasonably safe and habitable
for occupancy" is not a continuing wrong. Accordingly, he dismisses
any breach of contract claim based on defendants' initial failure
to provide plaintiffs a residence reasonably safe and habitable for
occupancy.

Moreover, Judge Dever finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged that
the Defendants were under a continuing contractual obligation to
ensure timely maintenance of the residence, and the complaint
alleges the Defendants' consistent failure to do so despite the
Plaintiffs' continued requests. Thus, he says the Plaintiffs'
breach of contract claim based on the Defendants' alleged failure
to properly maintain the premises during the tenancy survives
dismissal.

The Defendants then argue that the three-year statute of
limitations bars the Plaintiffs' negligence claim.

In analyzing the Plaintiffs' negligence claim, Judge Dever again
examines the continuing wrong doctrine. In Birtha v. Stonemor,
N.C., LLC, 220 N.C. App. 286, 292, 727 S.E.2d 1, 7 (2012), the
North Carolina Court of Appeals rejected applying the continuing
wrong doctrine to a negligence claim where there was no claim of
physical harm or property damage. In contrast to the negligence
claim dismissed in Birtha, the Plaintiffs allege physical harm in
their negligence claim. Thus, the motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
negligence claim is denied.

The Defendants also argue that the three-year statute of
limitations bars the Plaintiffs' private nuisance claim. In
support, they assert that the conditions giving rise to the private
nuisance claim existed or were discoverable before the statute of
limitations period, and, therefore, the claim is barred. The
Plaintiffs respond that the statute of limitations functions only
to limit the time window for damages.

Judge Dever holds that because the Plaintiffs have alleged a
continuing private nuisance within the statute of limitations
period, as tolled by the Page class action, he declines to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' private nuisance claim.

The Defendants next argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to state
a claim for temporary private nuisance. The Plaintiffs respond that
their complaint adequately notifies all Defendants what the alleged
conduct was and that the Court allowed a "materially similar"
private nuisance claim to proceed in Page.

Judge Dever agrees that the complaint only puts Bragg on notice for
the private nuisance claim. Only Bragg has an ownership interest.
The Plaintiffs' complaint does not link the other defendants to the
ownership interest cited in their private nuisance claim.
Therefore, Judge Dever dismisses the Plaintiffs' private nuisance
claim against all Defendants except for Bragg.

The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs improperly pleaded
punitive damages as a separate cause of action and that the
Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged sufficient facts to recover
punitive nines. The Plaintiffs respond that the complaint
sufficiently alleges facts for punitive damages against the
corporate defendants and that the Court allowed a 'materially
indistinguishable claim" to proceed in Page.

Judge Dever finds that the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that
any of the Defendants' officers, directors, or managers were
involved or condoned any of the aggravating factors alleged in the
Plaintiffs' complaint. Therefore, they have not plausibly alleged
facts sufficient to recover punitive damages under North Carolina
law. Thus, their claim for punitive damages is dismissed.

In sum, Judge Dever grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/276k6pkz from Leagle.com.


BRIDGEBIO PHARMA: SMART Local Appeals Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff SMART Local Unions and Councils Pension Fund filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SMART
Local Unions and Councils Pension Fund, individually and behalf on
behalf of others similarly situated v. BridgeBio Pharma, Inc., Ali
Satvat, Neil Kumar, Uma Sinha, Case No. 2021-1030, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The lawsuit is brought over Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary
duties.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the December 29, 2022 Memorandum
Opinion entered by the Honorable Vice Chancellor Paul A.
Fioravanti, Jr., of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as SMART LOCAL UNIONS AND COUNCILS
PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
former stockholders of EIDOS THERAPEUTICS, INC. Plaintiff Below,
Appellant v. BRIDGEBIO PHARMA, INC., NEIL KUMAR, ALI SATVAT, and
UMA SINHA, Defendants Below, Appellees, Case No. 13,2023, in the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on Jan. 13,
2023.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SMART Local Unions and Councils Pension Fund is
represented by:

          Thomas Curry, Esq.
          Tayler D. Bolton, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          824 N. Market Street, Suite 1003
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 485-0483

               - and -

          Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 364-3601

               - and -

          David Wales, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 437-8551

               - and -

          Adam Warden, Esq.
          Jonathan Lamet, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399

               - and -

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Christopher J. Orrico, Esq.
          Margaret Sanborn-Lowing, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400

               - and -

          Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
          David Tejtel, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
          493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
          Bedford Hills, NY 10507
          Telephone: (888) 529-1108

Defendants-Appellees BridgeBio Pharma, Inc., Neil Kumar, Ali
Satvat, and Uma Sinha are represented by:

          Cliff C. Gardner, Esq.
          Ryan M. Lindsay, Esq.  
          Andrew D. Kinsey, Esq.
          Mallory V. Phillips, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          One Rodney Square
          920 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801

CALIFORNIA: Judge Recommends Denial of Wilson's Bid for Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID W. WILSON, Plaintiff v. STUART SHERMAN, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00874 JLT SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California recommends that the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification be denied.

Wilson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in the civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. On Aug.
25, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for certification of class,
citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). He contends his complaint against
"B-Facility, California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, exceeds
40 individuals and more will be asked to Sign." The complaint
concerns "on-going imminent danger of inadequate" cooling,
ventilation and circulation, and the presence of black mold and
black dust, at the prison facility.

The Plaintiff contends because California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) denies question of law or fact common to
the Class members and the Plaintiff, denies the 'typicality'
requirements grievance "'Group Class,'" certification is
appropriate. He attaches as exhibits a copy of an "Inmate/Parolee
Group Appeal," CDCR 602-G bearing the signatures of dozens of
inmates housed in the B-Facility and related grievance documents in
support of his motion.

Judge Oberto states that a party requesting class certification
must demonstrate that (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or
fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

The Plaintiff is not an attorney and is proceeding without counsel.
As a prisoner proceeding pro se, Judge Oberto holds that the
Plaintiff is unable to satisfy the above prerequisites. Regarding
the fourth prerequisite, it is well established that pro se
prisoner plaintiffs are unable to fairly represent and adequately
protect the interests of a class, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(4).

Accordingly, even assuming, arguendo, that the Plaintiff met the
first three prerequisites for class certification -- numerosity,
commonality and typicality -- the Plaintiff cannot meet all
prerequisites because he cannot fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

For these reasons stated, Judge Oberto recommends that the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the
district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1). Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings
and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the
Court. The document should be captioned, "Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections
within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2023 Findings &
Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/rkh2vm55 from
Leagle.com.


CANADA: Agrees to Settle Indian Residental Schools' Suit for $2.8-B
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Graham at digitaljournal.com reports that the Canadian
government has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit in the
amount of $2.8 billion in reparations over the loss of language and
culture brought on by Indian residential schools.

The agreement, between the Canadian government and 325 First
Nations still has to be approved by a Federal Court before it can
be disbursed to recipients, who filed the claim for collective
compensation in 2012 as part of a broader class action known as the
Gottfriedson case.

The $2.8 billion settlement money will be put into a new trust fund
that will operate for 20 years if the court approves the deal.
According to officials, the fund will be run independently of the
federal government, reports CBC Canada.

Also, according to the agreement, the fund organization will be
governed by a board of nine Indigenous directors, of whom Canada
will choose one.

"While settlements like those announced today . . . . do not make
up for the past, what it can do is address the collective harm
caused by Canada's past," said Marc Miller, the minister for
Crown-Indigenous relations, at a Vancouver event. "The loss of
language, the loss of culture and heritage."

Miller noted that this was the first time bands specifically were
being compensated, with the funds set to support the four pillars
of revival, protection, promotion, and wellness of Indigenous
languages and cultures.

The finished Agreement states "the band class members agreed to
fully, finally, and forever release the Crown from claims that
could conceivably arise from the collective harms residential
schools inflicted on First Nations, as alleged in a previous court
filing."

This legal release would not cover or include any claims that may
arise over children who died or disappeared while being forced to
attend residential school, the agreement says.[GN]

CCFI LLC: Zanabria Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled KARINA ZANABRIA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CCFI, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; CCFI COMPANIES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 22CV03954, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, Merced County, to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California on January 18, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-00077-ADA-BAM to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, six total causes of action, five of
which are for various violations of the California Labor Code, and
one for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business &
Professions Code.

CCFI, LLC provides consumers with consumer financial products and
services.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael J. Nader, Esq.
          Alexandra M. Asterlin, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 840-3150
          Facsimile: (916) 840-3159
          E-mail: michael.nader@ogletree.com
                  alexandra.asterlin@ogletree.com

CEREBRAL INC: 1st Amended Debono Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHERIE DEBONO, et al., Plaintiffs v. CEREBRAL INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-03378-AGT (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Alex G. Tse of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants Cerebral's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
first amended class action complaint with leave to amend.

The Plaintiffs allege that Cerebral violated multiple provisions of
California's Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) by not adequately
disclosing the company's subscription and cancellation terms. The
ARL doesn't include a private right of action. But consumers may
bring claims to enforce the ARL under California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumer
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

To do so, however, consumers cannot simply allege an ARL violation;
they must also allege that the violation injured them, Judge Tse
holds. He says the named Plaintiffs haven't satisfied this second
requirement. They point to potential ARL shortcomings on Cerebral's
subscription sign-up page (e.g., an allegedly incomplete
description of Cerebral's cancellation policy, an alleged failure
to clearly and conspicuously present Cerebral's automatic renewal
terms), but they don't explain how they were harmed by those
shortcomings. Because the Plaintiffs haven't plausibly alleged that
they were harmed by an ARL violation, their ARL-predicated claims
fall short.

The Plaintiffs also seek to sue Cerebral for engaging in
non-ARL-predicated deceptive and unfair practices under the UCL,
FAL, and CLRA.

These claims also are not well pleaded, says Judge Tse. He finds
that (i) the Plaintiffs don't allege that they had difficulty
scheduling appointments, and at this pre-certification stage, the
named Plaintiffs' allegations are the only allegations that matter;
(ii) the named Plaintiffs don't identify any particular false or
misleading representations that they read and relied upon; (iii)
none of the named Plaintiffs allege that they felt fatigued by
Cerebral's sign-up process, or that they were overwhelmed by
Cerebral's payment page; (iv) the Plaintiffs haven't plausibly
alleged that Cerebral's nondisclosures were "an immediate cause" of
any harm they suffered; and (v) their unfair-business-practices
theory isn't well pleaded.

Judge Tse then finds that the Plaintiffs haven't pleaded a
plausible claim for relief under the UCL, FAL, or CLRA. But even if
they had, two of the named Plaintiffs, Victoria Barber and Jessica
Atherton, haven't established that they can sue Cerebral under the
UCL, FAL, or CLRA. Barber and Atherton aren't California residents,
so to invoke California's consumer protection statutes, they must
allege that they were harmed by "wrongful conduct occurring in
California." They haven't done so. They allege only that Cerebral
was headquartered in, and conducted substantial business in,
California. These allegations fall short of plausibly alleging that
Cerebral's "wrongful conduct occurred in California."

Because the Plaintiffs haven't stated a claim for relief under the
UCL, FAL, or CLRA, Judge Tse holds that their unjust-enrichment
claim also fails. Their unjust-enrichment claim is predicated on
the same deceptive and unfair practices underlying their UCL, FAL,
and CLRA claims. Those practices are not pleaded with sufficient
detail to state an actionable claim.

Finally, the Plaintiffs' remaining claims, their contract claims,
fall short too. Judge Tse determines that the Plaintiffs haven't
identified any contractual term that Cerebral breached; they simply
declare that Cerebral didn't deliver "the promised services."
Similarly, he says the Plaintiffs' allegations that Cerebral
breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are
too conclusory and don't plausibly support that Cerebral unfairly
interfered" with the named Plaintiffs' rights to receive the
benefit of their bargain.

For these reasons, Judge Tse grants Cerebral's motion to dismiss
and dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims with leave to amend. The
Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint on or before Feb. 15,
2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2mcsyury from Leagle.com.


COCA-COLA CO: Orange Juice Drinks Have Toxic Chemicals, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Rosane at ecowatch.com reports that if a product is titled
"Simply Orange Juice" and advertised as "all natural," you would
reasonably expect that it contained freshly-squeezed orange juice,
water and little else. You certainly wouldn't expect it to contain
unsafe levels of toxic forever chemicals linked to health ailments
from immunosuppression to reproductive problems to cancer.

Yet that is exactly what the Coca-Cola-owned Simply Orange products
contain, according to a class action lawsuit filed in a New York
federal court on Dec. 28 of last year, giving the lie to its
natural claims.

"In reality, Plaintiff's testing has revealed that the Product
contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a category of
synthetic chemicals that are, by definition, not natural," the
lawsuit states, as Top Class Actions reported.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances - or PFAS - are a growing
concern because of the many health impacts associated with exposure
and their tendency to persist in the human body for months to years
and in the environment for thousands of years, according to the
PFAS Project Lab. There are thousands of these chemicals that are
commonly used in industry and in consumer products including
firefighting foam and stain- or water-resistant items. They have
been found in the blood of most U.S. residents as well as in breast
milk and umbilical cord blood, as well as rainwater around the
world.

As concerns about these chemicals mount, efforts to regulate them
have increased. In June of last year, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) updated its safe drinking water guidelines for two of
the most common PFAS to near zero.

Now, plaintiff Joseph Lurenz claims that independent testing for
the two chemicals in Simply Orange Juice turned up levels "hundreds
of times" more than that, according to Top Class Actions and The
Guardian.

The PFAS in question - PFOA and PFOS - are considered two of the
most dangerous forever chemicals. While they have been phased out
from active use in the U.S., they continue to linger in the
environment.

The suit claims that their presence in the juice renders its
advertising claims misleading. Simply's packaging promotes the
beverage as from "all natural ingredients," "simply natural,"
having "nothing to hide," and using "filtered water," according to
The Guardian.

This, the lawsuit argues, would prompt "reasonable consumers to
believe that additional care has been taken to remove any
incidental chemicals or impurities."

Lurenz is suing Coca-Cola and Simply Orange Juice for fraud, unjust
enrichment and violating warranty and New York consumer laws,
according to Top Class Action. Representing him are Jason P.
Sultzer and Daniel Markowitz of The Sultzer Law Group and Nick
Suciu III, Erin Ruben, J. Hunter Bryson and Gary Klinger of Milberg
Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC. He is suing on behalf of
anyone who has purchased the juice in the U.S., as well as a New
York-based subclass, and wants damages, a jury trial and all the
fees and costs associated with the suit.

"As a result of Defendants' misconduct, Plaintiff and putative
Class Members have suffered injury in fact, including economic
damages," the lawsuit states.

The chemicals could have ended up in the juice through the water,
fruit or packaging, according to The Guardian. Environmental
Defense Fund chemicals policy director Tom Neltner told The
Guardian it was unlikely that they were added intentionally, or the
levels would have been even higher. However, he said their presence
is a symptom of a wider regulatory loophole: While the EPA has
updated its drinking water guidelines for PFAS, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has not been as vigilant with food. It tests
some products for the chemicals but sets its safety threshold
higher than public health experts advise.

"As we get better and better able to measure PFAS at lower levels
and the FDA falls further behind on what it is testing . . . . then
you're going to keep seeing these lawsuits pop up," Neltner told
The Guardian. [GN]

COCA-COLA COMPANY: Letoski Sues Over Mislabeled Soda Water
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Letoski and Roger Fox, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Coca-Cola Company,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00238 (N.D. Ill., January 16, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendant for breaches of express
warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment,
and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, Vermont Consumer Fraud Act, State Consumer
Fraud Acts, and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.

The Coca-Cola Company manufactures, labels and sells citrus
flavored "sparkling soda water" under the Fresca brand in
grapefruit and black cherry varieties. The front label of the
pictures of grapefruits and cherries causes consumers, including
Plaintiffs, to expect non-negligible amounts of these fruit
ingredient. However, the ingredient lists reveal a de minimis
amount or absence of these ingredients, says the suit.

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
products are sold at premium prices, approximately not less than
$7.99 per pack of twelve 12 ounce cans, excluding tax and sales,
the suit asserts.

The Coca-Cola Company is an American multinational beverage
corporation founded in 1892, known as the producer of
Coca-Cola.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

CONSUMER REPORTS: Wallen Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs James Wallen, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum and Opinion dated December 9, 2022 and Judgment
dated December 12, 2022, entered in the lawsuit entitled JAMES
WALLEN, ROYCE LADER, RITA FAHRNER, LEEANN BIDDIX, FRANK HIGHSMITH,
JERRY HILL, HELEN KASSAMANIAN, and ERNEST BRANIGH, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONSUMER
REPORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-8624, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (White
Plains).

The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against the
Defendant over the Defendant's practice of renting or exchanging
data about its subscribers to third parties for profit, including
subscribers' names, titles of publications subscribed to, and home
addresses. The Plaintiffs assert that this practice misappropriates
subscribers' names, identities, or likenesses in violation of the
right of publicity statutes of Alabama, California, Hawaii,
Indiana, Nevada, Ohio, and Washington. They allege that the
Defendant provides information about subscribers, including their
names, titles of publications subscribed to, and home addresses, to
other companies that aggregate this information with data about the
subscribers from other sources, such as sex, age, race, and
political party. The aggregated data is then returned to Defendant,
which the Defendant sells, licenses, exchanges, or rents to third
parties for a "significant" profit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on December 21, 2022,
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the Southern District of New York
granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first
amended complaint. Although he found the Defendant's first three
arguments unpersuasive, Judge Briccetti agreed that the Plaintiffs
have not plausibly alleged their names were publicly used, as
required by each Misappropriation Statute at issue; thus, their
claims must be dismissed. He further found that (i) the Plaintiffs'
allegations fit within the plain meaning of the Misappropriation
Statutes in that their names appear on or in a product sold by the
Defendant; (ii) including the Plaintiffs' names on the Subscriber
Lists is enough under the Misappropriation Statute; (iii) the
Plaintiffs plausibly allege the infringement of property rights in
their identities, which are protected by the Misappropriation
Statutes; and (iv) private disclosure only to the third parties who
purchase the Subscriber Lists as publicity would transform the
Misappropriation Statutes into sweeping data privacy laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Wallen v. Consumer Reports,
Inc., Case No. 23-53, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on January 10, 2023.[BN]

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

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

Defendant-Appellee Consumer Reports, Inc. is represented by:

          Kristen Rodriguez, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876-6133

               - and -

          Sandra Hauser, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 768-6700

DAVID KUSHNER: Denial of Bids to Dismiss in Rosenshein Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARNOLD ROSENSHEIN, ETC., ET AL., Respondents v. DAVID
KUSHNER, ET AL., Defendants, JEFFREY MESHEL, ET AL., Appellants,
2020-03642, Index No. 1715/17 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department,
affirms the order of Judge James P. McCormack of the Supreme Court,
Nassau County, dated Jan. 31, 2020, denying Defendants Jeffrey
Meshel and Wayne Sturman's separate motions to dismiss the first,
second, and eighth causes of action insofar as asserted against
each of them.

In a putative class action, inter alia, to recover damages for
breach of contract, Meshel and Sturman separately appeal from Judge
McCormack's order denying their separate motion, pursuant to CPLR
3211(a)(5) and (7), to dismiss the first, second, and eighth causes
of action insofar as asserted against each of them.

The Appellate Division affirms the order insofar as appealed from,
without costs or disbursements.

As relevant to the appeal, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied
those branches of the separate motions of these Defendants to
dismiss the first cause of action (breach of contract), the second
cause of action (breach of fiduciary duty), and the eighth cause of
action (accounting and preservation) insofar as asserted against
each of them.

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to
state a cause of action, the complaint must be construed liberally,
the factual allegations deemed to be true, and the nonmoving party
must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences.

The Appellate Division finds that the Plaintiffs adequately pleaded
allegations that the Defendants dominated related entity Defendants
Mercury Credit Corp., Paradigm CF Corp., Paradigm Credit Corp.,
and/or Paradigm Capital Funding, LLC, and that the Defendants
engaged in acts amounting to an abuse of the corporate form to
perpetrate a wrong or injustice against the Plaintiffs. In this
regard, the Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants commingled the
assets of these four Corporate Defendants with their own personal
assets, that they failed to adhere to corporate formalities with
respect to the Corporate Defendants, and that they diverted assets
out of the Corporate Defendants for their own personal use. The
Plaintiffs also sufficiently pleaded allegations that one or more
of the Corporate Defendants were an alter ego of the defendants.

Contrary to the Defendants' contention, under the circumstances
present, the Appellate Division finds that the Supreme Court
properly applied a six-year statute of limitations to the cause of
action alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Accordingly, it properly
denied those branches of the Defendants' separate motions to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2023 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2fyzzz37 from Leagle.com.

Winslett Studnicky McCormick & Bomser LLP, New York, NY (Usher
Winslett -- uwinslett@wsmblaw.com -- of counsel), for Appellant
Jeffrey Meshel.

Mantel McDonough Riso, LLP, New York, NY (Gerald A. Riso --
gerard.riso@mmrllp.com -- of counsel), for Appellant Wayne
Sturman.


DOLGENCORP LLC: Davis Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOLGENCORP, LLC and DOLGENCORP INC. d/b/a
DOLLAR GENERAL, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00018 (E.D. Tex.,
January 16, 2023) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiff and all those similarly situated workers proper overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Davis was employed by Defendants as a Regional Smart Team
Member. He provided store clean up services in stores in the East
Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas area. He was employed from April 21,
2018 to October 6, 2022.

Dolgencorp, Inc. and Defendant Dolgencorp, LLC are entities
conducting business in the State of Texas. Defendants operate
retail stores in the "dollar store" market under the trade name
"Dollar General." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William S. Hommel, Jr. Esq.
          HOMMEL LAW FIRM PC
          5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone and Facsimile: (903) 596-7100
          E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com

DOORDASH INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Mullo Class Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE REINALDO YUQUILEMA MULLO and SILVERIO FLORES,
Plaintiffs v. DOORDASH, INC., ERIN ANDEREGG, and TONY XU,
Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-2430 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Valerie
Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York grants the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, to strike
the Complaint's class allegations, and to stay the case.

The Plaintiffs have sued DoorDash and its employees Erin Anderegg
and Tony Xu (collectively "DoorDash"), for various violations of
federal and state wage and hour laws. Flores and Mullo worked as
deliverymen for DoorDash from July 2018 to November 2020 and July
2019 to May 2021, respectively. They allege that DoorDash violated
various federal and state labor laws during this time.

When registering to work as deliverymen for DoorDash, an app-based
delivery company, the Plaintiffs were presented with a hyperlink to
DoorDash's Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) and a notice
informing them that, by continuing with the registration process,
they agreed to the terms of the ICA. The first page of the ICA
contains bolded text stating that the ICA contains an arbitration
clause.

The arbitration clause obligates DoorDash and its delivery workers
to arbitrate all disputes arising from the ICA, including claims
brought pursuant to federal and state labor laws. It also includes
a waiver of the worker's right to participate in or commence a
class action regarding disputes arising out of the ICA, whether in
arbitration or in court. Delivery workers can opt out of the
arbitration provision at the time of registration but may not do so
later. The Plaintiffs did not opt out of the arbitration
provision.

At the time of contracting, the ICA stated that all arbitration
proceedings would be conducted in accordance with the American
Arbitration Association's Commercial Arbitration Rules. While the
Plaintiffs were still working as deliverymen, DoorDash amended the
ICA to provide that any arbitration would be conducted in
accordance with the International Institute for Conflict Prevention
& Resolution ("CPR") Rules. CPR has accepted donations from
numerous law firms, including the Defendants' counsel Littler
Mendelson, P.C., and collaborated with DoorDash and its counsel,
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, to design the arbitration policies for
its disputes with delivery workers.

After the case was removed from state court, the Defendants moved
to compel arbitration, to strike the Complaint's class allegations,
and to stay the case. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The Plaintiffs advance a grab-bag of arguments to support their
position that the class waiver is unenforceable as a matter of
state contract law. They first argue that their consent was
defective because they were not fluent in English. The ICA,
however, was also available in other languages. Furthermore, the
Plaintiffs have failed to substantiate their assertion that
language barriers prevented them from understanding the ICA. But
even if they had, the fact that a worker had an imperfect grasp of
the English language does not invalidate his consent to arbitrate
disputes with the hiring entity; the worker is obliged to seek
assistance in understanding the document prior to signing.

While the Plaintiffs' opposition brief is not a model of drafting,
the Plaintiffs appear also to argue that they were coerced or
deceived into consenting to the class waiver because DoorDash
failed to disclose financial links between defense counsel and the
CPR.

Putting aside the internal inconsistency between the Plaintiffs'
claim that their consent was defective because they could not read
the ICA and their assertion that they would have not consented to
the ICA if it had included such disclosures, Judge Caproni finds
that Plaintiffs' arguments unavailing. She holds that the
Defendants do not have a duty to disclose public information
regarding CPR's donors. The Plaintiffs' opposition brief largely
draws on information regarding CPR's finances that is available on
CPR's website and could have easily been found through "basic
research" during the contracting process.

Finally, the Plaintiffs suggest that the purported relationship
between DoorDash and CPR renders the class waiver unconscionable.
Judge Caproni finds that the Plaintiffs fail to support their
suggestion of bias with anything other than rank speculation.
Despite complaining at length that DoorDash "colluded" with CPR to
promulgate arbitration rules, they have not pointed to a single CPR
rule that is biased against them. They have failed to provide
either facts or arguments that even remotely tend to show that,
even if their claims about CPR's bias proved true, the applicable
CPR rules would not guard against that bias.

If the Plaintiffs are correct that the CPR process is biased
against them, Judge Caproni says the FAA already contemplates a
process through which they can be protected; courts can overturn
arbitration decisions where there was evident partiality or
corruption in the arbitrators. The FAA does not, however, allow a
plaintiff to avoid arbitration altogether based on speculation that
the process will be unfair.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Caproni grants the Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration and to strike the Plaintiffs'. She
stays the action pending the conclusion of individual arbitration
of the Plaintiffs' claims.

The parties must submit a joint update on the status of arbitration
every six months, on the fifteenth of that month, or if the
fifteenth falls on a weekend or holiday, on the first business day
thereafter. T

The Clerk of Court is requested to terminate the open motion at
docket entry 10 and to stay the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2023 Order & Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3xcmefce from Leagle.com.


ENDANGERED SPECIES: Rodriguez Hits Cocoa Bars' Lead Content
-----------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. ENDANGERED SPECIES
CHOCOLATE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00054-BTM-JLB (S.D.
Cal., January 11, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
breach of implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and violations of
the California Business and Professions Code and the California
Civil Code concerning the presence of lead and cadmium in dark
chocolate bars.

According to the complaint, Defendant's conduct with respect to the
labeling, advertising, and sale of the the Bold + Silky Dark
Chocolate 72% Cocoa bar was unfair because consumers, including
Plaintiff, who purchased the product were injured by its acts and
omissions concerning the presence of lead and cadmium in its
product. No reasonable consumer would know, or have reason to know,
that the product contains heavy metals. Worse, as companies across
the industry have adopted methods to limit heavy metals in their
dark chocolate products, Endangered Species has stood idly by with
a reckless disregard for its consumers' health and well-being, says
the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant on behalf of
herself, similarly-situated Class Members, and the general public
to enjoin Endangered Species from deceptively marketing the
product, and to recover compensation for injured Class Members.

Endangered Species Chocolate, LLC manufactures confectionery
products. The Company offers chocolate bars and bites, candy, and
truffles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Caroline S. Emhardt, Esq.
          FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 215-1741
          E-mail: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                  paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                  melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                  trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                  caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com

ENTRADA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Probes Potential Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Entrada Therapeutics, Inc. ("Entrada" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
TRDA). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby
at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether Entrada and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

After the market closed on December 19, 2022, Entrada issued a
press release announcing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") placed a clinical hold on the Company's Investigational New
Drug Application for ENTR-601-44 for the potential treatment of
Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The FDA indicated that they would
provide an official Clinical Hold letter to Entrada within 30
days.

On this news, Entrada's stock price fell $3.93 per share, or
19.76%, to close at $15.96 per share on December 20, 2022.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.[GN]

FATE THERAPEUTICS: Portnoy Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises Fate Therapeutics Inc. ("Fate" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: FATE) investors that the firm has initiated an
investigation into possible securities fraud and may file a class
action on behalf of investors. Fate investors that lost money on
their investment are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy, Esq.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by
phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss
their legal rights, or click here to join the case via
www.portnoylaw.com. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a
complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for
pursuing claims to recover their losses.

On January 5, 2023, Fate announced that it would be ending its
partnership with Johnson & Johnson's Janssen for cell-based cancer
immunotherapies and that all collaboration activities would be
discontinued in the first quarter of 2023. This news caused Fate's
stock price to drop by 61.5% or $6.76, closing at $4.24 per share
on January 6, 2023, resulting in financial harm to investors.

Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
against caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner
has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN]

FIELDWORKS LLC: Bid to Remand Swans Suit to Superior Court Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRAVIS SWANS, an individual, on behalf of himself and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
FIELDWORKS, LLC, a District of Columbia limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-07250-SPG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denies Swans' Motion to Remand to the Superior Court of California
for the County of Los Angeles.

Swans alleges that Fieldworks has violated California's wage and
hour laws. On Aug. 30, 2022, she filed a putative class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los
Angeles ("LASC").

The Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action alleging a wide range
of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code,
including claims of unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, and statutory attorneys' fees and
costs.

On Oct. 5, 2022, the Defendants timely removed the action from LASC
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. On Oct. 25, 2022, the Plaintiff
timely filed a motion to remand back to the LASC. The Defendants
opposed on Dec. 27, 2022, and the Plaintiff replied on Jan. 4,
2023.

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant has failed to establish
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 for two reasons.
First, the Defendant's calculation of attorneys' fees erroneously
includes future fees rather than only those fees incurred at the
time of removal. And second, the Defendant's calculation of
attorneys' fees is speculative and unsupported.

First, Judge Garnet holds that the Plaintiff misstates the law --
there is no split in authority as to whether attorneys' fees should
be calculated at the time of removal. Second, the Defendant has
proved beyond a preponderance of evidence that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 based on approximately $20,000 in
damages and $60,000 in attorneys' fees.

Although the parties indicate that settlement is likely, based on
similar cases with similar factual allegations and causes of
actions, Judge Garnett agrees with the Defendant that its estimate
of $60,000 in recoverable attorneys' fees is reasonable based on
the evidence provided. As such, she finds the total amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000, as is required by 28 U.S.C. Section
1332.

For these reasons, Judge Garnett denies the Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/58j65exc from Leagle.com.


FLUOR CORP: N.D. Texas Grants Bids to Dismiss Locascio ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBORAH LOCASCIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FLUOR
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-0154-X
(N.D. Tex.), Judge Brantley Starr of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, grants the
Defendants' two motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim
under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Sometimes stocks underperform. This lawsuit is a putative class
action lawsuit stemming from an alleged breach of fiduciary duty
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").

The named representatives of the putative class are Deborah
Locascio and David Summers. The plaintiffs are former employees of
Fluor who previously participated in the Fluor Corporation
Employees' Savings Investment Plan. The Defendants are Fluor, the
Fluor Corporation Benefits Administrative Committee, the Fluor
Corporation Retirement Plan Investment Committee (collectively,
"Committees"), and Mercer Investments, LLC, a/k/a Mercer Investment
Management, who are members of the Committees or other fiduciaries
of the Plan and whose names are currently unknown.

The Plaintiffs specifically allege that the Plan fiduciaries
violated ERISA by imprudently offering and retaining Custom Fluor
Target-Date Funds ("Fluor TDFs"), a Custom Large Cap Equity Fund, a
Custom Small/Mid Cap Equity Fund, and a Custom Non-U.S. Equity Fund
(collectively, the "Challenged Funds").

Based out of Irving, Texas, Fluor is a large engineering,
procurement, and construction company that offers its employees an
opportunity to save for retirement by contributing a portion of
their pay to a fund, with matching contributions by Fluor. Fluor's
retirement system -- the Plan -- offers participants multiple
investment options in which they can direct their contributions,
like the Custom Large Cap Equity Fund, the Custom Small/Mid Cap
Equity Fund, and the Custom Non-U.S. Equity Fund. Different
participants can have different returns based on where they direct
their investments.

One of the Plan's custom investment options is a suite of nine
custom target date fund -- the Fluor TDFs. BlackRock, Inc. manages
the Fluor TDFs, which mirror the BlackRock LifePath Index Funds
("BlackRock TDFs") and consist of a diverse portfolio that becomes
more conservative2 as the target date approaches. The Plan has made
the Fluor TDFs available since at least 2010, and the Custom Large
Cap Equity Fund, the Custom Small/Mid Cap Equity Fund, and the
Custom Non-U.S. Equity Fund since 2014 or earlier.

On March 1, 2017, Mercer agreed to provide consulting and certain
investment services to the Plan and its participants. Mercer serves
as the Plan's designated fiduciary investment advisor pursuant to
ERISA section 3(38) and 29 U.S.C. sections 1002 and 1102.

When the Plaintiffs recognized that the Plan was
underperforming—at least according to their standards -- they
decided to sue. They claim that competent fiduciaries would not
have retained the investments challenged in the complaint
("Challenged Investments"). They bring three counts: (1) breach of
fiduciary duty, (2) failure to monitor fiduciaries and co-fiduciary
breaches, and in the alternative, (3) liability for knowing breach
of trust.

Count one of the complaint alleges that the Defendants' conduct
violated their fiduciary duties under Sections 404(a)(1)(A), (B),
and (D) of ERISA, and 29 U.S.C. section 1104(a)(1)(A), (B), and (D)
because the Defendants failed to discharge their duties with
respect to the Plan solely in the interest of the Plan's
participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of
providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries.

Count two of the complaint alleges that Fluor and the Committees
breached their fiduciary monitoring duties by failing to monitor
and evaluate the performance of their appointees, failing to
monitor their appointees' fiduciary processes, and failing to
remove appointees whose performances were inadequate.

Count three of the complaint alleges, in the alternative, to the
extent that any of the Defendants are not deemed a fiduciary or
co-fiduciary under ERISA, each such Defendant should be enjoined or
otherwise subject to equitable relief as a nonfiduciary from
further participating in a knowing breach of trust.

Mercer and Fluor each move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint in
its entirety for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Additionally, Fluor moves for dismissal under Rule
12(b)(1) stating that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to
pursue most of their claims.

First, the Fluor challenges Locascio's standing because she did not
invest in any of the Plan's twelve options. It also challenges
Summers' standing to bring all claims involving the nine Plan
options in which he did not invest.

Judge Starr agrees with Fluor. He says Locascio suffered no injury,
and therefore has no standing, because she invested in none of the
12 options of the Plan. So she pled her way out of court. Summers
only has standing for claims involving the three Plan options in
which he invested.

Therefore, Judge Starr grants the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion
as to Locascio's standing and dismisses without prejudice Locascio.
He also dismisses without prejudice Summers' claims concerning the
nine investment options in which he did not invest.

Before Judge Starr addresses the breach of fiduciary duty claims,
he clarifies Fluor's responsibilities because they differ
throughout the timeline of events. Fluor claims that the Plaintiffs
cannot plausibly allege that Fluor breached any fiduciary duty
after March 1, 2017, which is when Fluor appointed Mercer.

In response, the Plaintiffs make two arguments. First, they argue
that there is an exception to Section 1105(d)'s safe harbor for
those who knowingly participated in a breach of fiduciary duty.
Second, they again argue that Fluor failed to monitor Mercer.

Judge Starr both arguments. He opines that without even addressing
whether initially investing and continuing to invest in the funds
was prudent, the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege knowing
participation. The Plaintiffs do not plead sufficient facts to
plausibly allege a breach of fiduciary duty and therefore they
cannot plead enough facts to plausibly allege knowing
participation.

Regarding the second argument about the duty to monitor, the
Plaintiffs' argument again fails because it does not identify any
flaws in Fluor's monitoring process. Relative unsuccess (or even
utter unsuccess) of the funds does not necessarily indicate to a
failure to monitor.

Having separated the timelines of responsibility for the
Defendants, Judge Starr then considers the Defendants' Rule
12(b)(6) arguments. The Defendants argue that Summers failed to
state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because he did not plausibly
suggest that they breached their fiduciary duties of prudence or
loyalty.

Since Summers' duty of prudence claims involve the same funds
retained by Fluor and then by Mercer, Judge Starr analyzes the
alleged breach of fiduciary duty for both Defendants together. As
for Count One, he agrees with the Defendants that Summers has
failed to plead sufficient factual allegations. He grants the
motion on this ground and dismisses with prejudice this claim.
However, because Summers may be able to cure these deficiencies
with an amended complaint, he grants Summers 28 days to do so.

Regarding the duty of loyalty for both Fluor and Mercer, Judge
Starr agrees with the Defendants that Summers failed to plead facts
showing a plausible claim of fiduciary disloyalty. Accordingly, he
grants the motion as to this claim and dismisses it with prejudice.
Summers has 28 days to amend his pleadings to address these
deficiencies.

As for Count Two, Fluor argues that Summers' claim for a breach of
the duty to monitor fails because Summers misunderstands the
breadth of the duty to monitor and does not allege facts that
support such an allegation. Judge Starr agrees. He opines that
there are simply not enough facts to state a claim for relief that
is plausible on its face. So, he grants the motion as to this claim
and dismisses it with prejudice. Summers has 28 days to amend his
pleadings to address these deficiencies.

For these reasons, Judge Starr grants the Defendants' motions to
dismiss. He dismisses without prejudice Locascio's claims because
she lacks standing, and Summers' claims concerning the nine
investment options in which he did not invest. He dismisses with
prejudice Summers' claims concerning the investment options in
which he did invest. Regarding those claims, because Summers'
deficiencies outlined in the Order could possibly be cured by
amendment, Summers may amend his complaint within 28 days of the
Order. He may make no other changes than the ones the Order
addresses.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4k3v5wsn from
Leagle.com.


GLEN MILLS: $3-M Settlement Reached Over School Abuse Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
insurancejournal.com reports that a $3 million settlement will
establish a fund for former students as part of a lawsuit alleging
abuse and deprivation of education at a now-shuttered Pennsylvania
juvenile justice facility.

Former Glen Mills Schools students could receive both cash payments
for those who experienced or witnessed abuse and funds to pay for
or reimburse educational expenses after a settlement with Chester
County Intermediate Unit as part of an ongoing federal class action
lawsuit.

Formerly the nation's oldest reform school, Glen Mills Schools had
its licenses revoked in 2019. The state ordered the removal of all
children following the Philadelphia Inquirer's investigation
detailing the alleged abuse.

The complaint, filed by the Education Law Center, Juvenile Law
Center and Dechert LLP on behalf of former students asserts that
the intermediate unit failed in its oversight responsibilities and
duties with students with disabilities.

In a statement, the Chester County Intermediate Unit said it
disagrees with the depiction of its role over Glen Mills, but
"protracted litigation will not benefit the young adults who
contend they received an inferior education while at the Glen Mills
Schools."

Lawyers said 1,600 students who meet certain age limitations are
eligible to file for the fund. The distribution of awards is slated
to begin next year.

"We do believe that this is an important starting point to support
these students to remedy the deep harm that they have experienced,"
said Maura McInerney, legal director at the Education Law Center.
"And it's important that it's happening at this time when the
students can use it to really change the trajectory of their
futures."

Other named defendants in the ongoing lawsuit are Glen Mills
Schools and former Glen Mills Schools staff, plus officials at
Pennsylvania Department of Human Services and Pennsylvania
Department of Education. Court proceedings continue this month. A
trial date is still to be determined.

The lawsuit is among other legal filings against Glen Mills School
by former students. [GN]

HANESBRANDS INC: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Roman Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Roman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hanesbrands, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00044 (M.D.N.C., January 16, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, and
violation of North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.

The case arises from the cyberattack and data breach that was
perpetuated against Defendant, which collected and maintained
certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the
putative Class Members who are/were employees at Hanes. As a result
of the data breach, Plaintiff and potentially thousands of Class
Members, suffered concrete injury in fact including, but not
limited to: eviction, due to fraudulent activity under her name;
denial of an automobile-financing loan; over $15,000 of fraudulent
charges; and identity theft that resulted in the unauthorized party
attempting to open new financial accounts under her name. The said
data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols
necessary to protect its employees' private information, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened
and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft due to Defendant's
negligence. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, the suit alleges.

Hanesbrands, Inc. is an international clothing and apparel
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street  
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          E-mail: sharris@milberg.com

HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Jimenez Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California transferred the case, TERESA JIMENEZ,
Plaintiff v. HORIZON ACTUARIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3-22-cv-04550-JD (N.D. Cal.), to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

Jimenez filed the putative class action against Horizon for a data
breach that Horizon experienced in November 2021. She seeks to
represent a class of "all individuals residing in California whose
PII [personal identifiable information] was accessed or otherwise
compromised" in the breach.

Jimenez asks for a remand to state court, saying that she lacks the
injury needed for Article III standing. Horizon requests that the
action first be dismissed, transferred, or stayed under the
first-to-file rule, or transferred under 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a).

Judge Donato orders transfer to the Northern District of Georgia
under Section 1404(a). He says the record indicates that Georgia
will be a much more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses.
Horizon has its principal place of business in Georgia, and
represents that many of the witnesses and documents. The Plaintiffs
have not adduced any evidence to the contrary. For these reasons,
other putative class actions arising out of the same data breach,
including cases that originated in this District, have been
transferred to and consolidated in the Northern District of
Georgia.

For Jimenez's remand request, Judge Donato says there are arguments
for and against Article III standing to sue in federal court.
Jimenez says that her personal information was unlawfully
"accessed, exposed, exfiltrated, stolen and/or disclosed and
compromised" as a result of the Horizon data breach. This invasion
may be enough to establish the requisite injury-in-fact. On the
other hand, Jimenez has stated substantial arguments against
standing.

Judge Donato need not resolve the issue because the question of
standing is already teed up in the Northern District of Georgia,
which has before it a fully briefed motion to dismiss for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. He declines to disrupt the standing
proceedings before that court, which is perfectly capable of
remanding the case to the California Superior Court if warranted.

Finally, Jimenez leans on an older case to the effect that courts
should assess subject-matter jurisdiction before reaching venue,
citing Bookout v. Beck, 354 F.2d 823, 825 (9th Cir. 1965)). He
holds that the comment in Bookout is nonbinding dicta that was not
central to the case holding or supported by meaningful analysis.
Since then, subsequent authority, including a decision by the
Supreme Court, indicates that venue may be addressed first,
particularly when, as in the present case, the Court cannot readily
determine that it lacks jurisdiction over the cause.

Consequently, the case is transferred to the Northern District of
Georgia.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8f5j8x from Leagle.com.


IKEA US: Dukich Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 3rd Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs DIANA DUKICH, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Memorandum and Order dated December 20, 2022, and
Memorandum and Order dated September 13, 2022, entered in the
lawsuit styled DIANA and JOHN DUKICH, et al. v. IKEA US RETAIL LLC,
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02182-HB, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants manufactured and sold
dangerous and defective chests and dressers under the model name
MALM and other model names, to Plaintiffs and the Class over a
period of several years. According to the complaint, the
dangerously defective chests and dressers were front-heavy,
unstable and due to their poor design, prone to tip over during
normal and expected use, resulting in death and injury to many
children. The defective design of the subject chests and dressers
was admitted by IKEA when it publicly recognized that its dressers
were unsafe, unstable and unfit for use as freestanding furniture
in a voluntary recall initiated with the United States Consumer
Products Safety Commission on June 28, 2016, which IKEA
"re-announced" on November 21, 2017, says the suit.

On September 13, 2022, the Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle III entered an
order granting Defendants' June 21, 2022 Motion for Summary
Judgment.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Bartle
consequently entered a memorandum and order  on December 20, 2022,
denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and
dismissing the Dukich action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

The appellate case is captioned as Diana Dukich, et al. v. IKEA US
Retail LLC, et al., Case No. 23-1049, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on January 11, 2023.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants DIANA DUKICH and JOHN DUKICH, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

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

ILLINOIS FARMERS: Bid to Amend Certified Class in Taqueria Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAQUERIA EL PRIMO LLC, VICTOR MANUEL DELGADO JIMENEZ,
MITCHELLE CHAVEZ SOLIS, BENJAMIN TARNOWSKI, EL CHINELO PRODUCE,
INC., and VIRGINIA SANCHEZ-GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC., TRUCK
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and
MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Civil No. 19-3071
(JRT/ECW) (D. Minn.), Judge John R. Tunheim of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota denies the Defendants' Motion
for Clarification of Orders on Class Certification and Class Notice
or, in the Alternative, for Amendment of the Orders.

The Defendants request the Court to clarify its Class Certification
Order in the event that it did not intend to certify an ongoing
Damages Class or, in the alternative, to amend the certified class
to specify an end date of Dec. 28, 2021, for class membership.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, initiated the class action in 2019.

The Defendants sell automobile insurance in Minnesota. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants entered into confidential
contracts with certain health care providers under which the
providers agreed not to bill Defendants for any treatment provided
to individuals insured by Defendants. According to them, the
Defendants did not disclose these agreements to their policyholders
or to the public. The Plaintiffs allege that these limitations
violate Minnesota law and the terms of the policy contracts.

In addition to damages, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment
that any contractual provision limiting coverage guaranteed either
by the insurance policies or Minnesota law is void, and an
injunction prohibiting the Defendants from enforcing any
limitations that violate the policy terms or Minnesota law.

On March 30, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification.
They proposed a "Damages Class" defined as: All persons or entities
who purchased an insurance policy on or after Jan. 17, 2013 within
the State of Minnesota from any of the Defendant Insurers that
provided for medical expense benefits under Minnesota's No Fault
Act.

The Plaintiffs also proposed a nearly identical "Injunctive Class"
with the additional requirement for membership that class members
continue to maintain their policy.

On Dec. 28, 2021, the Court certified a Damages Class and an
Injunctive Class under Plaintiffs' Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act
claim with nearly identical language to Plaintiffs' proposed
classes. The Damages Class was defined as: All persons or entities
or purchased an insurance policy on or after Jan. 17, 2013 within
the State of Minnesota from any of the Defendant Insurers that
provided for medical expense benefits under Minnesota's No Fault
Act.

The Defendants sought permission from the Eighth Circuit to appeal
the order certifying the classes.

After the Class Certification Order, the parties met and conferred
and on Feb. 28, 2022, the Defendants produced the bulk of the class
member information. A few days later, they supplemented that
information with additional plaintiffs on March 2, 2022.

The parties have identified approximately 250,000 potential class
members between Jan. 17, 2013, through Dec. 17, 2021, which was the
most recent date that premium and policy holder data was available
prior to the Class Certification Order. They have been able to
gather email addresses for at least 55% of the class members and
continue to gather more emails by combining existing databases with
information provided by Farmers.

On Sept. 23, 2022, the Court approved the Class Counsel's notice
program, as required under Rule 23.

In the course of coordinating the class notices, a dispute arose
about whether the Court intended to certify an ongoing Damages
Class. The Defendants now seek to clarify whether the class
certification order had an implicit end date or, in the
alternative, seek to amend the Class Certification Order to set an
end date of Dec. 28, 2021. The Plaintiffs oppose Defendants' motion
because they specifically proposed an ongoing Damages Class, which
they argue the Court approved by not including an end date in the
Class Certification Order.

The Defendants urge the Court to utilize its authority under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) to clarify the Class
Certification Order and correct an oversight or omission. Rule
60(a) authorizes the Court to correct a clerical mistake or a
mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in
a judgment, order, or other part of the record.

However, Judge Tunheim finds that the absence of a specific end
date in the certified Damages Class was not an oversight by the
Court because the Court did not intend to set an end date to class
membership. However, he holds that Rule 60(a) does provide the
Court with the power to fix an apparent typographical mistake in
the Damages and Injunctive Classes, which does not alter the
composition of the classes.

The classes will therefore read as follows:

      Damages Class: All persons or entities that purchased an
insurance policy on or after Jan. 17, 2013, within the state of
Minnesota from any of the Defendant Insurers that provided for
medical expense benefits under Minnesota's No Fault Act.

      Injunctive Class: All persons or entities that purchased an
insurance policy on or after Jan. 17, 2013, within the State of
Minnesota from any of the Defendant Insurers that provided for
medical expense benefits under Minnesota's No Fault Act, and who
maintain that policy.

In the alternative, the Defendants argue that the lack of an end
date makes the class unascertainable and urge the Court to amend
the certified Damages Class to add an end date.

Judge Tunheim disagrees and denies the motion. He opines that given
that the alleged conduct is ongoing, the fact that additional
members may be added to the Damages Class does not mean that class
members cannot be objectively identified. Additionally, the
Defendants' concern that the class will become unmanageable is
unfounded.

First, because the Court has also certified an Injunctive Class,
membership in the class will either be limited if the practices are
found to be unlawful or the practice will be upheld, and the issue
of the Damages Class will be moot. Second, the class is not
unmanageable simply because there is no set end date. Clearly, it
is possible to add class members as necessary.

Of course, potential class members must have the opportunity to opt
out before the conclusion of this litigation. Plaintiffs have
proposed a plan to provide notice to additional class members as
they are identified. Judge Tunheim directs the parties to meet and
confer so that the Defendants have the opportunity to propose their
own plan and to jointly propose to the Court how additional class
members should be identified.

Because he did not intend to set an end date for class membership,
and because the ongoing nature of the Damages Class does not make
it unascertainable, Judge Tunheim denies the Defendants' motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3bd8wkb3 from
Leagle.com.

Anne T. Regan -- aregan@hjlawfirm.com -- and Nathan D. Prosser --
nprosser@hjlawfirm.com -- HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC, 8050 West
Seventy-Eighth Street, Edina, MN 55439; David W. Asp --
DWASP@LOCKLAW.COM -- Derek C. Waller -- DCWALLER@LOCKLAW.COM --
Jennifer Jacobs -- JLMJACOBS@LOCKLAW.COM -- Kristen G. Marttila --
KGMARTTILA@LOCKLAW.COM -- and Stephen Matthew Owen --
SMOWEN@LOCKLAW.COM -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP, 100 Washington
Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401; Paul J. Phelps,
SAWICKI & PHELPS, 5758 Blackshire Path, Inver Grove Heights, MN
55076, for the Plaintiffs.

Emily C. Atmore -- emily.atmore@stoel.com -- John Thomas Katuska --
john.katuska@stoel.com -- Marc A. Al -- marc.al@stoel.com -- and
Margaret E. Dalton, STOEL RIVES LLP, 33 South Sixth Street, Suite
4200, Minneapolis, MN 55402; Timothy W. Snider --
timothy.snider@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES LLP, 760 Southwest Ninth
Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205, for the Defendants.


INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: McDermid's $44MM Class Deal Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK McDERMID, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-01402 (E.D. Pa.),
Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the Settlement Agreement, Plan of Allocation, award for
attorneys' fees, expenses, and awards to the Lead and
Representative Plaintiffs.

McDermid, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
sued Inovio, CEO J. Joseph Kim, CFO Peter D. Kies, and Vice
President of Biological Manufacturing and Clinical Supply
Management Robert J. Juba, Jr. alleging violations of sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC
Rule 10b-5. The Plaintiffs claim that during the class period, the
Defendants made several false or misleading statements regarding
Inovio's progress on a COVID-19 vaccine that artificially inflated
Inovio's stock price.

The litigation was hotly disputed on both sides, and both parties
were fully prepared to take the case forward to trial. McDermid
filed his initial Complaint on March 12, 2020, and the Court
appointed Manuel Williams as the Lead Plaintiff and Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as the Lead Counsel in June of 2020.

The Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint in
August of 2020, and a First Amended Complaint in September of 2020.
On Feb. 16, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

The Plaintiffs filed and fully briefed a Motion to Certify the
Class, to which the Defendants filed a thorough Response. They
filed a Second Amended Complaint in February of 2022, to which the
Defendants filed another Motion to Dismiss.

Throughout this time, the parties engaged in extensive discovery
consisting of over half a million pages of documents. They
eventually reached agreement, and the Court preliminarily approved
their settlement. On Dec. 15, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the
Final Settlement Agreement.

Under the Settlement Agreement, Inovio agrees to pay an award of at
least $44 million. Of that total, $30 million will be paid in cash,
with the remainder paid in either seven million shares of Inovio
common stock or $14 million worth of stock, whichever is greater.
Each individual class member's recovery will depend on when they
purchased their Inovio stock, how much they paid for their stock,
and how many shares the individual purchased.

Judge Pappert states that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(e), class actions may only be settled with court
approval and only after a hearing that finds the settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court must: (1) determine if
the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)
are satisfied; (2) assess whether notice to the proposed class was
adequate; and (3) evaluate if the proposed settlement is fair under
Rule 23(e).

Because all relevant Rule 23(a) and (b) factors are met, Judge
Pappert certifies the settlement class for purposes of settlement
approval. He finds that (i) the "thousands" of class members who
purchased Inovio stock during the class period are sufficiently
numerous as to make joinder impractical under Rule 23(a); (ii) the
issues of law and fact in this case are common to all class
members; (iii) the Lead Plaintiff's claims are typical of those of
all class members; (iv) the named Plaintiffs' interests align with
those of other class members, and the class counsel are qualified,
experienced and capable of litigating the class' claims; (v) there
are issues of law and fact common to all class members regarding
Inovio's false and misleading statements; and (vi) a class action
is superior to other methods of adjudication.

Before turning to the merits of the Settlement Agreement, Judge
Pappert determines that notice was appropriate. It was adequate and
the best practicable under the circumstances.

Judge Pappert then turns to whether the proposed settlement is
"fair, reasonable and adequate." With the initial presumption of
fairness established, Rule 23(e)(2) and the Girsh factors guide his
in-depth fairness analysis.

He holds that the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.
Among other things, he finds that (i) the settlement allows class
members to receive their payments quickly; (ii) the class supports
the settlement; (iii) both parties had a clear sense of the
strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases; (iv)
conflicting expert testimony at trial would introduce further
uncertainty into all of these issues; (iv) there is always a
possibility of decertification; (v) Inovio's likely inability to
pay a significantly greater judgment than the settlement amount
favors the deal; and (vi) the settlement is reasonable.

The Plaintiffs seek an attorneys' fee award of 27.5% of the
settlement amount and litigation expenses of $814,374.95, plus
interest earned on those amounts at the same rate and for the same
period earned by the settlement fund. Lead Plaintiff Williams and
Representative Plaintiff Zenoff also seek awards of $77,450.00 and
$75,712.50, respectively.

Judge Pappert holds that the counsel is entitled to their
attorneys' fees and expenses, plus interest at the same rate and
for the same period as earned by the Settlement Fund. He also finds
that the Plaintiffs' requests are reasonable given the time spent
on the case and success obtaining a substantial class settlement.

An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2023 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3nwjaf3u from Leagle.com.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Pomerantz Probes Potential Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
bakersfield.com reports that Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims
on behalf of investors of International Business Machines
Corporation ("IBM" or the "Company") (NYSE: IBM).  Such investors
are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.

The investigation concerns whether IBM and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.

On October 16, 2018, post-market, IBM issued a press release
announcing its preliminary results for the third quarter of 2018.
Among other items, IBM reported revenue of $18.8 billion,
representing a decline of 2%, as well as slowing growth in its
Strategic Imperatives segment.

On this news, IBM's stock price fell $10.57 per share, or 7.63%, to
close at $128.04 on October 17, 2018.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN]

IOVATE HEALTH: Moore Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID MOORE, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES
U.S.A. INC., and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV38938, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on January 18, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-00357 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that as a result of
Defendant's wrongful actions, consumers in California purchased
Defendant's nutritional supplement products known as Purely
Inspired Organic Protein Plant-Based Nutritional Shakes unaware
that the sodium content contained therein was more than 20 percent
higher than what was listed in nutritional information, and that
the products were, therefore, misbranded and not fit for sale. The
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has violated: (1) California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (2) California's Unfair Competition
Law; (3) and California's False Advertising Law. The complaint
further asserts breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and
breach of express warranty.

Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A. Inc. was founded in 2003. The
company's line of business includes the warehousing and storage of
a general line of goods.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

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

JETSUITEX INC: McKeehan Suit Remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jacob McKeehan v. JetSuiteX, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-06955-JLS-SK (C.D. Cal.), Judge Josephine L. Staton of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants
the Plaintiff's McKeehan's Motion to Remand and remands the case to
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.

JetSuiteX employed McKeehan, a California resident, as a non-exempt
employee. McKeehan allges that JetSuiteX engaged in a systemic
pattern of wage and hour violations.

On July 28, 2022, McKeehan filed a class action complaint in Los
Angeles County Superior Court, asserting claims for: (1) Violation
of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1194, 1194.2, and 1197 (Unpaid Minimum
Wages); (2) Violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 510, 1194, and
1198 (Failure to Pay Overtime); (3) Violation of Cal. Lab. Code
Sections 226.7 and 512 (Failure to Provide Meal Periods); (4)
Violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 226.7 (Failure to Permit Rest
Breaks); (5) Violation of Cal. Lab. Code Section 226 (Failure to
Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements); (6) Violation of Cal.
Lab. Code Sections 204 and 210 (Failure to Pay Timely During
Employment); (7) Violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201, 202, and
203 (Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment);
and (8) Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.
(Unfair Business Practices).

McKeehan also requests attorneys' fees, where applicable.

JetSuiteX removed the action to the Court on Sept. 26, 2022,
asserting that subject matter jurisdiction was appropriate under
the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d).
McKeehan now moves to remand the action to Los Angeles County
Superior Court, arguing that the Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is insufficient
under CAFA.

Judge Staton states that the Complaint seeks no specific amount in
damages and the amount in controversy is not apparent by looking at
the Complaint's four corners; therefore, JetSuiteX must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the damages claimed exceed $5
million.

In its Notice of Removal, JetSuiteX argues that the
amount-in-controversy minimum is met on the basis of McKeehan's
claims for failure to provide meal and rest periods, waiting time
penalties, wage statement penalties, failure to pay minimum wages
and overtime, and his request for attorneys' fees.

McKeehan argues that JetSuiteX has unreasonably assumed a 60%
violation rate in calculating the amount in controversy for meal
and rest period claims, its assumed overtime and minimum wage
violation rate is unreasonable and its estimates are duplicative,
its estimates for the maximum penalty for wage statement violations
and waiting time penalties are speculative, and its calculation of
attorneys' fees is unsupported.

Judge Staton finds that the generalized allegations in the
Complaint do not support an assumption of a violation rate of 60%.
She says there is simply nothing in McKeehan's allegations that
makes the assumption of a 60% violation rate more reasonable than,
say, a 40% violation rate or a 25% violation rate. Nor is JetSuiteX
assisted by relying on various district court cases that have used
a wide variety of violation rates. Because the
amount-in-controversy calculation regarding minimum wages is not
reasonable, neither is this liquidated damages calculation.

JetSuiteX's meal and rest period violations account for
$1,701,827.22 of its estimate of the amount-in-controversy. Its
estimate for the minimum wage claim is $850,913.61, for liquidated
damages is $850,913.61, and for the overtime claim is
$1,276,573.11. Taken together, these four claims, according to
JetSuiteX, place $4,680,227.55 in controversy.

Judge Staton holds that she cannot rely on JetSuiteX's calculations
as to these four claims. She does not assume that these four claims
are valueless, but she cannot simply pull numbers from the ether in
order to supply the amount-in-controversy. Without these claims,
even holding all of JetSuiteX's other assumptions constant, she
holds that JetSuiteX has not shown an amount-in-controversy over $5
million.

Because JetSuiteX's assumptions are unfounded, it has failed to
carry its burden of demonstrating a sufficient
amount-in-controversy by a preponderance of the evidence and remand
is appropriate.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Staton concludes that the
jurisdictional threshold is not met, and McKeehan's Motion is
granted. She remands the case is remanded to Los Angeles Superior
Court, Case No. 22STCV24435.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yckr8tvt from Leagle.com.


JOHNSON'S TREE: Arredondo FLSA Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GONZALO ARREDONDO and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff(s), v. JOHNSON'S TREE SERVICE AND STUMP
GRINDING, INC., DAVID JOHNSON, and DAYNA JOHNSON, individually
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06796, was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Florida to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
January 13, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 2:23-cv-00029-SPC-NPM to the proceeding.

The suit is brought by Plaintiff as a collective action to recover
from Defendants overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs,
and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Johnson's Tree Service and Stump Grinding, Inc. provides
professional residential and commercial tree care services, having
a place of business in Escambia County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
          9100 South Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert Blanchfield, Esq.
          ROBERT BLANCHFIELD PA
          931 Village Boulevard, Suite 905-385
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Telephone: (407) 497-0463
          E-mail: Robert@Blanchfieldlawfirm.com

L'OREAL USA: Gethers Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Hair Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shmeka Gethers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L'OREAL USA, INC., L'OREAL USA PRODUCTS,
INC.; SOFT SHEEN-CARSON, LLC; SOFT SHEEN/CARSON, INC.; and SOFT
SHEEN/CARSON (W.I.), INC., "L'OREAL" or "SOFT SHEEN"; and STRENGTH
OF NATURE GLOBAL, LLC, a/k/a STRENGTH OF NATURE, LLC; and BEAUTY
BELL ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a HOUSE OF CHEATHAM, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00259-MDL (D.S.C., January 18, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, negligence, strict liability, negligent failure to
warn, negligent design defect, punitive damages, and violations of
the Magnuson-Moss Act, the Adulterated or Misbranded Food and
Cosmetics Act, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the
South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.

This action arises from a 2003 diagnosis of uterine fibroids for
Ms. Gethers, which was directly and proximately caused by her
regular and prolonged exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals
found in the Defendants' chemical hair straightening and/or hair
relaxers products. Despite the presence of this knowledge,
Defendants represented that the products were safe and effective
for their intended use, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of
herself, and all similarly situated consumers who purchased the
products that were harmful and defective because they contained
known endocrine disrupting chemicals -- that increased the risk of
various diseases and illnesses, including cancer -- and which were
formulated, designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised,
distributed, and sold by the Defendants.

L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetic products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Aaron Jophlin, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  ajophlin@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

               - and -

          Danielle Ward Mason, Esq.
          BULLOCK WARD MASON LLC
          4915 N. Main Street #426
          Acworth, GA 30101
          Telephone: (770) 202-4603
          E-mail: danielle@bwmlaw.com

L'OREAL USA: Hair Products Contain Harmful Chemicals, Bridges Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Latonia Bridges, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L'OREAL USA, INC., L'OREAL USA PRODUCTS,
INC.; SOFT SHEEN-CARSON, LLC; SOFT SHEEN/CARSON, INC.; and SOFT
SHEEN/CARSON (W.I.), INC., "L'OREAL" or "SOFT SHEEN"; and STRENGTH
OF NATURE GLOBAL, LLC, a/k/a STRENGTH OF NATURE, LLC; and BEAUTY
BELL ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a HOUSE OF CHEATHAM, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 7:23-cv-00257-MDL (D.S.C., January 18, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, negligence, strict liability, negligent failure to
warn, negligent design defect, punitive damages, and violations of
the Magnuson-Moss Act, the Adulterated or Misbranded Food and
Cosmetics Act, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the
South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.

This action arises from a 2015 diagnosis of uterine fibroids and
endometriosis for Ms. Bridges, which was directly and proximately
caused by her regular and prolonged exposure to endocrine
disrupting chemicals found in the Defendants' chemical hair
straightening and/or hair relaxers products. Despite the presence
of this knowledge, Defendants represented that the products were
safe and effective for their intended use, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of
herself, and all similarly situated consumers who purchased the
products that were harmful and defective because they contained
known endocrine disrupting chemicals that increased the risk of
various diseases and illnesses, including cancer, and which were
formulated, designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised,
distributed, and sold by the Defendants.

L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetic products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Aaron Jophlin, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP
          219 Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  ajophlin@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

               - and -

          Danielle Ward Mason, Esq.
          BULLOCK WARD MASON LLC
          4915 N. Main Street #426
          Acworth, GA 30101
          Telephone: (770) 202-4603
          E-mail: danielle@bwmlaw.com

LABCORP DRUG: Kaba Suit Removed to S.D. Ind.
--------------------------------------------
The case styled MOHAMED KABA and ABDUL LEE, on behalf of themselves
and a class of similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LABCORP DRUG
DEVELOPMENT INC. and AEROTEK, INC., Defendants, Case No.
49D04-2212-CT-042652, was removed from the Marion County Superior
Court, City of Indianapolis, Indiana, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana on January 13, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Indiana assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-00084-JMS-TAB to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they were employees of
Aerotek assigned to work at Defendant Labcorp Drug Development,
Inc. d/b/a Covance. The Plaintiffs assert that they and a class of
current and former Muslim employees were subjected to a hostile
work environment and denied reasonable accommodations to pray by
Aerotek. The Plaintiffs also allege they were among 109 workers
terminated on August 19, 2021 but were not among the workers
recalled to work in early September 2021 in retaliation for their
complaints about the work environment and requests for reasonable
accommodations to pray. They seek for themselves and members of the
class, back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, reinstatement
(or front pay), attorney fees and costs, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.

Labcorp Drug Development Inc. is a contract research organization
headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina.

Aerotek, Inc. is an employment agency, providing technical,
professional and industrial recruiting and staffing services to
clients.[BN]

Defendant Aerotek, Inc. is represented by:

          Andrew Scroggins, Esq.
          Christopher DeGroff, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, #8000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          E-mail: ascroggins@seyfarth.com
                  cdegroff@seyfarth.com

LATCH INC: Rosen Law Named Lead Counsel in Brennan Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SLATER BRENNAN, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. LATCH, INC. f/k/a TS
INNOVATION ACQUISITIONS CORP., LUKE SCHOENFELDER, GARTH MITCHELL,
and BARRY SCHAEFFER, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07473-JGK
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York appointed VB PTC Establishment as
Trustee of Gersec Trust as the Lead Plaintiff and The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., as the Lead Counsel.

The securities class action has been filed against the Defendants,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i), on Aug. 31, 2022, a
notice was issued to potential class members of the action
informing them of their right to move to serve as lead plaintiff
within 60 days of the date of the issuance of said notice.

On Oct. 31, 2022, the Movant asked the Court to appoint it as the
Lead Plaintiff and approve its selection of Rosen Law as the Lead
Counsel.

Judge Koeltl states that PSLRA provides, inter alia, that
presumptively the most-adequate plaintiff to serve as lead
plaintiff is the person or group of persons that has either filed a
complaint or has made a motion in response to a notice and has the
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the Class and
satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

Finding that the Movant has the largest financial interest and that
prima facie satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23., he appoints the Movant as the Lead Plaintiff
pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-(a)(3)(B), and approves Rosen Law as the Lead Counsel.

The Lead Counsel, after being appointed by the Court, will manage
the prosecution of the litigation. The Lead Counsel is to avoid
duplicative or unproductive activities.

The Clerk is directed to close all pending motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/42v8jcv3 from Leagle.com.


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Files Motion to Dismiss M274 Engine Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood at CarComplaints.com reports that Mercedes-Benz says
an M274 engine lawsuit should be dismissed because the plaintiff
lacks standing to sue.

The plaintiff, who owns a 2016 Mercedes C300, alleges the M274
pistons cause engine failure.

The Mercedes M274 engine lawsuit alleges the 2016 C300 owned by the
plaintiff suffered engine problems when the vehicle had about
95,000 miles on the odometer.

According to the engine lawsuit, a dealership said piston failure
occurred in one cylinder and damaged other cylinders, and to
replace the M274 engine would cost $20,000.

The plaintiff argues Mercedes should have paid for the repair
because the C300 had just 95,000 miles on it, but the automaker
refused.

An independent mechanic charged her $7,000 and the exchange of her
M274 engine for a used long block engine.

The plaintiff claims Mercedes knew the M274 engines were defective
because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
allegedly opened a formal investigation in October 2022.

However, NHTSA only received a petition to open a formal
investigation into model year 2015 Mercedes C300 engine piston
wrist pins. The government has not yet granted or denied the
petition to open a formal investigation.

Motion to Dismiss the Mercedes M274 Engine Lawsuit
According to attorneys for Mercedes-Benz, the plaintiff doesn't
have standing to assert claims on behalf of a class of vehicle
owners. Mercedes argues the M274 class action is based on claims
predicated on an alleged defect with the pistons in certain
vehicles equipped with M274 engines.

However, the problem allegedly doesn't include her vehicle.

The automaker says all the claims are based on an inquiry by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning certain
pistons in only 2015 Mercedes C300 vehicles equipped with piston
"wrist pins" having a particular coating.

But the owner who filed the M274 engine lawsuit has a 2016 C300,
and Mercedes argues any problem with the plaintiff's vehicle could
not have been caused by the alleged wrist pin issue.

Specifically, Mercedes-Benz says her 2016 C300 contains a different
engine configuration with piston wrist pins without the coating
that is the subject of the NHTSA inquiry.

"In fact, the NHTSA document plaintiff relies on for her defect
allegations specifically declined to include engine pistons in
vehicles other than the 2015 C300 for this exact reason. Plaintiff
fails to plead facts connecting her vehicle's alleged issue to that
described in the NHTSA inquiry; to the contrary, her vehicle could
not have experienced the alleged wrist pin defect-i.e., she has not
suffered the injury she attempts to allege." - Mercedes

This allegedly means the M274 engine class action lawsuit should be
dismissed for lack of standing.

The Mercedes-Benz M274 lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California: Lena Jamil v. Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC.

The plaintiff is represented by The Katriel Law Firm, P.C., and The
Kalfayan Law Firm, APC.[GN]

MRS BPO: Faces Blum Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIRIAM BLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No.
501464/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., January 16, 2023) arises from
the Defendant's alleged deceptive, misleading and unfair
representations with respect to its collection efforts in violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant collects and attempts to
collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for
personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using
the United States Postal Services, telephone and Internet. The
Defendant's collection efforts with respect to this alleged debt
from the Plaintiff caused the Plaintiff to suffer concrete and
particularized harm, inter alia, because the FDCPA provides the
Plaintiff with the legally protected right to not to be misled or
treated unfairly with respect to any action for the collection of
any consumer debt, says the suit.

The Plaintiff has suffered wasted time and annoyance because of the
Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions concerning the
character, legal status and amount of the debt. As a result of the
Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection
practices, Plaintiff has been damaged, the suit asserts.

MRS BPO, L.L.C. is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Yusko, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500

NATIONAL RESTAURANT: Gallagher Hits Deceptive Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN GALLAGHER, PIAGET VENTUS, individually on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL
RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION SOLUTIONS, LLC; NATIONAL RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION D/B/A SERVSAFE and other related entities and
individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00435 (S.D.N.Y., January
18, 2023) seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business
practices of the National Restaurant Association Solutions, LLC and
its related entities, including those associated with and doing
business as "ServSafe" with respect to the marketing and sales of
the product known as ServSafe.

ServSafe is publicly marked as "training" or "certification" of
basic hygiene and cleaning routines to employees and individuals
seeking employment in the restaurant and/or hospitality industry.

According to the complaint, ServSafe is effectively a valueless
service or product because the monies paid by consumers like
Plaintiffs for ServSafe were used by Defendants to fund and finance
the National Restaurant Association's lobbying efforts aimed at
diminishing workers' rights. The Plaintiffs were required by their
employers (who upon information and belief are members of the
National Restaurant Association) to participate and pay ServSafe
before being allowed to obtain employment. Unknowingly, Plaintiffs
paid monies to ServSafe, which was then funneled to the NRAS for
lobbying efforts against the interests of Plaintiffs' and similarly
situated service workers, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs assert that Defendants' policy and practice of
utilizing the funds paid to ServSafe to fund lobbying efforts on
behalf of an advocacy group for restaurant's rights violates good
business practices and the laws of various states in the United
States, including New York and California.

National Restaurant Association Solutions, LLC operates as a food
service trade association. The Company promotes entrepreneurship
and hospitality.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
                  aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com

NAVY FEDERAL: Wilkins Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACQUELINE WILKINS, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-2916 (SDW)(ESK) (D.N.J.), Judge
Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey:

   a. denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand; and

   b. granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without
      prejudice.

Before the Court are (1) the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (2)
Magistrate Judge Edward S. Kiel's Report and Recommendation
("R&R"), dated Sept. 14, 2022, recommending that Wilkins' Motion to
Remand be granted, and (3) the Defendant's objections to the R&R.

The Plaintiff, a citizen of New Jersey, maintains a bank account
with the Defendant. The Defendant is a national credit union with
its principal place of business in Virginia. It operates banks and
conducts business in the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff brings the action individually and on behalf of two
putative classes: (1) All persons who maintain an account with the
Defendant and incurred unreimbursed losses due to fraud-induced
transactions on Zelle ("Nationwide Class"); and (2) all New Jersey
persons who maintain an account with the Defendant and incurred
unreimbursed losses due to fraud-induced transactions via Zelle
("New Jersey Subclass").

On March 17, 2021, the Plaintiff received an automated voicemail
from someone purporting to be an agent at her utility company,
PSE&G Electric ("PSE&G"). Unbeknownst to her, PSE&G did not leave
the automated voicemail -- a fraudster did. The voicemail explained
that the Plaintiff's electric bill was overdue and that her service
would be disconnected unless she made an immediate payment via
Zelle -- a payment transfer service offered by 1,500 large banks in
the United States, including the Defendant. The Plaintiff, fearful
that her power would be shut off because she indeed had not paid
her electric bill for months, promptly transferred via Zelle to the
account provided in the voicemail.

In total, the Plaintiff transferred via Zelle $2,996.02 to the
Fraudsters. The next day, the Plaintiff learned from PSE&G's
customer service that she had been defrauded. She immediately
reported the fraud to the Defendant, but the Defendant refused to
reimburse her for the $2,996.02 she sent to the Fraudsters.

The Plaintiff now claims that the Defendant has falsely marketed
Zelle as a fast, safe, and secure way for consumers to send money,
and that the Defendant has omitted from its marketing "huge,
undisclosed security risks" associated with Zelle. She claims that
Defendant, by failing to provide reimbursement for such
transactions, has breached its contractual obligation. Because of
the Defendant's misrepresentations about Zelle, the Plaintiff
asserts, users like her sign up for and use the Zelle service
without the benefit of accurate information and later end up with
huge, unreimbursed losses due to fraud. She maintains that if these
"extreme risks" had been disclosed to her and the members of the
Classes, they never would have signed up for Zelle, and thus never
would have been injured by using the Zelle service.

On April 18, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action in
the Superior Court of New Jersey ("State Court") on behalf of the
Classes. The Classes allegedly comprise "thousands of similarly
situated customers of the Defendant who have signed up for the
Zelle money transfer service and who: have been the victim of fraud
on the Zelle service; who have incurred losses due to that fraud
that have not been reimbursed by the Defendant; and who were
entitled by the marketing representations of the Defendant
regarding the Zelle service and by the Defendant's contract
promises to a full reimbursement of losses caused by fraud on the
Zelle service."

The Complaint asserts claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act ("NJCFA") on behalf of only the New Jersey Subclass and for
breach of contract on behalf of the Nationwide Class. In addition
to certain injunctive relief, the Complaint seeks several types of
monetary relief: restitution of all fees that Plaintiff and the
Classes paid to Defendant; disgorgement of any ill-gotten gains
derived from Defendant's misconduct; actual and/or compensatory
damages; punitive and exemplary damages; pre-judgment interest; and
reimbursement for all costs and expenses accrued by the Plaintiff
arising from the action, including attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 18, 2022, the Defendant timely removed the action to federal
court by invoking subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). On June 8, 2022, it moved
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims because
she failed to state any claim under the NJCFA or for breach of
contract. The parties have fully briefed the Motion to Dismiss.

On June 10, 2022, Plaintiff moved to remand the action back to
State Court, and the parties timely briefed the Motion to Remand.
She argued, inter alia, that the Defendant had failed to adequately
prove CAFA's $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement.

On Sept. 14, 2022, Magistrate Judge Kiel issued the R&R, in which
he recommended that the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand be granted
because, inter alia, the Defendant had not met the
amount-in-controversy threshold by a preponderance of the
evidence.

On Sept. 28, 2022, the Defendant filed its Objection, which the
parties timely briefed. It maintains that the Third Circuit's legal
certainty test is binding precedent, and accordingly, Magistrate
Judge Kiel erred by not applying it to determine whether the
amount-in-controversy requirement had been met; that the
Plaintiff's damages allegation should be treated as typical of all
class members for purposes of establishing the amount in
controversy; and that, even under the preponderance-of-the-evidence
standard, Defendant has adequately shown the amount-in-controversy
requirement.

Judge Wigenton first addresses the R&R to determine whether it has
jurisdiction to decide the Motion to Dismiss. She explains that
pursuant to CAFA, federal district courts have original
jurisdiction over class actions where (1) the matter in controversy
(i.e., the aggregated claims of the individual class members)
exceeds the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interest and
costs, (2) there is minimal diversity (i.e., any member of a class
of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any
defendant), and (3) the class has at least 100 members. CAFA
instructs the District Court to determine whether it has
jurisdiction by adding up the value of the claim of each person who
falls within the definition of the plaintiff's proposed class and
determine whether the resulting sum exceeds $5 million.

The first test ("McNutt preponderance test") applies to cases in
which a party challenges the facts underlying the notice of removal
of the party asserting jurisdiction. The second test ("Red Cab
legal certainty test") applies in cases where the jurisdictional
facts are not contested and the amount in controversy is
'determined in whole or in part' by applicable law. The third test
("Morgan legal certainty test") also uses the phrase "legal
certainty" but, crucially, it applies that burden to the party
asserting jurisdiction.

As Magistrate Judge Kiel explained in the R&R, the Plaintiff does
not dispute that CAFA's diversity and class size requirements are
met. Then, as now, the Plaintiff only challenged whether the $5
million amount-in-controversy requirement was met.

While Magistrate Judge Kiel concluded that the jurisdictional
threshold was not exceeded, he declared that the legal certainty
test has been disavowed, and therefore imposed upon the Defendant
the burden to establish the amount in controversy by a
preponderance of the evidence. Because the legal certainty test
remains good law in the Third Circuit, Judge Wigenton declines to
adopt the R&R.

Judge Wigenton opines that because Magistrate Judge Kiel
erroneously concluded that the Red Cab legal certainty test "had
been disavowed," the R&R failed to fully consider the potentially
applicable standards to the amount-in-controversy dispute. That
determination is at the core of this jurisdictional challenge.

The foregoing facts and the applicable law show that the Red Cab
legal certainty test applies, and therefore, Judge Wigenton must
decide whether it is clear to a legal certainty that the Plaintiff
cannot recover the amount claimed. Under that standard, she opines
that the amount-in-controversy threshold has been met. In any
event, she is satisfied that the Defendant has shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional threshold has
been met.

Hence, the amount-in-controversy requirement has been met, and the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is denied. Therefore, the Court has
jurisdiction to decide the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

The Defendant raises the following arguments in support of its
Motion to Dismiss: (1) the NJCFA does not apply to the Plaintiff's
claims because Virginia law governs this dispute, and the Virginia
consumer fraud statute exempts the Defendant; (2) the Plaintiff has
failed to meet the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 9(b); (3)the  Plaintiff has failed to adequately
plead that the Defendant engaged in unlawful conduct under the
NJCFA; (4) the Plaintiff fails to plead a breach of contract
because she does not allege that the Defendant had an enforceable
obligation to investigate and reimburse her for fraudulent
transactions; and (5) the Plaintiff fails to plead a breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing because an implied covenant
cannot create duties beyond -- and counter to -- the obligations
expressly enumerated in an enforceable contract.

Judge Wigenton grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. She
dismisses the Plaintiff's NJCFA claims (Count 1). She finds that
the Plaintiff has not adequately pled an actionable
misrepresentation under the NJCFA. Relatedly, besides alleging that
she was defrauded by third parties who misrepresented their
identity, the Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to suggest that
the integrity of Zelle's money transfer process, itself, was unsafe
or insecure. The Plaintiff has not also raised any plausible
inference to show that the Defendant knowingly concealed either the
risks of Zelle or a secret policy.

Judge Wigenton dismisses the Plaintiff's contractual claims (Count
2). She opines that the Plaintiff has not alleged a "legally
enforceable obligation" under the Deposit Agreement or any other
source of law, and consequently she has not alleged any breach
thereof. And, because the parties have an agreement that expressly
created valid and binding rights, an implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing is inapplicable to those rights. The Plaintiff
only mentions bad faith in conclusory fashion. Bare assertions of
bad faith, standing alone, cannot survive a motion to dismiss, and
therefore the Plaintiff's implied covenant claim fails.

For these reasons, Judge Wigenton grants the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss without prejudice.

An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8wdw6v from Leagle.com.


NEWAGE INC: Taylor Sues Over False Registration Statements
----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRENT WILLIS, FRED COOPER, TIM HAAS,
REGINALD KAPTEYN, ALICIA SYRETT, GREGORY GOULD, CHUCK ENCE, CARL
AURE, KEVIN MANION, ED BRENNAN, AMY KUZDOWICZ, GREG FEA, AND CRAIG
THIBODEAU, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00127 (D. Colo., January
17, 2023) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons other than
Defendants who purchased the securities of NewAge Inc. for the time
period January 18, 2018 through and including October 18, 2022,
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of
federal securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company and
Defendants had no relationship with the military or FamilyMart;
(ii) the Company and Defendants overstated the business agreements
that they did have; (iii) the Company and Defendants never produced
or sold a proprietary CBD beverage; (iv) the Company lacked
adequate internal controls; (v) as a result, the Company had a
heightened risk of regularly scrutiny and was ultimately subject to
an SEC investigation and action; and (vi) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the
suit.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct,
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class suffered damages in
connection with their respective purchases and sales of the
Company's securities during the Class Period, the suit asserts.

NewAge purports to produce and sell various beverages and other
health products. NewAge wholly owns subsidiaries that sell products
under a variety of brand names.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NORTHERN TRUST: Emerson Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHANDLER EMERSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION,
NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No.
22CV00992, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, Mendocino County, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on January 18, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-00241 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts eight putative claims against Northern Trust
and NT CORP: (1) breach of fiduciary duty (based on the tax return
preparation charges); (2) accounting (as to the tax-return
charges); (3) unjust enrichment (based on the tax return
preparation charges); (4) violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Business and Professions Code (based on the tax
return preparation and class action service charges); (5) breach of
fiduciary duty (based on the class action service charges); (6)
accounting (as to the class action service charges); (7) unjust
enrichment (based on the class action service charges); and (8)
violations of the California's Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult
Civil Protection Act.

Northern Trust Corporation is a financial services company
headquartered in Chicago that caters to corporations, institutional
investors, and ultra high net worth individuals.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Quyen L. Ta, Esq.
          Matthew H. Dawson, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          50 California Street, Suite 3300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 318-1200
          Facsimile: (415) 318-1300   
          E-mail: qta@@kslaw.com
                  mdawson@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Rachael M. Trummel, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 995-6333
          Facsimile: (312) 995-6330
          E-mail: rtrummel@kslaw.com

PACE ASSEMBLY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beechboard Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE BEECHBOARD and GENTRY LINDER, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PACE ASSEMBLY COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00002 (M.D. Tenn., January 18, 2023) is
brought against the Defendant as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated current and former piece-rate employees.

The Plaintiffs assembled bicycles on behalf of Defendant primarily
in Tennessee during all times material to this action. They were
compensated based on the number and type of bicycles they assembled
on behalf of Defendant each work day.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant has had a common plan, de
facto policy and practice of causing Plaintiffs and class members'
wages to fall below the applicable FLSA minimum wage rates of pay.
The Defendant also failed to pay all overtime compensation earned
by Plaintiff and class members, says the suit.

Pace Assembly Company sends its piece-rate employees to Wal-Mart
locations and other companies to assemble bicycles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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

PATERSON CAR: Court Approves Revised $8K Class Deal in Vidal Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALFONSO VIDAL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATERSON CAR EMPORIUM LLC
and EFI KLIETMEN, Defendants, Civil No. 19-cv-12711 (KSH) (CLW)
(D.N.J.), Judge Katherine S. Hayden of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey grants the parties' joint motion for
approval of their revised settlement agreement.

Vidal filed the collective action against his former employer,
Paterson Car Emporium LLC ("PCE"), and senior employee Efi
Klietman, for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law ("NJWHL"), N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a et seq., and the New Jersey
Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 et seq.

The matter arises from Vidal's employment as a mechanic and
assemblyman for PCE. Vidal alleges that during his three-year
tenure with the company, he generally worked seventy-hour weeks but
was only paid a fixed weekly rate of $850. He further alleges that
the Defendants failed to adequately compensate approximately 17
other employees in furtherance of PCE's corporate policy of
minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation.

On May 20, 2019, Vidal filed a four-count complaint on behalf of
himself and a class of similarly situated persons asserting
violations of the FLSA, the NJWHL, and the NJWPL. He alleged that
the Defendants: (i) knowingly denied him and other PCE employees
overtime compensation to which they were entitled in violation of
the FLSA and NJWHL; and (ii) made unlawful deductions from his
wages and failed to timely pay him for his work in violation of the
NJWPL.

Over the next two years, the parties engaged in discovery under the
supervision of Magistrate Judge Waldor. On May 7, 2021, the parties
informed the Court that they had reached a settlement in principle.
That October, they filed a joint motion for settlement approval,
which included a copy of the proposed settlement agreement and an
accompanying joint letter setting forth legal authority and the
parties' description of the terms and representations about how
they were reached.

However, several aspects of the settlement agreement caused the
Court concern, including overly broad release and confidentiality
provisions which contradicted the parties' representations in their
joint letter. Accordingly, the Court entered an order denying the
motion without prejudice, and directing the parties to either
appear on the record to clarify the provisions referenced in the
order to ensure full compliance with the FLSA, or to request
permission to submit a settlement agreement with
appropriately-tailored provisions.

The parties elected the latter option and filed an amended motion
for settlement approval on June 26, 2022. The motion consists of a
letter  in which the parties represent that they edited the
original agreement to narrow the scope of the release and
confidentiality provisions in accordance with the Court's order,"
as well as a proposed revised settlement agreement. As was the case
with their original motion, the revised settlement agreement
requires the Defendants to pay a total of $8,000 allocated
$2,171.06 to attorneys' fees, $1,486.80 to costs, and the balance
of $4,342.14 payable to Vidal.

Judge Hayden states that where the district court is asked to
approve a settlement agreement, it must ensure that the parties'
compromise: (i) is "fair and reasonable"; and (ii) resolves "a bona
fide dispute over FLSA provisions." She finds that (i) in light of
the stark contrast between the parties' factual positions, their
dispute is bona fide; (ii) the proposed settlement is fair and
reasonable to Vidal; and (iii) she is satisfied that the parties
have addressed the concerns raised in the Court's May 26, 2022
order by narrowing the scope of the settlement agreement's release
and confidentiality provisions.

Having determined that approval of the parties' proposed settlement
agreement is appropriate, Judge Hayden turns to the request for
attorneys' fees and costs. Vidal's counsel requests $3,657.86
comprised of $2,171.06 in fees and $1,486.80 in costs. The amount
sought represents around 45% of the total settlement amount, which
courts have permitted in the FLSA context.

Judge Hayden opines that the $3,657.86 sought is well below the
lodestar amount of $17,612.50 provides further support for
counsel's position that the request is reasonable. Accordingly, she
approves the request for attorneys' fees and costs.

For the foregoing reasons, the parties' joint motion for approval
of their revised settlement agreement is granted. An appropriate
order will be issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5bcrxvh3 from Leagle.com.


REALPAGE INC: Faces Another Rental Price Fixing Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
therealdeal.com reports that class-action lawsuits against RealPage
and property owners continue to pile up.

Most recently, plaintiffs in Florida have filed a claim that
residential property owners in Florida's largest cities, including
Tampa, Miami, Orlando and Jacksonville, colluded in fixing rents by
using RealPage's revenue management software, the Miami New Times
reported.

Plaintiffs Zachary Corradino and Samantha Taylor Reyes allege
defendants - including Avalon Bay, GreyStar, Camden Property Trust,
and Lincoln Property Co., among others. - had either an implicit or
explicit an agreement to control rents and unit inventory through
the use of RealPage, according to the outlet.

That arrangement effectively eliminated competition in those
markets, the lawsuit alleges. Sharing private, real-time pricing
and supply data to RealPage and its client base was a condition of
using the service, the lawsuit claims.

Data on competitors was exclusively available to the alleged
co-conspirators, offering landlords a way to circumvent the market,
effectively turning the law of supply and demand on its head, the
lawsuits allege.

"With the assurance that their competitors are respectively setting
Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville, and Tampa rental prices using the
same algorithm, each defendant property manager could allow a
larger share of their units to remain vacant while maintaining
higher rental prices across their properties," the lawsuit alleges,
according to the Miami New Times. "This increased their revenue at
the expense of renters."

Corradino and Reyes claim they paid inflated rent at the Village of
Merrick Park in Coral Gables - managed by ZRS, which has more than
50,000 rental units in the U.S. - at the start of 2022, the outlet
reported.

That RealPage discouraged its customers from bargaining with
renters is among the allegations contained in lawsuits across the
country as a result of a ProPublica investigation that was
published in the fall of 2022.

Jeffrey Roper, the architect of RealPage's software whose name
appears in numerous other class action suits, allegedly stated that
the software was meant to circumvent agents who had "way too much
empathy" and hesitated to push rents higher.

In the words of one property manager quoted in another lawsuit, "we
are all technically competitors . . . . [but RealPage] helps us
work together . . . . to work with a community in pricing
strategies, not to work separately."

"Defendant RealPage repeatedly and explicitly emphasizes that for
the software to work properly, everyone needs to accept its
suggested price at least 80 – 90 percent of the time," the
Florida lawsuit claims, according to the New Times

RealPage, for its part, told the News Times it is defending against
the lawsuits and claimed the allegations "are completely without
merit."

Other defendants to the Florida suit either declined to comment or
did not respond to requests for comment.

Previously, RealPage has said it can prevent rents from reaching
unaffordable levels because the technology can detect drops in
demand and respond by lowering prices.[GN]

ROCKWELL COLLINS: Alvarado Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ISRAEL ALVARADO, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC., a Corporation; AERONAUTICAL RADIO, INC.,
a Corporation; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, a Corporation;
and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV34023, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on January 18, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-00400 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts one cause of action for unfair competition in
violation of the California Business and Professions Code premised
on unfair business practices founded on alleged violations of
California law including: (1) the failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages based on off-the-clock work and because of rounding;
(2) failure to pay minimum and overtime wages at the regular rate
of pay; (3) failure to provide off-duty meal and rest periods and
to pay meal and rest period premiums; (4) failure to reimburse
business expenses; (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements;
(6) failure to pay sick time at the regular rate of pay; and (7)
failure to pay wages due at the time of separation, against
Defendants.

Rockwell Collins, Inc.'s line of business includes the
manufacturing of search and navigation equipment.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
          THXSSEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
          Romtin Parvaresh, Esq.
          Miguel Ramirez, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: jbrophy@seyfarth.com
                  rparvaresh@seyfarth.com
                  mramirez@seyfarth.com

SOFT-LITE LLC: McCall Stayed Until 6th Cir. Resolves Holder Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JIMMIE McCALL, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOFT-LITE L.L.C., Defendant, Case
No. 5:22-CV-816 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Sara Lioi of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division:

   a. defers ruling on McCall's motion for conditional
      certification, expedited opt-in discovery, and
      court-supervised notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs; and

   b. stays the case until further order.

McCall, a former employee of Soft-Lite, initiated the action on May
18, 2022, by filing his complaint alleging violations by Soft-Lite
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201-219
("FLSA"). McCall seeks to bring claims on behalf of others
"similarly situated."

To that end, McCall now seeks an order of the Court conditionally
certifying a collective consisting of "all former and current
manufacturing employees of Soft-Lite L.L.C. between the last three
years and the present." In his motion, he identifies how his
complaint states five ways in which he and the collective are
similarly situated.

McCall's motion applies a well-recognized two-step conditional
certification process that seems to have been first used in Lusardi
v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351, 352 (D. N.J. 1987) to determine
whether potential plaintiffs are "similarly situated." Under that
process, the Court may conditionally certify a collective (giving
notice to potential plaintiffs who may wish to opt in and providing
a period of limited discovery on the "similarly situated"
requirement) and then, after the limited discovery, consider
whether to decertify the collective.

Judge Lioi holds that the Sixth Circuit does not appear to have
expressly adopted Lusardi, although the circuit has acknowledged
that district courts use the bifurcated certification framework,
citing Holder v. A&L Home Care & Training Ctr., LLC, 552 F.Supp.3d
731, 741 -42 (S.D. Ohio 2021) (collecting cases). But the Fifth
Circuit has expressly rejected this two-step process because on the
one hand, its flexibility has led to unpredictability, w on the
other hand, its rigidity distracts district courts from the
ultimate issues before it.

Although the court in Holder conditionally certified a collective,
Judge Lioi finds that the employer has appealed that decision to
the Sixth Circuit, raising the following question for review:
Whether the district court and other district courts are bound to
follow the lenient and Plaintiff-friendly two-step certification
process detailed in Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351, 352 (D.
N.J. 1987) (predating Twombly and Iqbal) or if the district court
'should rigorously enforce the similarity requirement at the outset
of the litigation' after a period of preliminary discovery as held
in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, L.L.C., 985 F.3d 430, 443
(5th Cir. 2021).

Oral argument in Holder was conducted on Dec. 7, 2022, and an
opinion will likely issue relatively soon.

As a result, Soft-Lite argues in its opposition brief that the
Court should defer any ruling on McCall's conditional certification
motion until the Sixth Circuit resolves Holder.

Judge Lioi agrees. Holder supplies the potential for a complete
rejection by the circuit of the "conditional" certification
process. Since the instant case is still "young," judicial economy
urges a stay pending the Holder decision. Other district courts in
this circuit have reached the same conclusion.

Accordingly, Judge Lioi defers any ruling on McCall's motion for
conditional certification and stays all proceedings until the Sixth
Circuit resolves the Holder appeal.

The parties are directed to monitor the Holder appeal and, upon its
resolution, to promptly advise the Court of that fact in writing
and shall include a joint proposal for lifting the stay and
proceeding with the instant case in light of such resolution.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/nh95pk3x from
Leagle.com.


SYNGENTA CROP: Graham Sues Over Anticompetitive Loyalty Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAN H. GRAHAM AND RYAN W. GRAHAM, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION AG, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC,
and CORTEVA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00069-PLD (W.D.
Pa., January 16, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
unjust enrichment and violations of the Sherman Act, State
Antitrust Laws, and State Consumer Protection Laws due to alleged
unlawful marketing scheme.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have implemented special
"loyalty programs" in connection with key active ingredients that
are incorporated into products that farmers use to protect crops
from damage caused by insects, weeds, and fungi to take advantage
of farmers in the United States. Under these loyalty programs,
Defendants provide payments to distributors in exchange for selling
certain amounts of Defendants' pesticides and restricting sales of
generic pesticides made by competing manufacturers. The Defendants
implement and enforce these loyalty programs to ensure that
manufacturers of generic pesticides are unable to effectively
distribute their products, which preserves Defendants' control of
the market and prevents price competition, says the suit.

As a result of Defendants' conduct, Defendants have restrained
competition, maintained unlawful monopolies, and harmed America's
farmers, reducing choices for these farmers and costing them
millions of dollars in overcharges. The Plaintiffs purchased the
products manufactured by Defendants at supracompetitive prices as a
result of the said misconduct, the suit asserts.

Syngenta Crop Protection AG is a provider of agricultural science
and technology, in particular seeds and pesticides with its
management headquarters in Basel, Switzerland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
          1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305
          Pittsburgh, PA 15216
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164
          Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Erin G. Comite, Esq.
          Michelle Conston, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP  
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, New York 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  ecomite@scott-scott.com
                  mconston@scott-scott.com

TEXAS: Bid to Dismiss Shafer v. Rutledge of TDCJ Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD SCOTT SHAFER, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL
RUTLEDGE, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:21-CV-00040 (S.D.
Tex.), Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division:

   a. grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to
      Dismiss; and

   b. denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of his
      request for certification of a class action.

On Oct. 4, 2022, Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued an
Amended Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R), recommending that the
Defendants' motion to dismiss on recommitted claims be denied in
part with claims proceeding against a limited group of Defendants
and that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration be denied. The
Petitioner timely filed his objections on Oct. 13, 2022.

The M&R recommends that the Plaintiff's First Amendment Free
Exercise (Kosher Diet) and his First Amendment Free Exercise
(Religious Headwear) claims proceed against current Defendant
Wright (Kosher Diet) and Defendant Garcia (Religious Headwear) in
their respective individual capacities, and be dismissed against
other current Defendants. It further recommends that these claims
proceed against Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ)
Director Lumpkin (Kosher Diet) and McConnell Unit Warden Jerry
Sanchez (both claims) (Defendants to be added) in their official
capacities because they are in a position to provide prospective
relief. Plaintiff has requested that those new Defendants be
joined.

However, the Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of the claims
against the other Defendants, arguing that the Magistrate Judge
does not appreciate the personal involvement of supervisors who
find out about a constitutional violation and fail to address it
after-the-fact. For that proposition, he cites Black v. Coughlin,
76 F.3d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1996), a Second Circuit case.

Judge Ramos holds, however, that the present Court is governed by
Fifth Circuit law, which requires more than after-the-fact notice
of a violation. And even Black, which relied on Wright v. Smith, 21
F.3d 496, 501-02 (2d Cir. 1994), she says, does not impose
liability in the circumstances that Shafer has pled. In Wright, the
Second Circuit stated that a prison official is not personally
responsible simply because he is in a high position of authority or
is part of the chain of command. Supervisory liability requires
participation in the act or the power to halt ongoing, or prevent
future, constitutional violations.

For that reason, Judge Ramos holds that the Magistrate Judge
properly recommended that the TDCJ Director and Unit Warden be
added in order to address any ongoing violations. But supervisors
are not responsible for any individual's past action in which they
did not participate.

Shafer argues that the problems are rampant within the McConnell
Unit or the entire State.

Judge Ramos holds that this invokes the need to make the claim
against the Warden or TDCJ Director, not against those with lesser
authority. While Shafer contends that the Director of Chaplaincy
bears sole ministerial responsibility to ensure that the rights of
inmates, under the First Amendment, are protected, and that
position would require them to report such violations and implement
corrective actions to remedy them, this statement contemplates that
the matter be reported to some other official before it could be
corrected. Nothing in Shafer's objection suggests that the Director
of Chaplaincy has authority over the kitchen's food preparation or
the commissary's product inventory.

Shafer's objection to the M&R's treatment of the requirement of
personal participation is overruled. His complaints will proceed
only against the Defendants directly responsible for the alleged
constitutional violations and those of sufficient rank to effect
systemic change.

Shafer objects that he has not been provided a copy of the Court's
"Order Rejecting in Part, Modifying in Part, and Adopting in Part
Memorandum and Recommendation." Notice of same was required to be
sent to Shafer by the Clerk of Court. Upon investigation, it
appears that the Clerk of Court did not provide that notice. Hence,
Judge Ramos sustains the objection and orders the Clerk of Court to
send to Shafer a copy of the Order.

Shafer also complains that he was not given access to evidence
filed under D.E. 52.

Judge Ramos states that that docket entry number is for the
original Memorandum and Recommendation on the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. The only evidence referenced in that M&R, other than the
Plaintiff's own grievances, are the summary judgment affidavits
accompanying the motion to dismiss. The motion bears a certificate
of service indicating that the Defendants served the motion and its
attachments on the Plaintiff.

So, Judge Ramos overrules Shafer's objection that he has not been
copied with the Defendants' summary judgment evidence. In the event
that Shafer requires additional copies, he may obtain them through
the ordinary procedures of the office of the Clerk of Court.

Last, the Plaintiff objects to the recommendation that his motion
seeking class certification be denied. He argues that the M&R's
authority is insufficient to support a denial because the case
involved an immigration detainee, whereas Shafer is a United States
citizen. This is a distinction without a difference in the case.
Citizenship status is not a determinative fact.

Shafer further argues that his own legal skills, if sufficient to
represent himself, are sufficient to represent fellow inmates.

Judge Ramos points out that Shafer, proceeding pro se, is not in a
position to adequately represent a state-wide class of over 10,000
members (the class identified in his objections). Should it appear,
as this case progresses, that a class action is appropriate, the
Court will be able to reassess the denial of counsel and the denial
of the class action. Based on the current posture of the case,
Judge Ramos overrules the objection.

Based on these reasons, Judge Ramos sustains the Plaintiff's
objection regarding his right to receive a copy of the Court's
Order. In all other respects, she overrules the Plaintiff's
objections.

Judge Ramos adopts as her own the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, she orders as follows:

     a. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and
denied in part as follows:

          i. The Plaintiff's First Amendment Free Exercise (Kosher
Diet) claim is:

               (1) dismissed with prejudice against Rutledge, the
Commissary Manager, Garcia, and Garza in their individual
capacities for failure to state a claim for relief and on qualified
immunity grounds;

               (2) dismissed against Hazelwood, Wright, the
Commissary Manager, Garcia, and Garza in their official capacities
for lack of standing;

               (3) retained against Wright in his individual
capacity;

               (4) retained against TDCJ Director Lumpkin and
McConnell Unit Warden Jerry Sanchez in their official capacities in
the event that Plaintiff joins these Defendants;

          ii. The Plaintiff's First Amendment Free Exercise
(Religious Headwear) claim is:

               (1) dismissed with prejudice against Rutledge,
Wright, the Commissary Manager, and Garza in their individual
capacities for failure to state a claim for relief and on qualified
immunity grounds;

               (2) dismissed against Hazelwood, Wright, the
Commissary Manager, Garcia, and Garza in their official capacities
for lack of standing;

               (3) retained against Garcia in her individual
capacity; and

               (4) retained against Warden Sanchez in his official
capacity in the event the Plaintiff joins the Defendant.

     b. The Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of his motion to
certify the case as a class action is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/kc7pd6ve from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Appeals Judgment in Micu Suit to Fed. Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States filed an appeal from a judgment entered in the
lawsuit entitled CHRISTINA MICU, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The United States of America, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-01277-CFL, in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

According to the complaint, between August 25 and August 29, 2017,
Tropical Storm Harvey hit Houston bringing with it rainfall over
four days. Many parts of Harris County and Fort Bend Counties
received up to 50 inches of rain. The federal government only owns
a portion of the land inside each reservoir, but the rest is
private property upon which Plaintiffs own homes and businesses.
During and after Harvey, the federal government flooded many
thousands of homes and businesses within Addicks & Barker
Reservoirs. The federal government does not own drainage or flowage
easements on the private properties inside the reservoirs. The
federal government has never offered to purchase drainage or
flowage easements on the private properties inside the reservoirs,
says the suit.

As the reservoirs were designed to do, the federal government
intentionally stored storm waters inside the reservoirs and on
Plaintiffs properties for a public purpose, but without obtaining
permission or ownership of the right to do so. The Plaintiffs have
been deprived of their private property, without due process,
because it has been "taken for a public use, without just
compensation." The Plaintiffs seek compensation for the permanent
taking of property and the taking of drainage or flowage easement
that the federal government utilizes on their properties, the suit
asserts.

On October 31, 2017, the Court released an order stating that the
identified cases and any subsequently filed directly or indirectly
related cases were consolidated for pretrial management and
assigned to Chief Judge Susan G. Braden.

Judgment was entered by the court in the case on November 1, 2022.

The appellate case is captioned as Micu v. United States, Case No.
23-1366, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, filed on Jan. 10, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Entry of Appearance was due on January 24, 2023;

   -- Certificate of Interest was due on January 24, 2023;

   -- Docketing Statement is due on February 9, 2023; and

   -- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on March 13, 2023.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES is represented by:

          William B. Lazarus, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          PO Box 7415
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 514-4168

               - and -

          Kristine S. Tardiff, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          53 Pleasant Street
          Concord, NH 03301
          Telephone: (603) 230-2583 x283  

Plaintiffs-Appellees CHRISTINA MICU, and all others similarly
situated, et al., are represented by:

          Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          900 Jackson Street
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (469) 904-4550

UROLOGY OF GREATER: Bland Files Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UROLOGY OF GREATER ATLANTA, LLC a Georgia
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00132-MLB
(N.D. Ga., January 10, 2023) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff to secure redress against the Defendant for its alleged
reckless and negligent violation of privacy rights after his
personal identifying information and protected health information
were collected, stored and ultimately breached by the Defendant.

From August 8 to August 29, 2021, Defendant UGA had their data
servers breached by unauthorized third-party hackers, who stole the
highly sensitive personal and medication information -- including,
inter alia, the full names, addresses, dates of birth, age, dates
of service, patient account numbers, diagnoses and treatment, and
medical histories -- of approximately 79,795 of its patients,
including Plaintiff.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members who
have had their personal information compromised by nefarious
third-party hackers, have had their privacy rights violated, have
been exposed to the risk of fraud and identify theft, and have
otherwise suffered damages. Further, Defendant unreasonably delayed
in notifying Plaintiff and Class Members of the data breach until
approximately November of 2022, despite having discovered the
breach in August of 2021 -- over one year later, says the suit.

Urology of Greater Atlanta, LLC is a HIPAA healthcare provider that
offers a wide variety of urological service to patients throughout
the state of Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sharon J. Zinns, Esq.
          ZINNS LAW, LLC
          1800 Peachtree St. NW, Suite 370
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 882-9002
          E-mail: sharon@zinnslaw.com

               - and -

          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., Fl 12
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989   
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com

VALLEY HEALTH: Doe Suit Removed to D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------
The case styled JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., d/b/a
THE VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., VALLEY HOME CARE, INC., VALLEY MEDICAL
GROUP, Defendant, Case No. BER-L-006646-22, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on January 13, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-00185 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint purports to challenge Valley Health's
routine on-line practices as various invasions of privacy,
including an alleged violation of New Jersey's wiretapping act,
among other claims.

Valley Health System, Inc. provides healthcare services.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric R. Fish, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          45 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10111
          Telephone: (212) 589-4200
          Facsimile: (212) 589-4201
          E-mail: efish@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202-2662
          Telephone: (303) 764-4013
          Facsimile: (303) 861-7805
          E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Scully, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          Washington Square, Suite 1100
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5304
          Telephone: (202) 861-1500
          Facsimile: (202) 861-1783
          E-mail: escully@bakerlaw.com

VERIZON DATA: District Court Denies Bid to Remand Kendall Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies motion to remand the case, ANN MARIE
KENDALL, Plaintiff v. VERIZON DATA SERVICES LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-05324-VC (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Chhbria explains that he denies the motion to remand because
the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. He says while this
is a putative class action, neither side argues that CAFA's
jurisdictional requirements are satisfied. The question is
therefore whether there is diversity jurisdiction over Kendall's
individual claims. The complaint does not give specific dollar
amounts or numbers of hours, so Verizon may make "reasonable
assumptions."

Kendall is right that Verizon's estimate of three hours of unpaid
overtime per week is too high; one hour per week is a more
reasonable estimate. More importantly, Verizon's estimate assumes
that Kendall was not paid anything for her overtime work. But the
complaint only claims that she was not paid the correct overtime
rate. Verizon's estimate of the amount in controversy for the
overtime claim therefore should be reduced by eight-ninths. With
this adjustment, a reasonable estimate of Kendall's claims before
attorney's fees is more like $45,000.

If she prevails, Kendall will be statutorily entitled to recover
reasonable fees. And the case will not be far along before
Kendall's fees would put the total amount over $75,000 (not
counting any fees relating to class certification or class
discovery). The amount in controversy is therefore sufficient to
create diversity jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yjn89frs from Leagle.com.


VRDOLYAK LAW: Bid to Dismiss Alholm Class Suit Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Daniel Alholm, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Vrdolyak Law Group LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-01820 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Mary M. Rowland
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.

Alholm filed the putative class action against Vrdolyak Law Group
(VLG) bringing claims under the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C.
Section 2511 and related state laws, as well as claims of fraud and
misappropriation of likeness under Illinois and Tennessee state
law.

In 2017, Alholm, a Chicago plaintiffs' attorney, was considering
potential employment opportunities with at least three firms when
VLG approached him. He expressed concerns to VLG's hiring partners
and Steve Armbruster, another attorney at the firm, about VLG's
reputation, and specifically the disbarment and imprisonment of
firm founder Edward Vrdolyak Sr.

The hiring partners and Armbruster assured Alholm that VLG was not
involved in any improper or illegal activity. They also assured
Alholm that VLG had the resources, personnel, and finances to
successfully litigate Alholm's mass tort cases. Based on these
reassurances, Alholm began working at the firm in May 2017. In
August 2017, VLG asked Alholm to relocate to Nashville to manage
its new Tennessee office.

After relocating, Alholm learned that VLG lacked the resources to
advertise for business, support Alholm's cases, pay credit card
bills or, at times, even fund ongoing operations. He was forced to
spend nearly $20,000 of his money to fund filing fees, office costs
and other work-related expenses after VLG's credit cards were
unavailable or declined.

Subsequently, Alholm also became aware of unethical and/or illegal
activities including that VLG: (a) collected contingency fees based
upon Med-Pay coverage while also charging clients a "Med-Pay
processing charge"; (b) steered clients to a preferred litigation
lender and also collected contingency fees for securing litigation
loan repayment amounts; (c) charged clients fees unrelated to the
work it performed; (d) directed clients to specific physicians who
provided unnecessary medical care in exchange for which the
physicians donated to VLG-sponsored charity events; (e) tolerated a
culture in which VLG principals made antisemitic and racist
comments, including in reference to VLG employees; and, (f) allowed
an agent (subsequently indicted and then pardoned) of an illegal
offshore gambling ring to recruit firm employees to wager on sports
through his illegal offshore gambling operation.

Alholm alleges, upon information and belief, that VLG's Chicago and
Nashville offices are equipped with a network of audio and video
surveillance cameras, which Eddie Vrdolyak (Vrdolyak), monitored
from his office. In March 2019, a VLG IT employee/consultant told
the Plaintiff that all phone calls at the downtown Chicago VLG
office were recorded. At the time, the Plaintiff believed the
recording was an innocent mistake.

In January 2020, VLG's office telecommunications software was
upgraded to a new SIPCOM telephone system, which, in addition to
customary business communication services, was expressly marketed
for its "call recording" functionality. On Jan. 9, 2020, Alholm
received a call from VLG employee, "Mr. G." Mr. G cautioned Alholm
that his calls were being recorded through the new SIPCOM system.
Upon learning about VLG's ongoing call recording, the Plaintiff
consulted with the Illinois Attorney Registration Disciplinary
Committee and Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility, and
thereafter resigned from the firm on Jan. 24, 2020.

On Feb. 14, 2020, VLG sued Alholm in Cook County Circuit Court
alleging breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and
defamation. That case is pending. On April 7, 2022, the Plaintiff
filed the lawsuit seeking to represent a class of "All persons in
the United States whose wire, oral or electronic communications
were intercepted by Defendant VLG [Vrdolyak Law Group] from Jan. 9,
2018 through the present."

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b). It moves to
dismiss the Plaintiff's state and federal wiretapping claims as
untimely. It also argues that should the Plaintiff's federal
wiretapping claim be dismissed, the Court should decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.

Judge Rowland begins with the wiretapping claims (Counts II, III,
and IV), and then proceeds to the fraud claim (Count I).

First, the Defendant argues that all of the Plaintiff's wiretapping
claims are untimely. The parties agree that the Federal Wiretap Act
claim, 18 U.S.C. Section 2511, and the Tennessee wiretapping claim,
T.C.A. Section 39-13-601, each have a two-year statute of
limitations. As for the claim brought under the Illinois
Eavesdropping Act, 720 ILCS 5/14-6, the parties disagree about the
applicable statute of limitations.

In his complaint, Alholm asserts that at the time of the March 2019
conversation, he believed the recording was an innocent mistake
that had been remedied. He then alleges that Jan. 9, 2020 the date
upon which he learned of the illegal recording at issue in the
case.

Judge Rowland opines that at this stage, she cannot find that the
March 2019 date is "not subject to reasonable dispute." Accepting
the well-pleaded facts and drawing reasonable inferences in the
Plaintiff's favor leads to the conclusion that Plaintiff learned of
the alleged illegal recording on Jan. 9, 2020 and brought the
action, pursuant to the tolling agreement, in a timely manner on
April 7, 2022.

Factual development will reveal when the Plaintiff had a reasonable
opportunity to discover the violation for purposes of the Wiretap
Act. The Defendant is free to raise the timeliness argument again
at a later date. But as long as the Court can imagine a scenario in
which the claim is timely, it is improper to dismiss it on the
pleadings. Therefore, dismissal of the federal and Tennessee
wiretap claims on statute of limitations grounds is not warranted
at this stage.

Moreover, Judge Rowland finds that the Illinois Eavesdropping Act
does not contain a specified statute of limitations. Defendant
argues that the limitations period in Illinois' defamation law
should apply. The Defendant does not cite authority, other than the
defamation statute itself, to support this. In fact in McDonald's
Corp. v. Levine, 439 N.E.2d 475 (2d Dist. 1982), the Illinois
appellate court found a five-year limitations period applied.
Accordingly Judge Rowland finds that the Plaintiff's Illinois
eavesdropping claim survives as well.

Second, in alleging fraud, the Plaintiff claims (on behalf of
himself individually) that the Defendant made several
misrepresentations of material fact. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant (1) falsely represented to him that it had settled $9
billon in cases; (2) falsely represented to him that it would
adequately staff, fund, and prosecute his clients' cases; and (3)
falsely represented to him that it was no longer engaged in
improper or illegal activity.

Judge Rowland holds that it is well-settled that heightened
pleading for fraud is a response to the "great harm to the
reputation of a business firm or other enterprise a fraud claim can
do." She finds that the Plaintiff's allegations do not meet the
standard under Rule 9(b) or Illinois law.

Finally, Counts V and VI are claims of misappropriation of likeness
under Illinois and Tennessee law. VLG argues the Court should
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if it dismisses the
federal wiretapping claim. Judge Rowland has not done so. Counts V
and VI survive.

For the stated reasons, Judge Rowland grants in part and denies in
part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. She dismisses the
Plaintiff's fraud claim. The remaining claims survive the dismissal
motion. The Defendant shall answer the counts remaining by Feb. 10,
2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n8sbm8c from
Leagle.com.


WALMART INC: Adelstein Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------
The case styled KEVIN ADELSTEIN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., Defendant,
Case No. 22-cv-03442, was removed from the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas, Ohio, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on January 13, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 1:23-cv-00067-BMB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's claims center around injuries purportedly caused by
Walmart for allegedly charging a higher price on certain products
than advertised on its website.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Niehaus, Esq.
          Gregory R. Farkas, Esq.
          FRANTZ WARD
          200 Public Square, Suite 3000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 515-1660
          Facsimile: (216) 515-1650
          E-mail: jniehaus@frantzward.com
                  garkas@frantzward.com

               - and -

          Daniel M. Blouin, Esq.
          Frank A. Battaglia, Esq.
          Olga Pototskaya, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          35 W. Wacker Drive  
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
          E-mail: DBlouin@winston.com
                  FBattaglia@winston.com
                  OPototskaya@winston.com

WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Appeals Final Judgment in Bowles Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Eric R. Sabree and County of Wayne filed an appeal from the
District Court's Final Judgment and Order dated December 12, 2022
entered in the lawsuit entitled Tonya Bowles, et al., individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eric R.
Sabree, in his official and personal capacity, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-12838, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

The action arises out of property tax foreclosures in Wayne and
Oakland counties. Plaintiffs Tonya Bowles and Bruce Taylor, former
real property owners, allege violations of their constitutional
rights and Michigan law in connection with the tax foreclosure
process. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action Complaint on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals
against the following Defendants: (i) County of Wayne by its Board
of Commissioners, also sometimes known as Charter County of Wayne
by its Board of Commissioners; (ii) County of Oakland; (iii) Wayne
Treasurer, Eric Sabree; and (iv) Oakland Treasurer, Andrew
Meisner.

In their pleading, the Plaintiffs do not challenge the foreclosure
of their property; instead, they assert violations of their rights
under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States and Michigan Constitutions and state law in connection with
the tax auction sales. Specifically, they claim that the Defendants
wrongfully retained the sales proceeds exceeding the taxes they
owed on the properties and seek unpaid "just compensation" and
other monetary damages. The Plaintiffs are suing Sabree and Meisner
in their individual and official capacities.

The Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the Court granted in
part and denied in part on January 14, 2022. The Court also granted
class certification.

On January 28, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration.

On July 26, 2022, Defendant County of Oakland filed a joint motion
for approval of notice plan and appointment of claims administrator
and a joint motion for preliminary approval of settlement.
Plaintiff Bruce Taylor also filed a petition for attorneys' fees.

On August 11, 2022, Defendant County of Oakland filed a motion to
strike.

On September 6, 2022, Judge Linda V. Parker denied the Defendants'
motions for reconsideration and Oakland's motion to strike, and
granted Oakland's joint motion for approval of notice of plan and
appointment of claims administrator, and joint motion for
preliminary approval of settlement, as well as Taylor's petition
for attorneys' fees.

The Court said it finds no mistake in its January 14, 2022 decision
that, when corrected, changes the outcome of that decision. Nor
does "a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice" warrant reconsideration of the decision.

The Defendants previously filed an appeal from the September 6,
2022 court orders in the lawsuit. That appellate case was captioned
In re: Eric Sabree, et al., Case No. 22-0111, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On December 12, 2022, Judge Parker entered final judgment and order
of dismissal as to Oakland County.

The Defendants has appealed this ruling. The appellate case is
captioned as Tonya Bowles, et al. v. Eric Sabree, et al., Case No.
23-1030, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, filed on January 11, 2023.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants ERIC R. SABREE, in his official and personal
capacity; and WAYNE COUNTY, MI BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, also
sometimes known as Charter County of Wayne by its Board of
Commissioners, are represented by:

          Nasseem Sara Ramin, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT
          400 Renaissance Center, Suite 1800
          Detroit, MI 48075
          Telephone: (313) 568-6800

               - and -

          Theodore W. Seitz, Esq.
          DYKEMA
          201 Townsend Street, Suite 900
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 374-9100  

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

          Aaron D. Cox, Esq.
          Law Office
          23820 Eureka Road
          Taylor, MI 48180
          Telephone: (734) 287-3664

               - and -

          Philip Lee Ellison, Esq.
          OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL
          P.O. Box 107
          Hemlock, MI 48626
          Telephone: (989) 642-0055  

               - and -

          David J. Shea, Esq.
          SHEA LAW
          26100 American Drive, Second Floor
          Southfield, MI 48034
          Telephone: (248) 354-0224

               - and -

          Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
          Law Office
          645 Griswold, Suite 4300
          Penobscot Building
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (248) 649-5667

WELLS FARGO: Court Consolidates Six Discrimination Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE DISCRIMINATION LITIGATION,
Master File No. 3:22-cv-00990-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
enters an order consolidating the following six putative class
actions:

     a. Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:22-cv-00990-JD;
     b. Braxton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:22-cv-01748-JD;
     c. Pope v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:22-cv-01793-JD;
     d. Thomas v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 3:22-cv-01931-JD;
     e. Ebo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:22-cv-02535-JD; and
     f. Perkins v. Wells Fargo, N.A., No. 3:22-cv-03455-JD.

The Plaintiffs in six class action have sued Defendants Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo & Co., and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
(Wells Fargo) on allegations of discrimination with respect to
residential mortgage and refinance practices. Each putative class
action brings claims against Wells Fargo for violations of the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1691 et seq., and
the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et seq., among other
related federal and state law claims that vary by complaint.

The first case to be filed, Williams, seeks to represent a class of
Black and/or African American applicants or borrowers who applied
for, received, or maintained credit from Wells Fargo related to
residential real estate and who were subjected to discrimination by
[Wells Fargo] due to their race. The second case, Braxton, focuses
on discrimination in refinance transactions. The other cases also
allege discriminatory practices against racial minorities for home
loan origination and/or refinance.

Wells Fargo proposed a consolidation of the cases on the grounds
that they are predicated on the same basic common questions of law
and fact: namely, whether the Plaintiffs can prove disparate
treatment or disparate impact and if they can, whether that conduct
violates federal or California law. Some Plaintiffs opposed Wells
Fargo's motion to consolidate, some indicated their support for
Wells Fargo's motion, and others made their own proposals for
consolidation.

The Court held a hearing to discuss the matter, which confirmed
that consolidation would serve judicial efficiency and promote a
fair resolution of the litigation. The Plaintiffs were directed to
meet and confer with each other, and then with Wells Fargo, to
discuss how to consolidate these cases.

The Plaintiffs now jointly propose filing two complaints. The first
would be "on behalf of a class of Black applicants and borrowers,
including origination and refinance mortgages." The second would be
"on behalf of a class of non-Black protected minorities, including
both loan origination and refinance applicants." They justify this
two-complaint approach by pointing to the extent of discrimination
suffered by Black applicants and the bias specific to Black
applicants.

Wells Fargo opposes the Plaintiffs' proposal, and suggests that
there be one consolidated complaint "with subclasses for the
various groups as the Plaintiffs see fit to allege," as well as
"consolidated discovery" and "consolidated motion practice."

Judge Donato holds that the cases will be consolidated into a
single action with one amended complaint. The reasons for this are
straightforward.

First, all of the complaints allege the same theory, namely that
Wells Fargo discriminated against non-white customers with respect
to residential mortgages and refinances. It may be, as the
Plaintiffs suggest, that some Plaintiffs experienced more
discriminatory conduct and impacts than others, but that is a
difference of degree and not substance. The record indicates that
the documentary evidence and witnesses will likely be the same for
all Plaintiffs.

Second, the legal claims are basically the same. Differences among
plaintiffs in treatment and impact can be readily managed in a
variety of ways at class certification and other proceedings. If it
turns out that the interests between the Plaintiff groups diverge
so much that "independent representation" is warranted, the matter
may be raised with the Court as appropriate.

Consequently, Judge Donato orders that the following cases are
ordered to be consolidated into a single action as follows:

      1. The order applies to these cases: 3:22-cv-00990-JD,
3:22-cv-01748-JD, 3:22-cv-01793-JD, 3:22-cv-01931-JD,
3:22-cv-02535-JD, and 3:22-cv-03455-JD.

      2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), these
cases are consolidated into Civil Action No. 22-990 for all
pretrial proceedings before this Court. All filings and submissions
from there on will be captioned: "In re Wells Fargo Mortgage
Discrimination Litigation" under the 3:22-cv-00990-JD case number.
The Plaintiffs will file one amended, consolidated complaint.

      3. All other underlying cases will be administratively closed
by the Clerk of Court.

      4. If a related action is subsequently filed in or
transferred to this District, it will be consolidated into this
action for all pretrial purposes. A party that objects to
consolidation, or to any other provision of the Order, may file an
application for relief within 14 days after an order relating cases
is filed.

      5. The Order is entered without prejudice to the rights of
any party to apply for severance of any claim or action, for good
cause shown.

      6. Pretrial consolidation does not mean that the actions will
necessarily be consolidated for trial. It also does not have the
effect of making any entity a party in any action in which he, she,
or it has not been named, served, or added in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

      7. The docket in Civil Action No. 22-990 will constitute the
master docket, and the file in that action will be the master file
for every action in the consolidated action.

      8. When a pleading applies to some, but not all, of the
member actions, the document must list the case number for each
individual action to which the document applies immediately under
the master caption.

      9. The parties must promptly file a motion to relate pursuant
to Civil Local Rule 3-12 whenever a case that should be
consolidated into the action is filed in, or transferred to, this
District.

      10. If there are any disputes about whether a new action
should be related to the consolidated action, they must promptly be
brought to the Court's attention or any objection may be deemed
waived.

      11. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3),
several law firms have separately requested appointment as interim
lead counsel to represent the putative class of plaintiffs. Wells
Fargo filed an opposition to the appointment of interim lead
counsel.

      12. The Court declines to appoint interim lead counsel
pending further proceedings. Interim counsel is warranted for the
consolidated action, but the current applications did not have an
opportunity to address who that should be now that consolidation
will be into a single case. The Plaintiffs may file a renewed
proposal.

      13. The renewed proposal should incorporate the Court's
guidelines. The Court's goal is that any party seeking fees at the
end of the litigation will be able to present to the Court clear
and definitive records that were prepared as the fees and costs
were incurred. A prolonged forensic accounting exercise or
mini-trial on fees and costs is to be avoided.

      14. A renewed application for appointment of interim lead
counsel must be filed by Feb. 13, 2023. Wells Fargo may file a
response by Feb. 20, 2023. No other party may file an opposition
without the Court's prior approval. The Court will set a date for
the filing of the consolidated complaint after the appointment of
interim lead counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 18, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ybbzezhw from Leagle.com.


WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Commission Offered to Halt Suit, Lawyers Allege
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Noakes at nit.com.au reports that the lawyers leading the
class action on behalf of hundreds of youth detainees at Banksia
Hill Detention Centre say the parties to the action had little
choice but to litigate to bring about reform to the justice
system.

Dana and Stewart Levitt, the managing lawyer and senior counsel in
the Banksia Hill class action, spoke at a public forum in Perth on
at which Premier Mark McGowan was labelled dishonest by former
Australian of the Year Fiona Stanley and "seriously misleading" by
the former president of the Perth Children's Court.

The forum was held on the same day new reports emerged of more
serious disturbances at Banksia Hill, following a riot on New
Year's Eve that left buildings torched.

The Banksia Hill class action was launched in the Federal Court in
December following testimony from hundreds of former youth
detainees about inhumane conditions and mistreatment at WA's only
youth detention facility. Megan Krakouer and Gerry Georgatos from
the National Suicide Prevention & Trauma Recovery Project, who
worked over a long period to collect the testimonies, were also
present at the forum.

"Even a Royal Commission (would be) just a diversion, as far as I'm
concerned," said Stuart Levitt. "A Royal Commission can only make
recommendations whereas a court makes orders."

The managing lawyer of the class action, Dana Levitt from Levitt
Robinson Solicitors, said "Unfortunately, sometimes, the only way
you can hold governments to account is by litigating".

Another panelist, Denis Reynolds, President of the Perth Children's
Court from 2004 until 2018, said an independent inquiry was
crucial.

"[Banksia Hill] is functioning in a degree of secrecy that is very
unhealthy," he told the forum. "We do need an independent inquiry
to fully establish the truth of what's happening in that place."

Earlier, Mr Reynolds and others lashed WA Premier Mark McGowan for
"misleading" rhetoric about children detained at Banksia Hill.

"The Premier is saying these are bad children behaving badly,
ignoring all evidence that their treatment inside Banksia is
causing the behaviour," the former judge said.

"The issue at hand is the unlawful and inhumane treatment of
children once they enter Banksia Hill and Casuarina.

"It's the punitive regimes imposed on children that are unlawful.
That is the issue."

Dr Fiona Stanley, public health expert and patron of the Telethon
Kids Institute, noted that research shows one third of children
detained at Banksia have foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, while
many remain untested and treated.

"Nearly 90% of the kids in Banksia have developmental problems that
make it very hard for them to obey orders," she said.

"If you put these kids in better environments, a nurturing
environment they do OK.

"Not one child in Banksia at the moment has had an assessment, we
found that out from a source."

Dr Stanley said some of the children detained in Banksia Hill and
Unit 18 at Casuarina "are not going to be OK", even in the long
term.

"Some of these children are going to be so damaged that they're not
going to have a normal life, and they could have," she said.

Dr Stanley questioned McGowan's responses to criticism of his
government's handling of the facility, after the former Australian
of the Year was threatened with legal action by WA Corrective
Services Minister Bill Johnston over an opinion piece she penned in
November 2022.

"I've been called a liar by the Premier, I guess I could say the
same about him," she told the audience at the forum.

Stuart Levitt, who is a member of the Labor Party, said he felt the
party had lost its way.

"I cannot believe the way that McGowan has been permitted by his
caucus and by the members of the ALP in WA to hijack the Labor
Party in the same way Trump has hijacked the Republican Party, to
reject and overlook the policy platforms of the Labor Party," he
said.

WA Greens MP Brad Pettitt criticised the WA government's "harsher
and more punitive" approach after detailing for the forum his
impressions of Banksia Hill during a visit.

"They were no place for a child," he said.

"They were graffitied, they were dirty, they were extremely run
down. There is no way a child would come out from that better than
they went in."

In response to questions from the National Indigenous Times, the WA
government denied that a Royal Commission had been offered as an
inducement to drop the class action and the Premier said his focus
was on delivering tangible youth justice outcomes.

"My government announced more than $60 million in November for
improvements at Banksia Hill," the Premier said, citing $10 million
to expand mental health services and support programs, $30.9
million boost to deliver infrastructure upgrades, and almost $22
million for a staged expansion of staffing at Banksia Hill.

"The new funding is on top of the additional $25.1 million
allocated in the 2022-23 Budget for Banksia Hill - which included
funding a new Crisis Care Unit and a new Aboriginal Services Unit,"
Mr McGowan said.

"Alongside our $15 million investment into an on-country
residential facility in the Kimberley, this brings our investment
over the past 12 months into youth justice to more than $100
million."

The Premier also listed investment in early intervention programs
across the state.

"These are complex issues and there are no overnight fixes, but
we're getting on with tackling the problem - rather than just
talking about it."[GN]

WESTERN EXPRESS: Hendricks Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEFFREY HENDRICKS and WYNEISHA SHANEA COLEMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC. dba WESTERN EXPRESS TRANSPORT OF
CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CIVSB2219950, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of San Bernardino to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on January 13, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-00069 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, nine total causes of action, eight
of which are for various violations of the California Labor Code
and one for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business &
Professions Code.

Western Express, Inc. is an asset-based truckload carrier.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard D. Marca, Esq.
          Christopher S. Milligan, Esq.
          Alisha Maline, Esq.
          VARNER & BRANDT LLP
          3750 University Ave., Ste. 610
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (951) 274-7777
          Facsimile: (951) 274-7770
          E-mail: Richard.Marca@varnerbrandt.com
                  Chris.Milligan@varnerbrandt.com
                  Alisha.Maline@varnerbrandt.com

WEXFORD HEALTH: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Blossom Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAURUS BLOSSOM, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., and DR. VIPIN
SHAH, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-361-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy
J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois denies the Defendants' motions to dismiss.

The matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss or to strike
or, alternatively, for more definite statement filed by Wexford.
Dr. Vipin Shah filed a motion to join Wexford's motion to dismiss.
Blossom filed responses to both motions. Wexford and Dr. Shah seek
to dismiss the class action claim in the Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Alternatively, they argue
that the class action allegations should be stricken pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

Although the Defendants cite to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b) and 12(f) to dismiss Blossom's class claims, Judge
Rosenstengel finds that the Defendants' motions fail under those
standards. She explains that Rule 12(b)(6) is to decide the
adequacy of the complaint. In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss, the complaint must allege enough factual
information to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face and raise a right to relief above the speculative level.

Blossom's Complaint alleges that Wexford had a policy of refusing
to prescribe Tramadol even when it met the standard of care. This
refusal amounted to deliberate indifference and caused Blossom and
"others similarly situated" harm. Although Blossom does not define
the "others similarly situated" in his Complaint, Rule 8 only
requires that the complaint contain a short and plain statement
regarding the Court's jurisdiction, "a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," and a
demand for relief. Class definitions are not on that list."

Judge Rosenstengel holds that Blossom's Complaint adequately sets
forth a claim for deliberate indifference; thus, a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) is inappropriate at this time.
Similarly, she finds a motion to strike under Rule 12(f) is also
inappropriate.

Instead, whether a class action may proceed is subject to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Simply put, Judge Rosenstengel finds it
premature to determine the issue of class certification at this
stage. Although the Complaint does not set forth any further
information about a proposed class, discovery has not yet begun.
Discovery into the allegations will be helpful in determining
whether Blossom can set forth an adequate class definition. Without
some discovery on the matter, Judge Rosenstengel is hesitant to
find that a class action is inappropriate. She likewise cannot find
at this time that any proposed class would be duplicative of a
class proceeding in Lippert v. Baldwin, Case No. 10-cv-04063 (N.D.
Ill.).

Accordingly, Judge Rosenstengel denies the Defendants' motions to
dismiss. She directs the parties to meet and confer and prepare a
joint discovery schedule. A scheduling conference will be set by
separate notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 17, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/zpzb567j from Leagle.com.


Y-MABS THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due March 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that
purchasers of Y-mAbs Therapeutics, Inc. ( YMAB) common stock on the
open market, or pursuant to Registration Statements filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), between October 6,
2020 and October 28, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period") have until March 20, 2023 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff. Captioned Corwin v. Y-mAbs Therapeutics, Inc., No.
23-cv-00431 (S.D.N.Y.), the Y-mAbs class action lawsuit charges
Y-mAbs and certain of its top executives with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Y-mAbs class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-y-mabs-therapeutics-inc-class-action-lawsuit-ymab.html

You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Y-mAbs is a biopharmaceutical company focused on
the development and commercialization of novel, antibody-based
therapeutic products for the treatment of cancer. Specifically,
Y-mAbs is developing Omburtamab, which is being studied for the
treatment of neuroblastoma in the central nervous system or
leptomeninges of pediatric patients.

The Y-mAbs class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Y-mAbs misrepresented the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration's ("FDA") willingness to approve Omburtamab
for marketing based on the existing clinical trials; (ii) Y-mAbs
misrepresented that progress was being made that would align with
the FDA's requirements to demonstrate substantial evidence of
effectiveness, sufficient for approval of Omburtamab, through
adequate and well-controlled studies; and (iii) the FDA had
repeatedly advised Y-mAbs that it was unlikely to grant approval
for the marketing of Omburtamab.

On October 26, 2022, the FDA published its briefing documents for
an October 28, 2022 Advisory Committee ("AdCom") Meeting, which
identified key issues with Y-mAbs' Omburtamab application. On this
news, Y-mAbs' stock price declined by more than 27%.

Then, on October 28, 2022, Y-mAbs revealed to investors that the
AdCom had voted 16 to 0 to deny the application and that Y-mAbs had
not provided sufficient evidence to conclude that Omburtamab
improved overall survival. On this news, Y-mAbs' stock price
declined nearly 60%, further damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Y-mAbs common
stock on the open market, or pursuant to Registration Statements
filed with the SEC, during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Y-mAbs class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff
is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Y-mAbs class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Y-mAbs class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff of the Y-mAbs class action lawsuit.[GN]

Y-MABS THERAPEUTICS: Corwin Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CORWIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Y-mAbs THERAPEUTICS, INC., THOMAS GAD, CLAUS
JUAN MOLLER SAN PEDRO, and VIGNESH RAJAH, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00431 (S.D.N.Y., January 18, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased shares of Y-mAbs common stock on the open market, or
pursuant to Registration Statements filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, during the period October 6, 2020 through
October 28, 2022 ("class period"), inclusive, and suffered damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws.

Throughout the Class Period, beginning on October 6, 2020, Y-mAbs
misrepresented to investors that, pursuant to a series of meetings
and other communications between Y-mAbs and the Food and Drug
Administration, progress was being made that would align with the
FDA's requirement to demonstrate substantial evidence of
effectiveness, sufficient for approval of omburtamab, through
adequate and well-controlled studies. Specifically, the Food and
Drug Administration had repeatedly advised the Defendants that it
was unlikely to grant approval for the marketing of omburtamab, a
murine monoclonal antibody that targets B7-H3, an immune checkpoint
molecule that is widely expressed in tumor cells of several cancer
types, based on a comparison between clinical trials conducted
because of substantial differences in the patient populations, and
the absence of tumor response data, and that Study 101 was neither
sufficiently advanced nor indicative of efficacy to justify
approval. The statements alleged to be false and misleading were
not forward-looking statements because they misrepresented existing
facts based on communications with the FDA with respect to the
approval, says the suit.

The true facts were first disclosed to investors shortly after the
opening of trading on October 26, 2022 when the FDA published its
Briefing Document for an October 28, 2022 Advisory Committee
Meeting, and again, on October 28, 2022 when the AdCom voted 16-0
against recommending approval of omburtamab. The disclosure of the
true facts caused Y-mAbs common shares to plummet $11.56 a share
from the closing price on October 25, 2022 of $15.17 a share to
close on October 31, 2022 at $3.61 a share, the suit alleges.

Y-mAbs Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on developing antibody therapeutics and medicines
for the treatment of cancer patients of all ages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
          Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq.
          Leanna Loginov, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor  
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
                  jruthizer@wolfpopper.com
                  lloginov@wolfpopper.com

[*] Submission of $56-M Dementia Drug Settlement Claims Set Feb. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------
newsbreak.com reports that a $56 Million Class Action Settlement
has been settled with pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and
market certain Alzheimer's disease medications. The class action
lawsuit alleged that pharma companies including Actavis, Merz,
Teva, Dr. Reddy's, and Wockhardt conspired intentionally to keep
generic versions of Alzheimer's medication off the shelves in order
to drive up the cost of Namenda Alzheimer's medication. In the
United States, the generic version of Namenda Alzheimer's disease
drug is also known as Memantine.

The class action lawsuit stipulates that the pharmaceutical
companies colluded together in order to achieve more profits
through illegal price fixing schemas and the forming of a monopoly
through closed-door agreements that violate certain consumer
protection laws.

               Dementia and Alzheimer's Disease

Dementia, Alzheimer's, and Lewy Body Dementia are brain diseases
that affects the cognitive and everyday function of individuals,
affecting an array of functions such as memory, reasoning, logic,
balance, path-finding, and more. Dementia and Alzheimer's affects
caregivers significantly as well as the individual with the
disease. For more information on Alzheimer's and Dementia
treatments and how to cope with your Loved One being diagnosed with
the disease please reach out here for more information.

                         How Do I Qualify?

You are a Class Member of the Alzheimer's Namenda medication class
action settlement if you purchased or paid for certain Alzheimer's
drugs. The dates the purchase or reimbursement must have been are
anytime from April 14, 2010 through December 31, 2017. The
following products or Alzheimer's medications qualify for payout
from the Namenda class action lawsuit:

* Namenda IR
* Namenda XR
* "AB-Rated" Generic versions

AB-Rated generic drug version refer to medicines that have been
licensed legally in the United States, and have been authorized for
sale, containing the same active ingredient as the brand name
version of the drug. In this case, "Namenda" is the brand name of
the drug. More details about which pharmaceutical companies
released generic or brand name versions of the drugs are included
below.

Third party payors (or TPP's) such as insurance companies may also
qualify to be paid out from the more-than $56 Million Namenda
Alzheimer's Class Action if they fit the above requirements.

Who Are the Alzheimer's Drug Company Defendants in the Class
Action?
It should be noted that there has been no claim made that Namenda
is unsafe or ineffective. The class action lawsuit alleges that
these companies violated anti-trust laws that aimed to increase
prices artificially for consumers, patients, and insurers, by
blocking the release of generic competitors who could drive down
brand name (Namenda) drug prices.

The following pharmaceutical companies have agreed to settle the
$56 Million Settlement:

Brand Name Drug Defendants
* Actavis,
* Forest Laboratories (subsidiary of Actavis),
* Merz Pharmaceuticals,

Generic (Memantine) Drug Defendants
* Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
* Cobalt Laboratories, Inc.,
* Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.,
* Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. & Ltd.,
* Wockhardt Limited and Wockhardt USA LLC,
* Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC,
* Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.,
* Upsher-Smith Laboratories, LLC,
* Wockhardt

                          What Can I Get?

The Alzheimer's and Dementia Class Action provides for over $56
Million in settlement funds. The Brand defendants (Namenda) will
pay $54.4 Million. The Generic (Memantine) defendants will pay
$2,038,000 towards the settlement payouts. Part of the funds will
go towards lawyer fees, court fees, and administrative expenses.
This amount is generally not more than 30% of the total settlement
amount agreed upon in the class action.

To get paid, you must belong to one of the two class action groups
that were affected according to the settlement terms:

Generic Class Action Members
Anyone who purchased or paid indirectly for part or the whole
purchase price of:
* 5 mg Namenda IR tablets
* 10 mg Namenda IR tablets
* Generic "AB Rated" equivalent tablets
* Namenda XR

Third Party Payors
Those who indirectly purchased or paid for part or the whole
purchase price of the same tablets as above in the following U.S.
states:

* Alabama
* Arizona
* California
* District of Columbia
* Florida
* Hawaii
* Idaho
* Illinois
* Iowa
* Kansas
* Maine
* Massachussettes
* Michigan
* Minnesota
* Mississippi
* Nebraska
* Nevada
* New Hampshire
* New Mexico
* New York
* North Carolina
* North Dakota
* Oregon
* Rhode Island (purchases after July 15, 2013)
* South Dakota
* Tennessee
* Utah
* Vermont
* West Virginia
* Wisconsin (purchases between June 1, 2012 and December 31, 2017)

What If I Don't Qualify for the Alzheimer's Class Action Lawsuit?
Look for other Class Action Settlements you do qualify for by
getting notified of new ones as they are reported here.

Filing Class Action Lawsuit Claims
Please note that your claim form will be rejected if you submit a a
settlement claim for payout with any fraudulent information. By
providing this information and your sworn statement of its
veracity, you agree to do so under the penalty of perjury. You
would also be harming others that actually qualify for the class
action settlement. If you are not sure whether or not you qualify
for this class action settlement, visit the class action
administrator's website below. OpenClassActions.com is only
providing information and is not a class action administrator.

How Do I File a Claim?
To be eligible to receive a payment from the $56 Million Class
Action Settlement, you must complete and submit a timely Claim Form
by February 03, 2023 by following the submit claim from button
located at the bottom of the page. [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 ***