/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230214.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, February 14, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 33

                            Headlines

206-16 HOLLIS AVE: Betancourt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ADT PIZZA: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Mirzai Alleges
ALLIANZ SE: Faces Weir Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
ANCESTRY.COM LLC: Bid to Dismiss Wilson Class Complaint Denied
APPLE INC: Farley Suit Removed to C.D. California

ARTEMIS CARE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ulm Suit Alleges
AVENTA HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ward Suit Alleges
BEAUTY SYSTEMS GROUP: Marble Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
BLIS LLC: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOTTLEROCKET WINE: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Holifield Suit
CANANDAIGUA NATIONAL: Reeves Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Suit Removed to C.D. California
CITRIX SYSTEMS: $2.75M Class Settlement in Boger Gets Prelim. Nod
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Hawkins Sues Over Mislabeled Juice Products

CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Green Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CORELOGIC INC: Martell's Bid to Dismiss Teamsters Complaint Granted
CREDIT CONTROL: Cravens Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Kentucky
CRYPTOZOO INC: Holland Sues Over Fraudulently Selling of Products
DECOR STEALS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

DISTRICT 5 BOUTIQUE: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DON PARRIS INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DR. IN THE KITCHEN: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DUO WEN INC: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DUVERA BILLING: Marco Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania

EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Richardson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
ENSURE HEALTH: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
EVALFIRST LLC: Franco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FAROUQ LLC: Izquierdo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
FOSTANI LLC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

FRPP INC: Jimenez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
GLAD PRODUCTS: Peterson Sues Over False and Deceptive Advertising
GOOD BEAN INC: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Suit Filed in C.D. California
GROUP HEALTH PLAN: Vriezen Files Suit in D. Minnesota

GRUMA CORPORATION: Dexter's Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
H.H. BARNUM CO: Garofalo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Hours
HENRY SCHEIN: Wagner Class Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
INVIVYD INC: Brill Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements
JETSUITEX INC: Appeals Remand Order in McKeehan Suit to 9th Cir.

JOYFUL HEART: Faces Remus Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Florida
KEY INSTALLATION: Underpays Assemblers/Technicians, Spradlin Says
MICHAELS STORES: Vizcarra Sues Over Fake Sales and Discounts
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Clark Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
MILL-ROSE COMPANY: Lee Sues Over Unpaid OT for Non-Exempt Workers

MYPANIER INC: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NICASIO VALLEY CHEESE: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NOM WAH DIM SUM PARLOR: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NONNA BEPPA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Xochitemol Alleges
NORTHWEST FEDERAL: Rader Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia

OMRON HEALTHCARE: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OPOPOP INC: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PASCHALL TRUCK: Carter Loses Bid for Class Certification
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Mittwol FLSA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALTIES: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

POPEYES LOUISIANA: Kuczun Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PPB OPCO LLC: Walters Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL Scheduling Order Entered in Kroeger Suit
RB ROYAL INDUSTRIES: Bohnert Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Guilbe Sues Over Debt Collection Practices

RETREAT BEHAVIORAL: Small Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
ROBERT GIACOMINI DAIRY: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROMAN HEALTH: Siegfried Sues Over Wiretapping of Website Activity
SAKS INC: Bid to Dismiss Giordano Suit Granted With Leave to Amend
SALVATION ARMY: Taylor Appeals Suit Ruling to 7th Cir.

SELECT COMFORT: Hargraves Sues Over Unpaid Time & OT
SEREDOR CENTERS: Underpays Sleep Technicians, Ramirez Suit Claims
SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Klassen Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
SYNGENTA CROP: Faces Teske Suit Over Crop Pesticides' Monopoly
SYNGENTA CROP: Reduced Competition in CPPs Market, Sheller Claims

T-MOBILE NORTHEAST: Kuczun Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TOGETHERHEALTH INSURANCE: Pinn Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
TOURO UNIVERSITY MEDICAL: Mejia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE: Hassan Files Suit in E.D. New York
TRUEACCORD CORP: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas

TWINLAB CONSOLIDATION: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Gill Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
UNITED STATES: Bid for Class Certification in Carr v. HHS Granted
VAL PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wu Suit Alleges
VI-JON INC: Germ-X Sanitizers' Labels "Deceptive," Castaneda Says

VIDA SHOES: Faces Carroll Suit Over Video Privacy Violations
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Faces Whitt Wage-and-Hour Suit in C.D. California
WELLS FARGO: Dillon Sues Over Deceptive Conduct
WHOLE FOODS: Kinzer Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 1st Cir.

                            *********

206-16 HOLLIS AVE: Betancourt Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Alexis Tejeda Betancourt, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 206-16 HOLLIS AVE. FOOD CORP. d/b/a
COMPARE FOODS SUPERMARKET, JOSE ESPINAL and TEOFILO DE JESUS, as
individuals, Case No. 1:23-cv-00779 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023), is
brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations
of state and federal wage and hour laws, the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Laws arising out of the Defendants'
failure to pay overtime wages.

Although the Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 72 to 84
hours or more hours each week from March 2020 until December 2021,
the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a
half for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA
and NYLL. Additionally, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 10 or
more hours per day approximately 6 to 7 days per week from March
2020 until December 2021, however, the Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff an extra hour at the legally prescribed minimum wage for
each day worked over 10 hours, a blatant violation of the spread of
hours provisions contained in the NYLL. The Defendants willfully
failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage
requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment as required by both the NYLL and the FLSA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cleaner, stocker,
food preparer and delivery person while performing related
miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from March 2020 until
December 2021.

206-16 HOLLIS AVE. FOOD CORP. d/b/a COMPARE FOODS SUPERMARKET, is a
New York domestic business corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADT PIZZA: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Mirzai Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FAIQA MIRZAI and FARIHA MIRZAI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ADT PIZZA LLC; ADT
MANAGEMENT LLC; ADAM DIAMOND; DAVID TETENS; JOHN DOE 1–10; DOE
CORPORATION 1–10, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00124 (D. Conn.,
January 31, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately
reimburse the Plaintiffs and similarly situated delivery drivers
for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay them
the legally mandated minimum wage for all hours worked.

Faiqa Mirzai and Fariha Mirzai had worked for the Defendants as
pizza delivery drivers at Pizza Hut stores from October 2021 to
January 2023 and from October 2020 through January 2023,
respectively.

ADT Pizza LLC is an operator of Pizza Hut franchises, doing
business in Connecticut.

ADT Management LLC is an owner and operator of Pizza Hut
franchises, doing business in Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Robert B. Mitchell, Esq.
         Jessica Slippen, Esq.
         MITCHELL & SHEAHAN, PC
         999 Oronoque Lane, Suite 203
         Stratford, CT 06614
         Telephone: (203) 873-0240
         Facsimile: (203) 873-0235
         E-mail: rbmitchell@mitchellandsheahan.com

                 - and -

         Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
         Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
         BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
         8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
         Cincinnati, OH 45236
         Telephone: (513) 715-8711
         Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
         E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
                 abiller@billerkimble.com

ALLIANZ SE: Faces Weir Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WEIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANZ SE; and OLIVER BATE, Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00719 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2023) is a class action
on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded Allianz securities between March 9, 2018
and May 17, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1)
Allianz did not have effective internal controls; (2) Allianz and
its employees did not fully cooperate with government authorities;
(3) Allianz's subsidiary was involved in substantial fraudulent
activity; (4) as a result was at an increased risk of regulatory
scrutiny; (5) as a result, Allianz was at an increased risk of
substantial losses and financial costs; and (6) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

The Debtors' American depositary receipts ("ADRs") price fell $0.57
per share, or 2.6 per cent, to close at $20.80 per share on May 18,
2022, the next full trading day, damaging investors. As a result of
the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the
market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other
Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says
the suit.

ALLIANZ SE offers insurance and financial services. The Company
offers property and casualty, life and health, credit, motor
vehicle, and travel insurance, as well as and fund management
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 785-2610
         Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

ANCESTRY.COM LLC: Bid to Dismiss Wilson Class Complaint Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANCESTRY.COM LLC, et al.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-861 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A.
Sargus, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio, Eastern Division, denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Class Action Complaint.

On Feb. 21, 2022, Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, filed the putative class action alleging that
Defendants Ancestry.com Operations Inc., Ancestry.com Inc., and
Ancestry.com LLC (collectively, "Ancestry"), which owns
www.ancestry.com, used Wilson and the proposed class members' names
and personas to promote paid subscriptions to the Ancestry website
without their consent. According to the Complaint, a paid
subscription to Ancestry.com provides subscribers with access to a
wide range of services, such as access to Wilson and the putative
class members' yearbook photos, personal information, and more than
18 billion records worldwide, as well as multiple tools that allow
users to grow a family tree.

Wilson identifies three advertising techniques in which Ancestry,
without Wilson's consent, uses his persona to encourage viewers to
subscribe to Ancestry's services. First, via Ancestry's publicly
accessible landing page, any visitor may search for any person by
name and location. Upon returning a search for Wilson or any
proposed class member, Ancestry retrieves a list of corresponding
yearbook photographs accompanied by promotional text urging the
visitor to "Sign Up Now" for a subscription. The promotional text
further encourages purchase of a subscription by promising that
"There's more to see" about the searched individual, including
higher-resolution photographs and additional personal information,
such as the individual's city of residence, estimated age, and high
school graduation year.

As for the second advertising technique, Ancestry sends promotional
emails and onsite messages to users who have not yet subscribed and
who may be related to Wilson or a proposed class member. Wilson
alleges that these emails and messages use his and the proposed
class members' names and identities, referencing one promotional
email with the subject line "What should you explore next for
proposed class member?" The body of the email provides a link, and
if the recipient follows the link, he or she is taken to a webpage
asking him or her to subscribe to Ancestry.com.

In the third advertising technique, Ancestry allows users to enroll
in a two-week free trial membership during which users have full
access to Ancestry's services. These users may search for, view,
print, and share Wilson and other proposed class members' personal
information. As alleged, Ancestry's "sole purpose" in granting
free-trial users access to Wilson and the proposed class members'
personal information is to solicit the purchase of paid
memberships.

Wilson is a resident of Morgan County, Ohio. He is not a subscriber
to any of Ancestry's products or services, nor has he ever visited
Ancestry.com. Ancestry uses at least two photographs depicting
Wilson to advertise subscriptions to Ancestry.com. In all three
advertising techniques detailed, Ancestry uses Wilson's name and
photograph. Wilson did not give consent to Ancestry to use his
name, photograph, likeness, or persona in any way.

Wilson brings the putative class action against Ancestry alleging
(1) misappropriation of his and the putative class members'
personas in violation of Ohio's right of publicity statute, Ohio
Rev. Code Section 2741, and (2) invasion of privacy by means of
appropriation under Ohio common law.

The matter is before the Court on Ancestry's Motion to Dismiss
Class Action Complaint, Wilson's Opposition to Ancestry's Motion to
Dismiss, and Ancestry's Reply.

Ancestry asserts five grounds upon which the Court should dismiss
Wilson's Complaint.

First, Wilson argues that Ancestry's contacts with Ohio giving rise
to the action establish specific personal jurisdiction.

Judge Sargus agrees. He opines that Ancestry is subject to specific
personal jurisdiction under R.C. Section 2307.382(A)(3). Wilson's
allegations also establish that Ancestry intentionally targeted
Ohio residents with its advertisements. Moreover, the allegations,
when viewed under the "lenient standard" applicable to the "arising
from" criterion, lead the Court to conclude that Wilson's claims
arise from Ancestry's activities in Ohio. Lastly, Ancestry's motion
does not address the "reasonableness" factor.
For all these reasons, Judge Sargus finds that Wilson has
established a prima facie case that Ancestry is subject to specific
jurisdiction in Ohio.

Second, Ancestry also asserts that Wilson lacks Article III
standing to pursue his statutory and common law claims.

This assertion is without merit, Judge Sargus opines. Accepting as
true the allegations in the Complaint, Wilson has adequately
established injury in fact for his Ohio right of publicity claim
under R.C. Section 2741 and his analogous common law invasion of
privacy claim.

Third, Ancestry argues that Wilson's Complaint fails to plausibly
state his right of publicity claims.

Judge Sargus opines that (i) Wilson's Complaint plausibly alleges
that there is some value in associating Ancestry.com with his
identity; as such, Wilson has adequately alleged that his persona
has commercial value; (ii) Ancestry's use of Wilson's persona, as
alleged in his Complaint, is more than incidental -- that is,
Ancestry's appropriation of his persona for the purpose of
promoting paid subscriptions establishes Ancestry's deliberate, and
not incidental, use of Wilson's persona; and (iii) Ancestry's use
of Wilson's persona to promote paid subscriptions cannot
conceivably fall under R.C. Section 2741's public affairs
exceptions, thus rendering the public affairs exceptions
inapplicable.

Fourth, Ancestry argues that it is entitled to immunity under
section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. Section
230(c)(1), which immunizes providers of interactive computer
services against liability arising from content created by third
parties.

Judge Sargus finds that Ancestry cannot rely on section 230 for
immunity because it is an information content provider of the
allegedly unlawful content—that is, Ancestry is "responsible, in
whole or in part, for the creation or development" of the
advertisements at issue. Because the alleged unlawful content
consists of Ancestry's advertisements using Wilson's persona to
promote paid subscriptions, and Ancestry is responsible for the
development of these advertisements, Ancestry materially
contributed to the alleged unlawful content and therefore cannot
use section 230 to shield itself from liability.

Ancestry's final affirmative defense asserts that section 301 of
the Copyright Act preempts Wilson's right of publicity claims.

There is no merit to this argument, Judge Sargus holds. He says the
Copyright Act does not preempt Wilson's claims. Wilson's Complaint
alleges that Ancestry uses Wilson and the putative class members'
personas to Ancestry's commercial advantage rather than simply
reproducing and distributing their yearbook photographs.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Sargus denies Ancestry's Motion to
Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 31, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/msmcc36h from Leagle.com.


APPLE INC: Farley Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Farley, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00254 was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Feb. 3, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00524-DMR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Other Contract.

Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Phone: (310) 474-9111
          Fax: (310) 474-8585
          Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Adam Lewis Pollock, Esq.
          POLLOCK COHEN LLP
          111 Broadway, Suite 1804
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 337-5361
          Email: Adam@PollockCohen.com

               - and -

          Raphael Janove, Esq.
          POLLOCK COHEN LLP
          111 Broadway, Suite 1804
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 337-5361
          Fax: (347) 696-1227
          Email: rafi@pollockcohen.com

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan S. Joachim, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 841-1000
          Fax: (212) 841-1010
          Email: jjoachim@cov.com

               - and -

          Kathryn Cahoy, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Phone: (650) 632-4700
          Email: kcahoy@cov.com


ARTEMIS CARE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ulm Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
TINA ULM; and JARED ULM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARTEMIS CARE LLC; FARAH JAFRI;
and JOHN THOMAS STENGER, JR., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00213
(N.D. Ohio, Feb. 03, 2023) is an action against the Defendants'
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as home health
aides.

ARTEMIS CARE LLC is a home health agency providing in-home health
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          50 Public Square, Suite 1900
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
          Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                 rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com

                - and -

          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310
          Strongsville, Ohio 44136
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
          Email: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

AVENTA HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ward Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARMALEDA WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVENTA HEALTH LLC, d/b/a AVENTA HEALTH,
Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-60175-RKA (S.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2023) is
an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and
the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Ward was employed by the Defendant as sales employee.

VENTA HEALTH LLC, d/b/a AVENTA HEALTH is a health care insurance
marketplace or agency selling health insurance plans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BEAUTY SYSTEMS GROUP: Marble Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Matthew Marble, individually, and on behalf of
others persons similarly situated v. Beauty Systems Group, LLC,
Case No. 2022-CH-12436 was removed from the Superior Court of
Hudson County, NJ, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Feb. 2, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00654 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Beauty Systems Group is a distributor and seller of beauty
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kathleen Louise Carlson, Esq.
          Andrew Flynn Rodheim, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1 S. Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 853-7000
          Email: kathleen.carlson@sidley.com
                 arodheim@sidley.com


BLIS LLC: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blis, LLC. The case
is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Blis, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00920
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2023).

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

Blis, LLC -- https://blisgourmet.com/ -- offers bourbon barrel aged
maple syrup, soy sauce, hot pepper sauce, fish sauce, vinegar, and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOTTLEROCKET WINE: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bottlerocket Wine &
Spirit, LLC. The case is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bottlerocket Wine
& Spirit, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00893 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

Bottlerocket Wine & Spirit -- https://bottlerocket.com/ -- is a
wine shop with reds & whites displayed by theme & accompanied by
fact sheets, plus tasting events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Holifield Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Wendy B. Vitter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment in the lawsuit titled GOLLIE HOLIFIELD v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL. SECTION: D (5), Case No. 17-4359 (E.D.
La.).

Before the Court is BP's Daubert Motion to Exclude the Causation
Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook filed by
Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production
Company, 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. The Plaintiff opposes both Motions. The Defendants
have filed Replies in support of their Motions and the Plaintiff
has filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to BP's Daubert
Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert,
Dr. Jerald Cook.

Also before the Court is a Motion for Admission of the Plaintiffs'
Expert Opinions Because of BP Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence of
Plaintiff's Exposure, filed by the Plaintiff. The Defendants oppose
this Motion.

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. Plaintiff Gollie
Holifield opted out of the MSA and, accordingly, is a B3
plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed this individual action against the Defendants
on April 30, 2017 to recover for injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of the oil spill. For approximately three months in 2010,
the Plaintiff worked as a beach cleanup worker, tasked with
cleaning up oil and oil-covered debris from the beaches and coastal
areas near Dauphin Island, Alabama. The Plaintiff alleges 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 her to suffer myriad injuries, including
GI issues, abdominal cramps, abdominal pains, diarrhea, nausea,
neurological issues, dizziness, anxiety, depression, insomnia,
ocular issues, eye burning, eye irritation, loss of vision,
otolaryngological issues, nasal discharge, nosebleeds, throat
irritation, chronic rhinitis, sinus pain, conjunctivitis, ear
aches, chronic sinusitis, dermal issues, skin inflammation, skin
itching, skin scaling, skin dryness/flaking, respiratory issues,
cough, chronic URI, and hypertension (exacerbation).

Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks 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 her claims that exposure to the chemicals present
in the oil spilled by the Defendants caused her particular health
symptoms, the Plaintiff offers the report and testimony of Dr.
Jerald Cook. Dr. Cook is a retired Navy physician with expertise
specifically as an occupational and environmental physician. Dr.
Cook's Report is not tailored directly to the Plaintiff's claims;
rather, Dr. Cook's generic causation Report has been utilized by
numerous B3 plaintiffs, including many plaintiffs currently before
this Court, as well as in other cases before other sections of this
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 Oct. 3, 2022. In their Motion in limine, the
Defendants 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 Plaintiff's particular
injuries for each chemical that she alleges 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 Plaintiff is unable to establish general causation
through expert testimony, a necessary requirement under controlling
Circuit precedent.

In response, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Admission of
Plaintiffs' Expert Opinions Because of BP Defendants' Spoliation of
Evidence of Plaintiff's Exposure, in which she argues that Dr.
Cook's Report and general causation opinions should be deemed
reliable and admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 702 because of BP's
alleged failure to collect exposure data on oil spill cleanup
workers. The Plaintiff argues that BP had an obligation to preserve
evidence that it reasonably anticipated may have been relevant to
future litigation and that BP intentionally destroyed said evidence
in bad faith.

The Defendants filed a response in opposition to the Plaintiff's
spoliation Motion, arguing that she cannot demonstrate spoliation
of evidence because there never was evidence to spoliate in the
first place. The Defendants also contend that the issue of
biological monitoring of cleanup workers is irrelevant to the
reliability and admissibility of Dr. Cook's Report. Finally, the
Defendants argue that the remedy sought by the Plaintiff--admission
of Dr. Cook's Report--is inappropriate and without basis.

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, Judge Vitter notes. To prove
causation, the B3 plaintiffs are required to provide reliable
expert testimony.

The Court has previously considered the June 21, 2022 version of
Dr. Cook's Report offered here by the Plaintiff, finding that the
Report fails to meet the Daubert standards for reliability and
helpfulness to the trier of fact, citing Kaoui v. BP Expl. & Prod.,
Inc., No. CV 17-3313, R. Doc. 68 (E.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023) (Vitter,
J.). For the same reasons set forth in detail in that Order and
Reasons, the Court determines that the Plaintiff has failed in her
burden of establishing the reliability and relevance of her
expert's report and finds it appropriate to grant the Defendants'
Motion in limine to exclude Dr. Cook's Report.

The Plaintiff has filed a motion arguing that the Court should find
Dr. Cook's opinions admissible because of the Defendants' alleged
spoliation of evidence. She argues that BP intentionally failed to
conduct dermal and biological monitoring of the Gulf oil spill
cleanup workers and that such failure to do so is the reason why
Dr. Cook is unable to provide the requisite dose-response
relationship data. She contends that the Defendants should not be
allowed to benefit from their behavior and that excluding Dr.
Cook's Report and granting the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment would only benefit that behavior. Accordingly, the remedy
the Plaintiff seeks for the Defendants' alleged spoliation of
evidence is the admission of Dr. Cook's Report.

To properly assert a spoliation claim, Judge Vitter says the
Plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) the Defendants controlled the
evidence and were obliged to preserve it at the time of
destruction; (2) the Defendants intentionally destroyed the
evidence; and (3) the Defendants acted in bad faith. The Plaintiff
fails to make this showing, Judge Vitter holds.

The chief flaw in the Plaintiff's argument is that she does not
point to any actual evidence allegedly spoiled by the Defendants,
Judge Vitter holds. The Court concurs and finds no merit to the
Plaintiff's argument.

Finally, the remedy sought by the Plaintiff, even if she could
prove spoliation, is wholly inappropriate, Judge Vitter holds. The
Court finds no basis--and the Plaintiff has failed to provide any
support--for the theory that an unreliable, unhelpful, and
otherwise inadmissible expert opinion may nevertheless be admitted
due to one party's alleged spoliation. Because the Court finds no
merit to the Plaintiff's Motion, the Court denies the Plaintiff's
Motion for Admission of Plaintiff's Expert Opinions Because of BP
Defendants' Spoliation of Evidence of Plaintiff's Exposure.

For these reasons, Judge Vitter finds the Plaintiff lacks expert
testimony on general causation. Without expert testimony, which is
required to prove general causation, the Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact regarding her claims
that her injuries were caused by exposure to oil. Thus, the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment must be granted as they are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to the Plaintiff's
failure to establish general causation.

Judge Vitter, therefore, ordered that the Defendants' Daubert
Motion to Exclude the Causation Testimony of Plaintiff's Expert,
Dr. Jerald Cook is granted. The Plaintiff's Motion for Admission of
Plaintiffs' Expert Opinions Because of BP Defendants' Spoliation of
Evidence of Plaintiff's Exposure is denied.

The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The
Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants are dismissed with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order & Reasons dated Jan. 23,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2nwh4nsa from
Leagle.com.


CANANDAIGUA NATIONAL: Reeves Sues Over Unlawful Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deb Reeves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE CANANDAIGUA NATIONAL BANK & TRUST, Case No.
6:23-cv-06095-FPG (W.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023), is brought concerning
the Defendant's unlawful business practice of assessing $37
overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on debit card transactions authorized on
sufficient funds which breaches promises made in the Defendant's
adhesion contract, in violation of New York General Business and
the Electronic Fund Transfers Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action challenging Defendant's practice
of charging Overdraft Fees on what are referred to in this
complaint as "Authorize Positive, Settle Negative Transactions," or
"APSN Transactions." The Defendant's practice is as follows: the
moment debit card transactions are authorized on an account with
positive funds to cover the transaction, Defendant immediately
reduces consumers' checking accounts for the amount of the
purchase, sets aside funds in the checking account to cover that
transaction, and adjusts the consumer's displayed "available
balance" to reflect that subtracted amount. As a result, customers'
accounts will always have sufficient funds available to cover these
transactions because Defendant has already held the funds for
payment.

However, Defendant still assesses crippling $37 Overdraft Fees on
many of these transactions and misrepresents its practices in the
Contract. Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for
debit card transactions at the time those transactions are
authorized, Defendant later assesses Overdraft Fees on those same
transactions when they settle days later into a negative balance.
These types of transactions are APSN Transactions.

Besides being deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable, these
practices breach contract promises made in Defendant's adhesion
contracts, which fundamentally misconstrue and mislead consumers
about the true nature of Defendant's processes and practices.
Defendant also exploits its contractual discretion by implementing
these practices to gouge its customers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has maintained a checking account at the Defendant.

The Defendant is engaged in the business of providing retail
banking services to consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (21) 558-5500
          Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 4204
          Phone: (317) 636-6481
          Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Ave. Ste. 200
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
          Little Rock, AK 72201
          Phone: (501) 372-1300
          Email: chris@yourattorney.com


CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH: Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Doe, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Cedars-Sinai Health System, Cedars-Sinai
Medical Center, Case No. 22STCV41085 was removed from the Los
Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Feb. 3, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00870 to the
proceeding.

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

Cedars-Sinai -- https://www.cedars-sinai.org/ -- offers world-class
specialty care from expert physicians. We're pioneering research
and education while setting new standards for patient care.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CITRIX SYSTEMS: $2.75M Class Settlement in Boger Gets Prelim. Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAN L. BOGER, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant,
Civil Action No. 19-cv-01234-LKG (D. Md.), Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland grants the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.

Borger brings an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement to settle certain claims on behalf of himself,
and a potential class of similarly situated individuals, against
Citrix. The proposed settlement agreement and release resolve
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and the Maryland Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("MTCPA"), Md. Code Ann. Com. Law Section
14-3201.

Boger, is an individual residing in Maryland who received five
solicitation calls from the Defendant to his cellular telephone
number, despite previously placing his number on the National Do
Not Call Registry. In the putative class action, the Plaintiff
alleges that that the Defendant violated the TCPA by, among other
things, placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to him and to the
members of the putative class on residential and cellular telephone
numbers.

The Plaintiff commenced the putative class action on April 26,
2019. Thereafter, the parties engaged in informal discovery, and
they participated in a mediation on April 26, 2022, with Judge Jay
Gandhi (Ret.). The Parties did not reach a settlement at that time.
And so, the parties engaged in further discovery over several
months. On Nov. 17, 2022, the Parties tentatively agreed to a
potential settlement of the case.

The proposed Settlement would establish a "Settlement Class"
defined as follows: All persons or entities within the United
States to whom Defendant or a third party acting on its behalf: (a)
made one or more telephone calls to their cellular telephone
number; (b) made two or more telephone calls while the call
recipient's number was on the National Do Not Call Registry; and/or
(c) made one or more calls after asking Defendant or a third party
acting on Defendant's behalf to stop calling.

First, the proposed Settlement Agreement would establish a
non-reversionary $2.75 million Settlement Fund, which will
exclusively be used to pay: (1) cash settlement awards to
settlement class members; (2) settlement administration expenses;
(3) court-approved attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the total
amount of the Settlement Fund; (4) the Plaintiff's out-of-pocket
expenses not to exceed $60,000; and (5) a Court-approved service
payment to the Plaintiff of up to $10,000.

The Settlement Agreement also provides that each settlement class
member whose telephone number is on the Class List and who submits
a timely and valid claim form will be entitled to receive an equal
pro rata amount of the Settlement Fund, after all settlement
administrative expenses, service payment, and fees, costs, and
expenses awards are paid out of the Settlement Fund. If approved by
the Court, the Plaintiff will receive a service payment of $10,000
from the Settlement Fund (the "Class Representative Service
Payment").

Second, the Settlement Agreement provides that, upon preliminary
approval, the Plaintiff's counsel will apply to the Court for a
fees, costs, and expenses award in the amount of up to one-third of
the total amount of the Settlement Fund, in addition to
out-of-pocket expenses. It further provides that any amount
remaining in the Settlement Fund, after paying all authorized
claimant awards, settlement administration expenses, and any fees,
costs, and expenses award and service payment, will be distributed
to a Court-approved cy pres recipient.

The Settlement Agreement further provides that all settlement
administration expenses will be exclusively paid from the
Settlement Fund. In this regard, the parties propose that the
nationally recognized class action administration firm A.B. Data,
Ltd. be the Settlement Administrator and implement the Class Notice
and administer the Settlement. The anticipated administration costs
are $509,617.90.

Pursuant to the opt-out and objection procedures in the Settlement
Agreement, persons in the Settlement Class will have the
opportunity to exclude themselves from the Settlement or to object
to its approval. In addition, the Class Notice informs the
Settlement Class Members that they will have an opportunity to
appear and to have their objections heard by the Court at a final
approval hearing. This notice also informs Settlement Class Members
that they will be bound by the release contained in the Settlement
Agreement, unless they timely exercise their opt-out right.

In this regard, the Released Claims include any and all claims that
were brought or could have been brought in the Action.

The Plaintiff commenced the putative class action on April 26,
2019. On Dec. 14, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement, a memorandum in
support thereof, a proposed settlement agreement and related
documents.

In his motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement,
the Plaintiff requests that the Court: (1) grants preliminary
approval of the Settlement; (2) provisionally certifies the
proposed Settlement Class; (3) appoints the Plaintiff's attorneys
as Class Counsel; (4) appoints the Plaintiff as the representative
of the Settlement Class; (5) approves the proposed Notice plan and
Notice; and (6) schedules the final approval hearing and related
dates as proposed.

Judge Griggsby opines that the proposed Settlement Agreement
comports with the requirements of Rule 23. In addition, the
proposed notices are adequate and appropriate. And so, he grants
the Plaintiff's consent motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement.

The Class is provisionally certified as a class of all persons
within the United States to whom the Defendant and/or a third party
acting on its behalf: (a) made one or more telephone calls to their
cellular telephone number; (b) made two or more telephone calls
while the call recipient's number was on the National Do Not Call
Registry; and/or (c) made one or more calls after asking Defendant
to stop calling.

Judge Griggsby preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement,
including the long-form notice, postcard notice, claim form, and
opt-out form attached to the Settlement Agreement.

In addition, he preliminarily approves (i) the Plaintiff, Dan L.
Borger, as the representative of the Rule 23 Class; (ii) Johnathan
P. Misny, Esq. and Brian K. Murphy, Esq., with the law firm of
Murray, Murphy, Moul, & Basil, LLP, and Anthony I. Paronich, with
the law firm of Paronich Law, P.C., as the Class Counsel for the
Class; and (iii) A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Settlement Administrator.
The Settlement Administrator will notify the Class members of the
Settlement in the manner specified under Section 4 of the
Settlement Agreement.

Judge Griggsby also preliminarily approves the Settlement
Administrator's costs of claims administration in an amount not to
exceed $509,617.90. He authorizes the Plaintiff to mail the
proposed Notice to the putative Class Members.

Any Class member who has not submitted a timely written exclusion
request and who wishes to object to the fairness, reasonableness,
or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement, the Fees, Costs, and
Expenses Award, or the Service Payment must deliver written
objections to the Settlement Administrator (by postal mail or
email) or the Court no later than 90 calendar days after the entry
of the Order.

Any Class member who timely submits a written objection has the
option to appear at the final approval hearing, either in person or
through personal counsel, to object to the fairness,
reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement Agreement or the
proposed settlement, the Service Payment, or to the Fees, Costs,
and Expenses Award. However, Settlement Class Members (with or
without their attorneys) intending to make an appearance at the
final approval hearing must include on a timely and valid objection
a statement substantially similar to Notice of Intention to
Appear.

Settlement Class Members who fail to object to the Settlement
Agreement in the manner specified will: (1) be deemed to have
waived their right to object to the Settlement Agreement; (2) be
foreclosed from objecting (whether by a subsequent objection,
intervention, appeal, or any other process) to the Settlement
Agreement; and (3) not be entitled to speak at the final approval
hearing.

Settlement Class Members may elect not to be part of the Class and
not to be bound by the Settlement Agreement. Individual requests
for exclusion may be submitted to the Settlement Administrator
electronically (through the Settlement Website) or by postal mail,
but if submitted by postal mail, each Settlement Class Member must
pay for postage. No mass opt-outs are allowed.

If the Settlement Agreement terminates for any reason, the
following will occur: (a) class certification will be automatically
vacated; (b) the Plaintiff and the Class Counsel will stop
functioning as the class representative and class counsel,
respectively, except to the extent previously appointed by the
Court; and (c) the action will revert to its previous status in all
respects as it existed immediately before the parties executed the
Settlement Agreement, other than as to payments made to, or owed
for work already incurred by, the Settlement Administrator. Neither
the Settlement nor this Order will waive or otherwise impact the
parties' rights or arguments.

All discovery and pretrial proceedings and deadlines are stayed
until further notice from the Court, except for such actions as are
necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement and the Order.

The Court will hold a final approval hearing on May 10, 2023, at
2:00 p.m., to determine whether the Settlement Agreement should be
finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Plaintiff's
motion in support of the final judgment will be filed 14 calendar
days before the final approval hearing. Any brief Citrix may choose
to file will be filed seven calendar days before the final approval
hearing.

Lastly, the Court enters the following schedule for further
proceedings in advance of the final approval hearing:

     a. Last day for Settlement Class Counsel to provide the
Settlement Administrator the Class List - Feb. 14, 2023

     b. Last day for the Settlement Administrator to publish the
Settlement Website and begin operating a toll-free telephone line,
email address, and P.O. Box to accept inquiries from Settlement
Class Members - March 3, 2023

     c. Settlement Administrator provides Notice to Settlement
Class Members - March 3, 2023

     d. Last day for Settlement Class Counsel to file motion in
support of Fees, Costs, and Expenses Award and apply for Service
Payment - April 12, 2023

     e. Last day for Settlement Class Members to Claim Forms,
object, or request exclusion from the Settlement Class - May 3,
2023

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 31, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mthksck3 from
Leagle.com.


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Hawkins Sues Over Mislabeled Juice Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
NATASHA HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00700 (N.D. IL., Feb. 05, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
manufactures, labels and sells apple juice promoted as "With
Vitamin C" which fails to disclose chemical preservatives under the
Minute Maid brand ("Product").

According to the complaint, neither the front label statement of
"With Vitamin C" or "Vitamin C (Ascorbic Acid)" on the ingredient
list discloses that it contains the chemical preservative of
ascorbic acid. Not only does the ingredient list not inform
consumers of the preservative function of ascorbic acid, it
identifies it as "Vitamin C," even though its common or usual name
is "Ascorbic Acid." Consumers are misled because the labeling fails
to disclose the presence and function of the chemical preservative
of ascorbic acid. As a result of the false and misleading
representations, the Product is sold at premium price,
approximately not less than $2.49 per 15.2 oz (450 mL), excluding
tax and sales, says the suit.

The Plaintiff bought the Product at or exceeding the
above-referenced price. She asserts that she paid more for the
product, would have paid less or not have purchased it had she
known the representations and omissions were false and misleading.

The Coca-Cola Company manufactures, markets, and distributes soft
drink concentrates and syrups. The Company also distributes and
markets juice and juice-drink products. Coca-Cola distributes its
products to retailers and wholesalers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CONNEXIN SOFTWARE: Green Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Connexin Software
Inc. The case is styled as Amiyah Green, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Connexin Software Inc.
doing business as: Office Practicum, Case No. 2:23-cv-00450 (E.D.
Pa., Feb. 4, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Connexin Software doing business as Office Practicum --
https://www.officepracticum.com/ -- is a provider of electronic
medical records and practice management systems for use in
pediatric clinical settings.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James D. Barger, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLZ PLLC
          17 East Main St., Ste. 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Phone: (850) 202-1010
          Email: jbarger@awkolaw.com


CORELOGIC INC: Martell's Bid to Dismiss Teamsters Complaint Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 677 HEALTH SERVICES & INSURANCE PLAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FRANK D. MARTELL, Defendant, C.A. No. 2021-1075-NAC
(Del. Ch.), Judge Nathan A. Cook of the Court of Chancery of
Delaware grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff is a former stockholder of CoreLogic (the "Company").
In late June 2020, two funds made an unsolicited joint proposal to
acquire the Company. The Company's board of directors rejected the
proposal as undervalued. After a proxy contest, the funds succeeded
in electing three directors to the Board.

The public announcement of the funds' acquisition proposal stirred
significant interest in the Company. So the Board initiated a
months-long strategic alternatives process. After many months of
shopping the Company, the Board narrowed the field of bidders to a
financial buyer and a strategic buyer, CoStar Group, Inc. The
financial buyer proposed an all-cash transaction. CoStar proposed
an all-stock transaction. Both proposals were disclosed to
stockholders in the Company's proxy statement.

Based on cash, antitrust, and closing considerations, the Board
selected the financial buyer. Then CoStar publicly submitted two
post-signing, competing bids. Both bids were disclosed in the Proxy
Statement.

CoStar's stock offer was nominally more valuable than the cash
offer. But that nominal value was uncertain. CoStar's proposals
also raised antitrust concerns. Regulatory scrutiny could have
delayed a closing date by up to 15 months. All these considerations
were disclosed in the Proxy Statement.

CoStar's competing bids were unresponsive to the Board's regulatory
and closing concerns and did not provide enough cash to address
volatility in CoStar's stock. Indeed, CoStar's stock suffered a 19%
price decline at the time CoStar submitted the competing bids.
Still, the Board believed that CoStar had the potential to make a
superior proposal. So the Board encouraged CoStar to improve its
terms. But CoStar walked.

In June 2021, the financial buyer acquired the Company for $6
billion in cash. The Merger generated a 51% premium to the
Company's unaffected stock price. The stockholders voted
overwhelmingly in favor of the Merger.

CoStar's CEO, Andrew Florance, commented publicly on the Merger. In
an online article, Florance was paraphrased as stating that the
Board chose the Merger over a CoStar deal to entrench the Company's
management. In his own words, Florance stated generically that, in
strategic mergers, inevitably some of senior management's jobs go
away and that's a powerful motive to not do a deal.

The Plaintiff brought a books-and-records action against the
Company to investigate potential wrongdoing. It obtained documents
and agreed to incorporate all of them into its complaint.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Board -- at Martell's behest --
caused the Proxy Statement to make false statements and to omit
material information regarding the Board's antitrust considerations
and Martell's interest in post-Merger employment. As to the Board's
antitrust considerations, the Complaint calls them "phony" and
"pure malarkey" because the Board (i) "waited until December 2020"
to raise antitrust concerns; (ii) provided "no explanation" for its
antitrust concerns; (iii) failed to "retain" antitrust counsel; and
(iv) failed to inform Company stockholders that CoStar was not a
competitor.

As to post-Merger employment, the Complaint alleges the Proxy
Statement omitted that "high level executives" "would have likely
lost their positions in a merger with CoStar." By the same token,
the Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omitted that
management's post-Merger employment with Stone Point and Insight
was "assured." To support this position, the Complaint emphasizes
that Stone Point and Insight retained management after the Merger
closed.

Overlapping the employment category, the Complaint alleges that
Martell had an undisclosed conflict of interest in entrenchment. It
alleges that Martell "spearheaded" the Company's sale process,
while the "supine" Board deferred to "management's" interest in
pursuing a deal that would guarantee their continued employment.
The Complaint alleges that, if the Board rejected CoStar, then
Martell would have "received a change of control payment and kept
his job." The Plaintiff thus reasons that Martell's severance pay
plus his salary motivated him to steer the Company away from
CoStar. As relief, the Plaintiff seeks damages.

Martell has moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim. He argues that the Complaint fails under
Corwin v. KKR Fin. Hldgs. LLC, 125 A.3d 304, 312-13 (Del. 2015),
and, alternatively, fails to state a breach of fiduciary duty
claim. The Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Judge Cook opines that none of the Company's 11 outside directors
is alleged to be conflicted. None of the Board's advisors is
alleged to be conflicted. None of the stockholders is alleged to be
a conflicted controller. The vote is not alleged to have been
coerced. And entire fairness is not alleged to apply to the Merger.
As a result, the complaint is subject to dismissal under Corwin
unless the Merger vote was not fully informed.

To defeat Corwin on disclosure grounds, the Plaintiff does not rely
on the books and records it obtained from the Company. The
complaint's version of the facts obscures documents integral to the
Plaintiff's claim. The Plaintiff instead relies exclusively on
Florance's statements to argue that the Board's meeting minutes and
identified sale considerations must be false. Under this theory,
the so-called "real reason" behind the Merger was Defendant
Martell's undisclosed conflict of interest in protecting his job.
In this way, the Plaintiff tries to generate a disclosure claim
concerning otherwise facially appropriate proxy disclosures made by
an independent board with its independent advisors. According to
the Plaintiff, the Court must shut eyes to everything but a handful
of statements on the internet attributed to a senior executive of
an entity that was publicly unsuccessful in making a topping bid.

Judge Cook holds that one might imagine scenarios where a
post-process statement made by a bidder could support a sale
process claim. But, he opines, this is not one of them. He say the
Proxy Statement and board materials unambiguously contradict the
Plaintiff's theory. And nothing in the complaint otherwise supports
the Plaintiff's extreme inference that the Company's books and
records and public disclosures are false. To the extent the
Plaintiff sought to bring a hidden, management-level conflict to
light, its own inspection demand snuffed the wick.

It is not reasonably conceivable that the Board committed a
disclosure violation. So the Plaintiff's claim fails under Corwin.
But even if Corwin did not apply, Judge Cook says the complaint
would fail for another reason. Only Martell -- the Board's sole
inside director-- is alleged to have been conflicted. But the Proxy
Statement disclosed Martell's potential pecuniary interest in the
Merger. And it is not clear from the complaint what role Martell
played in the Merger anyway. Save for isolated scenes, he barely
appears. In many ways, he is depicted as the Mr. Godot who never
arrives (Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot: A Tragicomedy in Two
Acts (1953)).

The complaint is devoid of specific facts from which to infer that
Martell steered the Company away from CoStar to entrench himself.
Under any standard, then, the Plaintiff has failed to state a
breach of fiduciary duty claim against Martell. Accordingly, Judge
Cook grants Martell's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 31, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ymkcdpj3 from Leagle.com.

Stephen E. Jenkins -- SJenkins@ashbygeddes.com -- Tiffany Geyer
Lydon -- TLydon@ashbygeddes.com -- ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware; Donald J. Enright -- denright@zlk.com --
Elizabeth K. Tripodi -- etripodi@zlk.com -- Jordan A. Cafritz --
jcafritz@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP, Washington, D.C.;
Gregory Nespole -- gnespole@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP, New
York, New York; Frank Shirripa -- fschirripa@hrsclaw.com -- Daniel
B. Rehns -- drehns@hrsclaw.com -- HACH ROSE SHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE
LLP, New York, New York, Counsel for the Plaintiff.

Robert S. Saunders -- rob.saunders@skadden.com -- Cliff C. Gardner
-- cliff.gardner@skadden.com -- Matthew P. Majarian --
matthew.majarian@skadden.com -- Ryan M. Lindsay --
ryan.lindsay@skadden.com -- Trevor T. Nielson --
trevor.nielsen@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Counsel for the Defendant.


CREDIT CONTROL: Cravens Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Barbara Cravens, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Credit Control, LLC, LVNV
Funding, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-00012-DLB-EBA (E.D. Ky., Feb. 2,
2023).

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

Credit Control -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is a
nationally licensed provider of customized, performance-driven
receivables management services that was founded in 1989.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRYPTOZOO INC: Holland Sues Over Fraudulently Selling of Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Holland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CRYPTOZOO INC., a Delaware Corporation, LOGAN PAUL,
DANIELLE STROBEL, JEFFREY LEVIN, EDUARDO IBANEZ, JAKE GREENBAUM
a/k/a CRYPTO KING, and OPHIR BENTOV a/k/a BEN ROTH, Case No.
1:23-cv-00110 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 2, 2023), is brought seeking redress
from Defendants for their fraudulently promoting and selling
products that did not function as advertised, failing to support
the CryptoZoo project, and manipulating the digital currency.

The Defendants promoted CryptoZoo Inc.'s products using Mr. Paul's
online platforms to consumers unfamiliar with digital currency
products, leading to tens of thousands of people purchasing said
products. Unbeknownst to the customers, the game did not work or
never existed, and Defendants manipulated the digital currency
market for Zoo Tokens to their advantage.

The Defendants executed a "rug pull," which is a colloquial term
used to describe a scheme in which an NFT developer solicits funds
from prospective NFT purchasers promising them certain benefits.
Once the purchasers' funds are used to purchase the NFTs, the
developers abruptly abandon the project and fail to deliver the
promised benefits all while fraudulently retaining the purchasers'
funds.

As part of Defendants' NFT scheme, Defendants marketed CZ NFTs to
purchasers by falsely claiming that, in exchange for transferring
cryptocurrency to purchase the CZ NFT, purchasers would later
receive benefits, including, among other things, rewards, exclusive
access to other cryptocurrency assets, and the support of an online
ecosystem to use and market CZ NFTs. In reality, soon after
completing the sale of all their CZ NFTs, Defendants, together with
others, transferred millions of dollars' worth of purchasers'
cryptocurrency to, among other places, wallets controlled by
Defendants.

The Defendants operated this fraudulent venture to exploit and
steal from Plaintiff and other customers who trusted Mr. Paul's
false representations. As a result, the Defendants defrauded
Plaintiff and thousands of other consumers, and unjustly enriched
themselves by profiting off Plaintiff and others without delivering
on their promises.

The Plaintiff is one of numerous consumers who purchased Zoo Tokens
from the Defendants and who was damaged by Defendants' manipulation
of the Zoo Token market. The Plaintiff seeks past and future
compensation for Defendants' fraudulent actions and other damages
available under his causes of action, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a police officer residing in Round Rock, Texas who
purchased digital currency products from the Defendants.

CryptoZoo Inc. is a Delaware corporation that created and/or sells
digital currency products in the form of a digital currency called
Zoo Tokens, which could be used to purchase the Defendants' other
products, CryptoZoo Non-Fungible Tokens ("CZ NFTs"), for use in its
online game CryptoZoo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
          Alexander G. Kykta, Esq.
          ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (888) 350-3931
          Fax: (888) 276-3455
          Email: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
                 leigh@ellzeylaw.com
                 alex@ellzeylaw.com

               - and -

          Tom Kherkher, Esq.
          ATTORNEY TOM & ASSOCIATES
          5909 West Loop South Suite 525
          Houston, TX 77401
          Phone: (855) 866-9467
          Email: tom@attorneytom.com


DECOR STEALS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Decor Steals, LLC.
The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Decor Steals, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00868 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

Decor Steals -- https://www.decorsteals.com/ -- provides products
such as coffee tables, ceramic vases, wood cabinets, bedding, photo
frames, lanterns, and throw blankets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


DISTRICT 5 BOUTIQUE: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against District 5 Boutique,
LLC. The case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. District 5 Boutique, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00908 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2023).

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

District 5 Boutique -- https://www.district5boutique.com/ -- is a
luxury dress shop featuring the finest dresses and gowns from
designers around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


DON PARRIS INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Don Parris, Inc. The
case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Don Parris, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00781 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

Don Parris, Inc. (trade name Vinnies Styles) is in the Women's
Clothing Stores business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


DR. IN THE KITCHEN: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. In The Kitchen,
LLC. The case is styled as Joyce Carrico, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dr. In The Kitchen, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00923-RA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2023).

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

Dr. In The Kitchen was founded on the belief that "Good Food is
Wise Medicine" and that eating well is the foundation for living a
healthy life.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DUO WEN INC: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Duo Wen, Inc. The
case is styled as Joyce Carrico, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Duo Wen, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00927
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2023).

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

Duo Wen, Inc. doing business as Sparkle Wellness --
https://lovesparkle.life/ -- offering clinically backed, powdered
collagen for skin, hair, joints and muscles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DUVERA BILLING: Marco Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as James San Marco, Mindy San Marco, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DUVERA BILLING
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. GD-22-016171 was removed from the Allegheny
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on Feb. 2, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00173-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Truth in Lending.

Duvera markets its business through independent brokers and
entities that solicit and/or acquire retail installment
obligations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chandler Steiger, Esq.
          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
          Stephanie Moore, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Phone: (717) 491-9162
          Email: csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                 smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Victoria D. Summerfield, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          501 Grant Street
          Union Trust Building, Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 454-5033
          Fax: (412) 281-0717
          Email: victoria.summerfield@troutman.com


EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Richardson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHERISE RICHARDSON is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing her lawsuit entitled Sherise Richardson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Edgewell Personal Care, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-08275, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant for making
false and misleading representations that its Hawaiian Tropic Reef
Friendly Sunscreen are "Reef Friendly" when in truth, it contains
chemicals that are harmful to coral reefs.

On Feb. 3, 2022, the Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint
which the Defendant moved to dismiss on June 7, 2022.

On Jan. 30, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with prejudice
through an Order entered by Judge Philip M. Halpern.

The appellate case is captioned Richardson v. Edgewell Personal
Care, LLC, Case No. 23-0128, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on January 31, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SHERISE RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
            BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
            1990 North California Boulevard
            Walnut Creek, CA 94596
            Telephone: (646) 837-7165

Defendant-Appellee EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE, LLC is represented by:

            Kieran M. Corcoran, Esq.
            STINSON LLP
            1325 Avenue of the Americas
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (212) 763-8491

ENSURE HEALTH: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ensure Health Group
Corp. The case is styled as Peter Wilson, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Ensure Health Group Corp, Case No.
1:23-cv-00220 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 5, 2023).

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

Ensure Health Group -- https://ehgcorp.com/ -- is a customer
relationship focused team dedicated to identifying the best
insurance partner for specific needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max S. Morgan, Esq.
          WEITZ LAW
          1515 Market Street, Ste. 1100
          Phone: (267) 587-6240
          Fax: (215) 689-0875
          Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com


EVALFIRST LLC: Franco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evalfirst, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Laura Franco, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees v. Evalfirst, LLC, Gabor Vari, Does
1-100, Case No. 34-2023-00334191-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Feb. 3, 2023).

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

Evalfirst, LLC doing business as California Medical Evaluators
(CME) -- https://calmedeval.com/ -- offers a proven turnkey QME
Practice Management service that provides everything Physicians
need to manage a successful QME practice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120
          Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050
          Phone: 916-525-0716
          Fax: 916-760-3733
          Email: attorney@shimodalaw.com


FAROUQ LLC: Izquierdo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yaumara Izquierdo, and other similarly situated individuals v.
FAROUQ, LLC d/b/a RIVERA SUPERMARKET, BEESAN CORP, YASMINE
SUPERMARKET Y MAS CORP, SFS INVESTMENT ONE CORP, and SAMIR
ALSELKHI, Case No. 1:23-cv-20455-KMM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 3, 2023), is
brought to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the Act" or "FLSA"), and
for wrongful, retaliatory discharge of an employee in violation of
the Florida Statutes.

The Plaintiff was never paid the minimum wage rates in each of 2018
($8.25 per hour), 2019 ($8.46 per hour), 2020 ($8.56 per hour),
2021 ($8.65 from January through the end of September, then $10.00
per hour from October through December), and 2022 ($10.00 per hour
from January through the end of September, then $11.00 per hour
from October through December). Additionally, the Plaintiff
consistently worked more than 40 hours in a given workweek, but the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime at the rate of
one-and-one-half times her regular pay rate for the overtime hours
she worked for Defendants, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
cashier and grocery store clerk from on January 2018 until December
6, 2022.

FAROUQ, LLC d/b/a RIVERA SUPERMARKET is a Florida Limited Liability
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Max Horowitz, Esq.
          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          Email: max@saenzanderson.com
                 msaenz@saenzanderson.com


FOSTANI LLC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fostani, LLC. The
case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Fostani, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00909
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2023).

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

Fostani -- https://www.fostani.com/ -- provides one of the best
Party Dresses at an affordable price.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


FRPP INC: Jimenez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Jimenez and Alberto Gonzalez individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. FRPP, INC. (DBA GOODFELLA'S) AND FRANK
RIZZUTO, Case No. 1:23-cv-00870 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2023), is
brought to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid
spread-of-hours wages, failure to maintain records pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"),
as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and
related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations ("NYCRR").

The Plaintiffs regularly work for the Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week without receiving appropriate overtime compensation
for any of the hours that they worked. The Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping as required by the FLSA and the
NYLL. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all
other similarly situated employees, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to work as cooks at
their restaurant.

The Defendants have owned, operated and controlled FRPP, INC., a
restaurant located in Staten Island, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          42 Broadway, 12t Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 203-2417
          Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com


GLAD PRODUCTS: Peterson Sues Over False and Deceptive Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Peterson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE GLAD PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation, and THE CLOROX COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00491 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2023), is brought arising
from the Defendants' scheme to defraud environmentally conscious
consumers as a result of false and deceptive advertising by selling
a line of Glad trash bags named "RECYCLING" and labeling them,
nationwide, as DESIGNED FOR MUNICIPAL USE even though virtually all
municipalities ban the use of any trash bag for recycling, and the
bags themselves are not recyclable anywhere.

Worse, where the "Recycling" bags are incompatible with municipal
recycling (which is virtually everywhere), all recyclable goods
deposited in them are being diverted to landfills or incinerators.
Consumers pay more for Defendants' "Recycling" bags (the
"Products") to help the environment, but they receive a Product
that is making things worse.

As a result of Defendants' false labeling, consumers reasonably
believe Glad's "Recycling" bags are recyclable and otherwise
suitable for disposing of recyclables in their municipalities, at
local recycling centers, or curbside pick-up. The truth, however,
is the Products are made of Low-Density Polyethylene ("LDPE"), a
material that is not recycled by material recovery facilities
("MRFs") in the United States.

Moreover, virtually all municipalities in California, and the rest
of the United States, prohibit the use of "Recycling" bags like the
Products, as they are not recyclable and render anything inside
them non-recyclable if used for municipal pick-up or drop-off.
"Recycling" bags may be used only in municipalities that have
specific "clear-bag" or "blue-bag" programs. Many states have zero
such programs, and nationwide there are only a handful. Despite
knowing that the Products are neither recyclable nor suitable for
municipal use virtually anywhere in the United States, Defendants
sell the Products nationwide without limitation.

Thus, Defendants take advantage of consumers seeking to make a
positive difference with eco-friendly products and dupe them into
making a more expensive, less sustainable choice. The Defendants'
fraud is featured prominently on the Product's front label:
"Recycling" is stated in all capital letters, next to an image of a
blue trash bag. Immediately below, in all caps, the label declares
"Designed for Municipal Use" misleading consumers to reasonably,
but incorrectly, believe the Products are recyclable and will be
accepted by their municipal recycling programs. Encircling the
product name "Recycling," and repeated elsewhere, the package
features two blue arrows pointing in a circular motion, mimicking
the "chasing arrows" symbol that is universally understood by
consumers to indicate a product is recyclable.

The Defendants' deceptive labeling and marketing of the Products
violates California Civil Code (the "CLRA"). As such, Defendants
have committed per se violations of Business & Professions Code
(the "UCL") and Business & Professions Code (the "FAL"). The
Defendants fraudulently induced Plaintiff and the Class to purchase
the Products, breached express and implied warranties about the
Products, and have been unjustly enriched as a result of their
deceptive labeling scheme.

Through their false and deceptive advertising, Defendants have
misled Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers into buying the
Products at stores across California and the United States based on
materially false representations that the Products are suitable for
recycling. Plaintiff and the Class suffered injury in fact caused
by the false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, unlawful, and
misleading practices set forth herein, and seek injunctive relief,
including without limitation public injunctive relief, as well as,
inter alia, compensatory damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a package of the Product.

Glad is an iconic brand and a company that has remained at the top
of the waste bag market for years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Phone: (213) 788-4050
          Fax: (213) 788-4070
          Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 zchrzan@clarksonlawfirm.com


GOOD BEAN INC: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Good Bean, Inc.
The case is styled as Joyce Carrico, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Good Bean, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00926 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2023).

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

The Good Bean -- http://www.thegoodbean.com/-- is a snack food
company founded by Sarah Wallace and Suzanne Slatcher in 2010.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOODRX HOLDINGS: Suit Filed in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GoodRx Holdings,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jane Doe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GoodRx Holdings, Inc.,
Criteo Corp., Meta Platforms Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00501 (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

GoodRx Holdings, Inc. -- https://investors.goodrx.com/ -- is an
American healthcare company that operates a telemedicine platform
and a free-to-use website and mobile app that track prescription
drug prices in the United States and provide cheap drug coupons for
discounts on medications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE
          2001 Union Street, Suite 200
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Phone: (415) 788-4220
          Email: wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com


GROUP HEALTH PLAN: Vriezen Files Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Group Health Plan,
Inc. The case is styled as Kelly Vriezen, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Group Health Plan, Inc. doing
business as: HealthPartners, Case No. 0:23-cv-00267-JWB-DJF (D.
Minn., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

Group Health Plan, Inc. operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization offers healthcare insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
          Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Fax: (612) 336-2940
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                 jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
                 pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

GRUMA CORPORATION: Dexter's Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dexter's LLC, a limited liability company; Franco Food Distribution
dba Bombins, a California corporation; Gastelum Food, LLC, a
limited liability company; Sophamany Moch, Gerardo Fuentes Sr.,
Gerardo Fuentes Jr., Jorge Franco, and Mayte Gastelum, as
individuals, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated v. GRUMA CORPORATION dba MISSION FOODS AND GUERRERO
MEXICAN FOOD PRODUCTS, a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00212-MMA-AHG (S.D. Cal., Feb. 3,
2023), is brought alleging that Gruma has violated and continues to
violate various California Labor Code protections applicable to
Gruma Delivery Personnel, as Gruma Delivery Personnel should be,
and at all relevant times should have been, classified as employees
rather than independent contractors, including the failure to: pay
overtime wages; provide meal and rest breaks and/or pay premiums
for meal and rest periods not provided; pay minimum wage; provide
itemized wage statements; reimburse business expenses; and keep
accurate payroll records.

Gruma willfully misclassifies Gruma Delivery Personnel as
independent contractors, and falsely informs them that they are not
employees and that they are properly classified as independent
contractors, in violation of California Labor Code. Gruma Delivery
Personnel are not engaged in an occupation or business distinct
from that of Gruma, and in fact perform work that is part of the
regular business of Gruma. Gruma supplies Gruma Delivery Personnel
with instrumentalities and tools for the performance of their
duties, performance of which did not require any special skill or
education. And Gruma controls and directs the work performed by
Gruma Delivery Personnel, which is part of Gruma's usual
operations. By misclassifying Gruma Delivery Personnel as
independent contractors, Gruma lowered their cost of doing
business, including but not limited to payroll taxes, workers'
compensation insurance, state disability insurance, and employee
benefits, and deprived Gruma Delivery Personnel of their rights and
protections as employees under California law, says the complaint.

The Individuals Plaintiffs work or worked as food delivery
personnel for the Defendants.

The Defendant Gruma is and/or was a Nevada professional corporation
qualified to do business and actually doing business in the State
of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. McFaul, Esq.
          David D. Cardone, Esq.
          Bradley A. Lebow, Esq.
          DUNN DESANTIS WALT & KENDRICK, LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2620
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 573-4488
          Facsimile: (619) 255-4868
          Email: JMcFaul@ddwklaw.com
                 DCardone@ddwklaw.com


H.H. BARNUM CO: Garofalo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Hours
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Garofalo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. H.H. BARNUM CO., Case No.
4:23-cv-10277-MFL-APP (E.D. Mich., Feb. 2, 2023), is brought for
money damages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other relief against the Defendant precipitated by the Defendant's
implementation of policies and practices to prevent the Plaintiff
and from being compensated overtime hours despite working in excess
of 40 hours a week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant's standard practice is to deduct 30 minutes from its
employees' workdays for lunch. However, Plaintiff worked through
his lunch period three to four days per week. Plaintiff was
eligible for overtime pay. The Defendant willfully denied two hours
of compensable overtime work per week on average from Plaintiff
during his term of employment. The Defendant implements policies
and practices to prevent Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals from being compensated overtime hours despite working
over 40 hours a week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Warehouse Associate
from 2010 to 2022

H.H. Barnum Co. is a for profit corporation with its principal
place of business in Brighton, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
          Grant M. Vlahopoulos, Esq.
          HURWITZ LAW PLLC
          340 Beakes St. Ste 125
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Phone: (844) 487-9489
          Email: noah@hurwitzlaw.com
                 grant@hurwitzlaw.com


HENRY SCHEIN: Wagner Class Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVE WAGNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HENRY SCHEIN, INC. and DOES 1-10, Case
No. 23-2-00733-6 KNT, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of Washington for King County to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington on February 1, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-00151 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged noncompetition
covenant and/or statutory penalties.

Henry Schein, Inc. is a health care company based in New York.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Tyler L. Farmer, Esq.
         Erica R. Iverson, Esq.
         Elisabeth Read, Esq.
         HARRIGAN LEYH FARMER & THOMSEN LLP
         999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Telephone: (206) 623-1700
         Facsimile: (206) 623-8717
         E-mail: tylerf@harriganleyh.com
                 ericai@harriganleyh.com
                 elisabeth.read@harriganleyh.com

INVIVYD INC: Brill Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA L. BRILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INVIVYD, INC., TILLMAN U. GERNGROSS, and
LAURA WALKER, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10254 (D. Mass., January
31, 2023) is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and all purchasers of Adagio common stock between
November 29, 2021 and December 14, 2021, both dates inclusive,
seeking remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, the Defendants disseminated or approved
the false statements during the Class period, which they knew or
recklessly disregarded were misleading in that they contained
misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts necessary
in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading. Specifically, the
Defendants violated the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 in that they:
(a) employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; (b) made
untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material
facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or
(c) engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit upon plaintiff and others similarly
situated in connection with their purchases of Adagio common stock
during the Class Period, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages in that, in
reliance on the integrity of the market, they paid artificially
inflated prices for Adagio common stock. The Plaintiff and the
Class would not have purchased Adagio common stock at the prices
they paid, or at all, if they had been aware that the market price
had been artificially and falsely inflated by Defendants'
misleading statements, the suit alleges.

Invivyd, Inc., f/k/a Adagio Therapeutics, Inc., is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
          HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP
          110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
          Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
          Telephone: (781) 431-2231
          Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
          E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173

               - and -

           Stephen R. Astley, Esq.
           ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
           120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500  
           Boca Raton, FL 33432
           Telephone: (561) 750-3000
           Facsimile: (561) 750-3364

                - and -

           Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
           JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
           40 Powder Springs Street
           Marietta, GA 30064
           Telephone: (470) 632-6000
           Facsimile: (770) 200-3101

JETSUITEX INC: Appeals Remand Order in McKeehan Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
JETSUITEX, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Jacob
McKeehan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JetSuiteX, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-06955-JLS-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

McKeehan filed this class action complaint on July 28, 2022, 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).

JetSuiteX removed the action to the District 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).

On Oct. 24, 2022, McKeehan moved 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.

McKeehan asserts that JetSuiteX has unreasonably assumed a 60%
violation rate in calculating the amount in controversy for meal
and rest period claims. Moreover, 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, McKeehan
adds.

According to Judge Josephine L. Staton, 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 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.

The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion and remanded the case to
Los Angeles Superior Court on Jan. 17, 2023.

The appellate case is captioned Jacob McKeehan v. JetSuiteX, Inc.,
Case No. 23-80006, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on January 30, 2023. [BN]

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

            Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
            Kashif Haque, Esq.
            Samuel Wong, Esq.
            AEGIS LAW FIRM PC
            9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
            Irvine, CA 92618
            Telephone: (949) 379-6250

Defendant-Petitioner JETSUITEX, INC. is represented by:

            Andrew J. Deddeh, Esq.
            Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
            Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
            OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC
            4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
            San Diego, CA 92122
            Telephone: (858) 652-3100

JOYFUL HEART: Faces Remus Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID REMUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOYFUL HEART ADULT DAY CENTER LLC, RENE
TORREZ, and CAROL TORREZ, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-60181 (S.D.
Fla., January 31, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for retaliatory discharge.

Mr. Remus was employed by the Defendants as a driver from
approximately December 15, 2021, to January 25, 2023.

Joyful Heart Adult Day Center is an adult day care center for
seniors and persons with disabilities based in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

KEY INSTALLATION: Underpays Assemblers/Technicians, Spradlin Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER SPRADLIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEY INSTALLATION SERVICES, INC.,
JAMES K. WALKER, and ROBIN C. WALKER, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00120-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla., February 1, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
assembler/technician/installer from September 12, 2021, through
November 25, 2022.

Key Installation Services, Inc. is an athletic and recreation
facilities construction/installation company, with its principal
place of business in St. Johns, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Noah E. Storch, Esq.
         RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
         10368 West State Road 84, Suite 103
         Davie, FL 33324
         Telephone: (866) 344-9243
         Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
         E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com

MICHAELS STORES: Vizcarra Sues Over Fake Sales and Discounts
------------------------------------------------------------
NEA VIZCARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-00468-SVK (N.D. Cal., February 1, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for intentional misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, breach of
contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, and violations of Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
the False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertisements of purported regular
prices and purported discounts. In reality, the sale is not limited
in time, and the discounts continue to be available. Michaels'
products are always on sale, and these sales have persisted over a
year, never ending. The sales are designed to induce consumers to
purchase their products under the mistaken belief they are getting
a significant bargain. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers known that the products were not discounted as
advertised, they would not have purchased them, says the suit.

Michaels Stores, Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of arts,
crafts, and other decor products, with its principal place of
business in Irving, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Christin Cho, Esq.
         Simon Franzini, Esq.
         Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
         DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
         201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
         Santa Monica, CA 90401
         Telephone: (310) 656-7066
         Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
         E-mail: christin@dovel.com
                 simon@dovel.com
                 jonas@dovel.com

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Clark Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cody Clark, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No.
2022-CH-12396 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
Feb. 3, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00695 to the
proceeding.

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

Microsoft Corporation -- https://www.microsoft.com/ -- is an
American multinational technology corporation producing computer
software, consumer electronics, personal computers, and related
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MILL-ROSE COMPANY: Lee Sues Over Unpaid OT for Non-Exempt Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LATRICE LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE MILL-ROSE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00188-BMB (N.D. Ohio, January 31, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated non-exempt employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee within the last three years.

The Mill-Rose Company is a manufacturer of twisted-in-wire brushes
based in Mentor, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
         LALAK LLC
         1991 Crocker Road, Suite 600
         Westlake, OH 44145
         Telephone: (440) 892-3380
         E-mail: clalak@employmentlawohio.com

MYPANIER INC: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mypanier, Inc. The
case is styled as Joyce Carrico, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Mypanier, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00924
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2023).

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

myPanier -- https://www.mypanier.com/ -- combines the authenticity
and integrity of a farmer's market with the convenience and
diversity of a digital store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NICASIO VALLEY CHEESE: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nicasio Valley Cheese
Co., Inc. The case is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nicasio Valley Cheese
Co., Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00902 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

Nicasio Valley Cheese Company -- https://nicasiocheese.com/ --
creates award winning, organic, farmstead, artisan cheeses, owned
and operated by the Lafranchi family.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NOM WAH DIM SUM PARLOR: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nom Wah Dim Sum
Parlor, Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Nom Wah Dim Sum
Parlor, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00773 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

Nom Wah Dim Sum Parlor, Inc. -- https://nomwah.com/ -- is a vintage
dim sum parlor dating back to 1920 with a drink menu that includes
tea, beer & wine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


NONNA BEPPA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Xochitemol Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ELOY XOCHITEMOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v NONNA BEPPA SOHO, LLC; and VALENTINA IMBREDA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00942 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2023) is an
action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class minimum wages and overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Xochitemol was employed by the Defendants as kitchen
staff.

NONNA BEPPA SOHO, LLC owns and operates a restaurant known as Nonna
Beppa, located at New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (954) 745-0588
          Email: klein@nklegal.com
                 amy@nklegal.com
                 melanie@nklegal.com

NORTHWEST FEDERAL: Rader Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwest Federal
Credit Union. The case is styled as Melissa Rader, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Northwest Federal
Credit Union, Case No. 1:23-cv-00160 (E.D. Va., Feb. 3, 2023).

The nature of suit is state as Contract: Recovery/Enforcement for
Electronic Fees Transfer Act.

Northwest Federal Credit Union -- https://www.nwfcu.org/ -- offer
financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Devon James Munro, Esq.
          MUNRO BYRD P.C.
          120 Day Ave. SWFirst Floor
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Phone: (540) 283-9343
          Fax: (540) 328-9290
          Email: dmunro@trialsva.com


OMRON HEALTHCARE: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Omron Healthcare,
Inc. case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Omron Healthcare, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00952 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2023).

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

Omron Healthcare, Inc. -- https://omronhealthcare.com/ --
manufactures and distributes personal wellness products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OPOPOP INC: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Opopop, Inc. The case
is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Opopop, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00904
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

Opopop -- https://opopop.com/ -- is a company that manufactures and
processes popcorn products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PASCHALL TRUCK: Carter Loses Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GALE CARTER, ET AL. v.
PASCHALL TRUCK LINES, INC., ET AL., Case No. 5:18-cv-00041-BJB-LLK
(W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin Beaton entered an order:

   1. granting in part PTL's motion for partial summary judgment
      on Carter's claims under the TVPA and 49 C.F.R. sections
      376.12(a), (c), (e)–(f), (h)–(i), and denying it in part

      with respect to sections 376.12(d) & (g);

   2. denying Carter's motion for class certification.

The Court acknowledges that EFMC's motion for summary judgment on
Carter's unjust-enrichment claim and Carter's motion for additional
discovery on his TVPA claim are now moot in light of the parties'
notice of settlement.

Carter also contends that PTL violated another regulation by
withholding "accessorial payments" in a classwide manner.

Even if Carter's evidence showed classwide non-payment of
accessorial fees, it would not show why. In several instances the
parties disagree over whether PTL, the driver, or the client paid
the relevant charge.

This is a case about truckers and their contracts with the motor
carriers that hire them. Truck drivers entered into contracts with
Paschall Truck Lines, a national motor carrier, to haul loads in
interstate commerce.

The agreements with PTL required the drivers to possess a truck to
fulfill their obligations. So some drivers leased trucks from
Element Financial Corporation with the help of Quality Equipment
Leasing. The drivers claim that PTL's inclusion of a $5,000 "early
termination fee" in itscontracts constituted a "threat of serious
harm" forcing them to labor for PTL against their will in violation
of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

The Plaintiff Gale Carter drove trucks for Paschall Truck Lines, a
motor carrier authorized by the Department of Transportation to
haul freight. Carter and other drivers hired by PTL attended
orientation in Murray, Kentucky and signed "Independent Contractor
Service Agreements" with PTL.

Paschall Truck is an employee-owned, truckload, dry-van freight
carrier, primarily consisting of company-owned tractors and
trailers.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DsZMuI at no extra charge.[CC]

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Mittwol FLSA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSHUA MITTWOL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., Case No.
GD-22-015050, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on January 31, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00156-MRH to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of
automatically deducting time and wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Peloton Interactive, Inc. is an American exercise equipment and
media company based in New York, New York. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jacob Oslick, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         620 Eighth Avenue, 32nd Floor
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 218-5500
         Facsimile: (212) 218-5526
         E-mail: joslick@seyfarth.com

PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALTIES: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pharmaceutical
Specialties, Inc. The case is styled as Rafael Cordero,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Pharmaceutical Specialties, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00918 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 3, 2023).

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

Pharmaceutical Specialties, Inc. provides personal care
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POPEYES LOUISIANA: Kuczun Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Popeyes Louisiana
Kitchen, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Zofia Kuczun, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Popeyes Louisiana
Kitchen, Inc., David & Yonathan, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00820
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. -- https://www.popeyes.com/ -- is
an American multinational chain of fried chicken fast food
restaurants formed in 1972 in New Orleans, Louisiana and
headquartered in Miami.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Bell, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 280-3008
          Fax: (516) 706-4692
          Email: jb@belllg.com


PPB OPCO LLC: Walters Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PPB OPCO, LLC. The
case is styled as Jeffrey Walters, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PPB OPCO, LLC doing business as:
Pulliam Pools, Case No. 4:23-cv-00101-Y (N.D. Tex., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

PPB OPCO, LLC doing business as Pulliam Pools --
https://www.pulliam.com/ -- has designed and created custom
swimming pools for Ft. Worth, Keller, Weatherford and surrounding
areas since 1916.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Eric H Weitz, Esq.
          Max Scott Morgan, Esq.
          THE WEITZ FIRM LLC
          1528 Walnut Streetm 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (267) 587-6240
          Fax: (215) 689-0875
          Email: eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com
                 max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com


PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL Scheduling Order Entered in Kroeger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kroeger v. Progressive
Universal Insurance Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00104 (S.D. Iowa,
Filed March 25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Helen C. Adams entered an
scheduling order as follows:

  -- Plaintiff's motion for class             June 14, 2023
     certification due by:

  -- Defendants Expert Witness                Aug. 14, 2023
     Disclosures due by:

  -- The Defendant's opposition               Aug. 14, 2023
     to motion for class
     certification due by:

  -- The Plaintiff's reply in                 Sept. 25, 2023
     support of class
     certification due by:

  -- Expert Discovery Deadline                Sept. 13, 2023
     Discovery Deadline:

  -- Dispositive Motion                       Dec. 7, 2023
     Deadline:

  -- Final Pretrial Conference                April 25, 2024
     set for:

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.

Progressive Universal Insurance Company operates as an insurance
firm. The Company provides property and casualty insurance
services.[CC]

RB ROYAL INDUSTRIES: Bohnert Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Bohnert, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RB ROYAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00141 (E.D.
Wis., Feb. 3, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended, ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws, ("WWPCL") for purposes of obtaining
relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.

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

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of Assembler working at the
Defendant's Fond du Lac, Wisconsin location in June 2022.

The Defendant is a custom products manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Guilbe Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
WOLF SCHREIBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES L.P., LVNV
FUNDING LLC, Defendants, Case No. 503295/2023 (N.Y., Sup., Kings
Cty., Jan. 31, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, LP provides financial services. The
Company manages debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt
buyers. Resurgent Capital Services operates in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RETREAT BEHAVIORAL: Small Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retreat Behavioral
Health. The case is styled as Lauren Small, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Retreat Behavioral
Health, Case No. 5:23-cv-00441-MRP (E.D. Pa., Feb. 3, 2023).

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

Retreat -- https://www.retreatbehavioralhealth.com/ -- provides
quality care at our leading mental health and substance use
treatment centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arthur M. Stock, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Phone: (865) 247-0080
          Fax: (865) 522-0049
          Email: astock@milberg.com


ROBERT GIACOMINI DAIRY: Cordero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert Giacomini
Dairy, Inc. The case is styled as Rafael Cordero, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Robert Giacomini
Dairy, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00903 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

Robert Giacomini Dairy, Inc. doing business as Point Reyes
Farmstead Cheese Company -- https://pointreyescheese.com/ -- is an
artisanal cheese company located in Point Reyes Station in Marin
County, California with dairy farmland located in the Point Reyes
area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ROMAN HEALTH: Siegfried Sues Over Wiretapping of Website Activity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GAVIN SIEGFRIED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROMAN HEALTH VENTURES INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-00415 (E.D. Pa., February 1, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Federal Wiretap Act and
the Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control
Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of
intercepting, capturing, and observing the individual online
activities of its website visitors without consent. This allows the
Defendant to record and playback customer's individual browsing
sessions. The information wiretapped revealed personal and
sensitive information concerning customers' purchasing preferences
and internet activity, says the suit.

Roman Health Ventures Inc. is a healthcare company, headquartered
New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Daniel Zemel, Esq.
         ZEMEL LAW, LLC
         660 Broadway
         Paterson, NJ 07514
         Telephone: (862) 227-3106
         Facsimile: (973) 282-8603
         E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com

SAKS INC: Bid to Dismiss Giordano Suit Granted With Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUSAN GIORDANO, ANGELENE HAYES, YING-LIANG WANG, and
ANJA BEACHUM, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SAKS INCOPORATED, SAKS & COMPANY LLC, SAKS
FIFTH AVENUE LLC, LOUIS VUITTON USA LLC, LORO PIANA & C. INC.,
GUCCI AMERICA, INC., PRADA USA CORP., and BRUNELLO CUCCINELLI USA,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-833 (MKB) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Margo
K. Brodie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint.

Plaintiffs Giordano, Hayes, Wang, and  Beachum commenced the
putative class action on Feb. 14, 2020 and filed an Amended
Complaint on May 1, 2020, against Saks Inc., Saks & Co. LLC, and
Saks Fifth Avenue LLC (collectively, "Saks"), and against Louis
Vuitton USA Inc., Loro Piana & C. Inc., Gucci America, Inc., Prada
USA Corp., and Brunello Cucinelli USA, Inc. (collectively, the
"Brand Defendants"), alleging violations of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1.1. In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege
that Saks and the Brand Defendants have agreed not to compete for
employees in the luxury retail industry by not hiring luxury retail
employees who have worked at Saks within six months of such
employment unless managers of both companies agree to an exception,
resulting in depressed compensation for luxury retail employees and
preventing the Plaintiffs from changing jobs, advancing their
careers, and seeking better compensation in the industry.

The Plaintiffs worked as skilled luxury retail employees at Saks.
They received extensive training on service, selling, and
product-knowledge and helped to maintain the image of the brand by
creating "an atmosphere of exclusivity and opulence. The Plaintiffs
allege that Saks and the Brand Defendants have entered into express
agreements to suppress luxury retail employees' compensation, and
further contend that these agreements artificially suppress their
pay and decrease worker mobility in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

The Brand Defendants maintain "no-hire" agreements with Saks, in
which they agree not to cold-call Saks employees and offer to hire
them. The Plaintiffs contend that these no-hire agreements, which
"have been in place since at least 2014," are "an unreasonable
restraint of trade," and benefit the Defendants at the expense of
luxury retail employees. These agreements only permit a Brand
Defendant to hire a current or former Saks employee if (1) managers
from both companies agree, or (2) the employee left Saks at least
six months prior.

The Plaintiffs allege that the no-hire agreements between Saks and
the Brand Defendants decreased their compensation and mobility and
violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act whether viewed as per se
illegal horizontal restraints on competition, analyzed under the
"quick look" test, or examined under the full rule of reason
analysis. They seek damages, an injunction preventing the
Defendants from enforcing the no-hire agreements or similar
agreements, equitable relief, and costs.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint as time-barred
and meritless, and the Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

First, the Defendants argue that claims by Giordano, Hayes, and
Wang are barred by the Sherman Act's four-year statute of
limitations. The Plaintiffs argue that the "continuing violation"
doctrine applies to their claims.

The Defendants appear not to challenge that the Amended Complaint
alleges a continuing injury to the Plaintiffs' interests, and
accordingly Judge Brodie addresses only whether the Plaintiffs have
committed an "overt act" within the limitations period.

Judge Brodie finds that while US Airways, Inc. v. Sabre Holdings
Corp., 938 F.3d 43, 68 (2d Cir. 2019), is not a perfect fit for
no-hire agreements like those alleged by the Plaintiffs, it remains
the controlling precedent in this Circuit and, based on its
reasoning, the claims on behalf of Giordano, Hayes, and Wang are
time-barred under the Sherman Act's four-year statute of
limitations. She also finds that the Plaintiffs named Beachum as a
Plaintiff in the Amended Complaint that was filed on May 1, 2020.
Thus, the four-year antitrust limitations period for Beachum's
claim begins on May 1, 2016.

The parties do not also appear to dispute that the Plaintiffs'
allegations have an effect on interstate commerce. Accordingly,
Judge Brodie addresses only (1) whether Beachum has plausibly
alleged a contract, combination, or conspiracy, and (2) whether
Beachum has sufficiently alleged that Defendants' conduct restrains
trade. He finds that (i) Beachum has plausibly alleged a contract,
combination, or conspiracy between Saks and the Brand Defendants;
(ii) Beachum has adequately alleged the existence of a plausible
market for luxury retail employees' labor; and (iii) the Plaintiffs
have plausibly defined a nationwide geographic market.

Second, the Defendants argue that because the Plaintiffs have not
made specific allegations that the Defendants hold market power in
the relevant market -- a "fatal" omission -- they have failed to
show the requisite anticompetitive affect. The Plaintiffs argue
that they need not show market power since they allege "direct
evidence of anticompetitive effects sufficient to satisfy their
prima facie burden under the rule of reason."

Judge Brodie finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged insufficient
facts to support a direct adverse effect on competition and have
likewise failed to show that Defendants held market power in the
relevant market, thus failing to allege indirect "adverse effect on
competition as a whole in the relevant market." She therefore
dismisses Beachum's claim.

Finally, Judge Brodie grants Beachum the opportunity to amend her
Complaint to include factual allegations that will support a rule
of reason claim. In her second amended complaint, Beachum must
allege facts sufficient to permit the Court to assess the
challenged no-hire agreement's "actual effect on competition" under
the rule of reason standard.

Any second amended complaint must be filed within 30 days of the
date of this Memorandum and Order. A second amended complaint will
completely replace the Amended Complaint and must stand on its own
without reference to the Amended Complaint and must contain all of
the claims Beachum seeks to pursue. It must be captioned "Second
Amended Complaint" and bear the same docket number as this
Memorandum and Order. If Beachum elects not to file a second
amended complaint or fails to file a second amended complaint
within 30 days of this Memorandum and Order, the Court will direct
the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Brodie grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss. She grants the Plaintiffs 30 days from the date
of the Memorandum and Order to file a second amended complaint as
to Beachum.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 31, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3apr9dmk from Leagle.com.


SALVATION ARMY: Taylor Appeals Suit Ruling to 7th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------
DARRELL TAYLOR, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Darrell Taylor, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The
Salvation Army National Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-06105, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

The Plaintiffs filed this class action complaint against the
Defendants for allegedly profiting from labor obtained from them
and similarly situated others by force and threats of serious harm
in violation of the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act.

The appellate case is captioned Darrell Taylor, et al. v. The
Salvation Army National Corporation, et al., Case No. 23-1218, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed
on February 3, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants docketing statement was due on February 9, 2023;
and

   -- Appellants' brief is due on or before due on March 15, 2023.
[BN]

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

            Mariyam Hussain, Esq.
            JUSTICE CATALYST LAW
            123 William Street
            New York, NY 10038
            Telephone: (518) 732-6703

Defendants-Appellees THE SALVATION ARMY NATIONAL CORPORATION, et
al. are represented by:

            Amy M. Gibson, Esq.
            ARONBERG GOLDGEHN DAVIS & GARMISA
            330 N. Wabash Avenue
            Chicago, IL 60611
            Telephone: (312) 828-9600

SELECT COMFORT: Hargraves Sues Over Unpaid Time & OT
----------------------------------------------------
Ryan Hargraves, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SELECT COMFORT RETAIL CORPORATION, Case No.
5:23-cv-00149-LEK-ATB (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2023), is brought as a
result of the Defendant's violation of the requirement that manual
workers be paid on a weekly basis in accordance with the New Labor
Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act and for unpaid time and unpaid
overtime "off-the-clock" for the Defendant's benefit and without
compensation.

The Defendant paid Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and other manual
workers employed in New York on a biweekly basis. As a result, the
Defendant violated the requirement that manual workers be paid
wihin the end of the workweek in accordance with NYLL and the
requirement that employees "be paid on the regular pay day" under
the FLSA. The Plaintiff would often arrive at least one-half hour
before their shifts to startup and move the delivery vehicles. The
Plaintiff would start up and pull out all the other vehicles and
then shut them off in order to make room for everyone to park. If
there were hazards such as ice, snow or debris, Plaintiff and other
Manual Workers would remove it. The Defendant knew that the
Plaintiff spent this time working off-the-clock, and the Plaintiff
requested to be paid for this time. Defendant refused to pay him.
Upon information and belief, other Manual Workers similarly worked
off the clock for the Defendant without being paid, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a Field Assistant/Delivery Assistant from
2019 to 2020 and then as a Field Technician from 2020 onwards until
January 2023.

The Defendant is a Minnesota corporation with it principal place of
business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Mark Patronella , Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: (202) 470-3520
          Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                 jrathod@classlawdc.com
                 mpatronella@classlawdc.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          447 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Loren Donnell, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                 ldonnell@shavitzlaw.com


SEREDOR CENTERS: Underpays Sleep Technicians, Ramirez Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YOEL RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEREDOR CENTERS, INC., KELLY HORTON, and
JOSEPH A. SOLLECITO, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-60176 (S.D. Fla.,
January 31, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Ramirez was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted sleep
technician from September 12, 2022, to December 28, 2022.

Seredor Centers, Inc. is a health provider with its principal place
of business in Broward County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Klassen Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SolidQuote LLC. The
case is styled as Ronda Klassen, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SolidQuote LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00318-NRN (D. Colo., Feb. 3, 2023).

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

Solid Quote -- https://www.solidquote.com/ -- is a company that
operates in the Insurance industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          301 E. Bethany Home Road, Ste. C 195
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Email: ryan@kazlg.com


SYNGENTA CROP: Faces Teske Suit Over Crop Pesticides' Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------------------
DALE R. TESKE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, AG; SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION, LLC; SYNGENTA CORP., and CORTEVA, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00090 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 2023) alleges violation of
the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture several crop
protection products ("CPPs;" specifically, herbicides,
insecticides, and fungicides) used by numerous American farmers and
other consumers, including the Plaintiff. Defendants' CPPs and the
active ingredients ("AIs") contained in them enjoyed a period of
patent protection and regulatory protection under which they were
lawfully protected from competition.

To maintain their market dominance after their patent and
regulatory protection of their CPPs expired, Defendants, from
January 1, 2017 to the present (the "Relevant Period" or "Class
Period") have used restrictive agreements disguised as "loyalty
programs" with large agricultural products distributors and
retailers (i.e., the unnamed co-conspirators) to block the
availability of CPPs to farmers containing lower-priced generic
versions. Under these "loyalty programs," the Defendants made
substantial payments to distributors, and in certain cases,
retailers, in exchange for the distributors' and retailers'
agreement to strictly limit their purchases of – and thereby
prevent widespread distribution of – generic versions of
Defendants' CPPs containing the Relevant AIs, ensuring that the
Defendants' far more expensive brand-name CPPs would be the vast
majority of what the distributors and retailers purchased and sold
to their customers, says the suit.

The Defendants' anticompetitive scheme has reduced competition in
the market for the CPPs containing the Relevant AIs, thereby
artificially inflating the prices of such CPPs and of the CPPs
manufactured by Defendants' generic competitors, the suit asserts.

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG was founded in 1758. The company's line
of business includes providing commercial physical and biological
research and development. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin G. Williams, Esq.
          Alan M. Ruley, Esq.
          BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A.
          P.O. Box 21029
          Winston-Salem, NC 27120-1029
          Telephone: (336) 722-3700
          Email: kwilliams@belldavispitt.com
                 aruley@belldavispitt.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Cuneo, Esq.
          Amanda G. Lewis, Esq.
          Pamela Gilbert, Esq.
          Cody McCracken, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Email: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                 alewis@cuneolaw.com
                 pamelag@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          Two CityPlace Drive, Suite 200
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

         Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
         CERA LLP
         201 California St., Suite 1240
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 777-2230
         Email: scera@cerallp.com

               - and -

         C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq.
         CERA LLP
         800 Boylston St., 16th Floor
         Boston, MA 02199
         Telephone: (857) 453-6555
         Email: cdirksen@cerallp.com

SYNGENTA CROP: Reduced Competition in CPPs Market, Sheller Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLER FARMS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, AG,
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, SYNGENTA CORP., CORTEVA, INC., BASF
SE; BASF CORPORATION, BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP, NUTRIEN AG
SOLUTIONS, INC., HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC, and DOE
CO-CONSPIRATOR DISTRIBUTORS AND RETAILERS 1-100, Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00202-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., February 1, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' use of restrictive agreements
disguised as "loyalty programs" with large agricultural products
distributors and retailers to block the availability of crop
protection products (CPPs) to farmers containing lower-priced
generic versions. The Defendants made this to maintain their market
dominance after their patent and regulatory protection of their
CPPs expired. The Defendants' anticompetitive scheme has reduced
competition in the market for the CPPs containing the relevant
active ingredients (AIs), thereby artificially inflating the prices
of such CPPs and of the CPPs manufactured by the Defendants'
generic competitors. The Plaintiff and the Class member farmers who
purchased CPPs containing the relevant AIs have been and continue
to be injured by paying artificially inflated prices for such CPPs,
for which they are entitled to compensation, says the suit.

Sheller Farms, LLC is a farming business based in Indiana.

Syngenta Crop Protection, AG is a chemical manufacturing company
based in Basel, Switzerland.

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC is an affiliate of Syngenta Crop
Protection, AG based in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Syngenta Corp. is an agriculture company based in Wilmington,
Delaware.

Corteva, Inc. is an agricultural chemical and seed company based in
Indianapolis, Indiana.

BASF SE is a multinational global chemical company headquartered in
Ludwigshafen, Germany.

BASF Corporation is the North American affiliate of BASF SE,
headquartered at 100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, New Jersey.

BASF Agricultural Products Group is a division of BASF SE,
headquartered at 14385 West Port Arthur Road, Beaumont, Texas.

Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. is a national wholesale distributor and
retailer of crop protection products, with its corporate offices
located in Loveland, Colorado.

Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC is an agricultural distributor,
headquartered in Collierville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         William N. Riley, Esq.
         Russell B. Cate, Esq.
         RILEYCATE, LLC
         11 Municipal Drive, Suite 320
         Fishers, IN 46038
         Telephone: (317) 597-6179
         E-mail: wriley@rileycate.com
                 rcate@rileycate.com

                 - and -

         Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
         Megan E. Shannon, Esq.
         FEGAN SCOTT LLC
         150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 741-1019
         Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
         E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
                 megan@feganscott.com

T-MOBILE NORTHEAST: Kuczun Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile Northeast
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Zofia Kuczun, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. T-Mobile Northeast LLC, Metro by
T-Mobile Wireless Inc., FYPS Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00821
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

T-Mobile Northeast LLC engages in the construction of mobile
towers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Bell, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (516) 280-3008
          Fax: (516) 706-4692
          Email: jb@belllg.com


TOGETHERHEALTH INSURANCE: Pinn Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TogetherHealth
Insurance LLC. The case is styled as Kelly Pinn, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TogetherHealth
Insurance LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00251-L (N.D. Tex., Feb. 3, 2023).

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

TogetherHealth, LLC -- https://www.togetherhealth.com/ -- is an
insurance agency & commercial site designed for the solicitation of
insurance from selected health insurance carriers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq.
          KIMMEL & SILVERMAN PC
          30 E Butler Ave.
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Phone: (267) 468-5374
          Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com


TOURO UNIVERSITY MEDICAL: Mejia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Touro University
Medical Group, et al. The case is styled as Mary Magdalena Mejia,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v.
Touro University Medical Group, Touro University California, Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0000953 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
Feb. 3, 2023).

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

Touro University Medical Group -- https://www.mytumg.org/ -- is an
affiliate faculty practice of Touro University California College
of Osteopathic Medicine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          4550 E Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100
          Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824
          Phone: 818-703-8985
          Fax: 818-703-8984
          Email: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com


TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE: Hassan Files Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triborough Bridge and
Tunnel Authority, et al. The case is styled as Ahmed Hassan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, Conduent Incorporated, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00873 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Fraud.

The Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, doing business as MTA
Bridges and Tunnels, is an affiliate agency of the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority that operates seven toll bridges and two
tunnels in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 260-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


TRUEACCORD CORP: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The
case is styled as Laury Johnson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TrueAccord Corp., Case No.
6:23-cv-00067 (E.D. Tex., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

TrueAccord -- https://www.trueaccord.com/ -- is the industry
leading recovery and collections platform powered by machine
learning and a consumer friendly digital experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


TWINLAB CONSOLIDATION: Carrico Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twinlab Consolidation
Corp. The case is styled as Joyce Carrico, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Twinlab Consolidation
Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-00895 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 2, 2023).

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

Twinlab -- https://www.twinlab.com/ -- has been the trusted leader
in quality-driven health and wellness supplements for nearly 50
years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Gill Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taje Gill, Craig Lambert, William Collignon, and Christina
Ferreira, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RAISER, LLC, PORTIER
LLC, and SCHLEUDER, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00518 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 3,
2023), is brought seeking all available relief for unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and unreimbursed business expenses pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the California Labor Code, the
applicable Wage Order, and Business and Professions Code ("UCL").

Based on the drivers' misclassification as independent contractors,
Uber has failed to guarantee and pay its drivers for all the hours
worked at minimum wage after work-related expenses, and it has
failed to pay overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of eight
hours per day or forty hours per week in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code. Uber has also failed to provide properly itemized wage
statements that include all of the requisite information, including
hours worked and hourly wages that are accessible outside the Uber
Application or Uber website in violation of California Labor Code.
Uber has also unlawfully required drivers to pay business expenses
(including, but not limited to, the cost of maintaining their
vehicles, gas, insurance, phone and data expenses, and other costs)
in violation of California Labor Code. Uber's continued
misclassification of its drivers as independent contractors is
willful misclassification in violation of California Labor Code,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked as drivers for Uber.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. is a transportation services company that
provides drivers hailed and dispatched through Uber's mobile phone
application.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Maggie Realin, Esq.
          Lisa Brevard, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          888 Prospect Street, Suite 200
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Phone: (619) 399-3995
          Fax: (619) 615-2067
          Email: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                 mrealin@markham-law.com
                 lbrevard@markham-law.com


UNITED STATES: Bid for Class Certification in Carr v. HHS Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBORAH CARR, BRENDA MOORE, MARY ELLEN WILSON, MARY
SHAW, and CAROL KATZ, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. XAVIER BECERRA, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Case No.
3:22cv988 (MPS) (D. Conn.), Judge Michael P. Shea of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut grants the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On Nov. 6, 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
issued an Interim Final Rule ("IFR") changing its interpretation of
Section 6008(b)(3) of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act
("FFCRA"), a provision governing Medicaid benefits. The named
Plaintiffs, five Medicaid recipients, allege they experienced a
reduction in their medical benefits as a result of the IFR and
filed suit against the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
alleging that the IFR violates procedural and substantive
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sections
553 & 701 et seq.

On Nov. 7, 2022, U.S. District Judge Omar A. Williams granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in part, ordering the
Defendant to refrain from enforcing the IFR with respect to the
named plaintiffs for the pendency of the action, and to reinstate
its previous guidance with respect to the named plaintiffs, and to
inform the relevant state agencies of this revised position with
respect to the named Plaintiffs.

In the interim, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with
class action allegations and moved to certify a nationwide class of
Medicaid recipients and for appointment of their lawyers as class
counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. They also sought a preliminary
injunction for the class.

Judge Shea permitted supplemental briefing on whether, should the
Court certify a class, the injunction granted in Judge Williams'
order, or some other injunctive relief requested by the Plaintiffs,
should be extended to the entire class. He also held a hearing on
that issue and on the motion for class certification on Dec. 6,
2022.

Medicaid is a cooperative federal-state program designed to provide
medical assistance to persons whose resources are insufficient to
meet the costs of their necessary medical care. Medicaid offers
benefits not normally covered by Medicare, like nursing home care
and personal care services.

On the federal level, the program is administered by the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"), a division of the
United States Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS").
While a State is not required to participate in the program, all
states do. Participating states must comply with the requirements
of the Medicaid Act and implementing regulations promulgated by
HHS.

Medicaid is funded jointly by the federal government and the
states. Once the federal government approves a state Medicaid plan,
it then subsidizes a significant portion of the cost of the
coverage -- including optional services that the state has agreed
to provide. This subsidized portion is called the federal medical
assistance percentage ("FMAP").

The named Plaintiffs all suffer from serious medical conditions. As
a result of the IFR, Plaintiffs Carr, Moore, Wilson, and Shaw were
transitioned to a MSP under Section 433.400(c)(2)(i)(B).

The Plaintiffs allege that the IFR is unlawful because (1) the
Defendant promulgated it without notice and comment in violation of
5 U.S.C. Section 553 and cannot show good cause for dispensing with
the notice-and-comment requirement, and/or (2) it is inconsistent
with section 6008(b)(3) of the FFCRA.

They also move to certify the following nationwide class of
individuals whose Medicaid benefits were "terminated or reduced to
a lower level": All individuals who were enrolled in Medicaid in
any state or the District of Columbia on March 18, 2020 or later
and had their Medicaid eligibility terminated or reduced to a lower
level of benefits on or after Nov. 6, 2020, or will have their
Medicaid eligibility terminated or reduced to a lower level of
benefits prior to a redetermination conducted after the end of the
Public Health Emergency, for a reason other than moving out of the
state or the District (including through death) or voluntarily
disenrolling from benefits.

The Defendant argues the Court should deny the motion for class
certification because the proposed class (1) lacks standing, (2) is
not ascertainable, (3) does not meet the commonality and typicality
requirements of Rule 23(a), and (4) does not satisfy Rule
23(b)(2).

First, for a federal court to have subject-matter jurisdiction, the
parties must have standing. To meet the Article III standing
requirement, a plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact";
the injury must be "fairly traceable" to the challenged action; and
the injury must be "likely" redressable by a favorable decision.

Judge Shea finds that the Plaintiffs demonstrated an injury in fact
to support the injunctive relief awarded by Judge Williams, and the
Defendant does not argue otherwise. The Plaintiffs have also shown
that the class members affected by Section 433.400(c)(2)(i)(B) have
suffered an injury in fact. The proposed class, however, also
encompasses persons affected by other subsections of the regulation
who are not, in any way, represented by the named Plaintiffs.
Because the class definition includes class members who do not have
standing, it is too broad.

Accordingly, to address the lack of standing of class members not
affected by Section 433.400(c)(2)(i)(B), Judge Shea modifies the
class definition as follows: All individuals who were enrolled in
Medicaid in any state on March 18, 2020 or later and, as a result
of the adoption of the IFR on Nov. 6, 2020, either had their
Medicaid eligibility reduced to a lower level of benefits and were
determined to be eligible for a Medicare Savings program or will
have their Medicaid eligibility reduced to a lower level of
benefits and be determined to be eligible for a Medicare Savings
Program prior to a redetermination conducted after March 31, 2023.

Judge Shea also finds that there is no evidence before the Court to
lift the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiffs have not shown
redressability because if the Court enjoins enforcement of the IFR,
the states might forgo the increased FMAP rather than restore
coverage, out of the realm of speculation. He says the Defendant
acknowledged in the IFR that CMS is not aware of any state that
intends to cease claiming the increased FMAP. And more recently,
the Defendant did not identify this as a concern in the
Supplemental Notice, which is silent on this issue even as CMS
indicated that it is considering returning to its more expansive
interpretation.

For these reasons, Judge Shea finds that the Plaintiffs and the
modified class described have standing.

Second, a party seeking class certification must satisfy each of
the requirements set forth in Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
of representation. In addition to these four explicit conditions,
the Second Circuit has recognized an implied requirement that the
class be ascertainable. Finally, a party seeking class
certification must satisfy one of the subsections of Rule 23(b).

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2), which
requires them to show that the party opposing the class has acted
or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so
that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
appropriate respecting the class as a whole. The party seeking
class certification bears the burden of establishing each of Rule
23's requirements by a preponderance of the evidence. In
determining whether a proposed class meets these requirements, the
court must resolve any factual disputes and find any facts relevant
to this determination.

Judge Shea finds that (i) the redefined class provides a clear
sense of who is suing about what; (ii) the proposed class is a
nationwide group of Medicaid beneficiaries, which the Plaintiffs
estimate as numbering in the thousands; (iii) the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently shown a common question that goes to the core of the
class action, i.e., whether the IFR was lawfully adopted; (iv) the
Plaintiffs are represented by experienced and qualified counsel,
and there is no evidence of a conflict or other reason to think
that the named Plaintiffs are inadequate representatives of the
class; and (v) the proposed injunctive relief sweeps broadly enough
to benefit each class member.

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Shea grants the motion for
class certification as set forth in his ruling. The Plaintiffs'
counsel are appointed as the class counsel.

Third, the Plaintiffs' counsel stated during oral argument that the
Plaintiffs seek the same relief for the class as was ordered by
Judge Williams for the named Plaintiffs. The Defendant argues that
the Court should not extend the preliminary injunction to the class
members because: (1) the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated
irreparable harm; (2) the public interest and the balance of the
hardships weigh in favor of the Defendant; and (3) the Plaintiffs
are not likely to succeed on the merits because there was good
cause to promulgate the IFR without a notice-and-comment period.

Judge Shea holds that (i) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown
that the class members have been and/or will be faced with a denial
of needed health care as a result of the IFR and have made the
requisite showing of irreparable harm in the absence of the
requested injunction; (ii) he agrees with Judge Williams'
well-reasoned and thorough decision that the Plaintiffs have shown
a likelihood of success on their claim; and (iii) the Defendants'
argument that the public interest and balance of hardships factors
weigh in its favor because if states were required to re-enroll
beneficiaries, Medicaid beneficiaries as well as State Medicaid
programs would suffer significant harm, finds no support in the
record.

Judge Shea concludes that the weighing of these considerations
points towards granting the Plaintiffs an injunction through March
31st.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Shea grants the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, except that he modifies the definition of
the proposed class for the reasons he explained.

Specifically, he certifies the following class: All individuals who
were enrolled in Medicaid in any state on March 18, 2020 or later
and, as a result of the adoption of the IFR on Nov. 6, 2020, either
had their Medicaid eligibility reduced to a lower level of benefits
and were determined to be eligible for a Medicare Savings program
or will have their Medicaid eligibility reduced to a lower level of
benefits and be determined to be eligible for a Medicare Savings
Program prior to a redetermination conducted after March 31, 2023.

In addition, Judge Shea grants in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction as to the certified class as follows:

      The Defendant is ordered to refrain from enforcing the IFR
with respect to the members of certified class through the close of
business on March 31, 2023, and to reinstate its previous guidance
with respect to these individuals. It is further ordered to inform
(within 7 days of the Order) the relevant state agencies of this
revised position as to the class members. In light of the CAA,
which provides, inter alia, an end date (March 31, 2023) for
section 6008(b)(3) of the FFCRA, the above injunction will expire
at the close of business Eastern Time on March 31, 2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 31, 2023 Ruling is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4bbufkep from Leagle.com.


VAL PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wu Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
LISHA WU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VAL PARTNERS, INC., d/b/a JUST ENUFF LOUNGE;
JUST ENUFF JACK, LLC; 565 LANDIS, LLC, d/b/a JUST ENUFF CABARET;
STEVEN PAIK; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00439 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 3, 2023) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Wu was employed by the Defendants as dancer.

VAL PARTNERS, INC., d/b/a JUST ENUFF LOUNGE operates as an adult
night club. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          Stephen E. Connolly, Esq.
          Robert J. Gray, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
          101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225
          Malvern, PA 19355
          Telephone: (610) 822-3700
          Facsimile: (610)-822-3800
          Email:  gwells@cwglaw.com
                  sconnolly@cwglaw.com
                  rgray@cwglaw.com

VI-JON INC: Germ-X Sanitizers' Labels "Deceptive," Castaneda Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMNERY CASTANEDA and DANIELLE STEINER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VI-JON, INC. and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-00473-KAW (N.D. Cal., February 1, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for common law fraud, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, and violations of Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
the False Advertising Law, the California Business And Professions
Code, and the Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
the Germ-X moisturizing original hand sanitizer. The Defendants
labeled and advertised the product as "62% ethyl alcohol," that
"kills 99.99% of germs," and "kills germs in 15 seconds." In
reality, the product contains less than 62% ethyl alcohol, does not
kill 99.99% of germs and fails to kill germs in 15 seconds. The
Plaintiffs and other deceived and/or defrauded consumers/class
members purchased the product because they reasonable believed,
based on the Defendants' packaging and advertising that the
Defendants' product contained 62% ethyl alcohol, the efficacy to
kill 99.99% of germs, and to do so within 15 seconds. Had the
Plaintiffs and other deceived and/or defrauded consumers/class
members known the product had nearly 10 percent less ethyl alcohol
and failed to have the effectiveness at eliminating germs that the
Defendants had promoted on its packaging, they would not have
purchased the product, says the suit.

Vi-Jon, Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer products, headquartered
in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Craig Peters, Esq.
         ALTAIR LAW
         465 California Street, Fifth Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 988-9828
         Facsimile: (415) 988-9815
         E-mail: cpeters@altairlaw.com

                 - and -

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

VIDA SHOES: Faces Carroll Suit Over Video Privacy Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIDA SHOES INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a
STRIDERITE.COM, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV02457 (Cal. Sup., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 3, 2023) alleges violation of the Video Privacy
Protection Act of 1988.

The Defendants disclosed information that allowed Facebook (and any
ordinary person) to identify Plaintiff's video-watching behavior,
including the user's Universal Resource Locator ("URL") and page
view information. Microdata discloses the video's title and other
descriptors.

According to the complaint, when the Plaintiff watched videos on
the Website, www.striderite.com, the Defendants disclosed event
data, which recorded and disclosed the video's title, description,
and URL, to Facebook. Alongside this event data, the Defendants
also disclosed identifiers for the Plaintiff, including the c_user
and fr cookies. In other words, the Defendants did exactly what the
VPPA prohibits: they disclosed Plaintiff's video viewing habits to
a third party. By disclosing the Plaintiff's event data and
identifiers to Facebook, the Defendant knowingly disclosed the
Plaintiff's personally identifiable information to a third-party in
violation of the VPPA, says the suit.

VIDA SHOES INTERNATIONAL, INC. designs, produces, and markets
footwear products. The Company sells its products through
departmental stores and specialty boutiques. Vida Shoes
International serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                 vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com

VITAMIN SHOPPE: Faces Whitt Wage-and-Hour Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA REYES WHITT and WENDY RINCON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VITAMIN SHOPPE
INDUSTRIES LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 5:23-cv-00169 (C.D. Cal., February 1, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the California Labor Code including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide or make
available meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest
periods, failure to reimburse business expenditures, failure to
provide timely and accurate itemized wage statements, and waiting
time penalties.

Plaintiff Whitt was employed as a health enthusiast from
approximately November 11, 2013 to approximately December 2017, as
an assistant manager from approximately December 2017 to
approximately January 2021, and as a store manager from
approximately January 2021 to April 20, 2022.

Plaintiff Rincon was employed as a health enthusiast from
approximately August 2020 to January 2021, as a key holder from
approximately February 2021 to October 2021, and as an assistant
manager from approximately November 2021 to August 2022.

Vitamin Shoppe Industries LLC is a retailer that offers various
nutritional and healthcare supplements, headquartered in Secaucus,
New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
         Ori Edelstein, Esq.
         Philippe Gaudard, Esq.
         SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
         2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
         Emeryville, CA 94608
         Telephone: (415) 421-7100
         Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
         E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                 oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                 pgaudard@schneiderwallace.com

WELLS FARGO: Dillon Sues Over Deceptive Conduct
-----------------------------------------------
Michael Dillon and Marc Kafka, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00684 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 3, 2023), is brought on behalf of a
Class comprised of all persons who held: shares in the LJM
Preservation and Growth Fund on February 5 and 6, 2018; and limited
partnership interests in any of the Partnership Funds on February 5
and 6, 2018 (the "Class Period") as a result of the Defendants
engagement in a deceptive and willful course of conduct.

The Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo caused them to suffer more
than $500 million and as much as $800 million in realized losses
when, without any right to do so, Wells Fargo forced the immediate
liquidation of their investments early in the morning on February
6, 2018. The Preservation and Growth Fund ("Preservation Fund") was
a public mutual fund that invested primarily in call and put
options on Standard & Poor's 500 Futures Index ("S&P"). The
Preservation Fund had three share classes, but all three classes
had the same underlying portfolio of assets. The Preservation Fund
traded under the ticker symbols LJMIX, LJMAX, and LJMCX.

Wells Fargo, in the early morning hours on February 6, 2018, acting
recklessly in bad faith and without any right to do so ordered LJM
to completely and immediately liquidate the entire Portfolio, which
directly and proximately caused the certain and irreversible losses
to the Plaintiffs and all other Class members of more than $500
million and as much as $800 million. Shortly thereafter, Wells
Fargo also made a margin demand of $16.4 million on LJM, asserting
the right to collect millions of dollars under the terms of an
agreement, which Wells Fargo had previously terminated.

Also as alleged herein, Wells Fargo acted precipitously,
recklessly, and with willful malfeasance following a volatility
sell-off on February 5, 2018. Wells Fargo engaged in extreme bad
faith conduct with the foreseeable--and indeed, certain
consequences that it would irreversibly destroy the interests of
Plaintiffs and thousands of investors who were the owners of or
investors in the Portfolio. The claims asserted herein cannot be
asserted by the Preservation Fund or the Partnership Funds because
they have been liquidated and terminated due to the acts of Wells
Fargo, and the Plaintiffs have standing to bring these claims
including on behalf of the Funds.

Despite Plaintiffs' exercise of reasonable due diligence, Wells
Fargo, has never disclosed any of the material facts set forth in
this Complaint to Plaintiffs or Class members through the present
date.

To the contrary, Wells Fargo has continued to fraudulently conceal
the facts including as to how it forced the wrongful liquidation
upon LJM through the present date. The Plaintiffs learned of some
of the actions of Wells Fargo, through their due diligence and
independent investigation, which is continuing throughout the
present date. The Plaintiffs have retained counsel to pursue this
action against Wells Fargo for the catastrophic losses sustained by
Plaintiffs and the Class members of more than $500 million and as
much as $800 million.

Wells Fargo has fraudulently acted to prevent Plaintiffs and the
Class members from reasonably discovering the facts constituting
Wells Fargo's conduct and violations of law. Wells Fargo has never
disclosed and has fraudulently concealed its conduct from
Plaintiffs and class members through the present date and refused
to produce necessary documents after demand.

Wells Fargo has willfully refused to produce any information to the
Plaintiffs concerning its forced liquidation or to agree to any
other procedural or substantive protections for the Class members
in the Partnership Funds and Preservation Fund through the present
date. Wells Fargo has willfully failed to provide and/or disclose
the facts concerning its wrongful liquidation and conduct to the
Plaintiffs and the other Class members through the present date.

Further, because Plaintiffs and all Class members could not have
reasonably discovered the material facts constituting Wells Fargo's
violations of law until recently in 2021, due to Wells Fargo's
continued fraudulent conduct, their claims accrued no earlier than
2021 and any applicable statutes of limitations have been tolled
until the present date. By virtue of Wells Fargo's malicious
conduct and its failure to disclose its conduct concerning the
liquidation to the Plaintiffs and all Class members through the
present date, Wells Fargo is also equitably estopped from relying
on any applicable statutes of limitations as a defense to this
action, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased and held an interest in LJM Fund, L.P.

Wells Fargo is a Delaware limited liability company that transacts
substantial business in this judicial District.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 984-0000
          Email: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 545-4600
          Email: rifkin@whafh.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Gilman, Esq.
          GILMAN LAW LLP
          Beachway Professional Center Tower
          8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E., Suite 525
          Bonita Springs, FL 34135
          Phone: (239) 571-3518
          Email: kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com


WHOLE FOODS: Kinzer Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 1st Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAVANNAH KINZER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in her lawsuit
entitled Savannah Kinzer, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-CV-11358-ADB, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.

The Plaintiffs were employees of Whole Foods Market. They allege
they were unlawfully terminated for opposing the Defendant's
allegedly discriminatory discipline of employees wearing Black
Lives Matter masks at work in violation of the anti-retaliation
provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section
704(a), 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-3(a).

On Jan. 12, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Allison D. Burroughs on Jan. 23, 2023. According to the Court, this
is not about the importance of the Black Lives Matter message, the
value of Plaintiffs' advocacy in wearing the masks, the valor of
their speaking out against what they perceived to be discrimination
in their workplace, or the quality of Whole Foods' decision-making.
Instead, the Court finds that no reasonable jury could conclude by
a preponderance of the evidence that Whole Foods' reasons for the
Plaintiffs' terminations were pretextual and motivated by
discriminatory animus. For this reason, the motion for summary
judgment is, therefore, granted.

The appellate case is captioned Frith, et al. v. Whole Foods
Market, Inc., Case No. 23-1100, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on February 1, 2023. [BN]

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

            Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
            LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC
            729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
            Boston, MA 02116
            Telephone: (617) 994-5800
            E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC. is represented by:

            Anne Marie Estevez, Esq.
            MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
            600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
            Miami, FL 33131
            Telephone: (305) 415-3001
            Facsimile: (305) 415-3001
            E-mail: annemarie.estevez@morganlewis.com

                   - and -

            Jason J. Ranjo, Esq.
            MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
            502 Carnegie Center
            Princeton, NJ 08540
            Telephone: (609) 919-6669
            E-mail: jason.ranjo@morganlewis.com

                   - and -

            Michael L. Banks, Esq.
            MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
            2000 One Logan Square
            Philadelphia, PA 19103
            Telephone: (215) 963-5470
            E-mail: michael.banks@morganlewis.com

                   - and -

            Terry D. Johnson, Esq.
            MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
            502 Carnegie Center
            Princeton, NJ 08540
            Telephone: (609) 919-6689
            E-mail: terry.johnson@morganlewis.com

                   - and -

            Andrew M. Buttaro, Esq.
            MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
            One Federal Street
            Boston, MA 02110
            Telephone: (617) 341-7700
            Facsimile: (617) 341-7701
            E-mail: andrew.buttaro@morganlewis.com

                   - and -

            Julia V. Silva Palmer, Esq.
            MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
            One Federal Street
            Boston, MA 02110
            Telephone: (617) 951-8417
            E-mail: julia.palmer@morganlewis.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***