/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230221.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, February 21, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 38

                            Headlines

5830 RESTAURANT: $720K Class Deal in Rodriguez Suit Gets Prelim. OK
ACTIVE NETWORK: Shafer Sues Over Global Payments' Stock Price Drop
AMAZON.COM INC: Starnes Sues Over Delivery Associates' Unpaid OT
AMERICAN IDOL: Vamos Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Television Staff
ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Biometric Suit Settlement Granted Prelim. OK

BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Griffins Seeks To Seal Class Cert Bid
BESPOKE POST: Sued Over Alleged Automatic Subscription Renewals
CACH LLC: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Granted
CAMELOT SI: Faces Mackey Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Motion for Class Cert. in Lytton Fire Suit Filed

CAREMARK PHC: Sogbuyi Sues Over Discrimination in the Workplace
CAUDALIE USA: Faces Reyes Class Suit Over Slack-Fill Scheme
CCS-SOUTH FLORIDA: D.T. Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
CHRISTMAS TREE: Geswaldo Sues to Recover Underpayment
CIRCLE K: McDonald Suit Remanded to San Diego County Superior Court

CITRIX SYSTEMS: Stiles Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Sales Staff
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Juice Boxes' Healthy Label "False," Spittal Says
COINBASE GLOBAL: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Faces White Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Ga.
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: Final Judgment in Rubendall Class Suit Affirmed

COMPUTER GENERATED: Faces Baldwin Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
COTY INC: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Meza Suit
CRYPTOZOO INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged NFT Scam
DRDGOLD LTD: Motion for Class Certification Dismissed
DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar Wins Class Certification Bid

ELI LILLY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Probst ERISA Complaint Granted
ELI LILLY: Richards Sues Over Age Discrimination in the Workplace
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Troncoso Alleges
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response
EVOLUTION WELL: Judge Approves $2.55MM Class Action Settlement

EVVI RESTAURANT: Fails to Properly Pay Minimum Wages, Hall Claims
FIT FOODS DISTRIBUTION: Scheibe Files Suit in S.D. California
FLORISSANT, MO: Dr. Ireland's Report in Baker Suit Excluded in Part
FORTRESS ACQUISITION: Robinson Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
FREE MOBILE: White & Case Successfully Defends Consumer Class Suit

FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Vaccaro Sues Over Unfair Mortgage Loan Practices
GEM STORES OF WOODHAVEN: Kuczun Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GENERAL MILLS: Discloses Website Info to Facebook, Carroll Says
GILBANE BUILDING: Faces Rueda Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Maryland
GLOBAL PRODUCT: Alteril's Natural Label "Deceptive," Timmerman Says

GOTO TECHNOLOGY: Faces Data Breach Class Action in B.C.
GSK CONSUMER: Children & Adult Syrups Have Same Formula, Seale Says
HARBOR FREIGHT: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Opposition
HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Wagner Sues Over Unlawful Repair Restriction
HENRIS CLOUD NINE: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

HOOVER TREATED: Villa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
IDEAL IMAGE: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Walton Claims
IHMS LLC: Ramones Sues Over Unlawfully Retained Tips
INSTANT BRANDS: Jenkins Sues Over Misleading Representation
JANS BOUTIQUE INC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Torres Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Weiss Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Faces Straubmuller Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping
JUUL LABS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
KIRCHHOFF AUTOMOTIVE: Springer Sues Over Cell Operators' Unpaid OT

LACOSTE USA INC: Cody Files Suit in C.D. California
LCMC HEALTH: Faces Class-Actions Over Sharing Patients' Data
LEARNING ARTS: Ward Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LENDINGTREE LLC: Can Compel Arbitration in Granados Class Suit
LINGUA FRANCA: Heimann Seeks Stitchers' OT Wages Under FLSA

LIVWELL PRODUCTS: Scheibe Files Suit in S.D. California
LOFT HEALTHCARE: Underpays Nurse's Assistants, Stufflebeam Says
LOGAN HEALTH: Flathead Valley Residents Object to Settlement
LOUISIANA: District Court Denies Victor's Bid to Add Plaintiffs
LOYOLA MARYMOUNT: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Glasper v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Lofton v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Mandel v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Martin v. Allina
MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Mitchell v. Blackbaud

MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hacking Incident
MENA HOSPITAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Smedley Claims
METROPOLITAN LIFE: E.D. Missouri Grants Bid to Dismiss Collins Suit
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Faces Class Suit Over BIPA Violations
MOE SPORTS INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

MONEY SOURCE: Hiller Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
MUSCLE FEAST: Scheibe Files Suit in S.D. California
NATHAN JESTER: Review of Denial of Bid to Dismiss Travelers Tossed
NELNET SERVICING: Ballard Consolidated with Data Security Suits
NELNET SERVICING: Beasley Consolidated with Data Security Cases

NELNET SERVICING: Bird Consolidated with Data Security Cases
NELNET SERVICING: Bump Consolidated with Data Security Cases
NELNET SERVICING: Carlson Consolidated with Data Security Cases
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY: Feezle Sues Over Chemical Spill
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Class Action Over Train Derailment

OHIO: Joint Bid for Summary Judgment in Ball v. Kasich Granted
ONE SOUL: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Tabai Alleges
ONSTAR LLC: Ramirez Sues Over Auto Payment Deductions
OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Labaton Named Lead Counsel in Alich Suit
ORNUA FOODS: Faces Class Action Over PFAS in Kerrygold Butter

PAW BRANDS: Faces Rist Suit Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads
PEARL CORPORATION: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PERFORMANCE ENHANCING: Scheibe Sues Over Falsely Advertised Product
PLDT INC: Artificially Inflated Securities Prices, Olsson Claims
POSEN, IL: Sued Over Handling of Overweight Truck Tickets

REGAL MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Head Says
RESTAURANT PERSONNEL: Risch Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
RPC PIZZA: Travis Sues Over Failure to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses
RUST-OLEUM: Nemirovsky Sues Over Deceptive, Misleading Practices
RYDER INTEGRATED: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Keefer Suit

RYVYL INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 3, 2023
SAINT PETERS UNIVERSITY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAZERAC COMPANY: McKay Sues Over Deceptive Malt Beverage Labels
SCOUT CANNING: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Martinez Alleges
SEMPER LASER: Fails to Properly Pay Sales Managers, Martinez Claims

SIGNATURE BANK: Faces Class Action Suit Over Crypto Exchange Fraud
SMITHFIELD PACKAGED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vargas Alleges
SONRAY SOLAR: Housley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Action Over PlayStation 5 Console
SOUTHWAY CARRIERS: Rivers Sues Over Underpayment in Lease Contract

SPA MANAGEMENT: Underpays Nail Technicians, Quizhpi Suit Alleges
SPINNAKER INSURANCE: Dulude Files Suit in N.D. Texas
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Mandeng Sues Over Wiretapping Communications
STANLEY STREET: Amaral Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
STAR ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Anti-Money Laundering

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bid to Certify Class in Securities Suit Okayed
TAKARA SAKE: Sakes' Japanese Labeling "Deceptive," Tunick Claims
TASTE OF FUSION: Underpays Waitresses, Chang Suit Claims
TELOS CORP: Va. Judge Tosses Securities Fraud Class Action
TESLA INC: Court Denies Bid to Transfer Venue of Securities Suit

TEXAS HEALTH: Underpays Medical Assistants, Rehman Suit Alleges
TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Wiretapping Claims
TROPIX MEDIA: Third-Party Complaint in Weingeist Suit Dismissed
TURBO RESTAURANTS: Collects Biometrics Without Consent, Massel Says
UAB MEDICINE: Larkin Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

ULTA SALON: Licea Files Suit in C.D. California
UNITED STATES: Fails to Ensure Safety of Water, Williams Alleges
UNITED STATES: ICE Police Impersonation Class Action Can Proceed
UNITED STATES: Silverthorne Mulls Postal Service Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

UNIVERSITY OF DETROIT MERCY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VARSITY BRANDS: Extension of Time to File Class Cert. Sought
VI OF ST. IGNACE: Allan Sues Over Unpaid Waitresses' Minimum Wages
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Yslas Seeks Denial of Bid to Extend Reply Time
WARDMAPS LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

WASH WAG: Pierce Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER: Pileggi Sues Over Breach of Privacy
WELLPATH LLC: Faling-Davis Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
WONG FLEMING: Loeffler FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. New York
XEROX BUSINESS: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration in Hill Suit

YAMA SEAFOOD INC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN: G.B. Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York
[*] Clarksburg to Join Suit v. "Forever Chemicals" Manufacturers

                            *********

5830 RESTAURANT: $720K Class Deal in Rodriguez Suit Gets Prelim. OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL CARRILLO RODRIGUEZ, on his own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 5830
RESTAURANT CORP., SMOKIN DAVE'S BBQ, CORP., SMOKIN DAVE'S, LLC,
7522 RESTAURANT CORP., 5374 RESTAURANT CORP., HOUSE OF Q CORP., and
DAVID OEHLMAN, Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-cv-01166-KLM (D.
Colo.), Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado grants:

   a. the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
      and Collective Action Settlement; and

   b. the Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Attorney Fee.

The matter is before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval and on the Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for
Attorney Fee. No Responses were filed.

The Plaintiff filed the action for unpaid wages on April 28, 2021.
He alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him and his co-workers
overtime wages and failed to provide them with rest periods during
their shifts. The Plaintiff pled collective violations of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
class violations of Colorado wage statutes.

The parties engaged in early but ultimately unsuccessful settlement
discussions. Following resolution of a key discovery dispute, the
parties moved to stay the case pending company-wide settlement
negotiations, which the Court granted.

On Oct. 20, 2022, the parties mediated the case with the assistance
of Judge Susan Macey of the Judicial Arbiter Group and reached
terms of settlement. The settlement contemplates a round of FLSA
notices and a stipulated Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class as to the
Plaintiff's state law claims. It provides for actual damages to be
awarded to those employees who remain members of the Rule 23 Class
and additional FLSA liquidated damages for those who opt-in to the
FLSA portion of the action.

As part of their settlement process, the parties moved the Court to
adopt their stipulation to conditional certify a FLSA collective
action, which the Court granted. On Nov. 9, 2022, the FLSA notice
was disseminated to the Defendants' employees across the six
locations at issue. On Jan. 23, 2023, the FLSA Notice period ended.
Now that the opt-in period has closed, the parties propose to issue
the Settlement Notice to the company-wide Rule 23 Class.

To determine the value of the claims asserted by the Plaintiff, the
FLSA Opt-In Plaintiffs, and each Rule 23 Class Member, the parties
reviewed all available time-worked and wage payment records for
each of the Defendants' six Smokin' Dave's locations. Based on the
wage and hour records and the data analyst's verified computations,
and taking into account the risks and costs of continued
litigation, the parties negotiated the Settlement Agreement.

The parties believe the agreement to be a fair and reasonable
settlement of the FLSA collective and the Rule 23 class claims. The
settlement provided that Defendants would make a payment of
$720,000 into a Settlement Fund to be administered by a Class
Administrator to compensate the Plaintiff, the Opt-In Plaintiffs,
and the Members of the Rule 23 Class who do not opt-out for their
damages, inclusive of attorney fees and costs and an incentive
award. In addition to, and separately from the Settlement Fund, the
Defendants agreed to pay all settlement administration costs, all
mediation costs, and the employer's portion of required withholding
and payroll taxes.

To facilitate settlement of the Plaintiff's state law claims, the
parties propose and stipulate to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
certification of a class defined as: "All hourly employees who
worked for Defendants between April 28, 2015 and April 28, 2021."
They propose that within 21 days of the Court's entry of an order
granting final approval to this settlement, the Settlement
Administrator will mail settlement checks to the Class Members, a
check for attorney fees and costs to the Plaintiff's counsel, and
an incentive/service award check in the amount of $10,000 to named
Plaintiff Daniel Carrillo.

The parties further agree that any funds remaining from uncashed
settlement checks will not revert to the Defendants. Rather, any
settlement funds from checks that are not negotiated within 90 days
of issuance would be re-distributed, with 90% of such funds
re-distributed on a pro-rata basis to those Class Members who
timely negotiated their settlement checks, and the remaining 10% of
such funds to be paid cy pres to the Rocky Mountain Immigrant
Advocacy Network. The Plaintiff and the Class Members who do not
opt-out of the settlement will release the Defendants from all
claims which were pled in this action. He, individually, will also
release the Defendants from all potential claims arising from his
employment with the Defendants. Finally, the Class Counsel proposes
an attorney fee award of 33% of the Settlement Fund.

Judge Mix preliminarily approves the terms of the Settlement
Agreement. She finds that the proposed settlement is the product of
informed arm's-length negotiation by counsel; contains no obvious
deficiencies that would prevent preliminary Court approval; bears a
reasonable relationship to the claims alleged by the Plaintiff and
the litigation risks of Plaintiff as well as the Defendants; and
does not improperly grant preferential treatment to the named
Plaintiff or segments of the Settlement Class.

Accordingly, Judge Mix preliminarily finds that the Settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate, and that the Settlement Class
should be given notice thereof. She grants Motions. She
preliminarily approves the parties' Settlement Agreement, approves
their Settlement Notice for issuance, and preliminarily approves
the Plaintiff's fee request.

The Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Settlement Class is defined as "All hourly
employees who worked for Defendants between April 28, 2015 and
April 28, 2021."

As soon as practicable, but, no later than 30 days after the Order
is entered, the Settlement Administrator will distribute copies of
the completed Settlement Notice to all potential Settlement Class
Members. Potential Settlement Class Members will have 60 days from
the date of the Settlement Notice's mailing to opt-out or object to
the Settlement Agreement.

The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing on June 21, 2023, at 1:30
p.m., in Courtroom A-401, Fourth Floor, Alfred A. Arraj United
States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.

No later than 21 calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing, the
Plaintiff and the Defendants will file with the Court any papers in
support of final approval of the Settlement. Copies of all papers
will be served upon all Settlement Class Members who file a valid
and timely objection to the Settlement or their counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5xh2hzkb from Leagle.com.


ACTIVE NETWORK: Shafer Sues Over Global Payments' Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE SHAFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACTIVE NETWORK LLC, GLOBAL PAYMENTS, INC.,
JEFF SLOAN, CAMERON BREADY, PAUL TODD, and JOSH WHIPPLE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00577-LMM (N.D. Ga., February 8, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about Global Payments' business,
operational, and compliance policies in order to trade Global
Payments securities at artificially inflated prices between October
31, 2019 and October 18, 2022. Specifically, the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(a) Active Network used deceptive and abusive acts and practices to
dupe its customers into enrolling into Active Network's own
discount club; (b) since July 2011, Active Network, and by
extension, Global Payments, was aware of such unauthorized conduct
and that it was violating relevant regulations and laws aimed at
protecting its consumers; (c) since 2011, Global Payments failed to
properly monitor its subsidiary from engaging in such unlawful
conduct, detect and stop the misconduct, and identify and remediate
harmed consumers; (d) all the foregoing subjected the Company to a
foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny or
investigation; (e) Global Payments' revenues were in part the
product of Active Network's unlawful conduct and thus
unsustainable; and (f) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says
the suit.

When the truth emerged, the price of Global Payments' stock fell
precipitously and closed at $113.67 on October 18, 2022, damaging
investors.

Global Payments, Inc. is a payments technology company, with its
principal place of business at 3550 Lenox Road, Atlanta Georgia.

Active Network LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Global Payments,
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
         Mary Ellen Conner, Esq.
         Enoch P. Hicks, Esq.
         JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
         40 Powder Springs Street
         Marietta, GA 30064
         Telephone: (470) 632-6000
         Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
         E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com
                 maryellenc@johnsonfistel.com
                 enochh@johnsonfistel.com

                  - and -

         Vincent Briganti, Esq.
         Andrea Farah, Esq.
         Alesandra Greco, Esq.
         LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
         44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Telephone: (914) 997-0500
         E-mail: vbirganti@lowey.com
                 afarah@lowey.com
                 agreco@lowey.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Starnes Sues Over Delivery Associates' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD STARNES, MELANIE ALLEY, and ANGEL SKINNER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00484 (E.D. Pa., February 7, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated delivery associates overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiffs worked for Amazon as delivery associates at any time
between June 2017 and January 2019.

Amazon.com, Inc. is an electronic commerce company with principal
offices in Seattle, Washington.

Amazon Logistics, Inc. is a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc. with
principal offices in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                                      
                 
         Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
         Krysten Connon, Esq.
         LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
         729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
         Boston, MA 02116
         Telephone: (267) 256-9973
         Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
         E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
                 kconnon@llrlaw.com

                - and -

         Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
         WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
         1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 656-3600
         Facsimile: (215) 567-2310
         E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com

                - and -

         Michaela Wallin, Esq.
         Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
         E-mail: mwallin@bm.net
                 apiazza@bm.net

AMERICAN IDOL: Vamos Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Television Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORMANDY VAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN IDOL PRODUCTIONS, INC.; AMERICAN
BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC.; FREMANTLEMEDIA NORTH AMERICA, INC.;
INDUSTRIAL MEDIA, INC.; 19 ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; DOES 1-10, business
entities, forms unknown; DOES 11-20, individuals; and DOES 21-30,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV02514 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., February 3, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for unjust enrichment and violations of California Labor
Code and California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements, failure
to provide uninterrupted meal periods, failure to provide
uninterrupted rest periods, failure to pay wages promptly upon
termination, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair
business practices.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
October 2021 through approximately late November 2021 as a
participant of the ABC Television Network TV show, "American
Idol."

American Idol Productions, Inc. is a media production company based
in California.

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. is a television broadcasting
company headquartered in New York, New York.

Fremantlemedia North America, Inc. is a media production company
based in California.

Industrial Media, Inc. is a media production company based in
California.

19 Entertainment, Inc. is a media production company doing business
in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Chantal Mccoy Payton, Esq.
         Laurel N. Holmes, Esq.
         Brooke W. Waldrop, Esq.
         PAYTON EMPLOYMENT LAW, PC
         3807 W. Sierra Highway, Suite 206
         Acton, CA 93510
         Telephone: (661) 434-1144
         Facsimile: (661) 434-1144
         E-mail: CPayton@PaytonEmploymentLaw.com
                 LHolmes@PaytonEmploymentLaw.com
                 BWaldrop@PaytonEmploymentLaw.com

ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Biometric Suit Settlement Granted Prelim. OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland of Cook Country Record reports that Arby's to pay
$495K to settle biometrics class action over employee fingerprint
scans.

A Cook County judge has signed off on a $495,000 settlement to end
a class action accusing Arby's of violating a state biometrics
privacy law through employee fingerprint scans.

Kimberly Smith sued the fast food chain in October 2019, alleging
it failed to satisfy requirements under the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act to provide consent for the collection and
use of fingerprint scans, along with written disclosure regarding
data usage and retention, to operate employee time clocks.

Cook County Judge Michael Mullen granted preliminary approval of a
settlement to end the litigation in September. Following that
order, Arby's provided a class list of 495 workers who used
fingerprint scanners at an Illinois Arby's from Oct. 28, 2014,
through Feb. 18, 2018. Mullen issued the order for final approval
Jan. 26.

Under terms of the deal, class members with current addresses on
file with settlement administrators are expected to collect $616
each. As class representative, Smith will get a $7,500 service
award. No potential class members objected to the settlement.

Attorneys Mara Baltabols and David Fish, with the firm of Fish
Potter Bolanos, of Naperville, are representing the class. The firm
will get 35% of the settlement fund, plus costs, almost $175,000.
In a Jan. 19 motion in support of final approval, the firm noted it
had a contingent fee agreement with Smith that set its fee at up to
40% of the total award.

Smith's lawsuit evokes dozens of similar complaints targeting
employees over fingerprint scanners, as well as those seeking
compensation from the manufacturers of such devices. Aside from
time clocks, fingerprint and facial scanning technology is used for
things like granting access to restricted areas or customer rewards
programs. Broader lawsuits have implicated large companies like
Facebook and Google regarding facial geometry and scraping of
images posted online.

Fish Potter Bolanos noted Arby's initially moved to dismiss Smith's
complaint, including by arguing it instituted BIPA-compliant
practices before the filing and arguing for a smaller statutory
limitations window. Such positions are vital to BIPA defendants
because the law allows recovery of statutory damages between $1,000
and $5,000 per offense, with plaintiffs routinely arguing each scan
constitutes a distinct violation, while defendants generally push
back by maintaining only the initial collection of data is subject
to fines.

Statutory limitations also are a crucial component of legal
exposure in BIPA litigation. On Feb. 2, the Illinois Supreme Court
issued a ruling holding BIPA allegations have a five-year statutory
window, ending arguments from those contending the limit should be
just 12 months. The same court ruled in 2019 that plaintiffs don't
need to prove they suffered actual harm regarding their biometric
data but could in fact sue if the collection of such information
was noncompliant with BIPA guidelines.

In pushing to settle the Arby's case, Fish Potter Bolanos pointed
to the Supreme Court's consideration of the statutory question, as
well as another concerning accrual of BIPA claims, to bolster its
position the settlement was fair and beneficial to class members
when balanced against a potentially weakened position. It also
argued class certification is a largely unresolved subject in BIPA
lawsuits.

"Further litigation would certainly be costly and protracted and
any judgment could be appealed, " the firm said in its motion
supporting final approval. "A guaranteed recovery as opposed to an
uncertain result in the future, are readily apparent." [GN]

BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Griffins Seeks To Seal Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM JAMES GRIFFIN, et
al., v. BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No.
0:20-cv-62371-AHS (SD. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:

   1. permitting the Plaintiffs to file the unredacted Motion
      for Class Certification under seal, and

   2. granting such other relief as this Court deems just and
      proper.

On June 9, 2022, this Court entered an Agreed Protective Order
providing that any proposed filing that contains putatively
confidential information shall be accompanied by a "Motion to Seal
Pursuant to Order" in compliance with Local Rule 5.4.

Contemporaneously with the filing of this Motion, Plaintiffs filed
a redacted version of the Motion for Class Certification. The
contemporaneously filed Motion for Class Certification contains
emails and documents produced by Defendants that have been
designated as "Confidential." Plaintiffs therefore have redacted
that information pending the Court's grant of permission to file an
unredacted copy of the Motion for Class Certification under seal.

Benefytt provides software and insurance solutions.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E4dq7Y at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles Nicholas Dorman, Esq.
          Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq.
          W. Tucker Brown, Esq.
          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          2001 Park Place North 1000
          Park Place Tower
          P.O. Box 10968
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 488-1200
          Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
          E-mail: ndorman@whatleykallas.com
                  jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
                  tbrown@whatleykallas.com
                  psheehan@whatleykallas.com

                - and -

          Matt Carroll, Esq.
          MATT CARROLL LAW LLC
          Vestavia, AL 35216
          Telephone: (205) 240-2586
          E-mail: Matt@mattcarrollfirm.com

                - and -

          F. Inge Johnstone, Esq.
          J. Dennis Gallups, Esq.
          WETTERMARK KEITH, LLC
          100 Grandview Place, Suite 530
          Birmingham, AL 35243
          Telephone: (205) 795-3695
          Facsimile: (205) 994-7291
          E-mail: ijohnstone@wkfirm.com

BESPOKE POST: Sued Over Alleged Automatic Subscription Renewals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, report that a
proposed class action lawsuit accuses Bespoke Post of unlawfully
subscribing consumers to recurring paid programs and later charging
them without consent when the subscription automatically renews.

The 48-page lawsuit alleges that the lifestyle company, which
curates and ships monthly boxes of branded cocktail kits, shave
sets and other products, has violated California law by enrolling
new subscribers in automatically renewing plans while failing to
plainly stating their terms or cancellation policy, provide easy
ways to cancel, and by subsequently charging consumers without
their consent.

The suit charges that nabfly, Inc., who operates as Bespoke Post,
has deliberately relied upon "consumer confusion" to retain
customers and made it "next to impossible" to navigate its
"exceedingly difficult" cancellation process.

By law, Bespoke Post must present consumers with the terms of a
subscription that automatically renews, including a description of
the cancellation policy, the duration of the renewal period and the
recurring fee that will be charged to the subscriber's credit or
debit card, the case explains. As the complaint tells it, however,
Bespoke Post's online checkout page not only fails to disclose this
information "clearly and conspicuously" as required but is
"riddled" with "dark patterns" -- tactics intended to confuse and
prevent users from cancelling their subscriptions.

For one, a consumer may enroll in a "free trial" that automatically
renews with a paid subscription at the conclusion of the trial
period, yet the website's checkout page does not clearly disclose
the length of the free trial or the precise date when it will end,
the case states. This allows the defendant to charge an unwitting
subscriber before he or she realizes the free period is over, the
lawsuit contends.

Further, the checkout page does not provide consumers a chance to
review or consent to any auto-renewal terms before they're enrolled
in a program that results in monthly charges, the suit relays. Only
a small checkbox is presented to users with the vague message "I
agree - Let's do this" -- an inadequate request for authorization
in the eyes of state law, the case says.

Similarly, the monthly fee consumers will be charged is not only
"tucked away" in a far corner of the checkout page and
undistinguished from other text but also ambiguous in itself, the
complaint relays. Though a membership fee of $0 is listed on the
page, beneath that is a statement that "[b]oxes that ship cost
$49.00 (+$4.44 tax, and $4.95 shipping)," the filing reports. The
lawsuit claims this is "intentionally misleading" because it is
"unclear based on this language whether the consumer will be
charged $0, $49.00, or $58.39 (the sum of all price terms appearing
on the Checkout Page)."

What's more, the defendant makes no distinction about the precise
length of monthly renewal terms, the filing says. Subscribers are
not informed about whether a "month" refers to a four-week period
or a repetition of the exact date of their initial enrollment, the
suit states.

Per the case, the California-based plaintiff signed up for a free
trial with Bespoke Post in July 2019 and was unaware that the
company had enrolled her in its monthly automatic renewal program.
Roughly a month later, in August, the plaintiff's subscription was
renewed and her account charged the monthly fee of $53.56 without
her authorization, the complaint alleges.

Seeking to cancel her subscription, the plaintiff reportedly
"struggled immensely with the cancellation process" and "[found] no
useful guidance in the vague and incomplete terms that were
presented to her on the Checkout Page," the filing says.
Ultimately, the woman was required to call a customer service
number and receive an email address to which she had to send a
cancellation request, the suit says.

Bespoke Post has grown quickly, reportedly boasting more than
300,000 monthly subscribers, the case reports. However, its strong
growth "coincides with a sharp decline in subscriber satisfaction,"
the complaint claims. Indeed, the filing contends that the
company's methods are "carefully crafted to trick users," and that
its "complex cancellation procedures" are designed to "increase the
friction in the subscription cancellation process."

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone residing in California who
incurred renewal fee(s) in connection with Bespoke Post's offering
for a paid subscription within the applicable statute of
limitations period. [GN]

CACH LLC: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Granted
------------------------------------------------------
Accounts Recovery reports that A District Court judge in
Pennsylvania has granted a defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings, agreeing with the defendant that the plaintiff's
complaint is time-barred under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act's one-year statute of limitations in the case-captioned Woods
vs. CACH, LLC with Case 2:21-cv-05622-JS.

The plaintiff had a credit card debt that was charged off at some
point around 2010. The debt was sold to the defendant and it filed
a collection lawsuit against the plaintiff in the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas. When the suit was filed, though, the
plaintiff was living in North Carolina. The complaint and notice of
default were both sent to an address in Philadelphia, meaning the
plaintiff never received any notification about the lawsuit. The
defendant also did not make any attempt to contact the plaintiff.

In 2019, the plaintiff discovered a judgment had been entered
against her. She was getting ready to close on the purchase of a
home and she had three days to resolve the debt.

The plaintiff filed suit in December 2021, alleging the defendant
violated the FDCPA by not filing the lawsuit in the proper venue.

While a court has some leeway in allowing for equitable tolling in
cases where a plaintiff has been prevented from filing in a timely
manner, that is not needed here, ruled Judge Juan R. Sanchez of the
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. While the
plaintiff did not know a lawsuit had been filed against her back in
2011, she did know about it in 2019 when she was buying her house.
That she waited until December 2021 to file the lawsuit in question
is not a reason to circumvent the FDCPA's one-year statue of
limitations, Judge Sanchez ruled.

"Even if Woods merited equitable tolling, nearly two and a half
years passed between CACH's enforcement of the judgment in July
2019 and Woods filing this lawsuit in December 2021," Judge Sanchez
wrote. "Because Woods has not shown she pursued her rights
diligently or was prevented from filing, the Court finds she is not
entitled to equitable tolling and her claim is barred." [GN]

CAMELOT SI: Faces Mackey Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Mackey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CAMELOT SI, LLC d/b/a Sharperimage.com, Case No. (Fla.
Cir., Feb. 3, 2023) contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.

On or after July 1, 2021, the Defendant made, or knowingly allowed
to be made, a "telephonic sales call" to the Plaintiff's Telephone
Number. The telephonic sales calls involved an automated system for
the selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the playing of a
recorded message when a connection is completed. The telephonic
sales call was made without the Plaintiff's prior express written
consent. Both the Plaintiff and the telephone to which the
Plaintiff's Telephone Number was and is assigned were physically
located in the State of Florida at the time of the telephonic sales
call, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendant's conduct, and pursuant to the FTSA,
the Plaintiff and Class members were aggrieved and are each
entitled to recover damages, costs, and attorney's fees from the
Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Class members are also entitled
to an injunction against future calls, the suit added.

The Plaintiff received such calls while residing in and physically
present in Pinellas County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
          KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
          2110 West Platt Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 422–7782
          Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
          E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com

CANADIAN PACIFIC: Motion for Class Cert. in Lytton Fire Suit Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser of Vancouver Sun reports that a bid to certify a
class-action lawsuit that alleges a wildfire that destroyed much of
Lytton in 2021 was caused by a train got under way in B.C. Supreme
Court in Vancouver.

Lawyers for Christopher O'Connor and Jordan Spinks, the two
representative plaintiffs in the case, argued in court that the
blaze was ignited as a result of a coal train owned by Canadian
Pacific Railway passing through the village on June 30, 2021.

The ensuing wildfire killed at least two individuals, injured
others, and resulted in the near complete destruction of the
village and surrounding areas. It happened during a heat wave in
which temperatures soared to a national record 49.6 degrees C.

Spinks is a member of the Kanaka Bar Indian Band and states in the
notice of civil claim that he witnessed smoke and flames on CN
Rail's right of way, at or near CN Rail's bridge that crosses the
Fraser River.

He had just finished his shift as a care aide at an assisted-living
facility and lost his job as a result of the fire, says the
lawsuit.

O'Connor, a resident of Lytton, lost his home in the fire and had
his vehicle damaged.

The legal action is being brought on behalf of all individuals or
their estates who suffered personal injury or death in the fire and
all individuals who were displaced by the fire or who suffered
property losses.

The railway companies that are defendants in the case deny any
responsibility for the blaze, and according to the plaintiffs are
pointing to a report by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada
that concluded there was no link between train operations and the
fire.

But Tony Vecchio, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, argued in court that
the report was deficient in a number of respects and should not be
relied upon.

"They didn't have any basis to make this finding at all, on their
own evidence, " Vecchio told B.C. Supreme Chief Justice Christopher
Hinkson.

He pointed to several of what he called errors in the report,
including the number of railway cars on the train, and said there
was a failure to interview a number of witnesses.

That argument resonated with Tricia Thorpe, who lost her home, her
farm and her animals in the Lytton fire.

She travelled to Vancouver because she said there had been a lack
of information and transparency about the case and people wanted to
know what was going on.

Regarding the questions about the TSB report, she said people
affected by the fire would tend to agree with the assertions of the
plaintiff's lawyer.

"People need closure, and from a personal point of view, there were
people lost, people have lost their homes," Thorpe said outside
court.

"The whole community was affected, not just the people that lost
their homes. I don't think there's a single person in the Lytton
area that hasn't been affected by this. And it has physical and
mental health issues involved with it. We need answers and we need
to move forward and maybe this is a step to getting things to move
forward."

Thorpe, an electoral area director of the Thompson-Nicola regional
district, said she was speaking as an individual citizen and not as
a director. The court proceedings are expected to continue. [GN]

CAREMARK PHC: Sogbuyi Sues Over Discrimination in the Workplace
---------------------------------------------------------------
CECILIA SOGBUYI-WHITNEY and ALIZA WHITESIDE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAREMARK PHC
LLC, CVS HEALTH SOLUTIONS LLC, and CORAM ALTERNATE SITE SERVICES
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00055 (D.R.I., February 6, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants for race, color, national
origin, and gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.

According to the complaint, the Defendants discriminated against
the Plaintiffs and similarly situated quality assurance
consultants, performing work on the Defendants' Epic medical
recordkeeping system, who worked for CVS through a staffing
company, from July 2019 to the present, on the basis of their race,
color, national origin, and gender in violation of Title VII by
excluding individuals who were not of Indian national origin or did
not speak Hindi from meetings and work opportunities, and laying
off primarily Black and frequently female workers while
overwhelmingly retaining workers of Indian national origin.

Ms. Sogbuyi-Whitney and Ms. Whiteside worked remotely for the
Defendants as Epic Quality Assurance consultants between November
2021 and May 2022 and between October 2021 and May 2022,
respectively.

Caremark PHC LLC is a provider of pharmacy benefit management
services based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

CVS Health Solutions LLC is a health care solutions company based
in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

Coram Alternate Site Services Inc. is a health care solutions
company based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
         1307 Chalkstone Avenue
         Providence, RI 02908
         Telephone: (401) 831-7730
         E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com

                - and -

         Harold Lichten, Esq.
         Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq.
         Matthew P. Carrieri, Esq.
         LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
         729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
         Boston, MA 02116
         Telephone: (617) 994-5800
         Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
         E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                 apagano@llrlaw.com
                 mcarrieri@llrlaw.com

CAUDALIE USA: Faces Reyes Class Suit Over Slack-Fill Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CAUDALIE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. (Cal. Super., Feb. 3, 2023) alleges
that the Defendant deceptively sells Caudalie Vinoperfect
Brightening Glycolic Night Cream in oversized packaging that does
not reasonably inform consumers that they are more than half
empty.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant dupes unsuspecting
consumers across America to pay premium prices for empty space. The
Product packaging is approximately 55% empty. The Defendant's
slack-fill scheme not only harms consumers, but it also harms its
competitors who have implemented labeling changes designed to alert
consumers to the true amount of product in each container.

The Defendant falsely represents the quantity of product in each of
the Products' opaque containers through its packaging. The size of
each container leads the reasonable consumer to believe he or she
is purchasing a container full of night cream when in reality what
he or she actually receives is significantly less than what is
represented by the size of the container, the Plaintiff claims.

Accordingly, the Defendant has violated the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), particularly California Civil Code
sections 1770(a)(2), 1770(a)(5), 1770(a)(7), and 12 1770(a)(9). As
such, the Defendant has committed per se violations of the Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), Business & Professions Code section 17200,
et seq. and the False Advertising Law (FAL), and Business &
Professions Code section 17500.

The Plaintiff and consumers have thus suffered injuries caused by
the Defendant's the false, unfair, deceptive, unlawful, and
misleading practices, and seek injunctive relief, as well as, inter
alia, compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, and
attorneys' fees, says the suit.

The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's 1.6-ounce size Caudalie
Vinoperfect Brightening Glycolic Night Cream for personal use in
2022.

Caudalie USA manufactures and sells a popular line of beauty
products, such as "Caudalie Vinoperfect Brightening Glycolic Night
Cream."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CCS-SOUTH FLORIDA: D.T. Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
D.T., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CCS-SOUTH FLORIDA LLC d/b/a COMPLETE COLLECTION
SERVICE, Defendant, Case No. 230100618 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia
Cty., January 6, 2023) is a class action complaint brought against
the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff, who is a consumer who resides in Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania, uses the pseudonym D.T. to protect his privacy.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has received a collection
letter from the Defendant on November 9, 2022 n connection with a
consumer debt allegedly due to Penn Medicine. The Defendant
allegedly employed a uniform practice of using a glassine window
for the return address, which show that the letter was from the
Defendant, when mailing out dunning letters to consumers. Although
the Plaintiff was not damaged by the Defendant's collection letter,
it is believed that other consumers have been harmed by the privacy
violation.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for statutory
damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court
shall deem just and proper.

CCS-South Florida LLC d/b/a Complete Collection Service is a
collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
          Jody Thomas Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ, PC
          450 N. Narbeth Ave., Suite 101
          Narbeth, PA 19072
          Tel: (610) 822-0782

CHRISTMAS TREE: Geswaldo Sues to Recover Underpayment
-----------------------------------------------------
Tamela Geswaldo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHRISTMAS TREE SHOPS, LLC, Case No.
5:23-cv-00168-TJM-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2023), is brought to
recover underpayment caused by untimely wage payments and other
damages for the Plaintiff and to remedy violations of the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendant has compensated Plaintiff and all other Manual
Workers in New York on a bi-weekly basis. Despite being manual
workers, the Defendant has failed to properly pay Plaintiff and
other Manual Workers in New York their wages within seven calendar
days after the end of the week in which these wages were earned. In
this regard, the Defendant has failed to provide timely wages to
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Manual Workers in New
York, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Christmas Tree Shop as a Manual
Worker from August 2017 through January 2023 in Syracuse, New
York.

Christmas Tree Shops, LLC is a foreign business corporation
organized and existing under the laws of Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Hunter G Benharris, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 300-0375


CIRCLE K: McDonald Suit Remanded to San Diego County Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIFFANY McDONALD, Plaintiff v. CIRCLE K. STORES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22cv495-L-AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James
Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand to the action to
State court.

In the putative class action alleging wages and hours violations
under California law, the Plaintiff filed a complaint in State
court asserting numerous California Labor Code violations and
violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200
on behalf of non-exempt employees of Defendant Circle K Stores,
Inc. employed since Jan. 1, 2021. She also filed the action
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Cal. Lab.
Code Section 2698 et seq.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to pay all due
minimum and overtime wages, provide meal periods, permit rest
breaks, provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to
timely pay all wages due upon separation from employment. The
Defendant removed the action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. Sections
1453 and 1446 based on diversity jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion to remand to the
action to State court. The Defendant filed an opposition and the
Plaintiff replied.

The parties disagree whether the Plaintiff's motion made a facial
or factual attack. To calculate the amount in controversy, the
Defendant used a four-year liability period, resulting in
approximately 200,590 total workweeks. This assumption accounted
for nearly $3 million for the Plaintiff's rest period claim, or
more than half of Defendant's calculated aggregate amount of
approximately $5.1 million.

The Plaintiff challenged the four-year liability period arguing
that it "grossly inflates" the amount in controversy, given that
the class period was only 16 months, starting on Jan. 1, 2021. Her
claims are stated on behalf of a putative class of the Defendant's
non-exempt employees who had been employed on or after Jan. 1,
2021. Because the Plaintiff directly challenged the factual basis
for the Defendant's assumption of a four-year liability period and
the reasonableness of the resulting approximately 200,590 total
workweeks, she made a factual attack on the amount-in-controversy
allegation.

The fact that the Plaintiff did not introduce evidence in support
of her challenge is not fatal to the determination that she made a
factual attack.

With its opposition, the Defendant filed a declaration of Claudia
Garcia, the Defendant's Director of Human Resources & Training, to
authenticate the database used to make the amount-in-controversy
calculation, and a declaration of defense counsel's paralegal who
used the database to calculate the amount in controversy. These
declarations do not address the reasonableness of Defendant's
assumption of a four-year liability period.

The Defendant also filed a Request for Judicial Notice. Judge
Lorenz takes judicial notice of the Order Granting Final Approval
of the Class Action Settlement and Approval of the PAGA Settlement
Order and Judgment filed on Feb. 18, 2022, in Swayzer v. Circle K
Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California for
the County of Sacramento. It did not rely on the Swayzer Order to
support its assumption of a four-year liability period but to argue
that the Plaintiff's counsel could potentially recover the same
amount of attorney's fees as the class counsel in Swayzer.
Accordingly, the Defendant presented no proof to support the
reasonableness of its four-year liability period assumption.

The Swayzer settlement release covers all claims alleged in this
action for the period prior to Jan. 1, 2021, including
wages-and-hours claims, claims for violation of California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200, and PAGA claims.

In its opposition, the Defendant argued its assumption of a
four-year liability theory was reasonable because the complaint did
not expressly delimit the liability period, and four years
coincided with the relevant statute of limitations. It acknowledged
that the complaint defined the class as current and former
non-exempt employees employed by it at any time between Jan. 1,
2021, and the date of class certification. The Defendant did not
explain why its four-year liability period was reasonable despite
the Swayzer Order.

Considering the Swayzer Order, Judge Lorenz holds that remedies for
alleged violations occurring prior to Jan. 1, 2021, do not appear
to be at stake in this litigation. The Defendant's arguments are
unavailing. Accordingly, the Defendant failed to meet its burden by
a preponderance of the evidence to support its assumption of a
four-year liability period to calculate the amount in controversy.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted. The
action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of San Diego.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4k74kk6r from Leagle.com.


CITRIX SYSTEMS: Stiles Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Sales Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SABRINA STILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITRIX SYSTEMS INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-00060-BO (E.D.N.C., February 9, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages for all
hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

Ms. Stiles worked as an inside sales representative for the
Defendant at its Raleigh, North Carolina location from
approximately May 4, 2018, until November 2019.

Citrix Systems Inc. is a software development company with its
principal place of business located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
         Matthew D. Wright, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
         1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
         Cary, NC 27513
         Telephone: (919) 741-8693
         Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
         E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                 mwright@gildahernandezlaw.com

COCA-COLA COMPANY: Juice Boxes' Healthy Label "False," Spittal Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SPITTAL, JR., REBECCA CRAMPTON, and METE KARABAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00218-TWR-AGS (S.D. Cal., February 6, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of California's Business
and Professions Code and for breach of express and implied
warranties, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and unjust
enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its Minute Maid Juice Boxes. Knowing that parents are looking for
healthy beverages for their children, the Defendant allegedly
exploits and deceptively perpetuates the misperception that juice
is healthy by marketing and labeling its Minute Maid Juice Boxes as
being "Good for You!" and "Part of a Healthy, Balanced Diet." These
representations are false and misleading because consuming fruit
juices like the Defendant's Juice Boxes actually increases the risk
of chronic diseases, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs and the Class lost money as a result of the
Defendant's alleged deceptive claims, omissions, and practices in
that they did not receive what they paid for when purchasing the
Juice Boxes.

The Coca-Cola Company is a beverage company, with its principal
place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

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

COINBASE GLOBAL: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP on Feb. 14 disclosed that on February 1,
2023, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class
action against a cryptocurrency exchange company, its parent, and
the parent's CEO, asserting claims under Section 12(a)(1) of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 29(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and certain California, Florida, and New Jersey
statutes. Underwood v. Coinbase Global, Inc., - F. Supp. 3d -, 2023
WL 1431965 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that the company
sold or solicited securities, and entered into contracts to buy and
sell securities, without registering as an exchange or
broker-dealer. The Court held that, even if cryptocurrencies were
deemed securities, plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that the
company itself sold or solicited cryptocurrency tokens to or from
exchange participants, or that any contract with the company
required plaintiffs to purchase or sell prohibited securities.

With respect to plaintiffs' Securities Act allegations, the Court
analyzed whether the company qualified as a "statutory seller" by
either (1) directly selling a security to plaintiffs (requiring
that the company "passed title" in cryptocurrency tokens to
plaintiffs as the "immediate seller"), or (2) actively soliciting
the sale of a security to plaintiffs for its financial gain. Id. at
*5-6 (citing Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 642, 647 (1988)). The
Court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that the
cryptocurrencies were "securities," but still held plaintiffs'
allegations deficient.

To argue that the company was a direct seller, plaintiffs pointed
to allegations in their amended complaint that the company held its
customers' cryptocurrency tokens in a centralized virtual "wallet,"
that the customers were "not in privity" with each other, and that
the customers "transact[ed] solely with [the company] itself."
Coinbase, 2023 WL 1431965, at *6. The Court noted that, although
such allegations "would ordinarily assist plaintiffs in pleading"
that a defendant was a statutory seller, the amended complaint was
contradicted by other allegations in plaintiffs' original
complaint. For example, the Court observed that the original
complaint had alleged that the company's customers could choose to
"enter into trade agreements with other [exchange] users for
purchases and sales of digital assets." Id. at *7. Moreover, the
Court emphasized that the company's User Agreement -- which the
original complaint referenced and plaintiffs themselves filed with
the Court as part of a separate motion seeking to avoid arbitration
-- expressly provided that title to customers' cryptocurrency
tokens "shall at all times remain with [the user] and shall not
transfer to [the exchange]" and that customers "are not buying
[cryptocurrency] from [the exchange] or selling [cryptocurrency] to
[the exchange]" but rather that the company "acts as the agent,
transacting on your behalf, to facilitate that purchase or sale
between you and other [exchange] customers." Id. at *8. The Court
therefore concluded that it "need not, and does not, accept the
[amended complaint's] contrary allegations, which unavoidably
emerge as strategically added to elude the facts pled in the
[original] Complaint and contained in the User Agreement that
checkmate plaintiffs from adequately pleading the first prong of
Pinter's statutory seller inquiry." Id.

The Court further concluded that plaintiffs failed to adequately
allege that the company "solicited" plaintiffs' purchases. The
Court explained that although a defendant could be deemed a
statutory seller based on "direct and active participation in the
solicitation of the immediate sale," plaintiffs' allegations --
that the company provided users with descriptions of different
cryptocurrency tokens, provided certain free tokens as promotions,
and wrote certain news updates and provided website links to others
-- were too "collateral" to amount to solicitation under the
Securities Act. Id. at *9. Moreover, the Court observed that
actionable solicitation would also require plaintiffs to have
purchased or sold a security as a direct result of defendant's
alleged solicitations, which plaintiffs failed to allege. Id.

In addition, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately
allege a claim under Section 29(b) of the Exchange Act, which
provides for the voiding of contracts that, if performed, would
violate other provisions of the Exchange Act. While the parties
disputed whether a private right of action was available, the Court
rejected for lack of factual support plaintiffs' theory that
purchases and sales on the exchange "constitute individual
contracts that are voidable." Id. at *11. Rather, the Court further
observed that, "[a]s pled, the only contract capable of rescission
here under Section 29(b) is the User Agreement," because the
original complaint had alleged that plaintiffs purchased securities
"pursuant to" the User Agreement. Id. at *12. The Court concluded
that the User Agreement was not voidable because even if, as
plaintiffs alleged, certain transactions in certain assets were
prohibited, the User Agreement did not require any user to engage
in such transactions. Id.

Having dismissed the claims for primary violations of the
Securities Act and Exchange Act, the Court likewise dismissed
plaintiffs' claims for control person liability. Id. Moreover, the
Court concluded that leave to amend would be futile, because
plaintiffs had already amended their complaint, used that
opportunity to add allegations that "directly contradicted their
initial Complaint," and failed to show how the deficiencies
identified by the Court could be cured. Id. at *13. With respect to
plaintiffs' state-law claims, however, the Court declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction and noted that dismissal of
those claims was therefore without prejudice. Id.

Underwood v. Coinbase Global, Inc. [GN]

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Faces White Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Ga.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAVORRIS WHITE, ANGELA SOLOMON, ENIS MITCHELL, LAMONT TUCKER, and
BEVERLY STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00061-TES (M.D. Ga., February 8, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay
appropriate minimum wages for all hours worked in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were all employed by the Defendant as therapists,
clinician, paraprofessional, or contractor assessor until Spring
2021.

Community Development System, Inc. is a provider of behavioral
health services, counseling, and therapy, headquartered in Bibb
County, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Kenneth E. Barton III, Esq.
         Todd A. Stanage, Esq.
         COOPER, BARTON & COOPER, LLP
         170 College Street
         Macon, GA 31201
         Telephone: (478) 841-9007
         Facsimile: (478) 841-9002
         E-mail: keb@cooperbarton.com
                 tstanage@cooperbarton.com

COMMUNITY HOSPITAL: Final Judgment in Rubendall Class Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Brittany Rubendall, on her own behalf and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Community Hospital
of Anderson and Madison County, Appellee-Defendant, Court of
Appeals Case No. 22A-CT-2223 (Ind. App.), the Court of Appeals of
Indiana affirms the order of the trial court granting the
Hospital's motion for summary judgment and entering final judgment
against Rubendall and in favor of the Hospital.

Rubendall, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
filed a putative class-action lawsuit against Community Hospital
for negligence and invasion of privacy based on public disclosure
of private facts (PDPF).

Beginning in or around 2001, the Hospital used an email-to-pager
messaging system to notify various departments and staff members of
"an add-on same day surgery." This system transmitted protected
health information (PHI) of affected patients using an unencrypted
format over open radio airwaves. The PHI transmitted in this manner
included the patient's name, age, date of birth, provider,
procedure, and date of service.

On July 1, 2019, Rubendall was scheduled to receive health care
services from the Hospital. Because her procedure was an add-on
same day procedure, an email was sent to notify the surgery
department and staff members of the schedule change. Specifically,
at approximately 12:10 p.m., an employee of the Hospital sent an
email with the subject "ADD ON TODAY" advising the surgery
department and staff members of Rubendall's surgery scheduled for
4:30 p.m. The message was sent through the Hospital's
email-to-pager messaging system.

Prior to this date, a local news reporter had received a tip that
the Hospital was transmitting PHI in such manner, prompting the
reporter to begin an investigation into possible HIPAA violations.
The reporter purchased an SDR2 radio and used it to intercept the
Hospital's transmissions on July 1, 2019. Using freely available
online software, the reporter was then able to decode the
transmissions. In September 2019, the reporter contacted Rubendall
and informed her that her PHI had been intercepted and translated.
The reporter was able to recite Rubendall's date of birth, the date
she received treatment at the Hospital's emergency room, and the
diagnosis she received from the ER doctor.

On June 8, 2020, Rubendall, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, filed a putative class-action lawsuit against
the Hospital, generally asserting claims for negligence and
invasion of privacy based on PDPF. On Aug. 10, 2020, the Hospital
moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule
12(B)(6), which motion the trial court denied on Aug. 24, 2020.
Rubendall later filed an Amended Class Action Complaint in March
2021, and the Hospital filed its answer and affirmative defenses.

The parties conducted some written discovery, but the matter was
largely dormant until the state Supreme Court issued its decision
in Cmty. Health Network v. McKenzie, 185 N.E.3d 368 (Ind. 2022) on
April 13, 2022, wherein the Court addressed the requirements for
recovery of emotional distress damages in a negligence action and,
after recognizing PDPF as a viable cause of action in Indiana,
addressed the element of publicity as a required element thereof.
In light of McKenzie, the Hospital filed a Motion to Stay Briefing
on Class Certification so it could seek summary judgment. The trial
court granted the motion.

Following the parties' briefing and designation of evidence, the
trial court held a summary judgment hearing on Aug. 4, 2022. On
Sept. 19, 2022, it issued its order granting the Hospital's motion
for summary judgment and entering final judgment against Rubendall
and in favor of the Hospital. Specifically, the trial court,
relying on McKenzie, concluded that Rubendall could not recover
emotional distress damages on her negligence claim as she did not
satisfy the modified-impact rule and that her claim for PDPF failed
as the designated evidence negated the publicity element.

Rubendall appealed. On appeal, she presents two issues for the
Court of Appeals' review, which it restates as:

      1. Did the trial court err in concluding that Rubendall's
negligence claim failed as a matter of law because she could not
satisfy the modified impact rule?

      2. Did the trial court err in concluding that Rubendall's
PDPF claim failed as a matter of law as there was no evidence to
support a finding of publication?

As in McKenzie, the Court of Appeals concludes that, despite the
label attached, Rubendall is seeking recovery for emotional
distress damages through her negligence claim. It has been less
than a year since the state Supreme Court reaffirmed that the
modified-impact rule operates to bar a claim for emotional distress
damages in a negligence action based on a breach of medical privacy
where the plaintiff cannot show that they "personally sustained a
physical impact. The Court of Appeals is bound by the state Supreme
Court's decision and therefore applies the modified-impact rule to
Rubendall's negligence claim. Because she admits that she has not
suffered any physical impact, her negligence claim fails as a
matter of law. The trial court did not err in granting summary
judgment in favor of the Hospital.

The Court of Appeals further concludes that the Hospital's
transmission of PHI via short-wave radio airwaves between
departments is not actionable. As in McKenzie, where the state
Supreme Court concluded as a matter of law that the designated
evidence did not support a finding of publicity, the Court of
Appeals likewise concludes that there is no designated evidence
that the Hospital disclosed the information to, or in a way that
was sure to reach, the public or a large number of people. The
trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of
the Hospital on Rubendall's PDPF claim.

For these reasons, the trial court's judgment affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5dw2yfc6 from Leagle.com.

Neal F. Eggeson, Jr., Fishers, Indiana, Attorney for the
Appellant.

Jenny R. Buchheit -- jenny.buchheit@icemiller.com -- George A.
Gasper -- george.gasper@icemiller.com -- Sean T. Dewey --
sean.dewey@icemiller.com -- Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for
the Appellee.


COMPUTER GENERATED: Faces Baldwin Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE BALDWIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMPUTER GENERATED SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00128 (S.D.N.Y., January 6, 2023) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged unlawful practices and policies in violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a customer service
and technical support representatives from approximately April 2020
to January 2021.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated customer service representatives were required by the
Defendant to perform pre- and post-shift duties that is an integral
and indispensable part of their principal activities, but failed to
properly compensate them because it failed to count these duties
they performed as "hours worked." As a result, despite regularly
working more than 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated customer service representatives were not paid
for their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 per workweek. Moreover, the Defendant failed to
make, keep and preserve records of the unpaid work performed by
them when not clocked in.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover actual damages for unpaid wages, for
himself and for all other similarly situated customer service
representatives against the Defendant. The Plaintiff also seeks
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest at the
statutory rate, attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements, and
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Computer Generated Solutions, Inc. operates call centers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Morales, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          370 Lexington Ave., Suite 1512
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (212) 460-0047
          Fax: (212) 428-6811
          E-mail: kymorales@katzmelinger.com

                - and -

          Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Tel: (216) 696-5000
          Fax: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com

COTY INC: Class Cert. Scheduling Order Entered in Meza Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE MEZA, v. COTY,
INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-05291-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Nathanael M. Cousins entered a scheduling order regarding motion
for class certification as follows:

  Deadline for Plaintiff to file the     Eight months after
  motion for class certification and     Defendant files its
  any expert report(s) in support        answer to the operative
  thereof                                complaint

  Deadline for Defendant to oppose       Eight weeks after
  the motion for class certification     Plaintiff files the
  and produce any expert report(s)       motion for class
  in support of its opposition           certification

  Deadline for Plaintiff to file the     Eight weeks after
  reply in support of the motion for     Defendant files its
  class certification                    opposition to the
                                         motion for class
                                         certification.

Coty Inc. is an American-French multinational beauty company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lAfzBP at no extra charge.[CC]


CRYPTOZOO INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged NFT Scam
-------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Cantrell, Esq., in an article for LegalScoops, reports
that CryptoZoo, an online game project that sells non-fungible
tokens (NFTs) to players, is facing a class action lawsuit for
allegedly conducting a fraudulent scheme that took millions of
dollars worth of cryptocurrency from thousands of customers.

The class action was filed in a Texas federal court by a police
officer who bought digital currency from CryptoZoo, claiming that
the company and its executives, including YouTube star Logan Paul,
ran an illegal "rug pull" scheme where they lured customers to buy
tokens for a game they were never able to play.

According to the class action complaint, CryptoZoo launched its NFT
project in August 2021, promising players could use their tokens to
buy, breed, and trade digital animals called "zoos" in a virtual
world. The company also claimed that its NFTs backed real-world
conservation efforts and that it had partnered with reputable
organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund.

The class action alleges that CryptoZoo never delivered on its
promises and that its NFTs were worthless and unusable. The lawsuit
says the plaintiff and thousands of others bought tokens to use in
the CryptoZoo game that never existed in an illegal "rug pull"
scheme orchestrated by the company's executives.

The class action accuses CryptoZoo and its insiders of violating
federal and state laws, including the Securities Act of 1933, the
Texas Securities Act, and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who
purchased CryptoZoo tokens and to recover damages, restitution, and
injunctive relief.

The lawsuit also names Logan Paul as a defendant, alleging that he
used his online platforms to promote CryptoZoo's products to
consumers unfamiliar with digital currency products, leading to
tens of thousands of people purchasing said products.

The class action lawsuit claims that Paul was a co-founder and
co-owner of CryptoZoo and that he received a large share of the
proceeds from the token sales.

CryptoZoo and Logan Paul have yet to respond to the class action
lawsuit. [GN]

DRDGOLD LTD: Motion for Class Certification Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Tania Broughton of GroundUp reports that The Supreme Court of
Appeal (SCA) has dismissed a bid by two mining companies to
challenge a court certification of a class action which could
potentially result in them being liable for damages suffered by
thousands of miners who contracted silicosis.

Apart from challenging the certification, DRDGold and East Rand
Proprietary Mines also wanted to overturn the decision in the
Johannesburg High Court to develop the common law, allowing
families of miners who have subsequently died, or may die pending
the resolution of the case, to benefit from any eventual damages
award or settlement.

But the SCA has said neither issue is appealable at this stage and
struck the matter from the roll.

This means that the class action can proceed.

At this stage there are only 69 applicants in the class action and
a process is underway for others affected to either opt in or opt
out of the litigation, following which "common issues" would be
determined in a first round of litigation and then individual
claims during a second stage.

Following the certification of the litigation as a class action,
several of the initial 32 mining companies (and parent companies),
the owners of 82 mines, which had been cited, entered into
settlement agreements with miners who worked for them.

But DRDGold and East Rand Proprietary Mines launched an appeal with
the SCA.

In the ruling handed down this week, Judge Christiaan van der
Merwe, writing for the court, said it was common cause that over
several decades many thousands of underground mine workers in South
African gold mines contracted silicosis or pulmonary tuberculosis,
caused through the inhalation of large quantities of silica dust.

Silicosis is a painful, incurable and progressive disease, often
resulting in death.

It is contended by the miners that while tuberculosis is a
treatable bacterial lung disease, exposure to excessive silica dust
increases the risk of miners contracting it.

Judge van der Merwe said the mining companies represented virtually
the entire industry in South Africa, including "parent companies"
because of their controlling interest.

In the High Court, the 69 miners had presented evidence of
prolonged industry-wide underground exposure to unhealthy levels of
silica dust and that the mining companies had been negligent and
wrong in failing to properly address this health hazard.

They said every affected mineworker - or his dependents - had a
claim for damages.

After certifying the class action, the high court then signed off
on a declaratory order (the declarator) which, in effect, developed
the common law which up to that time decreed that any claim for
general damages, pain and suffering or loss of amenities of life,
terminated on the death of the claimant.

The effect of this was that mineworkers who had died, or would die
before the finalisation of the litigation, would still have a valid
claim and any damages would go to their estate, for the benefit of
their heirs.

Judge van der Merwe said as a result of a settlement agreement
signed by the majority of the mines, the certification only now
applied to six mining companies. Only DRDGold and East Rand
Proprietary Mines appealed.

Judge van der Merwe said orders were generally not appealable if
they were not final and definitive.

"The certification is no more than a procedural device aimed at
facilitating the determination of the class action. It has no final
effect . . . and is susceptible to alteration by the court hearing
the class action.

"It is not definitive of any rights. "

The judge said the mining companies had contended that should the
certification not be set aside, their participation in the class
action would cause them to suffer undue prejudice because they had
little part to play in it.

This was because the tuberculosis claims had already been withdrawn
against them, there was no parent company liability against them
and they had ceased underground mining between 2000 and 2008.

Judge Van der Merwe, however, said that the trial court would have
wide procedural options at its disposal and any issues unrelated to
the two mining companies could be separated out.

"The appellants' complaint of prejudice in this regard appears to
be exaggerated," he said.

"The participation of each of the appellants in underground mining
constitutes a significant portion of the ambit of the remaining
class action. "

Regarding the declarator, the judge said the potential class
members were poor and vulnerable and the litigation had already
been ongoing for ten years.

"Should we entertain an appeal at this stage, there may be a
further appeal."

"For me the overwhelming interest of justice consideration is that
the finalisation of the class action should be expedited. "

The court struck the matter from the roll, ordering the mines to
pay the costs. [GN]

DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar Wins Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelli Salazar, et al., v.
Driver Provider Phoenix LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05760-SMB (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan M. Brnovich entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class
      Certification on Claim III of the Fourth Amended
      Complaint, violation of the Amended Migrant Workers Act
      (AMWA); and

   2. denying without prejudice as moot on Claim II of the
      Fourth Amended Complaint, violation of the Arizona Wage
      Act (AWA).

The Court further ordered that:

   (a) The Rule 23 Count III Claim is hereby certified as a
       class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) with
       respect to the following class:

       "All current and former employees of The Driver Provider
       who performed chauffeur services in Arizona at any time
       from December 6, 2016 to the present."

       Excluded from the class are all owners, managers,
       supervisors, dispatchers, or other employees whose
       primary job responsibilities were not the provision of
       chauffeur services.

   (b) The named Plaintiffs are appointed class representatives
       for purposes of the Rule 23 Class claims alleged in Count
       III of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

   (c) The law firm of Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C. is appointed
       Class Counsel for purposes of the Rule 23 Class claims
       alleged in Count III of the Fourth Amended Complaint.

   (d) Within 14 days after entry of this Order, Defendants
       shall provide Plaintiff's Counsel with a list of all
       current and former employees and workers as described by
       Paragraph (a) that includes the names, position(s) held,
       employment dates, employment location(s), the entity for
       whom the employee worked or works, the last known
       address, e-mail address, telephone number(s) (home and
       cell, if applicable), date of birth, and social security
       number (the "Rule 23 List").

   (e) The parties shall confer on and file a joint proposed
       notice to the Rule 23 Class within ten (10) days of this
       Order.

The Court finds that Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C. has the necessary
experience in employment, wage and hour, and class action
litigation to represent this class, has committed the necessary
resources to this litigation, and has sufficiently demonstrated
their capability to understand the law and claims at hand. The
Court thus certifies Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C. as Class Counsel.

Driver Provider is an independent full service transportation
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RTDBE9 at no extra charge.[CC]

ELI LILLY: Bid to Dismiss Amended Probst ERISA Complaint Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER M. PROBST, Individually, and as
Representative of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of The
Lilly Employee 401(k) Plan, Plaintiff v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT COMMITTEE, and ELI LILLY AND COMPANY FUND ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01106-JMS-MKK (S.D. Ind.),
Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, grants Lilly's
Motion to Dismiss.

Ms. Probst, individually and on behalf of a putative class of
participants and beneficiaries of the Lilly Employee 401(k) Plan,
initiated the litigation on May 31, 2022 against Defendants Eli
Lilly, the Board of Directors of Eli Lilly, the Eli Lilly and
Company Employee Benefit Committee (the "EBC"), and the Eli Lilly
and Company Fund Advisory Committee (the "FAC") (collectively,
"Lilly"), alleging that Lilly has violated various provisions of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001
et seq. ("ERISA").

Ms. Probst has been a Senior Sales Representative for Eli Lilly in
the Wisconsin sales territory since June 10, 2011. She has been a
participant in the Plan since May 31, 2016. During her
participation in the Plan, she invested in two portfolios -- the
Target Date Portfolio 2040 and the Target Date Portfolio 2055. Ms.
Probst has participated in several 401(k) plans from other
employers and there have been no material differences in the
services that she has received.

Ms. Probst asserts claims on behalf of herself and the following
proposed class: All participants and beneficiaries of the Plan
(excluding the Defendants or any participant/beneficiary who is a
fiduciary to the Plan) beginning May 31, 2016, and running through
the date of judgment.

In her Amended Complaint, Ms. Probst sets forth claims under ERISA
for: (1) breach of the duty of prudence related to the Bundled RKA
(recordkeeping and related administrative) fees against the Plan
Committee Defendants; (2) failure to adequately monitor other
fiduciaries related to the Bundled RKA fees against Eli Lilly and
the Board; and (3) engaging in fiduciary prohibited transactions
and breach of the duty of loyalty against Eli Lilly.

Lilly has moved to dismiss all of Ms. Probst's claims.

In support of its Motion to Dismiss, Lilly relies on Albert v.
Oshkosh Corp., 47 F.4th 570, 577 (7th Cir. 2022), in which it
contends the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of "a nearly
identical claim." It argues that Ms. Probst does not set forth
allegations about the services provided to either the Plan or any
of the comparator plans listed in the Amended Complaint.

In response, Ms. Probst relies on Coyer v. Univar Solutions USA
Inc., 2022 WL 4534791 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2022), a case decided
after Albert, and argues that she has sufficiently pled a claim for
breach of the duty of prudence because she pled facts to raise an
inference of a deficient decision-making process for recordkeeping
services by utilizing a sound basis for comparison -- a meaningful
benchmark, in the form of thirteen comparator funds.

Judge Magnus-Stinson grants Lilly's Motion to Dismiss Ms. Probst's
breach of the duty of prudence claim. She finds that Ms. Probst's
reliance on these allegations is unavailing for several reasons.
First, the allegations are wholly conclusory and do nothing to
identify what specific types of services comparator plans received
relative to the Plan. Second, her allegations that any difference
in services provided does not affect the price of the services is
not plausible. Third, even assuming Ms. Probst's allegations are
not conclusory and are plausible, the information she relies upon
to support those allegations contradicts her broad and sweeping
statements. Finally, the allegations in the case satisfy the
Seventh Circuit's directive in Albert that a plaintiff must plead
specific facts showing that the recordkeeping fees were "'excessive
relative to the services rendered.'"

Lilly then argues that the only allegation supporting Ms. Probst's
prohibited transactions/breach of the duty of loyalty claim is a
single sentence where she declares that the services from Lilly
employees were 'standard plan administration' services that were
provided already by Alight, and that because the services were
allegedly duplicative, they 'did not provide any value' and should
not have been reimbursed. In response, Ms. Probst argues that her
allegations that Alight is the contract administrator and provided
administrator services and Lilly paid itself $2 million dollars
during the Class Period for providing plan administration services
are enough to state a claim for prohibited transactions/breach of
the duty of loyalty.

Judge Magnus-Stinson also grants Lilly's Motion to Dismiss Ms.
Probst's prohibited transactions/breach of the duty of loyalty
claim. She finds that (i) Ms. Probst does not allege what types of
services Lilly employees provided to the Plan, so she has not
plausibly alleged that they were duplicative of the services
provided by Alight or that they did not provide any value to the
Plan; (ii) she has not stated a claim under Section 1106(b)(1); and
(iii) Ms. Probst's allegations are based on speculation and because
they do not raise a right to relief above the speculative level,
they do not state a viable claim for prohibited transactions/breach
of the duty of loyalty.

Finally, Lilly argues that Ms. Probst's failure to adequately
monitor claim is fully dependent on the validity of her breach of
fiduciary duty claims and should be dismissed because she has
failed to plausibly allege an underlying breach. In her response,
Ms. Probst argues that she has stated claims for breach of the duty
of prudence, as well as for prohibited transactions/breach of the
duty of loyalty, so has also stated a claim for failure to
monitor.

Because Judge Magnus-Stinson has found that Ms. Probst has not
stated claims for breach of the duty of prudence or prohibited
transactions/breach of the duty of loyalty, her failure to monitor
claim also fails. Accordingly, she grants Lilly's Motion to Dismiss
Ms. Probst's failure to monitor claim.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Magnus-Stinson grants Lilly's Motion
to Dismiss, dismisses Ms. Probst's claims with prejudice, dismisses
Ms. Probst's putative class claims without prejudice, and denies
the parties' Joint Motion for Oral Argument. Final judgment will be
entered accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mv43xbzc from Leagle.com.


ELI LILLY: Richards Sues Over Age Discrimination in the Workplace
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY and LILLY USA, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00242-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., February 7,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Massachusetts
Anti-Discrimination Law.

According to the complaint, Eli Lilly has discriminated, and
continues to discriminate, against its older workers, including the
Plaintiff, by systematically denying them promotions and giving
those promotions to younger employees.

The Plaintiff has worked for Eli Lilly since August 1, 2016. During
her time at Eli Lilly, she has observed numerous other older
employees be passed over for promotion in favor of less-qualified
younger employees. Additionally, she has observed Eli Lilly's push
to increase its focus on Millennial employees, both in terms of
hiring and in terms of promotion.

Eli Lilly & Company is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products,
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Lilly USA, LLC is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products,
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jeffrey A. Macey, Esq.
         MACEY SWANSON LLP
         429 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 204
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Telephone: (317) 637-2345
         E-mail: jmacey@MaceyLaw.com

                - and -

         Harold Lichten, Esq.
         Thomas Fowler, Esq.
         Matthew Patton, Esq.
         LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
         729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
         Boston, MA 02116
         Telephone: (617) 994-5800
         Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
         E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                 tfowler@llrlaw.com
                 mpatton@llrlaw.com

ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Troncoso Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN TRONCOSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00125-GBW-JFR (D.N.M., Feb. 10, 2023)
is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest
periods, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Plaintiff Troncoso was employed by the Defendant as gathering
technician.

ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS OPERATING LLC owns and operates pipelines. The
Company transports natural gas, crude oil, refined petroleum
products, and anhydrous ammonia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          Email:  mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

                    -and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

EPIC LANDSCAPE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE GONZALEZ GOMEZ, et
al. v. EPIC LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C., Case No.
2:22-cv-02198-JAR-ADM (D. Kan.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order extending its deadline to file its response to the
Plaintiffs' motion for collective action.

  -- The Defendant's current deadline for filing its response to
     Plaintiff's Motion for Collective Action Certification is
     February 3, 2023.

  -- The mediation in this matter is scheduled for February 7,
     2023.

  -- Phase I discovery has a deadline of February 28, 2023.

  -- Although already filed on January 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs'
     Motion for conditional class certification has a deadline
     of March 2, 2023.

  -- The Defendant requests an extension of time, up to and
     including, February 24, 2023, within which to respond to
     Plaintiffs' Motion.

Epic Landscape specializes in designing and building creative,
functional and fabulous landscapes.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Yu2s3W at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alan L. Rupe, Esq.
          Christopher I. Khasho, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          1605 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 150
          Wichita, KS 67206
          Telephone: (316) 609-7900
          Facsimile: (316) 462-5746
          E-mail: alan.rupe@lewisbrisbois.com
                  chris.khasho@lewisbrisbois.com

EVOLUTION WELL: Judge Approves $2.55MM Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcellus Drilling News reports that Evolution Well Services,
headquartered in Houston with a regional office in Pittsburgh,
specializes in "electric" fracking–using natural gas from the
well pad (instead of diesel fuel) to power turbines to create
electricity that drives fracking pumps. In September 2020, three
former Evolution employees who worked at remote sites in the
Marcellus/Utica filed a lawsuit against the company claiming
Evolution failed to pay them for their commute to and from job
sites. The lawsuit was turned into a class action in February of
last year (see Class Action Certified Against Evolution Well for
Commuter Wages). Both sides met with a mediator in September and
settled the lawsuit for $2.55 million. A federal judge has just
blessed that deal. [GN]



EVVI RESTAURANT: Fails to Properly Pay Minimum Wages, Hall Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVVI RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC d/b/a "JIMMY'S
EGG," Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-00015-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex., January
6, 2023) files this complaint as a collective action complaint
against the Defendant seeking damages for its alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a waitress at its
restaurant located in Killeen from on or around 2018 to 2022.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant underpaid her and other
similarly situated tipped employees by paying them less than the
applicable minimum wage per hour. The Defendant allegedly takes
advantage of a tip credit which allows the Defendant to include in
their calculation of wages a portion of the amounts they receive as
tips. The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant maintained
unlawful policies and/or practices of failing to provide them with
the statutorily required notice that the Defendant intended to pay
them the tipped minimum wage rate, and requiring them to perform
non-tip producing side work not related to their tipped occupation,
but compensating them at the tip credit rate. Accordingly, the
Defendant lost the right to take a credit toward its minimum wage
obligations because it violated the FLSA's tipped employee
requirements, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff seeks judgment against the Defendant to recover all
damages allowed by the FLSA, as well as liquidated damages in an
amount equal to FLSA-mandated back wages, legal fees, costs,
post-judgment interest, and all other relief to which she and other
similarly situated tipped employees may be justly entitled.

Evvi Restaurant Group, LLC operates a chain of restaurants known as
Jimmy's Egg. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
          400 North Saint Paul St., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
                  marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com

FIT FOODS DISTRIBUTION: Scheibe Files Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fit Foods
Distribution Inc. The case is styled as Jacob Scheibe, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Fit Foods
Distribution Inc. doing business as: Mutant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00220-JLS-AHG (S.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Fit Foods -- https://www.fitfoods.ca/ -- is the fastest growing
manufacturer and distributor of sport nutrition and healthy
lifestyle products in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles C. Weller, Esq.
          11412 Corley Court
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Phone: (858) 414-7465
          Fax: (858) 300-5137
          Email: legal@cweller.com


FLORISSANT, MO: Dr. Ireland's Report in Baker Suit Excluded in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS BAKER, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF
FLORISSANT, Defendant, Case No. 4:16-CV-1693 NAB (E.D. Mo.),
Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division:

   a. denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Report and
      Testimony of Dr. Thomas Ireland; and

   b. grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's Motion to
      Disqualify and Exclude the Report and Testimony of John
      Ward Economics.

The Plaintiffs have designated Dr. William Rogers, an economist
from John Ward Economics, to testify to the measure of economic
damages sustained by individuals who have been allegedly wrongfully
detained. In his report, Dr. Rogers proffers two methods to measure
such damages: 1) the Market Hourly Price Valuation, which is
measurable as the hourly market compensation rate that a city must
pay to staff its jails with jailors; and 2) the Value of
Statistical Life (or Willingness-to Pay) valuation, which is
measurable as the amount that persons are willing to pay to be able
to perform their activities of daily living without impediment.

The City of Florissant does not challenge the validity of these
methods in calculating economic damages in general, however, it
argues that the methodologies cannot be applied in a class action
brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for unlawful detention.
Florissant contends that damages in a Section 1983 action are
intended to redress personal injury and are necessarily individual
in nature. Florissant also claims that the Plaintiffs seek to apply
these methodologies to measure the value of hedonic damages, that
is, the loss of enjoyment of life, and that economic principles
cannot apply to such damages. Florissant therefore moves to exclude
Rogers' expert report and testimony.

Florissant's proffered expert, Dr. Thomas R. Ireland, is an
economics professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. In his
report, Dr. Ireland focused on the manner in which Dr. Rogers
determined dollar values for the time class members spent in jail.
Dr. Ireland criticizes Dr. Rogers for his attempt to assign an
economic value to the loss of enjoyment of life, or hedonics. Dr.
Ireland contends that the intangible, non-economic nature of
hedonics cannot be measured using economic theories, and that
several courts have barred purported expert testimony attempting to
measure hedonic damages.

In his report, Dr. Ireland accuses Dr. Rogers of providing
"would-be expert guidance" that is based on pure speculation and is
"puffed up" by a list of "irrelevant references that does not
provide any basis for making the comparison Dr. Rogers is making."
He contends that Dr. Rogers' opinion is not based on economic
expertise but instead was formed only to "pander to a jury."
Arguing that Dr. Ireland's criticisms are based on false
assumptions and his own personal opinions instead of any expertise,
the Plaintiffs move to exclude Dr. Ireland's expert report and
testimony.

Judge Baker disagrees with Florissant's assertion that damages for
time spent in unlawful detention cannot be awarded on a class-wide
basis in a Section 1983 action. She holds that Florissant's
challenge to Dr. Rogers' application of the methodologies to the
facts of the case affects the weight of Dr. Rogers' testimony, not
its admissibility, and may be addressed on cross-examination.
Florissant may not, however, conduct its cross-examination in such
a manner as to elicit an opinion from Dr. Rogers on the legal issue
of whether the damages he attempts to measure are "hedonic" rather
than for the value of time. Florissant's motion to exclude the
expert report and testimony of Dr. Rogers is denied.

Judge Baker also denies the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the
expert report and testimony of Dr. Ireland to the extent the
Plaintiffs seek to exclude his opinions in toto. The admissibility
of Dr. Ireland's opinions is not without limitation. Dr. Ireland is
not qualified to render an opinion as to what he believes is Dr.
Rogers' intention in using economic methodologies in the case or
Dr. Rogers' motivation in the selection of certain publications and
references to support his opinions. Any testimony in this regard is
therefore barred.

Nor is it appropriate for Dr. Ireland to draw legal conclusions or
opine on his interpretation of the law. Dr. Ireland is therefore
barred from testifying in any manner as to his "opinion" that Dr.
Rogers' testimony is inadmissible and will be unhelpful to the
jury. Finally, Jdge Baker excludes Dr. Ireland's opinion that there
are many people who are poor enough that they would probably
readily volunteer to be incarcerated for a period of time if paid.

Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, Judge Baker denies
Florissant's Motion to Disqualify and Exclude the Report and
Testimony of Dr. William Rogers and John Ward Economics. She denies
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Report and Testimony of Dr.
Thomas R. Ireland to the extent they seek to exclude Dr. Ireland's
report and testimony in toto, but grants consistent with the
limitations set out in her Memorandum and Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mt4p2dh2 from Leagle.com.


FORTRESS ACQUISITION: Robinson Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fortress Acquisition
Sponsor II, LLC. The case is styled as Wendell Robinson, and
similarly situated v. Fortress Acquisition Sponsor II, LLC, Aaron
F. Hood, Andrew A. McKnight, Carmen A. Policy, Daniel N. Bass,
Joshua A. Pack, Labeed Diab, Leslee Cowen, Marc Furstein, Micah B.
Kaplan, Rakefet Russak-Aminoach, Sunil Gulati, Sheriff New Castle
County, Case No. 2023-0142-LWW (Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 7, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."

Fortress Acquisition Sponsor II LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
          Richard D. Heins, Esq.
          Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq.
          ASHBY & GEDDES
          PO Box 1150
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Phone: (302) 654-1888
          Fax: (302) 654-2067


FREE MOBILE: White & Case Successfully Defends Consumer Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Global law firm White & Case LLP on Feb. 14 disclosed that it has
advised leading French mobile phone operator and Iliad group member
Free Mobile on a class action initiated by French consumer
association UFC-Que Choisir about costs charged by Free Mobile to
consumers returning their rented mobile phones.

A judgment by the Paris Civil Court on December 13, 2022 ruled that
a mobile phone rental contract and the phone subscription contract
are not indivisible, and that the UFC-Que-Choisir class action was
related to a movable asset that does not fall within the material
scope of the law on class actions, and therefore declared the class
action against Free Mobile inadmissible.

The White & Case team which advised Free Mobile was led by partner
Yann Utzschneider (Paris) and included counsel Costanza Mussi
(Paris & Milan) and associate Arthur Merle-Beral (Paris). [GN]


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Vaccaro Sues Over Unfair Mortgage Loan Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY T. VACCARO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION and
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a MR. COOPER, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00143-HES-PDB (M.D. Fla., February 8, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act and the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the RESPA by:
(a) failing to stay the Plaintiff's foreclosure case apart from
what was necessary under state and federal law; (b) failing to
dismiss the foreclosure case upon receipt of the submitted
modification application by the Plaintiff; and (c) filing a Notice
of Foreclosure Sale, setting a sale date, more than 37 days prior
to the date, but after the modification application was submitted.
As a result of the Defendant failing to properly evaluate the
Plaintiff's complete or facially complete Loss Mitigation
Applications, the Plaintiff was subject to ever increasing arrears,
which improperly inflated the alleged amount owed on his account
and which will be included in any potential loan modification, says
the suit.

Freedom Mortgage Corporation is a mortgage service company,
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, d/b/a Mr. Cooper, is a mortgage service
company, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Max Story, Esq.
         Austin J. Griffin, Esq.
         STORY | GRIFFIN
         328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
         Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
         Telephone: (904) 372-4109
         E-mail: max@storylawgroup.com
                 austin@storylawgroup.com

GEM STORES OF WOODHAVEN: Kuczun Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gem Stores of
Woodhaven Inc., et al. The case is styled as Zofia Kuczun, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gem Stores of Woodhaven
Inc., J&G Lewis LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00989 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 7,
2023).

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

Gem Stores of Woodhaven Inc. is a discount store in New York
City.[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


GENERAL MILLS: Discloses Website Info to Facebook, Carroll Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., d/b/a BETTYCROCKER.COM
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV02462
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 3, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for the Video Privacy Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have secretly reported
to Facebook all key data regarding the viewing habits of visitors
on the website, www.bettycrocker.com. When a visitor watches a
video on the website while logged into Facebook, the Defendants
transmit the visitor's identifying information and video viewing
habits to Facebook without consent. As a result of the Defendants'
unlawful conduct, Facebook can bombard the website's visitors with
more ads about the Defendants' products, says the suit.

General Mills, Inc., doing business as bettycrocker.com, is a
consumer food company headquartered in Minnesota. [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
         E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                 vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com

GILBANE BUILDING: Faces Rueda Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROXANA RUEDA, CARLOS TORRICO, FERNANDO LESCANO, JOSE TORRICO, and
CHRISTIAN ORELLANA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY, P & D
CONTRACTORS, LLC, MAXIMUM BUILDERS, INC., EBAR CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, LLC, and JUAN MIGUEL a/k/a JUAN MILO, Defendants, Case No.
8:23-cv-00328-GLS (D. Md., February 6, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated for all hours worked in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the
Maryland Prevailing Wage Statute, the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law, and the Maryland Workplace Fraud Act.

Plaintiff Roxana Rueda worked as a finisher on the Hyattsville
Middle School Project from approximately April 2022 through
approximately September 2022, while other Plaintiffs worked as
carpenters on the same project at any time between April 2022 and
November 2022.

Gilbane Building Company is a construction and facility management
firm based in Baltimore, Maryland.

P & D Contractors, LLC is a general contracting firm based in
Washington, D.C.

Maximum Builders, Inc. is a subcontractor based in Silver Spring,
Maryland.

Ebar Construction Company, LLC is a subcontractor based in Oxon
Hill, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
         Rachel Nadas, Esq.
         HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
         1201 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200K
         Washington, DC 20036
         Telephone: (202) 559-2411
         E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com

                  - and -

         Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
         THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
         1100 N. Glebe Road, Suite 1010
         Arlington, VA 22201
         Telephone: (703) 665-9529
         E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com

GLOBAL PRODUCT: Alteril's Natural Label "Deceptive," Timmerman Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN TIMMERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL PRODUCT MANAGEMENT, INC.
and DISH DIRECT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01078
(E.D.N.Y., February 9, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violation of New York General Business Law and for
breach of express warranty.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
their Alteril products. The Defendants manufacture, sell, and
distribute the products using a marketing and advertising campaign
centered around claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers,
such as their products are "Natural" and/or "All Natural;" however,
the Defendants' advertising and marketing campaign is false,
deceptive, and misleading because the products contain non-natural,
synthetic ingredients. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers known the truth, they would not paid premium for the
products, says the suit.

Global Product Management, Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer
products, with its principal place of business in Monrovia,
California

Dish Direct, Inc. is a manufacturer of consumer products, with its
principal place of business in Tampa, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
         Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
         THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
         85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
         Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
         Telephone: (845) 483-7100
         Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
         E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

GOTO TECHNOLOGY: Faces Data Breach Class Action in B.C.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Godfrey, writing for BIV, reports that a "massive,
months-long" data breach that allegedly exposed private customers'
information is the subject of a proposed class action lawsuit in
B.C.

GoTo Technology Canada Ltd. and its U.S. parent company GoTo
Technologies USA (GoTo), along with their subsidiary, LastPass
Technologies, are named as the defendants in the proposed class
action, which noted the companies first began notifying customers
of a data breach in August 2022 and provided further information in
November.

LastPass is software that stores users' "personal, financial and
commercial information" in a customer vault, according to the court
filings, which name Karan Keswani, an information technology
specialist and the owner of Your IT Team Co., as its title
defendant.

GoTo reportedly informed customers on Dec. 22, 2022, that
cybercriminals had accessed company names, end-user names, billing
addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, IP addresses
customers accessed LastPass services from and "crucially" a backup
of customer vault data.

GoTo also posted about the data breaches publicly on Jan. 23 of
this year, stating: "Our investigation to date has determined that
a threat actor exfiltrated encrypted backups from a third-party
cloud storage service related to the following products: Central,
Pro, join.me, Hamachi, and RemotelyAnywhere."

The class action alleges LastPass "was not effective in protecting
users' private information," didn't have "appropriate measures to
safeguard the sensitive private information" from hacks and
cyberthreats, and didn't adequately investigate the breach or
communicate its scope.

The proposed class for the action includes all individuals and
entities in Canada affected by the data breach.

The lawsuit is seeking damages for negligence, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of contract. [GN]

GSK CONSUMER: Children & Adult Syrups Have Same Formula, Seale Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TASHAUNA SEALE an individual, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. GSK CONSUMER HEALTH,
INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00842 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2023) alleges that
the Children's Robitussin products have the exact same formula and
ingredients as the Adult's Robitussin products.

The products at issue include the Children's Robitussin 12-Hour
Cough Relief product and Children's Robitussin Elderberry Cough +
Chest Congestion DM product.

The Robitussin products marketed for children are all labeled as
"Children's." The Children's products are labeled "For Ages 4 &
Over" or "For Ages 4+", and contain cartoon-like illustrations of a
child or inanimate fruit. The adult Robitussin Products are not
marketed to children and have no cartoon-like images or
illustrations. The Adult 12-Hour Cough Relief product does not list
an age range. The Adult Elderberry product represents that it is an
"Adult" product suitable only for "Ages 12+" and "not intended for
use in children under 12 years of age." Both the children's and the
adult's 12 Hour Cough Relief products contain the same amount of
the same active and inactive ingredients
and the same dosage charts. Per ounce, the Children's 12-Hour Cough
Relief product costs $2.44 more than the Adult 12-Hour Cough Relief
product. Consumers are being deceived and overcharged, the
Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers in the United States, alleging
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA),
Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL).

The Plaintiff brings further causes of action for breach of express
and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, intentional
misrepresentation/fraud, and quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to

    (a) cease marketing the Products using the misleading and
        unlawful tactics complained,

    (b) destroy all misleading, deceptive, and unlawful materials,

    (c) conduct a corrective advertising campaign,

    (d) restore the amounts by which it has been unjustly
enriched,
        and

    (e) pay restitution damages and punitive damages, as allowed
by
        law.

Plaintiff Tashauna Seale purchased the Children's Elderberry
Product at a CVS store in Encino, California, and may have also
purchased the Children's Products at CVS, Walmart, and/or Walgreens
stores.

GSK Consumer makes, distributes, sells, and markets cough medicine
products for children and adults under the brand name
Robitussin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          Lilach Halperin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  mike@consumersadvocates.com
                  lilach@consumersadvocates.com

HARBOR FREIGHT: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Opposition
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEL COMES, DUANE THOMAS,
and MARKEITH MITCHELL, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated, v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-05451-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal.), Harbor Freight Tools USA, inc's
application for leave to file portions of its opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and supporting exhibits under
seal.

   1. Unredacted version of HFT's Opposition to Plaintiffs'
      Motion to Certify Class, to be filed January 30, 2023
      ("HFT's Opposition"). HFT's Opposition includes several
      references to the confidential business information
      contained in the other exhibits described herein (which
      HFT proposes to redact from the publicly filed version).

   2. Unredacted Expert Report of Richard W. Klopp, Ph.D., P.E.,
      F.A.S.M.E., dated December 15, 2022, regarding jack stand
      engineering, manufacturing, and use.

   3. Unredacted Expert Report of Peter Lillo, Ph.D., P.E.,
      A.S.E., dated December 15, 2022, regarding jack stand use
      and misuse and the alleged property damage to Plaintiffs'
      and other vehicles. This Report contains proprietary, non-
      public, and highly sensitive information including HFT
      sales data and references to the number of customer
      complaints received for certain HFT products.

   4. Supplier Corrective Action Request ("SCAR"), HFT000875,
      containing non-public inspection and test results of HFT
      products.

Harbor Freight is a privately held tool and equipment retailer.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K17yjP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
          Michael B. Shortnacy, Esq.
          Michael D. Roth, Esq.
          John C. Mitchell, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4355
          Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
          E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com
                  mshortnacy@kslaw.com
                  mroth@kslaw.com
                  cmitchell@kslaw.com

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Wagner Sues Over Unlawful Repair Restriction
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JEROME WAGNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00174-WCG (D. Ariz., February 9, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, fraud, fraudulent
omission, and violations of Arizona Rev. Stat.

The case arises from the Defendant's use of tying arrangements on
its consumer product that condition the continued validity of the
warranty on the use of only an authorized repair service and/or
authorized replacement parts. Had the Plaintiff and Class members
been aware that the repair restriction was unlawful, they would not
have purchased the product, or would have paid significantly less
for it.

Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC is a manufacturer and
distributor of automobile parts and accessories, with its principal
place of business in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Gerald Barrett, Esq.
         WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C.
         3838 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720
         Phoenix, AZ 85012
         Telephone: (602) 279-1717
         Facsimile: (602) 279-8908
         E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com

HENRIS CLOUD NINE: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Henris Cloud Nine,
LLC. The case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Henris Cloud Nine, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01016 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2023).

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

Henris Cloud Nine -- https://www.henris.com/ -- is one of the
nation's largest destination to shop for prom, pageant, and
bridal.[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


HOOVER TREATED: Villa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hoover Treated Wood
Products, Inc. The case is styled as Francisco Villa, Daniel
Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Hoover Treated Wood Products,
Inc., Case No. BCV-23-100393 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 7,
2023).

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

Hoover Treated Wood Products -- https://frtw.com/ -- is the largest
producer of fire retardant treated wood in the world.[BN]

IDEAL IMAGE: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Walton Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRAEKI WALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IDEAL IMAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-001574 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir.,
Broward Cty., February 7, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendant for violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in telephonic
sales calls to consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to
promote its products or services without obtaining prior express
written consent. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused
the Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of
their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and
invasion of their privacy, says the suit.

Ideal Image Development Corporation is a provider of laser hair
removal services, headquartered in Tampa, Florida. [BN]

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

                  - and -

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

IHMS LLC: Ramones Sues Over Unlawfully Retained Tips
----------------------------------------------------
Carlos Ramones, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. IHMS, LLC; and any other related entities, Case No.
602282/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., Feb. 7, 2023), is brought
pursuant to New York Labor Law to recover unlawfully retained tips
and gratuities owed to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
persons who are presently or were formerly employed and/or assigned
to provide catering services for the benefit of the Defendant.

The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of unlawfully
retaining employees' gratuities at all of Defendants' catering
venues located in the State of New York. Documents including bills,
menus, banquet event orders, invoices and other catering related
items contained a Mandatory Charge assessed in connection with the
administration of a banquet and/or catered event without
disclaiming that the Mandatory Charge is not a gratuity for the
staff.

A reasonable customer would believe that the Mandatory Charge was
in fact a gratuity for Plaintiff and similarly situated service
employees. The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of
failing to pay the Mandatory Charge to Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees and instead retained the money for their own
benefit in violation of Labor Law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in food service capacities at
catered events.

IHMS, LLC is a foreign limited liability company engaged in the
hospitality industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INSTANT BRANDS: Jenkins Sues Over Misleading Representation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rose Jenkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Instant Brands LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00320-JRR (D. Md.,
Feb. 6, 2023), is brought seeking damages and an injunction to stop
the Defendant's false and misleading representation of its tempered
glass and ceramic kitchenware under the Pyrex brand ("Product").

Through the quality of their products, coupled with their unique
designs, Pyrex products are iconic consumer goods and staples of
American kitchens for generations. That Pyrex items are
quintessential Americana owes in part to its history of being made
entirely in the United States. Pyrex promotes this attribute across
its range of items, from measuring cups to ceramic dishes, stating
that it "values it's made in the USA heritage." At a time when most
products used by Americans are made in other countries, Pyrex's
YouTube page promotes that it is "1 of 10 'products surprisingly
still made in America.'"

However, owing to an increase in demand for kitchenware during the
Coronavirus pandemic, domestic supply of Pyrex was insufficient in
part due to stay-at-home orders issued in many states. The result
was that several Pyrex products began to be made in China, the
country many have identified as where the deadly SARS Covid-19
virus originated. Instead of informing American customers of this
fact, the Defendant continued to advertise several of its iconic
measuring cup sets as "Made in the USA" through retailers including
Amazon.com.

At no point during this time did the unqualified "Made in USA"
claims across various forms of media cease. The Chinse-origin Pyrex
products contained a small print statement that it was node "Made
in USA" but "Made in China." American consumers value buying
products which are made in America. Based on the FTC standard, it
was misleading to promote the Pyrex products as "Made in the USA"
because none of their final assembly or processing occurred
domestically, all significant processing and manufacture took place
in China and all or virtually all of their components were made and
sourced outside the United States.

While studies show that more than half of consumers are misled by
unqualified "Made in U.S.A." claims on products containing
components originating outside the United States, all consumers
were misled by Pyrex's "Made in the USA" claims where the materials
originated outside this country and the items were made entirely in
China, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Pyrex products.

Instant Brands LLC manufactures, packages, labels, markets, and
sells tempered glass and ceramic kitchenware under the Pyrex
brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          James Chung, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE JAMES CHUNG
          4322 216th St
          Bayside NY 11361
          Phone: (718) 461-8808
          Email: jchung_77@msn.com


JANS BOUTIQUE INC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jans Boutique, Inc.
The case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Jans Boutique, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01005 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2023).

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

Jans Boutique, Inc. -- https://www.jansboutiqueonline.com/ -- is a
popular formal wear shop with a large selection of prom, wedding &
special occasion dresses.[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


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Torres Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Johanna Torres, a/k/a
Johanna Yorro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Progressive Legal
Support Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00991 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2023).

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

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC -- https://www.jcap.com/ -- is a
debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Weiss Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Jefferson Capital Systems,
LLC. The case is styled as Chezkel Weiss, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-00988 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2023).

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

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC -- https://www.jcap.com/ -- is a
debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Faces Straubmuller Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW STRAUBMULLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00384-AAQ (D. Md., Feb. 10, 2023) is a
class action brought against JetBlue for wiretapping the electronic
communications of visitors to its website, www.jetblue.com.

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

After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications,
JetBlue and the Session Replay Providers use those Website
Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit to
www.jetblue.com. The Session Replay Providers create a video replay
of the user's behavior on the website and provide it to JetBlue for
analysis. JetBlue's procurement of the Session Replay Providers to
secretly deploy the Session Replay Code results is the electronic
equivalent of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to
JetBlue's website for the entire duration of their website
interaction, says the suit.

JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION provides non-stop passenger flight
services. The Company offers flights and vacation packages to
hundred plus destinations, legroom in coach, free wi-fi, live TV,
movies, snacks, and other related services. JetBlue Airways serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street N.W. Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

               -and -

          Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street
          Fourteenth Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646)357-1100
          Email: snathan@hausfeld.com

               -and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          111 W. Washington St. Suite 1240
          Chicago IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Email: katrina@lcllp.com

               -and -

          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 234-6486
          Email: jjagher@fklmlaw.com

JUUL LABS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Juul Labs, Inc., Marketing, Sales
Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, Case No.
3:19-md-02913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H Orrick
entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement.

   A. Settlement Approval

      -- The proposed Class Settlement Agreement is
         preliminarily approved as likely to be finally approved
         under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) and as
         meriting notice to the Settlement Class for its
         consideration. This determination is not a final
         finding that the Settlement or Plan of Allocation are
         fair, reasonable, and adequate, but it is a
         determination that good cause exists to disseminate
         notice to Settlement Class Members in accordance with
         the Notice Plan and to 3 a hearing on final approval of
         the proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation.

   B. Class Certification

      -- The Settlement Class is defined as:

         "All individuals who purchased, in the United States, a
         JUUL product from brick and mortar or online retailers
         before December 6, 2022."

         Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) the judges
         in this case, and any other judges that may preside (or
         have presided) over the Litigation, including the
         coordinated proceeding captioned JUUL Labs Product
         Cases, Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding No.
         5052, pending in the Superior Court of California,
         County of Los Angeles, Department 11, Settlement Master
         Thomas J. Perrelli, and their staff, and immediate
         family members; (b) JLI, any Released Party, and any
         other named defendant in the litigation; (c) employees,
         officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs,
         successors, and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or
         affiliated companies of JLI, any Released Party, and
         any other named defendant in the litigation; (d) Class
         Counsel and their employees; (e) all purchases for
         purposes of resale or; and (f) all individuals who
         timely and properly exclude themselves from the
         Settlement.

   C. Settlement Administration

      -- The Court appoints and designates Epiq Systems, Inc. as
         the Settlement Administrator.

      -- The Court approves the proposed Notice Plan, including
         the form, method, and 8 content of the proposed notices
         (as revised), as well as the proposed claim forms. The

On December 6, 2022, Class Plaintiffs entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve 2 conomic loss claims asserted against JLI and
certain additional Released Parties involving the manufacture,
labeling, marketing, and sale of JUUL -- an electronic nicotine
delivery system consisting of an electronic cigarette and a
nicotine pack called a JUULpod. Class Plaintiffs
moved the Court for preliminary approval of the proposed class
action settlement, the terms and conditions of which are set forth
in the Class Settlement Agreement filed with the Court on
December 19, 2022.

The proposed settlement does not include Altria Group, Inc. or
related companies (included  but not limited to those named as
Defendants in this litigation) so no class or individual claims
against those entities will be released, and the litigation against
those Defendants will continue.

The consolidated lead case is Case No. 3:20-cv-02205.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]


KIRCHHOFF AUTOMOTIVE: Springer Sues Over Cell Operators' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
TREVION SPRINGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIRCHHOFF AUTOMOTIVE USA INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-10350-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich., February 9,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
pay overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a cell operator at the Defendant's Waverly,
Ohio facility since approximately October 2022.

Kirchhoff Automotive USA Inc. is a producer of auto body structures
and operates manufacturing facilities throughout the United States,
with its principal place of business in Ann Arbor, Washtenaw
County, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
         THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
         The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
         34555 Chagrin Boulevard
         Moreland Hills, OH 44022
         Telephone: (216) 696-5000
         Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
         E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com

LACOSTE USA INC: Cody Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lacoste USA, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Annette Cody, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Lacoste USA, Inc., Does 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 8:23-cv-00235 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 7,
2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Lacoste -- https://www.lacoste.com/ -- is a consumer retailer that
provides clothing, footwear, sportswear, eyewear, leather goods,
perfume, towels, and watches.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
          4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


LCMC HEALTH: Faces Class-Actions Over Sharing Patients' Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the largest hospital networks in Louisiana have been using a
tracking code embedded deep in their websites that shares sensitive
patient data without the patients' knowledge or consent, according
to class-action lawsuits filed by Herman Herman & Katz trial
lawyers.

Known as Meta Pixel, the computer code created by the company that
owns Facebook and Instagram potentially analyzed, gathered and
shared the sensitive medical data of hundreds of thousands of
patients, the lawsuits allege. These victims were patients within
the LCMC Health Systems network of hospitals in the New Orleans
area and Willis-Knighton Health System facilities in northwest
Louisiana, according to the lawsuits.

"We are learning more and more about this shocking breach of trust
as our investigation continues," said Herman Herman & Katz partner
Stephen Herman. "This was a gross invasion of privacy that we
believe went on for years."

The Meta Pixel code was created by Meta to narrowly target users
with digital advertisements. When website visitors clicked the
"schedule an appointment" button, the code captured sensitive
health information like medical conditions, prescriptions, doctors'
names, and previous appointments and sent it to Facebook. In one
case, for example, a woman received targeted ads about heart
disease and joint pain shortly after entering her information into
one of the hospital websites.

According to the lawsuits, use of the Meta Pixel in healthcare
settings violates various provisions of Louisiana law which
generally prohibit the sharing of personal health information with
a third party without patient consent.

LCMC Health Systems is a network of New Orleans-area hospitals and
medical facilities, including Children's Hospital, East Jefferson
General Hospital, New Orleans East Hospital, Touro, University
Medical Center New Orleans, and West Jefferson Medical Center.

Willis-Knighton Health System is the largest healthcare provider in
northwest Louisiana and includes Willis-Knighton Medical Center,
Willis-Knighton South & the Center for Women's Health, WK Bossier
Health Center, WK Pierremont Health Center, and WK Rehabilitation
Institute.

HHK is working with AZA Law in Houston and Kelly & Townsend LLC in
Natchitoches, La., on the litigation.

Herman Herman & Katz is dedicated to achieving justice for our
clients. We excel in a wide range of practice areas throughout
Louisiana, and our personal attention, experience and commitment
achieve the results our clients deserve. Our Louisiana personal
injury lawyers are here to aggressively pursue justice on your
behalf and help you get back on your feet. To learn more, visit:
https://hhklawfirm.com/.

Media Contact:
Robert Tharp
214-420-6011
robert@androvett.com [GN]

LEARNING ARTS: Ward Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Learning Arts
Corporation. The case is styled as Eric Ward, on behalf of the
general public and all others similarly situated v. Learning Arts
Corporation, Case No. 34-2023-00334389-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Feb. 7, 2023).

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

Learning ARTS -- https://learningarts.com/ -- is a company
dedicated to the care of children with autism.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jill Vecchi, Esq.
          MARA LAW FIRM
          2650 Camino
          Del Rio North, Suite #302,
          San Diego, CA, 92108
          Phone: 619-234-2833
          Fax: 833-266-9381


LENDINGTREE LLC: Can Compel Arbitration in Granados Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLY GRANADOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LENDINGTREE LLC, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-00504-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C.), Magistrate Judge
David S. Cayer of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina, Charlotte Division:

   a. grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and
      Stay Claims; and

   b. recommends that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
      Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint be denied.

Accepting the factual allegations of the Complaint as true, the
Defendant provides an online marketplace for various financial
borrowing needs including auto loans, small business loans,
personal loans, and credit cards. The Plaintiff has used the
Defendant's services in the past.

In the process of creating an account, the Defendant collects
sensitive information from users such as their full name, street
address, Social Security number, and date of birth. It suffered a
cyberattack where data thieves gained access to users' private
information.

On June 29, 2022, it sent a Notice of Data Breach to its users. The
letter stated the Defendant determined that a code vulnerability
likely resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of some sensitive
personal information. The Plaintiff's private information was
accessed and stolen as a result of the data breach.

The files stolen during the attack contained users' names, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, and street addresses. The Defendant
was aware of the risks of a cyberattack since it had experienced
data breaches at least twice before -- once in 2008 and again in
January 2022. It failed to properly implement basic data security
practices and employ reasonable measures to protect against
unauthorized access to users' private information. It also failed
to abide by industry standards.

The Plaintiff alleges causes of action for negligence, negligence
per se, violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200,
restitution, unjust enrichment, and violation of the North Carolina
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Defendant asserts
that the Plaintiff is bound to arbitrate these claims in accordance
with the Terms of Use he accepted when he created an account with
Lendingtree.

Judge Cayer finds that the Plaintiff had multiple opportunities to
read and decline the terms if he chose. This is not the needle in a
haystack search that the Plaintiff depicts. Ignorance of the
precise terms does not mean that consumers are unaware they are
entering contracts by signing up for internet-based services.
Rather, a reasonable consumer creating an account and submitting a
loan search would have been aware of the Terms of Use. For those
reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Claims must be granted.

Judge Crayer further finds that the Terms and Use agreement
expressly provides that the user agrees that any dispute or
disagreement regarding the enforceability, applicability, or
interpretation of any provision of the Agreement, including the
provisions regarding dispute resolution and arbitration, is a
Dispute subject to the arbitration provisions herein and will be
resolved by an arbitrator. The issue as to whether the data breach
is within the scope of the arbitration provision must be resolved
the arbitrator. For those reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Stay Claims must be granted.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Crayer grants the Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Claims, and recommends the
denial of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

The parties are advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(c), written objections to the proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law and the recommendation contained in this
Memorandum must be filed within 14 days after service of same.
Failure to file objections to this Memorandum with the District
Court constitutes a waiver of the right to de novo review by the
District Judge. Moreover, failure to file timely objections will
also preclude the parties from raising such objections on appeal.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of the Memorandum and
Recommendation and Order to the parties' counsel and to the Hon.
Max O. Cogburn, Jr.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Memorandum &
Recommendation & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8w8das
from Leagle.com.


LINGUA FRANCA: Heimann Seeks Stitchers' OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
KAREN HEIMANN, individualy and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LINGUA FRANCA NYC INC., and RACHELLE HRUSKA a/k/a
RACHELLE HRUSKA MACPHERSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00954 (S.D.N.Y., Feb.
5, 2023) seeks to recover overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Minimum Wage Act, and overtime
premium pay, liquidated damages and state-law interest.

Ms. Heimann's job at Lingua Franca was and is to embroider
ornamentation on sweaters that Defendants will ultimately market to
their customers. From the beginning of Ms. Heimann's employment at
Lingua Franca until January 2023, she performed work both at
Defendants' offices and at her own home. Since January 2023, Ms.
Heimann has performed exclusively homework for Defendants.

Accordingly, the Defendants paid overtime premium pay only for
office work and not for homework. That is, if Ms. Heimann worked
more than 40 hours per workweek in Lingua Franca's office, she was
paid time and a half for those overtime hours. However, the hours
spent performing homework were not included in Lingua Franca's
calculation of overtime premium pay. Defendants paid Ms. Heimann
and her similarly situated coworkers the same piece rates
regardless of how much homework they did each week. That is,
Defendants allegedly did not pay a premium piece rate for homework
to the extent that homework exceeded 40 hours per week, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
Persons similarly situated are those who are and/or were employed
by the Defendants as pieceworkers at Lingua Franca between February
7, 2020 and the present.

The Plaintiff is a stitcher employed by Defendant garment processor
and its principal from 2016 until the present.

Lingua Franca is a manufacturer and processor of garments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan A. Bernstein, Esq.
          ISAACS BERNSTEIN, P.C.
          2108 Yardley Road
          Yardley, PA 19067
          Telephone: (917) 693-7245
          E-mail: jb@lijblaw.com

LIVWELL PRODUCTS: Scheibe Files Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Livwell Products LLC.
The case is styled as Jacob Scheibe, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. Livwell Products LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-00216-MMA-BLM (S.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

LivWell -- https://livwell.com/ -- is a dispensary for the best
cannabis products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles C. Weller, Esq.
          11412 Corley Court
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Phone: (858) 414-7465
          Fax: (858) 300-5137
          Email: legal@cweller.com


LOFT HEALTHCARE: Underpays Nurse's Assistants, Stufflebeam Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTINE STUFFLEBEAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOFT HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS, INC.
f/k/a SELECT HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS INC.; THE LOFT REHABILITATION
AND NURSING OF CANTON LLC; THE LOFT REHABILITATION OF DECATUR LLC;
THE LOFT REHABILITATION AND NURSING, LLC; THE LOFT REHABILITATION
AND NURSING OF NORMAL LLC; and THE LOFT REHABILITATION OF ROCK
SPRINGS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00775 (N.D. Ill.,
February 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a certified
nurse's assistant from approximately August 2019 to the present.

Loft Healthcare Consultants, Inc., f/k/a Select Healthcare
Consultants Inc., is a provider of rehabilitation and nursing
services, with its principal place of business in Skokie,
Illinois.

The Loft Rehabilitation and Nursing of Canton LLC is a provider of
rehabilitation and nursing services, with its principal place of
business in Skokie, Illinois.

The Loft Rehabilitation of Decatur LLC is a provider of
rehabilitation and nursing services, with its principal place of
business in Skokie, Illinois.

The Loft Rehabilitation and Nursing, LLC is a provider of
rehabilitation and nursing services, with its principal place of
business in Skokie, Illinois.

The Loft Rehabilitation and Nursing of Normal LLC is a provider of
rehabilitation and nursing services, with its principal place of
business in Skokie, Illinois.

The Loft Rehabilitation of Rock Springs LLC is a provider of
rehabilitation and nursing services, with its principal place of
business in Skokie, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Katrina Carroll, Esq.
         Kyle Shamberg, Esq.
         LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
         111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
         Chicago, IL 606062
         Telephone: (312) 750-1265
         Facsimile: (773) 598-5609
         E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com
                 kyle@lcllp.com

                - and -

         Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
         Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
         Reginald L. Streater, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         Facsimile: (215) 875-4620
         E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net
                 apiazza@bm.net
                 rstreater@bm.net

LOGAN HEALTH: Flathead Valley Residents Object to Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Perkins, writing for Yahoo!News, reports that Logan Health
has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit stemming from a 2021
data breach, but a pair of prominent Flathead Valley residents are
objecting to its terms, saying that the arrangement amounts to a
bigger win for attorneys than the victims.

Kalispell Mayor Mark Johnson and former Mayor Tammi Fisher,
represented by Bozeman-based attorney Matthew Monforton, filed
their objections in Cascade County District Court. With the four
firms representing the plaintiffs requesting a 33.33% fee award,
they stand to pull in an estimated $1.43 million of the $4.3
million Logan Health agreed to set aside in a settlement fund,
according to an objection filed by Monforton.

"The proposed settlement is certainly not a 'phenomenal' result for
the class members," Monforton wrote. "Many of them might not
recover a dime."

"The only people who will benefit phenomenally under the proposed
settlement agreement are class counsel -- $1.43 million for a few
weeks of work," he added.

A flurry of firms filed lawsuits against Logan Health following the
2021 breach, just the latest for the hospital system in recent
years. Although occurring in November of that year, patients
learned about the breach from a February 2022 letter signed by
Craig Lambrecht, Logan Health CEO.

Hospital officials learned of the breach after evidence of outside
access to a file server used for business operations surfaced. By
Jan. 5, an investigation determined outside actors accessed patient
files, though not medical records.

The hospital system suffered a previous data breach in 2019 that
led to a $4.2 million settlement in 2020.

In response to the 2021 breach, Logan Health offered affected
patients a year of identity monitoring services and officials said
the hospital system had adopted additional safeguards to protect
client data.

Still, lawyers from multiple firms filed suits in several local
venues, including Flathead County District Court, and in federal
court. By the summer of 2022, a judge in Cascade County had
appointed four firms as interim class counsel. After meeting with
Logan Health, the parties agreed upon the $4.3 settlement July 19,
according to court documents.

IN HIS objection, Monforton employed a multifaceted argument
starting with what he deems an outsized award heading to the
attorneys in a straightforward and quickly resolved case. Courts
can choose between a percentage fee or what's known as a lodestar
method, which multiples the hours spent on the case by the hourly
rate in the community, he wrote.

Moving ahead with the percentage model represents a "seven-figure
fee for a few weeks of work," Monforton argued.

The attorneys leading the case also have thus far omitted any
billing data, he wrote. That leaves the court unable to determine
which of the two methods is more applicable given the circumstances
of the litigation.

In his filing, Monforton assumes the case generated, at most, about
300 billable hours for the firms. He estimates the proposed fee
scheme represents a billing rate of nearly $5,000 an hour.

"And they would be paid first -- thousands of class members, on the
other hand, might receive no recovery at all," he wrote.

He also notes the relative ease the firms would have had in
handling the case, which he described as a clone of an earlier
class-action suit against Logan Health for a data breach. Several
of the firms involved in this latest suit also acted as a class
counsel in that case.

"[They] did not have to reinvent the wheel," Monforton wrote.

In their motion for attorney's fees, representatives of the four
firms -- two are based in Montana, one in Florida and another in
Pennsylvania -- argued they spent hours mediating with Logan Health
only to be followed with lengthy negotiations on the terms of the
settlement. They described the case as complex and their results
"excellent."

"In addition to the non-reversionary cash settlement fund, the
settlement also promises significant remedial measures that are
narrowly tailored to help prevent a breach like this from occurring
again," reads the plaintiff's motion for fees. "This is a
phenomenal result and well in-line with any other national data
breach cases settlement on record."

Monforton, though, argues the fee the firms seek goes beyond what
is customarily awarded in Cascade County, the risk of coming away
without any financial recovery was low and the class members appear
poised to be victimized again by their own attorneys.

Monforton also raises the specter of collusion between the firms
representing the patients and the hospital system. There exists the
possibility Logan Health agreed to work with the four firms because
they offered the most lenient terms in exchange for going along
with their proposed fee scheme, he argued.

"This court is obliged to rigorously examine this proposed
settlement," Monforton wrote.

ALONG WITH the objection, Monforton has filed a motion for
discovery. That document asks that the attorneys representing the
class members turn over all timesheets, billing records or any
other records related to the request for the award.

It requests the same for any expenses claimed while working on the
lawsuit and any information regarding the hospital systems'
insurance coverage as it relates to the damages stemming from the
data breach.

And it seeks records of any communication between the attorneys and
Logan Health as well as anyone who served as a mediator between the
parties.

Monforton, in an interview, said the judge has set a hearing for
both sides to make their arguments. The results of the request for
discovery should prove helpful in providing the court with
suggestions, Monforton said.

While neither Johnson nor Fisher could be reached for comment,
Monforton said the pair deemed the settlement agreement unfair as
it shunted a bulk of the funds to the attorneys involved.

"$1.43 million for a few weeks of work is an unfair windfall, which
will devour much of the recovery for the victims in this matter,"
Monforton said. "Mayor Johnson is very concerned about the people
of his community -- most of the class members are members of his
community -- and he is deeply concerned about much of their
recovery being devoured by windfall attorney fees."

News Editor Derrick Perkins can be reached at 758-4430 or
dperkins@dailyinterlake.com. [GN]

LOUISIANA: District Court Denies Victor's Bid to Add Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERROL VICTOR, SR. v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.,
SECTION "J" (4), Civil Action No. 22-1539 (E.D. La.), Magistrate
Judge Karen Wells Roby of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana denies the Plaintiff's "Motion to List of
Non-Animous jury Wrongful Convicted Inmates Who Moves to be
Indispensable parties in Case #22-1539 Rev. Errol Victor, Sr., v.
State of Louisiana Et. al."

On May 18, 2022, the Plaintiff filed the civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Defendants, Assistant
District Attorney Judie E. Cullen, Attorney General Jeff Landry,
and Sheriff Mike Tregre, related to his prior conviction for second
degree murder. He later added the Hon. Dennis J. Waldron who
presided ad hoc, over the Plaintiff's ongoing state court criminal
matter ("Underlying Suit").

According to the complaint, on Aug. 1, 2014, Victor was found
guilty of second degree murder by a non-unanimous jury. The United
States Supreme Court subsequently vacated the Plaintiff's sentence
in light of the non-unanimous jury verdict. Consequently, the
Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.
Following his new trial, a unanimous jury found the Plaintiff
guilty of second-degree murder.

Victor alleges that his constitutional rights of due process have
been violated and further that he has been denied equal protection
under the law to have a verdict rendered by a unanimous jury. He
further alleges a violation of the 4th, 5th 6th Amendments because
he is allegedly held hostage under color of law. He complains that
he has sued the defendants in their official and individual
capacity.

Although Victor complains about the original non-unanimous jury
verdict which resulted his conviction, he has been retried by and
convicted by a unanimous jury of murder. Victor generally alleges
that the Defendant(s) have created a scheme and conspiracy to take
the Plaintiff's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, his
property and have taken his business with an economic life
projected at more or equal to $500 million without due process,
procedural process, or equal protection of the law. He also seeks
to generally assert a claim on behalf of the other African American
men.

Specifically, the Plaintiff sued Attorney General Jeff Landry, in
his official and individual capacity for allegedly violating
Victor's due process, procedural due process, civil rights, and
equal protection of the law by being plain biased, prejudice,
predisposed, and unfair. In addition to that, the Defendant
conspired with other defendants to deprive the Plaintiff of
property, assets, and business assets without equal protection of
the law in violation of the law and the Defendant did this under
color of law.

The Plaintiff seeks a stay of any and all hearing or proceedings
until the matter is adjudicated by the Louisiana State Supreme
Court or the United States Supreme Court. He requests the issuance
of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction and a
permanent injunction. The purpose of the restraining order is to
allegedly restore his property and to stop the Defendants from
taking further action against him until there is a full-blown
hearing before a jury.

Additionally, Victor seeks a declaratory judgment that his
constitutional rights were violated by the Defendants, the award of
punitive damages and reparations to him and all indispensable
African American Louisianans and unknown parties similarly situated
costs and attorney fees. He further seeks the return of all moneys
given for bond or grant the Plaintiff the right to be bonded out of
jail.

Victor further seeks an order restoring him to general population
rather than his current location, solitary confinement. Victor
further seeks his immediate release and damages in the amount of
over $1 million.

The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against AG Landry pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in relation to prior conviction wherein he
was found guilty of second degree murder by a nonunanimous jury and
later reconvicted by a unanimous jury. Given that the Plaintiff's
claims bear directly on the nature and duration of his confinement,
AG Landry contends that Victor's claims against him are barred by
the doctrine set forth in Heck v. Humphrey and its progeny and
should be dismissed with prejudice.

Victor makes clear in his original and amended complaints that he
is seeking monetary compensation and other relief for the
Defendants' alleged violations of his constitutional rights as a
result of his original state murder conviction because it was a
non-unanimous verdict. While it is true that his first conviction
was non-unanimous, his second conviction was with a unanimous
verdict.

Victor now seeks to add 32 other plaintiffs in attempt to create a
class action of plaintiffs who were harmed because of they too were
convicted by a non-unanimous jury verdict. He contends that these
proposed plaintiffs are indispensable to his originally filed
action because they too were convicted by a non-unanimous jury.

Judge Roby finds that under Rule 19(a)(1)(A) the 32 other
Plaintiffs will not be bound by the Court's rulings if they are not
joined. They can each individually file their claim. Further
Victor's claims are somewhat dissimilar to the proposed plaintiffs
because he has been retried and it is unclear whether any or all of
them have been subjected to a retrial. Therefore, the 32 proposed
Plaintiffs are not indispensable per FRCP Rule 19(a)(1)(A).

Judge Roby further finds that the 32 proposed Plaintiffs have no
interest in the litigation, their interest instead are separate.
Although they were allegedly subjected to a nonunanimous jury
verdict like Victor, Victor's improper conviction has been
corrected. No determination in this case will impede any of the
proposed 32 Plaintiffs' rights to protect their own interest in
other litigation if they so choose. Nor will not including or
adding them to the matter will leave Victor subject to a
substantial risk of incurring double, multiple or other
inconsistent obligations.

For these reasons, Rev. Errol Victor Sr.'s Motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4xpey957 from Leagle.com.


LOYOLA MARYMOUNT: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loyola Marymount
University. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Loyola
Marymount University, Case No. 1:23-cv-00985 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6,
2023).

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

Loyola Marymount University -- https://www.lmu.edu/ -- is a private
Jesuit and Marymount research university in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Glasper v. Blackbaud
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasper v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-04393 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 18, 2020), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional order sealing
the plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class certification.

The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.

The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.

Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO.
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternativesMDL
2972: Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Mamie Estes v. Blackbaud

In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mamie Estes, et al., v.
Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04357 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 15,
2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional
order sealing the plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class
certification.

The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.

The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.

Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court R would not provide adequate
protection.

The Glasper case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40BqtaF at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Lofton v. Blackbaud
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lofton v. Blackbaud, Case
No. 3:20-cv-04510 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 29, 2020), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional order sealing the
plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class certification.

The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.

The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.

Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO.
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternativesMDL
2972: Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Mamie Estes v. Blackbaud.

In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mamie Estes, et al., v.
Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04357 (D.S.C., Filed Dec. 15,
2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional
order sealing the plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class
certification.

The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.

The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.

Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court R would not provide adequate
protection.

The Lofton case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x3CeJl at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Mandel v. Blackbaud
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mandel v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03534 (D.S.C., Filed Oct. 7, 2020), the Hon. Judge
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional order sealing the
plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class certification.

The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.

The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.

Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO.
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternatives would
not provide adequate protection.

The Mandel case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.[CC]

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I6SRu5 at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Martin v. Allina
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin v. Blackbaud Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03286 (D.S.C., Filed SepT 15, 2020), the Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional order sealing
the plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class certification.

The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.

The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.

Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO.
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternatives would
not provide adequate protection.

The Martin case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.[CC]

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YtTaVL at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Class Certification Bid Sealed in Mitchell v. Blackbaud
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mitchell v. Blackbaud
Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00145 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 14, 2021), Hon.
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. entered a provisional order sealing
the plaintiffs' expert reports and motion for class certification.

The Court recognizes the Order is provisional in nature such that
after the process for challenging the confidentiality designations
is complete Plaintiffs will re-file their expert reports in support
of their motion for class certification.

The Court observes that the Plaintiffs' motions to seal were filed
on December 16, 2022, thereby providing the public with notice and
opportunity to object to the Motions.

Further, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have complied with the
requirements set forth in the Amended Stipulated Confidentiality
Order (ASCO) and Local District Court Rule 5.03 when filing the
instant Motions to Seal. Based on the parties' briefs and a review
of the proposed information to be sealed, the Court is persuaded
that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the need to
provisionally grant the Motions to Seal according to the ASCO.
Under these circumstances, the Court has considered less drastic
alternatives to sealing and determined that such alternativesMDL
2972: Class Cert. Bid Sealed in Mamie Estes v. Blackbaud

The Mitchell case is consolidated in MDL No. 2972 Blackbaud, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The lead case is Case No.
3:20-mn-02972.

The nature of suit states torts -- personal injury -- other
personal injury.

Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community -- nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 26, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3X86IVi at no extra charge.[CC]

MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hacking Incident
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Australia's Medibank slapped with class action
over cyber incident.
Australian health insurer Medibank Private Ltd (MPL.AX) said on
Tuesday a class action suit had been filed against it over last
year's cybercrime incident that compromised personal information of
10 million current and former customers.

The proceedings were filed in an Australian court by law firm Baker
& McKenzie, representing current and former Medibank customers
affected by the incident. The class action alleges breach of
contract and contraventions of Australian consumer law.
Medibank said it would defend its position.

In October, the insurer said its systems had been accessed by a
hacker, and personal data of current and former customers had been
accessed. Personal information, including medical records, was
later released onto a dark web forum.

Omni Bridgeway (OBL.AX), a firm engaged in arbitration financing,
said it was funding the suit on a "no win, no pay" basis, and at no
cost to those filing the class action.
Baker & McKenzie did not immediately respond to a Reuters request
for comment. [GN]

MENA HOSPITAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Smedley Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA SMEDLEY, on her own behalf and on behalf of PAIGE SMEDLEY,
a minor, and ABIGAIL SMEDLEY, a minor, and DANIEL SMEDLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MENA HOSPITAL COMMISSION d/b/a MENA REGIONAL HEALTH
SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02021-PKH (W.D. Ark., February
7, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of
fiduciary duty.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to protect the
personal identifying information (PII) and protected health
information (PHI) of its patients following a data breach on or
around October 30, 2021. The Defendant failed to implement
reasonable, adequate industry-standard data security policies
safeguards to protect patient PII and PHI. As a result of the
Defendant's wrongful actions and inactions, the Plaintiffs and
Class Members' sensitive PII and PHI have all been compromised. The
Plaintiffs and Class Members have had their privacy rights violated
and are now exposed to a heightened risk of identity theft and
credit fraud for the remainder of their lifetimes, says the suit.

Mena Hospital Commission, doing business as Mena Regional Health
System, is a community healthcare provider based in Mena, Arkansas.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Breean Walas, Esq.
         WALAS LAW FIRM, PLLC
         711 W. 3rd Street
         Little Rock, AR 72201
         Telephone: (501) 246-1067
         E-mail: breean@walaslawfirm.com

                - and -

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

METROPOLITAN LIFE: E.D. Missouri Grants Bid to Dismiss Collins Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENNIS COLLINS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-CV-129 RLW (E.D. Mo.),
Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, grants MetLife's motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiffs Dennis Collins, Suzanne Collins, David Butler, and Lucia
Bott bring this suit against the Defendant for the recovery of the
premiums they paid for inflation protection under their long-term
care ("LTC") insurance policies. They allege that MetLife made
fraudulent misrepresentations and concealed material facts about
the effects of the inflation rider on their premiums. The
Plaintiffs bring suit on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated. The matter is before the Court on MetLife's motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that in February 2007,
they purchased MetLife LTC policies all of which were issued under
the same plan number. They attached copies of the policies to their
Complaint. In conjunction with their MetLife LTC policies, the
Plaintiffs also purchased the "5% Automatic Compound Inflation
Protection Rider." According to the Complaint, the Plaintiffs paid
substantially more in premiums for the promises made and benefits
provided by the Inflation Rider.

Beginning in February 2015, and then subsequently in February 2018
and February 2019, MetLife notified the Plaintiffs of substantial
increases in premiums for all policyholders. At the time it
announced the increases, MetLife informed the Plaintiffs that when
it initially priced the long-term care insurance products that it
considered many factors including persistency rates, mortality,
rates and morbidity rates, and that after an in-depth analysis, it
determined "a premium increase is necessary on certain long-term
care insurance policies."

The Plaintiffs maintain that between the time they purchased their
policies and when MetLife implemented each of the rate increases,
the persistency rates, mortality rates, and morbidity rates did not
change. In other words, the Inflation Rider was the justification
for the increase in premiums. They claim MetLife knew at the time
it sold the LTC policies and the Inflation Riders that it would
increase premiums on a class-wide basis based on the future daily
benefit amount increases, including for purchasers of the Inflation
Rider.

The Plaintiffs maintain that MetLife concealed material information
that it was under a duty to disclose; the Inflation Rider has no
benefit; and MetLife is charging them double their premiums to give
MetLife the basis to charge higher premiums to all purchasers of
its LTC policies, including them. They claim that through its
misconduct, MetLife has charged and collected tens or even hundreds
of millions of dollars in unwarranted premiums.

The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts four causes of action: common law
fraud (Count I), fraudulent concealment (Count II), violation of
state consumer unfair and deceptive practices protection acts
(Count III), and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing (Count IV).

They seek to bring a class action against MetLife. They ask that
they be allowed to represent the following class of insureds: All
persons in the United States who purchased an individual long-term
care insurance policy from MetLife (or a subsidiary or affiliate
thereof) and selected the 5% Automatic Compound Inflation
Protection Rider at any time during the period from Jan. 1, 1986 to
the present and have been subjected to a class-wide rate increase
that increased their base premium and the premium/charge paid for
the 5% Automatic Compound Inflation Protection Rider.

The Defendant did not answer the Complaint, but rather filed a
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. It moves to dismiss based on the following
arguments: (1) the Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed because
they are barred by the filed-rate doctrine; (2) the Missouri
Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed because they did not exhaust
the required administrative process for challenging insurance rates
or rules; and (3) the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing is deficient because the
Complaint fails to plead any specific contract provision from which
the alleged covenant of good faith and fair dealing arises.

As an initial matter, the Plaintiffs argue in response to the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss that the motion is not properly
before the Court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, but rather should have
been brought as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule
12(c) because the Defendant is raising affirmative defenses.

Judge White finds that the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the
filed-rate doctrine. He says the doctrine applies to the facts of
the case under both Missouri and Illinois law. Alternatively, the
Plaintiffs' claims that are directed at policies governed by
Missouri law are dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 379.348.

Judge White declines to address whether the Complaint states a
claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
(Count IV), because any such claim would be dismissed under
Illinois and Missouri's filed-rate doctrine and/or for failure to
exhaust Missouri's administrative remedies.

Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted. The
Court will issue a separate Order of Dismissal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8s7znf from Leagle.com.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Faces Class Suit Over BIPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction reports that Microsoft facing
biometric privacy class action in Illinois over brainshark facial
scans in the case-captioned Clark v. Microsoft Corporation,
1:23-CV-00695.

A class action alleges Microsoft has unlawfully captured and stored
without consent the biometric information of customers of
Brainshark, a client of the corporation's Azure artificial
intelligence services.

A proposed class action alleges Microsoft has unlawfully captured
and stored without consent the biometric information of customers
of Brainshark, a client of the corporation's Azure artificial
intelligence services.

According to the 24-page lawsuit, Brainshark employs Microsoft's
cloud-based Azure Cognitive Services (ACS) for video-based sales
coaching that analyzes the facial expressions of users who upload
videos of themselves to Brainshark's platform. The suit claims that
Microsoft has violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act (BIPA) by failing to obtain consent before collecting and
storing Brainshark users' biometric data through ACS, and by
neglecting to disclose the length and purpose for which the
information would be kept and when it would be destroyed.

To use Brainshark's coaching service, a user records and uploads a
video of a sales pitch or presentation to the platform and then
receives feedback via machine learning technology, which tracks the
speaker's facial expressions and body language to automatically
generate a personalized analysis, the case explains.

The analysis of a Brainshark user's facial expressions -- that is,
their unique facial geometry, considered a biometric identifier
under the BIPA -- is driven by Microsoft's ACS platform, meaning
that the defendant, by way of Brainshark's services, allegedly
captures and stores users' biometric data without their knowledge
or consent.

What's more, because ACS is used by other clients besides
Brainshark, Microsoft has likely collected, stored, and used the
biometric information of consumers far beyond those of only the
sales software company, the filing argues.

The biometric information of the Chicago-based plaintiff was
purportedly obtained by Microsoft when he used Brainshark's
video-based coaching service around August 2020, the lawsuit says.
At no point was the man informed of, or asked to consent to,
Microsoft's alleged collection and storage of his biometric data,
nor was the plaintiff provided details on why or for how long the
defendant would keep his information and if it would be destroyed,
the case contends.

The defendant's reportedly unlawful practices are cause for
concern, the complaint asserts. If Microsoft's database "[fell]
into the wrong hands, by data breach or otherwise, the individuals
to whom these sensitive and immutable biometric identifiers and
biometric information belong could have their identities stolen,
among other serious issues," the filing stresses.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone residing in Illinois whose
biometric data was obtained, stored, used, or disseminated by
Microsoft through the use of products and/or services that employed
Azure and/or Azure Cognitive Services. [GN]

MOE SPORTS INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moe Sports, Inc. The
case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Moe Sports, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00891 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2023).

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

Moe Sports -- https://moesportsnyc.com/ -- is a clothing and
footwear store located in Brooklyn, New York and have been
providing the community with the best fashion at the best
prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONEY SOURCE: Hiller Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Money Source
Incorporated. The case is styled as Natasha Hiller, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Money Source Incorporated,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00235-ROS (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 6, 2023).

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

The Money Source Inc. -- https://themoneysource.com/ -- is an Equal
Housing Lender.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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



MUSCLE FEAST: Scheibe Files Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Muscle Feast, LLC.
The case is styled as Jacob Scheibe, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. Muscle Feast, LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-00217-TWR-JLB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Muscle Feast -- https://www.musclefeast.com/ -- provides
high-quality nutritional supplements to help you meet your health
and fitness goals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles C. Weller, Esq.
          11412 Corley Court
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Phone: (858) 414-7465
          Fax: (858) 300-5137
          Email: legal@cweller.com


NATHAN JESTER: Review of Denial of Bid to Dismiss Travelers Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, TRAVELERS
PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, AND THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs v. NATHAN JESTER AND NELSON R.
EPPERLEY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:22-CV-00040-KDB-DSC
(W.D.N.C.), Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina, Statesville Division,
denies Jester's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order
adopting the Magistrate's recommendation that his Motion to Dismiss
be denied.

The action arises from Jester, individually as the Parent and
Natural Guardian, and as the Personal Representative of the Estate
of K.R.J., a Minor v. Nelson Epperley, et al., which is a lawsuit
currently pending in the Court of Common Pleas in Greenville
County, South Carolina.

In that action, Jester alleges that on April 20, 2019, he purchased
a Club Car golf cart with a Steeleng lift kit that had been
installed by Epperley. About a month later, Jester was riding in
the front passenger seat and holding his eighteen-month-old son,
K.R.J., on his lap when the golf cart hit a pothole. This allegedly
caused the bolt on the swing arm steering assembly to come loose
and allow the front wheel to break off. The golf cart flipped and
K.R.J. was ejected into the roadway. The lawsuit alleges that the
bolt on the golf cart came loose due to improper manufacturing
and/or improper installation by Epperley and asserts various tort
claims against him.

The Plaintiffs issued Automobile, Homeowners, and/or Umbrella
policies to Epperley. On April 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a
Complaint for a Declaratory Judgment in this Court naming Epperley
and Jester as Defendants. They seek a declaration that they had no
duty to defend or indemnify Epperley for the claims in the
underlying lawsuit under their issued policies.

In response, Jester filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1) and (6), which the
Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court denies. Jester then
objected to the Magistrate's decision. This Court adopted the
Magistrate's recommendation, finding that Jester was properly added
as a necessary party and that an actual controversy exists, and the
matter was ripe for adjudication. Jester has now moved the Court
for reconsideration of its Order denying his motion to dismiss.

Jester moves this Court to reconsider its earlier decision in light
of the Sixth Circuit's decision in Safety Specialty Ins. Co. v.
Genesee Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 53 F.4th 1014 (6th Cir. 2022). In
Safety, the Sixth Circuit addressed an insurance-coverage dispute
that originated from two class-action lawsuits against several
Michigan counties that retained surplus proceeds from the
tax-foreclosure sales of private property. Genesee County sought
coverage from Safety for the two class-action lawsuits, which
Safety denied.

Safety then filed a declaratory-judgment action in federal court
against Genesee County and the two named class-action plaintiffs,
seeking a ruling that, under its insurance policies, it owes no
duty to defend Genesee County from the lawsuits or to indemnify it
from any subsequent damages. The two named class-action plaintiffs
sought dismissal on the grounds that Safety lacked Article III
standing to sue them. Both the District Court and the Sixth Circuit
agreed with the two named class-action plaintiffs and dismissed the
claims against them.

Judge Bell finds that on its face, the decision in Safety appears
to contradict this Court's earlier decision. But on closer
inspection Safety is distinguishable on its facts, he says. The
facts are very different. Jester explicitly alleges wrongdoing
against Epperley in the underlying state lawsuit. Specifically, he
contends that Epperley improperly and negligently installed the
lift kit. Travelers is seeking a declaration concerning its duty to
defend or indemnify Epperley.

As noted in the Court's earlier ruling, this Court's findings
therefore could potentially eliminate a source of recovery for
Jester should he prevail against Epperley in the state lawsuit.
Jester thus has a tangible interest in the matter before this
Court.

In sum, unlike in Safety, there is a concrete and ripe dispute
between the parties because of Jester's explicit allegations
against Epperley, Travelers' insured. Hence, Judge Bell denies
Jester's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order adopting
the Magistrate's recommendation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ym5xafba from Leagle.com.


NELNET SERVICING: Ballard Consolidated with Data Security Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ballard v. Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03185 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge
Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that:

   1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are
      sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and
      appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the
      hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is
      cancelled.

   2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following
      cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case
      No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186;
      Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case
      No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193;
      Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case
      No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203;
      Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case
      No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227;
      Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case
      No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413.

   3) As to the motions to appoint counsel:

      a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted.
         (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated
         as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the
         designated as a "Member Case."

      b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick
         (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184),
         and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied.

      c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons
         (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied.

   4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a
      consolidated amended complaint:

      a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March
         3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall
         so state.

      b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is
         filed:

             i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its
                response to Plaintiffs' motion; and

            ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named
                in the proposed consolidated amended complaint,
                it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs'
                motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims
                against it until the claims against Nelnet
                Servicing, LLC are resolved.

      c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after
         Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion.

   5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading"
      text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed,
      the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be
      filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are
      instructed to file all further documents (except as
      described below in subsections a) and b) of this
      paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al
      v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in
      response to the System's question whether to spread the
      text.

      a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file
         complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay
         filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items
         related to service of process; or to file notices of
         appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error,
         and therefore these documents must be separately filed
         in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing
         such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and
         defense counsel may either file the document (e.g.,
         Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's
         answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman
         and ask the court to then file it in all member cases.

      b) If a party believes that a document in addition to
         those described in subparagraph a) above should not be
         filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party
         must move for permission to file the document in a
         limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed
         in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text
         feature.

The Ballard suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against
NELNET SERVICING, LLC.

Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising
from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in
other districts have now been transferred to this district and each
of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as
"related."

Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to
District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the
undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and
motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the  related cases are
currently pending.

The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant
the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of
the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions
will be canceled.

On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub &
Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman
requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim
co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class.

Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational
services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning,
and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United
States and Canada.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HVUpWr at no extra charge.[CC]

NELNET SERVICING: Beasley Consolidated with Data Security Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beasley v. Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03187 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge
Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that:

   1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are
      sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and
      appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the
      hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is
      cancelled.

   2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following
      cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case
      No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186;
      Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case
      No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193;
      Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case
      No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203;
      Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case
      No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227;
      Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case
      No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413.

   3) As to the motions to appoint counsel:

      a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted.
         (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated
         as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the
         designated as a "Member Case."

      b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick
         (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184),
         and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied.

      c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons
         (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied.

   4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a
      consolidated amended complaint:

      a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March
         3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall
         so state.

      b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is
         filed:

             i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its
                response to Plaintiffs' motion; and

            ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named
                in the proposed consolidated amended complaint,
                it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs'
                motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims
                against it until the claims against Nelnet
                Servicing, LLC are resolved.

      c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after
         Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion.

   5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading"
      text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed,
      the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be
      filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are
      instructed to file all further documents (except as
      described below in subsections a) and b) of this
      paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al
      v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in
      response to the System's question whether to spread the
      text.

      a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file
         complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay
         filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items
         related to service of process; or to file notices of
         appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error,
         and therefore these documents must be separately filed
         in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing
         such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and
         defense counsel may either file the document (e.g.,
         Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's
         answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman
         and ask the court to then file it in all member cases.

      b) If a party believes that a document in addition to
         those described in subparagraph a) above should not be
         filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party
         must move for permission to file the document in a
         limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed
         in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text
         feature.

The Beasley suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against
NELNET SERVICING, LLC.

Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising
from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in
other districts have now been transferred to this district and each
of the above-captioned cases have been
designated by the court as "related."

Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to
District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the
undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and
motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the  related cases are
currently pending.

The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant
the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of
the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions
will be canceled.

On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub &
Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman
requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim
co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class.

Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational
services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning,
and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United
States and Canada.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E2U8zI at no extra charge.[CC]

NELNET SERVICING: Bird Consolidated with Data Security Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bird v. Nelnet Servicing,
LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03195 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl R.
Zwart entered an order that:

   1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are
      sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and
      appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the
      hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is
      cancelled.

   2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following
      cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case
      No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186;
      Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case
      No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193;
      Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case
      No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203;
      Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case
      No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227;
      Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case
      No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413.

   3) As to the motions to appoint counsel:

      a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted.
         (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated
         as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the
         designated as a "Member Case."

      b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick
         (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184),
         and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied.

      c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons
         (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied.

   4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a
      consolidated amended complaint:

      a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March
         3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall
         so state.

      b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is
         filed:

             i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its
                response to Plaintiffs' motion; and

            ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named
                in the proposed consolidated amended complaint,
                it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs'
                motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims
                against it until the claims against Nelnet
                Servicing, LLC are resolved.

      c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after
         Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion.

   5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading"
      text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed,
      the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be
      filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are
      instructed to file all further documents (except as
      described below in subsections a) and b) of this
      paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al
      v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in
      response to the System's question whether to spread the
      text.

      a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file
         complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay
         filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items
         related to service of process; or to file notices of
         appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error,
         and therefore these documents must be separately filed
         in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing
         such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and
         defense counsel may either file the document (e.g.,
         Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's
         answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman
         and ask the court to then file it in all member cases.

      b) If a party believes that a document in addition to
         those described in subparagraph a) above should not be
         filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party
         must move for permission to file the document in a
         limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed
         in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text
         feature.

The Bird suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against NELNET
SERVICING, LLC.

Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising
from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in
other districts have now been transferred to this district and each
of the above-captioned cases have been designated by the court as
"related."

Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to
District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to the
undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate and
motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the  related cases are
currently pending.

The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant
the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of
the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions
will be canceled.

On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub &
Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman
requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim
co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class.

Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational
services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning,
and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United
States and Canada.

NELNET SERVICING: Bump Consolidated with Data Security Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bump, et al., v. Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03204 (D. Neb.) the Hon. Judge
Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that:

   1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are
      sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and
      appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the
      hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is
      cancelled.

   2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following
      cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case
      No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186;
      Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case
      No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193;
      Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case
      No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203;
      Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case
      No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227;
      Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case
      No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413.

   3) As to the motions to appoint counsel:

      a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted.
         (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated
         as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the
         designated as a "Member Case."

      b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick
         (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184),
         and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied.

      c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons
         (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied.

   4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a
      consolidated amended complaint:

      a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March
         3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall
         so state.

      b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is
         filed:

             i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its
                response to Plaintiffs' motion; and

            ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named
                in the proposed consolidated amended complaint,
                it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs'
                motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims
                against it until the claims against Nelnet
                Servicing, LLC are resolved.

      c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after
         Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion.

   5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading"
      text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed,
      the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be
      filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are
      instructed to file all further documents (except as
      described below in subsections a) and b) of this
      paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al
      v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in
      response to the System's question whether to spread the
      text.

      a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file
         complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay
         filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items
         related to service of process; or to file notices of
         appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error,
         and therefore these documents must be separately filed
         in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing
         such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and
         defense counsel may either file the document (e.g.,
         Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's
         answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman
         and ask the court to then file it in all member cases.

      b) If a party believes that a document in addition to
         those described in subparagraph a) above should not be
         filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party
         must move for permission to file the document in a
         limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed
         in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text
         feature.

The Bump suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against NELNET
SERVICING, LLC.

Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising
from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in
other districts have now been transferred to this district and each
of the above-captioned cases have been
designated by the court as "related."

Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to
District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to
the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate
and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the  related cases
are currently pending.

The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant
the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of
the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions
will be canceled.

On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub &
Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman
requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim
co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class.

Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational
services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning,
and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United
States and Canada.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lsQTLI at no extra charge.[CC]

NELNET SERVICING: Carlson Consolidated with Data Security Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carlson v. Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03184 (D. Neb), the Hon. Judge
Cheryl R. Zwart entered an order that:

   1) The court finds the parties' written submissions are
      sufficient to decide the issues of consolidation and
      appointment of interim lead counsel. Therefore, the
      hearing on those issues scheduled for January 31, 2023 is
      cancelled.

   2) The motions to consolidate are granted and the following
      cases are consolidated: Case No. 4:22CV3181; Case
      No.4:22CV3184; Case No.4:22CV3185; Case No.4:22CV3186;
      Case No.4:22CV3187; Case No.4:22CV3188; Case
      No.4:22CV3189; Case No.4:22CV3191; Case No.4:22CV3193;
      Case No.4:22CV3194; Case No.4:22CV3195; Case
      No.4:22CV3196; Case No.4:22CV3197; Case No.4:22CV3203;
      Case No.4:22CV3204; Case No.4:22CV3207; Case
      No.4:22CV3209; Case No.4:22CV3211; Case No.4:22CV3227;
      Case No.4:22CV3241; Case No.4:22CV3259; Case
      No.4:22CV3267; and Case No.8:22CV413.

   3) As to the motions to appoint counsel:

      a) The motion to appoint counsel in Spearman is granted.
         (Case No. 4:22cv3191) The Spearman case is designated
         as the Lead Case and all other cases listed in the
         designated as a "Member Case."

      b) The motions to appoint counsel filed in Herrick
         (Case No. 4:22CV3181 ), Carlson (Case No. 22CV3184),
         and Freeland (22CV3211 ) are denied.

      c) The motion to appoint counsel filed in Simmons
         (Case No. 4:22cv3194) is denied.

   4) As to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion to file a
      consolidated amended complaint:

      a) Lowey/SGT shall file any such motion on or before March
         3, 2023. If the motion is unopposed, the motion shall
         so state.

      b) If the motion is opposed, within 30 days after it is
         filed:

             i. Defendant Nelnet Servicing, LLC's shall file its
                response to Plaintiffs' motion; and

            ii. If Defendant Edfinancial Services, LLC is named
                in the proposed consolidated amended complaint,
                it shall either file a response to Plaintiffs'
                motion or a motion to stay the proposed claims
                against it until the claims against Nelnet
                Servicing, LLC are resolved.

      c) Any reply shall be filed within 15 days after
         Defendant(s) file a response to Plaintiffs' motion.

   5) The court's CM/ECF System has the capacity for "spreading"
      text among the consolidated cases. If properly docketed,
      the documents filed in the Lead Case will automatically be
      filed in all Member Cases. To this end, the parties are
      instructed to file all further documents (except as
      described below in subsections a) and b) of this
      paragraph) in the Lead Case, No. 4:22CV3191 Spearman et al
      v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC and to select the option "yes" in
      response to the System's question whether to spread the
      text.

      a) The parties may not use the spread text feature to file
         complaints, amended complaints, and answers; to pay
         filing fees electronically using pay.gov; to file items
         related to service of process; or to file notices of
         appeal. Attempting to do so will cause a system error,
         and therefore these documents must be separately filed
         in each of the lead and member cases. So, when filing
         such documents, Plaintiffs' interim lead counsel and
         defense counsel may either file the document (e.g.,
         Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint, Defendant's
         answer), in each case, or file the document in Spearman
         and ask the court to then file it in all member cases.

      b) If a party believes that a document in addition to
         those described in subparagraph a) above should not be
         filed in all of these consolidated cases, the party
         must move for permission to file the document in a
         limited number of the cases. The motion must be filed
         in each of the consolidated cases using the spread text
         feature.

The Carlson suit is consolidated in Data Security Cases Against
NELNET SERVICING, LLC.

Twenty-three cases have been filed against the Defendant(s) arising
from an alleged data breach in 2022. The cases originally filed in
other districts have now been transferred to this district and each
of the above-captioned cases have been
designated by the court as "related."

Pursuant to NEGenR 1.4(a)(4) the cases have all been assigned to
District Judge John M. Gerrard for disposition, and to
the undersigned for judicial supervision. Motions to consolidate
and motions to appoint interim lead counsel in the  related cases
are currently pending.

The parties submitted sufficient information for the court to grant
the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead counsel on behalf of
the putative class. As such, the hearing on the pending motions
will be canceled.

On December 13, 2022, Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Silver Golub &
Teitell LLP Law Firms filed a motion and brief in Spearman
requesting consolidation of the related cases against Nelnet
Servicing, LLC, and the appointment of their firms as interim
co-lead class counsel on behalf of the proposed class.

Nelnet provides education services. The Company offers educational
services in loan servicing, payment processing, education planning,
and asset management. Nelnet Servicing operates in the United
States and Canada.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K4axbg at no extra charge.[CC]

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY: Feezle Sues Over Chemical Spill
---------------------------------------------------------
Harold R. Feezle, Susan E. Scheufele, David J. Scheufele, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN
RAILWAY CO., NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORP., Case No. 4:23-cv-00242-BYP
(N.D. Ohio, Feb. 7, 2023), is brought on behalf of the
Representative the Plaintiffs and other persons adversely affected
by a train derailment and chemical spill (vinyl chloride) which
occurred on February 3, 2023, in or near East Palestine, Ohio ("the
Site"), which was proximately caused by the negligence of
Defendant, Norfolk Southern Railway Company ("NSR") and/or
Defendant, Norfolk Southern Corporation ("NS") ("the Incident").

The negligence causing the derailment and chemical spill
necessitated immediate evacuation of all homes and businesses in an
approximate one-to-two-mile radius of the Site. Representative
Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members were forced to evacuate
and be involuntarily displaced from their homes and businesses.

On February 3, 2023 at approximately 9:00 p.m., a train operated by
NSR traveling from Illinois to Pennsylvania derailed. Approximately
100 cars derailed, including about 10 to 20 cars carrying hazardous
materials, including vinyl chloride. The hazardous chemicals
ignited, and the resulting fire is still burning.

Vinyl chloride is a toxic chemical that is unstable and could
explode. A 5-minute exposure to airborne concentrations of vinyl
chloride at 8,000 ppm can cause dizziness. As airborne levels
increase to 20,000 ppm, effects can include drowsiness, loss of
coordination, visual and auditory abnormalities, disorientation,
nausea, headache, and burning or tingling of the extremities.
Exposure to higher concentrations of vinyl chloride can cause death
due to central nervous system and respiratory depression. Vinyl
chloride exposure is also associated with an increased risk of a
rare form of liver cancer (hepatic angiosarcoma), as well as
primary liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma), brain and lung
cancers, lymphoma, and leukemia.

Upon information and belief, the derailment and subsequent chemical
spill was caused by the negligence of Defendants in the operation
of the subject train, defects in NSR's track system, and/or defects
in one or more of the cars. All residents and businesses within a
one to two mile radius of the Site were forced to evacuate as a
result of the Incident. Representative Plaintiffs were adversely
affected by the Incident, in that they were exposed to the toxic
substances, toxic fumes, and carcinogens from the resulting
chemical spill, were forced to evacuate from their residences
and/or businesses, and/or were prevented from returning to their
residences and/or businesses at or after the time of the chemical
spill. Business owners in the affected area were unable to operate
during the time of the evacuation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Columbiana County, Ohio who resided
and/or owned real property in the vicinity of the Incident (within
a two mile radius from the Site), or were present in or about the
vicinity of the Site.

The Defendant NSR is a Class I railroad organized and existing
under the laws of Virginia with its principal place of business in
Norfolk, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal E. Shapero, Esq.
          Andrew J. Thompson, Esq.
          SHAPERO | ROLOFF CO., LPA
          1111 Superior Ave. East, Suite 1310
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: (216) 781-1700
          Fax: (216) 781-1972
          Email: nshapero@shaperoroloff.com
                 athompson@shaperoroloff.com

               - and -

          Nicholas T. Amato, Esq.
          AMATO LAW OFFICE, LPA
          420 Broadway Ave.
          Wellsville, Ohio 43968
          Phone: (330) 532-9500
          Fax: (330) 532-4044
          Email: amato.lawyer@gmail.com


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Class Action Over Train Derailment
----------------------------------------------------------
Sheldon Ingram, writing for WTAE, reports that Dave Anderson calls
the high-rising plume of black smoke an ominous and eerie image
that hovered over his home in New Galilee, Beaver County.

He says he lives 4.5 miles from the site of the Norfolk Southern
train derailment that occurred on February 3, followed by the
controlled burn of vinyl chloride carried by derailed tanker cars.

That controlled burn happened three days later, sending the ominous
cloud of dark smoke into the sky and triggering health concerns
with Anderson and his family members. "Our lips and mouths started
to burn, our tongues started to swell up. It was like a stinging
burn, and our eyes were watering. Our eyes were burning, and we
realized we couldn't stay here," says Anderson.

Edgar Snyder & Associates and Grant & Eisenhorfer are two law firms
representing plaintiffs in a federal class action lawsuit against
Norfolk Southern.

Attorney Brad Trust says the impact from the controlled burn is
affecting residents beyond the two-mile radius of the derailment,
where most of the evacuations occurred. "Right now, we have clients
with respiratory problems, problems with breathing," he says.

In the lawsuit, attorneys say Norfolk Southern should establish a
real-time collection of data reflecting health concerns, "that
Norfolk Southern agrees to medical monitoring of residents in the
affected area."

Investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board
continue to investigate the cause of the derailment that forced the
evacuation of homes and businesses within a two-mile radius for
nearly a week.

In an update on Feb. 14, Norfolk Southern said "surveillance video
from a residence showed what appears to be a wheel bearing in the
final stage of overheat failure moments before the derailment. The
wheelset from the suspected railcar has been collected as evidence
for metallurgical examination."

Trust said whatever the NTSB findings reveal, Norfolk Southern will
be held accountable. "Trains don't just derail for no reason," he
said. "We have reason to believe the train and the train cars were
not properly maintained and we look forward to further discovering
that throughout the course of this lawsuit."

Norfolk Southern said it will not comment on pending litigation.

In a letter to Norfolk Southern on Feb. 14, Pennsylvania Governor
Josh Shapiro expressed "serious concerns" with how the company
managed the derailment.

Shapiro met with officials in Beaver County "who share my concerns
about Norfolk Southern's poor handling of the incident." He had
called on the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to review
Norfolk Southern's actions. In the letter, Shapiro said he had
talked with President Biden and Secretary of Transportation
Buttigieg, who have "pledged their full support to the people of
Pennsylvania." [GN]

OHIO: Joint Bid for Summary Judgment in Ball v. Kasich Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHYLLIS BALL, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOHN KASICH, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action 2:16-cv-282 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund
A. Sargus, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants:

   a. the Joint Motion for Summary Judgment of the State
      Defendants and the County Boards;

   b. the County Boards' Supplemental Motion for Summary
      Judgment;

   c. the unopposed Motion to File as Amicus Curiae; and

   d. the Guardians' Motion to File a Sur-Reply.

The case originally involved two groups of individuals with
developmental disabilities who were not satisfied with Ohio's
administration of its developmental-disability system. One group,
headed by Disability Rights Ohio, filed this case alleging that
Ohio's system violated federal law because it was allegedly too
reliant on Intermediate Care Facilities ("ICFs") at the expense of
integration into the community for disability services.

The other group, which intervened as representatives of individuals
who prefer care in ICFs ("Guardians"), alleged that Ohio's system
violates the same federal laws because it fails to inform people of
the ICF choice, leaving them only the option of community-based
care through waivers or wait lists for those waivers. The
Guardians, as did Plaintiffs, bring claims under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.

On March 31, 2016, Disability Rights Ohio filed this case on behalf
of six individually named Plaintiffs and the Ability Center of
Greater Toledo seeking declarative and injunctive relief against
the Directors of the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities,
the Ohio Department of Medicaid, and Opportunities for Ohioans with
Disabilities (together "State of Ohio") and the Governor of Ohio.

The Plaintiffs alleged that Ohio's administration, management, and
funding of its service system for people with intellectual and
developmental disabilities such as themselves put them at serious
risk of segregation and institutionalization in violation of Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C.
Section 12132, et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
29 U.S.C. Section 794.2 as interpreted by the Supreme Court's
decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). The Plaintiffs
also moved under Title XIX of the Social Security Act ("Medicaid
Act"), 42 U.S.C. 1396, et seq.

The Ohio County Boards Serving People with Developmental
Disabilities ("County Boards") moved to intervene, which was
opposed by the Plaintiffs. After full briefing, the Court permitted
the County Boards to intervene, adding them as Defendants.

The Guardians, representing individuals who preferred institutional
care in ICFs also moved to intervene. The Defendants supported the
Guardians' request to intervene, but only for the purpose of
opposing the Plaintiffs' request for class certification. The
Plaintiffs opposed intervention. The Court granted intervention to
the Guardians in July 2017.

The Guardians filed a Third-Party Complaint with Crossclaims
against the State of Ohio, the Governor of Ohio, and the Intervenor
County Boards. They allege that Ohio has systematically denied ICF
services, by failing, in their view, to assure that individuals who
qualify for ICF services are informed of that qualification so that
they may be provided the ICF service if they so choose. Guardians
aver that the County Boards routinely failed to provide information
about ICFs to eligible individuals so that the individuals knew
they had a choice to reside in an ICF, and instead only provided
information related to the individual's qualification for waiver
services, i.e., community-based options or wait lists for
community-based options.

The State of Ohio, the Governor of Ohio, and the County Boards, all
moved for dismissal of the Guardians' crossclaims. After full
briefing, and at the request of the parties, the Court stayed
decision on the motions to dismiss so that all parties could engage
in settlement negotiations. Following extensive settlement
negotiations, all parties entered into a settlement as a complete
and final resolution of all matters that ultimately only
encompassed Plaintiffs and Defendants. The Court granted the
unopposed request of the Plaintiff Class, the Defendants, and the
County Boards for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action
Settlement Agreement on Oct. 18, 2019.

At the parties' request, the Court vacated the stay on the motions
to dismiss of the State of Ohio, the Governor of Ohio, and the
County Boards. The Court issued its decision, which dismissed the
Guardians' claims brought pursuant to the ADA and the
Rehabilitation Act and permitted the claim filed under the Medicaid
Act to proceed. The Guardians asked the Court to reconsider its
dismissal of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, which the Court
denied. Therefore, remaining for adjudication are the Guardians'
Crossclaims under the "free choice" and "reasonable promptness"
provisions of the Medicaid Act, located at 42 U.S.C. Section
1396n(c)(2)(B) and (C); 42 U.S.C. Section 1396(a)(8). There are 10
Guardians who represent thirteen individuals with disabilities.

The Guardians have requested permission to file a sur-reply, which
is fully briefed. They provide declarations of "'regular' Ohioans
of all stripes simply trying to navigate the system and learn of
their options."

While the Guardians' request addresses arguments that could have
been made earlier, Judge Sargus finds good cause to permit filing.
The case has a long history and he finds it beneficial to review
the briefing even though it was not filed pursuant to the proper
procedure. It is well established that district courts enjoy an
inherent power to manage and control their own dockets. Therefore,
the Guardians' Motion to File a Sur-reply is granted.

The Defendants and the County Boards move for summary judgment on
three grounds: standing, mootness, and statute of limitations.
Judge Sargus finds that the claims of the Guardians have been
rendered moot, and therefore declines to address the remaining
arguments. Among other things, he says (i) there is no chance that
Defendants' alleged conduct (not informing parties of the ICF
option) could harm any of the individuals the Guardians represent;
(ii) regardless of the Guardians' suggestion that they have
"effectively been representing a de facto class of Ohioans," this
case has not been certified as a class action as to the Guardians;
and (iii) the affidavits from other community members not parties
to this case and presented to the Court in the Guardians' Sur-reply
are of no moment in the analysis.

For these reasons, Judge Sargus concludes that the Defendants have
met their burden of proving the claims of the Guardians have been
rendered moot. Thus, he grants the Joint Motion for Summary
Judgment of Defendants and the County Boards; the County Boards'
Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment; the unopposed Motion to
File as Amicus Curiae; and the Guardians' Motion to File a
Sur-Reply. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the
Defendants.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mrx6mxdz from Leagle.com.


ONE SOUL: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Tabai Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLINA TABAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONE SOUL LLC d/b/a TOTAL NUTRITION,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-001708 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir.,
Broward Cty., February 9, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sends automated text
messages to consumers' cellular telephone numbers, including the
Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its products or services
without obtaining prior express written consent. The Defendant's
unsolicited text messages have caused the Plaintiff and the Class
members harm, including statutory damages, inconvenience, invasion
of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their
statutory privacy rights, says the suit.

One Soul LLC, doing business as Total Nutrition is a distributor of
fitness supplements based in Cedar Falls, Iowa. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
         110 6th Street, Suite 1744
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 907-1136
         E-mail: jen@jibraellaw.com

ONSTAR LLC: Ramirez Sues Over Auto Payment Deductions
-----------------------------------------------------
Victoria Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ONSTAR, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00225-H-AGS
(S.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2023), is brought to challenge the unfair and
unlawful actions of the Defendant in making auto payment deductions
from Plaintiff's bank account despite the express termination of
such services in violation of: the Electronic Funds Transfer Act;
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").

OnStar Service equipment and software comes installed in most
General Motors manufactured vehicles, such as Cadillac, and it also
becomes available by installing OnStar's App from the App Store or
on Google Play. Consumers who want to use OnStar Services may try
OnStar's free trial period that lasts for several months. When the
free trial period ends, consumers who want to continue having
access to the services must pay a monthly fee and become
Subscribers. OnStar subscribers typically pay between $24.99 and
$49.99 per month depending on the plan.

Most OnStar customers utilize autopay, which allows OnStar to debit
consumers' bank accounts through either charging the consumer's
debit card or debiting their bank's checking account on a recurring
monthly basis. Unfortunately, OnStar has a history, pattern, and
practice of exploiting its customer's utilization of its autopay
feature by continuing to debit consumers' bank accounts (without
consent) long after the customer canceled their subscription.
Despite consumers' complaints, OnStar continues to debit consumers'
bank accounts without their permission.

The Plaintiff and the Class members have suffered a concrete injury
as a result of OnStar's continued unfair and illegal conduct of
charging the Plaintiff and class members for services that were
canceled. This action seeks, in part, to ensure the illegal
practices do not recur in the future, and that moving forward
OnStar obtains consent for charges, as required by law. The
Plaintiff makes these allegations on information and belief, with
the exception of those allegations that pertain to a Plaintiff, or
to Plaintiff's counsel, which Plaintiff alleges on personal
knowledge, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff canceled the OnStar Services and received a
Cancelation Notice via email.

The Defendant is in the business of providing emergency assistance
and access to OnStar hands-free calling and navigation
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Barthel, Esq.
          BARTHEL & BARTHEL, APC
          2173 Salk Ave., Ste. 250
          Carlsbad, CA 92008
          Phone: (760) 259-0033
          Facsimile: (760) 536-9010
          Email: nick@barthelbarthel.com


OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Labaton Named Lead Counsel in Alich Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Sam Alich, Plaintiff v. Opendoor Technologies
Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-22-01717-PHX-MTL (D.
Ariz.), Judge Michael T. Liburdi of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona:

   a. consolidates the Related Actions;

   b. appoints Indiana Public Retirement System, Oakland County
      Employees' Retirement System, and Oakland County Voluntary
      Employees' Beneficiary Association as the Lead Plaintiffs;
      and

   c. approves the Lead Plaintiffs' selection of Labaton Sucharow
      LLP as the Lead Counsel for the putative class.

The Related Actions are securities putative class actions brought
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections
78u-4, et seq., and the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections
77z-1, et seq. against Opendoor, certain of the Company's officers
and directors, and underwriters who worked with the Company to
offer its securities, and a major shareholder who allegedly sold a
large amount of stock in the Company (collectively, "Defendants").

Opendoor was formerly known as Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings
Corp. II ("SCH"). SCH operated as a special purpose acquisition
company, a type of blank-check company. SCH and Opendoor Labs Inc.,
a private company operating a digital platform for the buying and
selling residential real estate, entered into a merger agreement,
creating Opendoor Technologies Inc. ("Opendoor"). In its present
iteration, Opendoor, a Delaware Corporation with its principal
offices in Tempe, Arizona, operates a digital marketplace for the
buying and selling of residential real estate in the United States.
The Company's shares trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol
"OPEN."

Opendoor's digital platform features a technology known as
"iBuying," an algorithm-based process that enables Opendoor to make
accurate market-based offers to sellers for their homes, and then
later flip those homes to subsequent buyers. The Related Actions
allege that the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material facts adverse to the
Company's business activities and operations.

Namely, the Related Actions allege that the Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the algorithm
used by the Company to make offers for homes could not accurately
adjust to changing house prices across different market conditions
and economic cycles; (2) as a result, the Company was at an
increased risk of sustaining significant and repeated losses due to
residential real estate pricing fluctuations; (3) accordingly,
Defendants overstated the purported benefits and competitive
advantages of the algorithm; and (4) as a result Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

The Related Actions assert that investors learned truth in a series
of disclosures culminating in a Bloomberg article reporting that
the Company appeared to have lost money on 42 percent of its
transactions in August of 2022. The Plaintiffs seek to recover
losses that were allegedly suffered as a result of the Defendants'
false and/or misleading statements.

The matter comes before the Court on multiple movants motions for
consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of
selection of counsel for two securities putative class actions
filed in this district.

The Court received five Motions to Consolidate the case with the
Related Action.

Judge Liburdi finds that consolidation is appropriate as the
Related Actions involve common questions of law and fact. Both
actions arise under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, with
claims brought against the same company and largely the same
individual defendants. While the complaint in the Related Action
includes an additional Securities Act claim, this does not preclude
consolidation. The Related Actions allege identical class periods
and substantially the same wrongdoing. In addition, both cases are
at the initial stages of litigation, and no prejudice will result
from consolidation. Thus, Judge Liburdi consolidates the Related
Actions for all purposes, including trial.

The Court also received five Motions for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff from five movant groups and individuals. As of the date
of the Order, however, three of the movants have filed notices of
non-opposition and one movant has withdrawn its motion.

In light of this, Judge Liburdi finds that the only outstanding
request for appointment as lead plaintiff comes from movant group
Indiana Public Retirement System ("Indiana"), Oakland County
Employees' Retirement System, and Oakland County Voluntary
Employees' Beneficiary Association (together with Oakland County
Employees' Retirement System, "Oakland County"). Indiana and
Oakland County also filed a Supplemental Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Further Support of their Motion for Consolidation,
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Selection of
Counsel.

Judge Liburdi focuses on whether Indiana and Oakland meet the "most
adequate plaintiff" requirements under the PSLRA. He finds that (i)
Indiana and Oakland County's group status does not prevent them
from serving as the Lead Plaintiff; (ii) Indiana and Oakland
County's Motion is timely under the PSLRA; (iii) Indiana and
Oakland County possess the largest financial interest in the relief
sought by the class; (iv) Indiana and Oakland County satisfy the
typicality requirement; (v) Indiana and Oakland County meet the
adequacy requirements to serve as the Lead Plaintiff; and (vi)
there is no evidence that Indiana and Oakland County will not
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Finally, Indiana and Oakland County have selected Labaton Sucharow
LLP as the Lead Counsel. Judge Liburdi finds that Labaton Sucharow
LLP has significant experience in litigating securities class
actions throughout the United States, and the Court is satisfied
that Labaton Sucharow LLP will prosecute the action vigorously and
competently. Therefore, Judge Liburdi approves Indiana and Oakland
County's choice of counsel.

Accordingly, Judge Liburdi:

     a. grants Indiana and Oakland County's Motion for
Consolidation, Appointment of Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of
Selection of Counsel;

     b. denies Julio Maurice Bueno's Motion for Consolidation of
the Actions, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of
Selection of Counsel;

     c. denies Chad Donnelly's Motion for Consolidation,
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Counsel; denies the
Investor Group's Motion for Consolidation, Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff, and Approval of its Selection of Lead Counsel and
Liaison Counsel;

     d. consolidates cases 2:22-CV-01717-MTL and 2:22-CV-01987-GMS
for all purposes, including trial. All future pleadings in this
consolidated action will bear the following caption: In re Opendoor
Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 2:22-CV-01717-MTL;

     e. appoints Indiana Public Retirement System, Oakland County
Employees' Retirement System, and Oakland County Voluntary
Employees' Beneficiary Association as the Lead Plaintiff in this
consolidated action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B);

     f. approves Lead Plaintiff Indiana Public Retirement System,
Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, and Oakland County
Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association's selection of Labaton
Sucharow LLP as the Lead Counsel for the class pursuant to 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v); and

     g. sets a Status Conference for Feb. 28, 2023, at 1:00 p.m.
(Arizona time) in Courtroom 504, 401 West Washington Street,
Phoenix, Arizona 85003 before Judge Liburdi. Out-of-state counsel
may file a motion for leave to appear telephonically. Counsel will
be prepared to discuss the Joint Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/b4j2ppzf from Leagle.com.


ORNUA FOODS: Faces Class Action Over PFAS in Kerrygold Butter
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that the maker
of Kerrygold salted and unsalted butter sticks faces a proposed
class action that alleges the "Pure Irish Butter" products' foil
packaging contains synthetic substances known commonly as "forever
chemicals."

The 35-page complaint says Kerrygold butter, sought after for its
rich flavor and creamy texture attributed to grass-fed cows, is
falsely advertised as "Pure Irish Butter" given that the sticks
contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), man-made
chemicals known to be harmful to humans and the environment. Per
the case, PFAS persist and accumulate over time, and are harmful
even at very low levels.

Kerrygold butter was recently pulled from store shelves in New York
and California due to the presence of PFAS in the butter's
packaging, the lawsuit shares. Both states have rules prohibiting
food packaging from containing PFAS.

According to the suit, defendant Ornua Foods North America
intentionally describes the products as "Pure Irish Butter" to
drive sales and increase profits among health-conscious consumers
who reasonably believe the products are free from artificial
ingredients and harmful chemicals.

"Insofar as PFAS made its way into Defendant's Products on purpose,
it should have been listed on the Product's labeling," the
complaint reads. "Insofar as it made its way into the Products by
accident, it follows that it was due to poor manufacturing
processes by either Defendant and/or their agents."

The lawsuit shares that diet is a major avenue for exposure to PFAS
for humans. The suit says PFAS have been associated with myriad
negative health effects, including reproductive issues,
developmental concerns in children and an increased risk of some
cancers.

The filing contests that Ornua Foods is "well aware of consumers'
desire to avoid potentially harmful chemicals, which is why it has
engaged in an aggressive, uniform marketing campaign" to convince
the public that Kerrygold butter is in fact "Pure Irish Butter," a
representation "entirely inconsistent" with the alleged presence of
PFAS.

Reasonable consumers would not have bought the product had they
known it contained synthetic chemicals that could harm their
health, the suit says.

IrishCentral.com reported in January that Kerrygold butter would
soon be returning to U.S. store shelves after the company "made
some changes" to its packaging due to New York and California
regulatory requirements that went into effect on December 31, 2022
and January 1, 2023, respectively.

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons who, during the fullest
period allowed by law, bought Kerrygold salted or unsalted butter
sticks within the United States for personal use and not for
resale. [GN]

PAW BRANDS: Faces Rist Suit Over Unsolicited Text Message Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW RIST, individually and on behalf of all all others
similarly v. PAW BRANDS, LLC, Case No. CACE-23-001475 (Fla. Cir.,
Feb. 3, 2023) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages and
placing unwanted telephone calls) to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

Specifically, the Defendant sent Text Message Advertisements that
promoted Paw.com's services and products without transmitting to
the recipients' caller identification service a telephone number
that was capable of receiving telephone calls and that connected to
either the telephone solicitor or the Defendant. The Plaintiff's
cellphone has been sent Paw.com Text Message Advertisements
sporadically since July 1, 2021. The Text Message Advertisements
are generic, do not include the name of the intended recipient and
include stock text, which promoted its online store, the lawsuit
claims.

The Plaintiff attempted to call 58428, but the call could not be
completed as dialed. The Plaintiff also attempted to text the
Paw.com Callers by sending the following text messages: 1) 1)
Customer service; 2) Agent. The Plaintiff received only an
automated response in reply indicating that the message was not
understood, the lawsuit adds.

Paw Brands is an award-winning designer and manufacturer of
innovative pet products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (202) 709-5744
          Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
          E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
                  shawn@sjlawcollective.com

PEARL CORPORATION: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pearl Corporation.
The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Pearl Corporation, Case No.
1:23-cv-00986 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2023).

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

Pearl -- https://pearldrum.com/ -- is a world-wide leading
manufacturer of the best percussion instruments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


PERFORMANCE ENHANCING: Scheibe Sues Over Falsely Advertised Product
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Scheibe, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. PERFORMANCE ENHANCING SUPPLEMENTS, LLC, dba PEScience,
a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
3:23-cv-00219-BEN-DDL (S.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2023), is brought
alleging that "Versalyte" ("the Products"), a dietary supplement
manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold
by Defendant, is misbranded and falsely advertised.

The front label (or "principal display panel") of the Products
prominently state they are "Naturally Flavored," with attention
drawn to the claim through graphic elements. In addition, the front
label uses depictions of fruits such as lemons, and oranges as well
as strawberries, raspberries, and blackberries to reinforce the
claim that the Products are flavored using only natural sources.

These natural flavoring claims are false. The Products are flavored
using an artificial flavoring, DL malic acid, that is derived from
petrochemicals. All flavors of the Products state, on the back
label, that they contain "malic acid." The back labels also state
that the Products contain "Natural Flavors."

While there is a naturally occurring form of malic acid, it is
extremely expensive to formulate in large quantities and is almost
never used in mass-produced food products. Instead, testing by an
independent third-party laboratory has confirmed that the malic
acid that Defendant uses in these Products is DL malic acid, a
synthetic substance derived from petrochemicals. This type of malic
acid is manufactured in petrochemical plants from benzene or
butane—components of gasoline and lighter fluid,
respectively—through a series of chemical reactions, some of
which involve highly toxic chemical precursors and byproducts.

The Defendant uses the petrochemical-derived DL malic acid in its
Products to create a sweet and tart flavor but pretends otherwise,
conflating natural and artificial flavorings, misbranding the
Products and deceiving consumers. The ingredients on the Products'
label are declared in a way that is misleading and contrary to law,
because Defendant designates the ingredient by its generic name,
"malic acid," instead of by its specific name, "DL malic acid."

DL malic acid is not a "natural flavor" as this term is defined by
federal and state regulations and is not derived from a fruit or
vegetable or any other natural source. The Products therefore
contain artificial flavorings. Because the Products contain
artificial flavoring, California law requires the Products to
display both front- and back-label disclosures to inform consumers
that the Products are artificially flavored. The Products have none
of the required disclosures regarding the use of artificial
flavors.

The Plaintiff reviewed the label on the Products prior to his
purchase, and reviewed the natural flavoring claims being made
there and. Consumers such as Plaintiff who viewed the Products'
labels reasonably understood Defendant's "Naturally Flavored"
statements, as well as its failure to disclose the use of
artificially derived malic acid, to mean that the Products contain
only natural flavorings. This representation was also false.
Consumers including Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant's
statements such that they would not have purchased the Products
from Defendant if the truth about the Products was known, or would
have only been willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the
Products had they known that Defendant's representations were false
and misleading, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Products.

PEScience formulates, manufactures, and sells a dietary supplement
called "Versalyte."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles C. Weller, Esq.
          CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
          11412 Corley Court
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Phone: 858.414.7465
          Fax: 858.300.5137
          Email: legal@cweller.com

PLDT INC: Artificially Inflated Securities Prices, Olsson Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SOPHIA OLSSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLDT INC., MANUEL V. PANGILINAN, ALFRED S.
PANLILIO, ANNABELLE L. CHUA, MARILYN A. VICTORIO-AQUINO, ABNER TITO
L. ALBERTO, GIL SAMSON D. GARCIA, MA. LOURDES C. RAUSA-CHAN,
FLORENTINO D. MABASA JR., and JUNE CHERYL A. CABAL-REVILLA,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00885 (C.D. Cal., February 6, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about PLDT's business, operations, and
prospects to trade PLDT securities at artificially inflated prices
between January 1, 2019 and December 19, 2022. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) there were capital spending
budget overruns; (2) the Defendants failed to address weaknesses
that allowed such budget overruns; and (3) as a result, the
Defendants' statements about PLDT's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

When the truth emerged, PLDT's share price fell $6.35 per share, or
more than 19 percent, to close at $20.46 on December 19, 2022,
damaging investors.

PLDT Inc. is a telecommunications company based in the Philippines.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 785-2610
         Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

POSEN, IL: Sued Over Handling of Overweight Truck Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary Haydock, writing for Cook County Record, reports that truck
drivers are asking a Cook County judge to declare a south Cook
County suburb at the heavily traveled junction of I-294 and I-57
has violated the law in how it handles the hearing process for
tickets issued to trucks police declare to be overweight.

On Feb. 10, attorneys with the firms of Markoff Leinberger, of
Chicago and Andreano Law, of Posen, filed suit in Cook County
Circuit Court against the village of Posen. The complaint was filed
on behalf of truck driver Max Frederic and potentially many other
truck drivers.

The lawsuit alleges the village, population of about 5,300, has
violated Illinois state law for the manner in which it's
adjudicating overweight trucking tickets issued within the village
limits.

The suit suggests Posen is operating an illegal scheme following
the issuing of tickets to commercial drivers driving through Posen
that exceed weight restrictions. While the lawsuit doesn't
challenge the tickets themselves, it takes aim at the
administrative process by which Posen supposedly is accused of
unilaterally controlling at the heart of this case.

According to the complaint, Illinois law requires tickets issued
must be heard in an Illinois court. Posen is not a home-rule
municipality. It therefore lacks the jurisdiction to
administratively hear and rule over tickets issued, the complaint
said.

The lawsuit asserts the Illinois Municipal Code imposes limits on
the village's authority to administratively rule on ordinance
violations. These limits are designed to protect the rights of
individuals who have allegedly violated village ordinances by
preventing village municipalities from overstepping their bounds.

Frederic claims that village officials are effectively acting as
"the fox guarding the henhouse" by allegedly requiring truckers
issued tickets for being over the weight limit to forfeit their due
process rights in court. The suit contends operators are required
instead to appear at a hearing before village officials presided
over by an unelected village law officer to hear the cases against
them.

The suit states that the fines imposed on these tickets are hefty,
and the village profits from collecting them. As Ilinois truck
drivers operate under a "point system," drivers issued a moving
violation receive points on their driving records that could lead
to restrictions or the possible loss of their operator's license.

Plaintiff is demanding a trial by jury and seeks restitution of all
fines paid to Posen, legal fees and court costs.

Plaintiff is represented by attorneys Karl Leinberger and Paul
Markoff of Markoff Leinberger, and Frank Andreano, or Andreano Law.
[GN]

REGAL MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Personal Info, Head Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HEAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REGAL MEDICAL GROUP INC., HERITAGE PROVIDER
NETWORK, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 23STCV02939 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 9, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants for violation of
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, negligence, breach of
implied contract, unfair business practices, and unjust
enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class members' protected health
information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII)
stored within the Defendants' information network following a data
breach on Dec. 8, 2022. The Defendants also failed to timely inform
the Plaintiff and Class members about the discovered data breach.
As a result of the Defendants' negligence and omissions, the
PHI/PII of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised through
disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the
suit.

Regal Medical Group Inc. is a healthcare network with a principal
place of business located in Marina Del Rey, California.

Heritage Provider Network, Inc. is a healthcare network with a
principal place of business located in Marina Del Rey, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
         Laura Van Note, Esq.
         Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
         Elizabeth Ruth Klos, Esq.
         COLE & VAN NOTE
         555 12th Street, Suite 1725
         Oakland, CA 94607
         Telephone: (510) 891-9800
         Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
         E-mail: sec@colevannote.com
                 lvn@colevannote.com
                 cab@colevannote.com
                 erk@colevannote.com

RESTAURANT PERSONNEL: Risch Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Risch, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees v. RESTAURANT PERSONNEL, INC. D/B/A DO-RITE DONUTS,
ROBERT J. MELMAN (Individually), Case No. 1:23-cv-00723 (N.D. Ill.,
Feb. 6, 2023), is brought to recover from the Defendants unpaid
overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as
liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
("IMWL").

The Plaintiff was not paid overtime in any of those pay periods
despite working over 40 hours in a given seven day work week. The
Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA in that failed to pay
Plaintiff at a rate not less than one and a half times his regular
rate for all hours worked over forty hours in the work week. The
Defendants knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the provisions
of the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants as a Baker in March
14, 2022.

Restaurant Personnel, Inc. d/b/a Do-Rite Donuts, is a corporation
operating in and for Cook County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
          Chad Eisenback, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 568-3056
          Fax: (630) 575 - 8188
          Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
                 ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com


RPC PIZZA: Travis Sues Over Failure to Reimburse Drivers' Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLA TRAVIS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. RPC PIZZA, INC., and RICHARD CUNNINGHAM,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00007-C (N.D. Tex., January 6, 2023)
alleges the Defendants of violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from approximately
October 2013 to August 2020 as a delivery driver at its Domino's
store located in Forney, Texas.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant employed a flawed
automobile reimbursement policy, which reimburses delivery drivers
below the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate and/or much less
than a reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile
expenses. As a result of this flawed reimbursement policy, the
delivery drivers' net wages diminished beneath the federal minimum
wage requirements. Thus, the Defendants have willfully failed to
pay the federal minimum wage to their delivery drivers, thereby
enjoys ill-gained profits at the expense of its employees.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
demanding judgement against the Defendants and seeks for
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, costs of litigation and
attorney's fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief
as the Court deems fair and equitable.

RPC Pizza, Inc. operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores.
Richard Cunningham is the director of the Corporate Defendant.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Serrano, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com

RUST-OLEUM: Nemirovsky Sues Over Deceptive, Misleading Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Nemirovsky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Rust-Oleum Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00977
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2023), is brought seeks to remedy the deceptive
and misleading business practices of Rust-Oleum Corporation with
respect to the marketing and sale of various
paint-and-primer-in-one products throughout the state of New York
and throughout the country.

The Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products
with the claim that the Products are "Paint & Primer" or "Paint +
Primer." Reasonable consumers believe that products that claim to
offer "Paint & Primer" or "Paint + Primer" contain both paint and
primer in that product, and that the consumer will get the benefits
of both a paint and a primer from just the one product. However,
the Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is false,
deceptive, and misleading since the Products do not work as
represented as they do not adequately cover and adhere to the
surface without first separately applying primer.

The Plaintiff and the Class Members, when purchasing the Products,
relied on Defendant's misrepresentation that the Products,
represented as "Paint & Primer" or "Paint + Primer" could cover and
adhere to the surface in one coat without the necessity of
separately purchasing primer and applying primer to the surface
before applying the paint.

In other words, the Products were marketed as saving the purchaser
the additional cost, time, and effort of going through the process
of priming the surface before painting it. Because this marketing
claim was false, the Plaintiffs and Class members were forced to
incur additional money, time, and effort in order to achieve a
properly painted surface. In addition, the Plaintiff and Class
Members paid a premium for the Products over and above comparable
products that did  not make the "Paint & Primer" or "Paint +
Primer" claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered an injury in additional cost and time involved to obtain a
properly painted surface, as represented by the Products' claims,
as well as the amount of the price premium paid for the Products.

The Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate, inter
alia, New York General Business Law, and the consumer protection
statutes of all 50 states. The Defendant breached and continues to
breach its express and implied warranties regarding the Products.
The Plaintiff and the Class Members paid for Products that provide
paint-and-primer-
in-one and that they believed were proven to provide a
paint-and-primer-in-one. The Products Plaintiff and the Class
Members received was worth less than the Products for which they
paid, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Products during the Class Period.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes
the Products throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Daniel Markowitz, Esq
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Phone: (202) 470-3520
          Fax: (888) 749-7747
          Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Phone: (313) 303-3472
          Email: nsuciu@milberg.com

               - and -

          Gary Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          221 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          405 E 50th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (630) 796-0903
          Email: hbryson@milberg.com


RYDER INTEGRATED: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Keefer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SALNAVE KEEFER, Plaintiff v. RYDER INTEGRATED
LOGISTICS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-07503-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California grants the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

Mr. Keefer applied to work for the Defendants ("Ryder"). As part of
the application process, Ryder provided Mr. Keefer with a
disclosure and authorization form to perform a background
investigation. Neither party disputes that Ryder provided Mr.
Keefer with two disclosures: 1) a Background Investigation
Disclosure (which Mr. Keefer received twice), and 2) a Reports
Disclosure. The Reports Disclosure indicates that it was signed by
Mr. Keefer on April 13, 2020.

Mr. Keefer brings a putative class action complaint against Ryder
for failure to make proper disclosure under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA") (15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et. seq.).

Pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment. The Court gave the parties leave to brief a motion for
summary judgment limited to the question of whether the
disclosure(s) in the form(s) produced to the individual named
plaintiff comply with the relevant statutes. The motion has been
fully briefed and the Court held a hearing on the motion.

The Defendants contend that there is no triable issue as to whether
the disclosures complied with the FCRA because 1) they were clear
and conspicuous, and 2) they were provided to Mr. Keefer as
standalone documents.

Judge Gilliam agrees.

First, Judge Gilliam finds that the Background Investigation
Disclosure complied with the FCRA's "clear and conspicuous"
requirement because it was "reasonably understandable" and "readily
noticeable to the consumer." He says disclosure was provided in the
context of an employment application and that both "appointment"
and "contract terms" have reasonably understandable meanings in
this context. The Background Investigation Disclosure was also
conspicuous even though the Defendants gave the Plaintiff multiple
disclosures, because it was still "readily noticeable to the
consumer."

Second, Judge Gilliam finds that the Background Investigation
Disclosure complied with the FCRA's standalone document requirement
because the disclosure was presented as a standalone document and
did not include any extraneous information. The Plaintiff argues
that the disclosure violated the standalone document requirement
for several reasons, none of which are persuasive. The links,
texts, and logos did not violate the standalone document
requirement of the FCRA. The challenged phrases and statements also
did not violate the standalone document requirement of the FCRA.

For these reasons, Judge Gilliam grants the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment. He directs the Clerk to enter judgment in favor
of the Defendants and to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4pkjbyca from Leagle.com.


RYVYL INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 3, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP of GlobeNewsWire reports that investors are
hereby notified that they have until April 3, 2023, to move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.

A class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
Ryvyl Inc. f/k/a/ Greenbox POS ("Ryvyl" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
RVYL). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Ryvyl securities (a) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with the Company's January 29,
2021, public offering; and/or (b) between January 29, 2021 and
January 20, 2023.

If you suffered a loss and are interested in learning more about
being a lead plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If
emailing, please include a phone number.

To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
into a browser:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/ryvyl-inc

There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that in the
Registration Statement and throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's financial
statements in 2021 and 2022 contained errors resulting in
overstatements of revenue, assets, and stockholders' equity and
understatements of losses; (2) as a result, Ryvyl would restate
certain financials; (3) the Company's internal controls were
inadequate; (4) the Company downplayed and obfuscated its internal
controls issues; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Ryvyl class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Ryvyl class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff.

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

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

SAINT PETERS UNIVERSITY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saint Peters
University. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Saint Peters
University, Case No. 1:23-cv-01053 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2023).

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

Saint Peter's University -- https://www.saintpeters.edu/ -- is a
private Jesuit university in Jersey City, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


SAZERAC COMPANY: McKay Sues Over Deceptive Malt Beverage Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER MCKAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00522 (N.D. Cal., February 3, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and for false advertising, fraud,
deceit, and/or misrepresentation, unfair business practices, and
unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading labeling, advertising, and marketing of
its mini bottles of Fireball malt beverage. The Defendants deceive
consumers into purchasing Fake Fireball by using (1) labeling that
is substantially identical to their Fireball Whisky product for
their Fake Fireball Product; (2) an ingredients list that is
described in a confusing manner that suggests that whisky is an
ingredient of the Fake Fireball Product (even though it has no
whisky just whisky flavor); and (3) deceptive packaging that is
customarily used for a single-serving of a distilled alcoholic
spirits. This causes reasonable consumers to purchase the products
believing that they are purchasing a single serving of Fireball
Whisky. However, the products are not Fireball Whisky but are malt
beverages with added whisky flavor and significantly less alcohol
than Fireball Whisky, says the suit.

Sazerac Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of alcoholic beverages,
with its principal place of business in Louisville, Kentucky. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Seth A. Safier, Esq.
         Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
         Rajiv V. Thairani, Esq.
         GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 639-9090
         Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
         E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                 marie@gutridesafier.com
                 rajiv@gutridesafier.com

SCOUT CANNING: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Martinez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCOUT CANNING INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01111 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2023) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, http//:www.Enjoyscout.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction
to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

SCOUT CANNING INC. manufactures and sells canned seafood and
related products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Telephone. (917) 373-9128
          Email: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com

SEMPER LASER: Fails to Properly Pay Sales Managers, Martinez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIENNE MARTINEZ and CHELSEA-ANN SHORT, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SEMPER LASER
HOLDINGS LLC DENVER, MACROS PEIXOTO, KRISTEN CAVERLY PEIXOTO, and
STELLA QUEEN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00320 (D.
Colo., February 3, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Minimum and Pay
Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage Act.

Plaintiffs Martinez and Short worked for the Defendants as sales
managers from May 2022 until November 2022 and from May 2022 until
December 2022, respectively.

Semper Laser Holdings LLC Denver is a laser hair removal clinic and
facility in Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
         John William Billhorn, Esq.
         BILLHORN LAW FIRM
         7900 E. Union Ave., Suite 1100
         Denver, CO 80237
         Telephone: (720) 386-9006

SIGNATURE BANK: Faces Class Action Suit Over Crypto Exchange Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------------
Oluwapelumi Adejumo of CryptoSlate reports that class-action
lawsuit alleges Signature bank 'permitted' FTX comingling customer
funds.

Signature bank was accused of aiding and abetting the FTX fraud and
the breach of its fiduciary duties.

Crypto-friendly Signature Bank has been drawn into a class-action
lawsuit over its role in the operations of the defunct crypto
exchange FTX, according to a Feb. 6 court filing.

The lawsuit alleged that: " [Signature Bank] knew of and permitted
the commingling of FTX customer funds within its proprietary,
blockchain-based payments network, Signet. "

Signature Bank was further accused of aiding and abetting the FTX
fraud and breaching fiduciary duties. The lawsuit added that the
bank acquired ill-gotten gains from deposits intended for FTX.

An algorithmic trading firm Statistica Capital filed the lawsuit.

Statistica said it advised the bank multiple times that its funds
were meant for FTX, but the bank allowed them to be transferred
into Alameda-controlled accounts.

The firm added that Signature Bank substantially facilitated the
FTX fraud by publicly promoting the exchange. It continued that the
bank failed to close FTX's accounts despite knowing that they were
being used in violation of the bankrupt firm's "terms of services
and fiduciary duties to customers."

Statistica alleged that the bank knew of the FTX fraud because it
had carried out its enhanced due diligence obligations, including
during the onboarding process and ongoing monitoring of its account
and operations.

Following FTX's collapse, Signature Bank said the crypto exchange's
deposits were less than 0.1% of its overall bank deposits. The bank
later added that it would shrink its deposits tied to crypto assets
by as much as $10 billion.

More recently, Binance said the bank no longer supported crypto
transactions worth less than $100,000. [GN]

SMITHFIELD PACKAGED: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vargas Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
GILBERTO VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS CORP.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV03088 (Cal. Sup.,
Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 10, 2023) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Vargas was employed by the Defendants as equipment
operator.

SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS CORP. manufactures and produces of
processed-meat and fresh-pork products, including bacon, ham,
sausage and deli and specialty meats. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
         Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
         Diana Zadykyan, Esq.
         HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
         801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 696-2306
         Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
         Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
                cathy@hbklawyers.com
                diana@hbklawyers.com

SONRAY SOLAR: Housley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonray Solar, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Joseph Housley, on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. Sonray Solar,
Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2023-00334376-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 7, 2023).

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

Sonray Solar -- https://sonrayserviceteam.com/ -- is a premier
choice for sourcing solar panels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
          Phone: (818) 230-7502
          Fax: (818) 230-7259
          Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


SONY INTERACTIVE: Faces Class Action Over PlayStation 5 Console
---------------------------------------------------------------
Logan Moore, writing for Comicbook, reports that PlayStation 5
console manufacturer Sony has found itself under fire due to a
class-action lawsuit that involves its video game brand. In recent
years, various gaming manufacturers such as Nintendo, Microsoft,
and a number of others have been dealing with lawsuits at one time
or another. More often than not, these class-action lawsuits tend
to be tied back in with faulty hardware. With Nintendo and
Microsoft, specifically, this has been seen with thumbstick
"drifting" on both Switch and Xbox consoles, which has led to quite
a bit of controversy. When it comes to Sony's new class-action
lawsuit that it's dealing with, though, it involves the company's
digital storefront that is seen across PS5 and PS4.

In a report stemming from Sky News, this lawsuit aimed at
PlayStation is of the class-action variety and stems from the UK.
Specifically, the lawsuit in question claims that Sony is "ripping
people off" by charging a 30% commission on every game that is sold
through the PlayStation Store. Alex Neill, who is the person that
introduced these allegations, says that PlayStation owners have
been overcharged for their purchases on the digital marketplace
since 2016 by a total of nearly $6 billion. In turn, Neill believes
that anyone who has purchased games, DLC, or other various items
through the PlayStation Store since August 2016 are entitled to
anywhere from roughly $75 to $660 in damages.

Obviously, Sony taking a cut from digital sales on the PlayStation
Store isn't unlike practices that are made on Steam, the Microsoft
Store, and other various platforms. Still, it seems like Neill and
the collective behind her are asserting that without these
commission costs in the first place, game prices on the PS Store
would be much lower as a result.

"The game is up for Sony PlayStation," Neill told Sky News. "With
this legal action I am standing up for the millions of UK people
who have been unwittingly overcharged. We believe Sony has abused
its position and ripped off its customers. [. . .] The actions of
Sony is costing millions of people who can't afford it,
particularly when we're in the midst of a cost of living crisis and
the consumer purse is being squeezed like never before."

At this point in time, it remains to be seen what happens with this
lawsuit in the long term. Lawsuits like this are always worth
keeping an eye on, but in all likelihood, we won't hear anything
else about this matter for quite some time. If there are any
updates in the future, though, we'll be sure to keep you in the
loop here on ComicBook.com. [GN]

SOUTHWAY CARRIERS: Rivers Sues Over Underpayment in Lease Contract
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC RIVERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWAY CARRIERS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00738 (N.D. Ill., February 6, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Truth-in-Leasing
regulation, the Pass-Through of Motor Carrier Fuel Surcharge
Adjustment to Cost Bearer regulation, and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, and for breach of contract, equitable accounting, unjust
enrichment, and conversion.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to specify how
the Plaintiff and Class members were compensated in the lease
agreements, failure to specify the payment period in the lease
agreements, failure to specify how each charge-back item was
computed within the agreements, failure to clarify the Plaintiff
was under no obligation to purchase products from the Defendant in
the lease agreement, failure to provide complete information about
the Plaintiff's escrow account, and failure to adhere to and
perform the required lease provisions by, among other acts,
wrongfully withholding compensation owed to the Plaintiff and Class
members.

Mr. Rivers entered a written lease to purchase agreement with the
Defendant on June 7, 2021, for a 2017 Volvo truck and began
completing trips for the Defendant.

Southway Carriers, Inc. is a motor carrier based in Oakbrook
Terrace, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
         Kenneth T. Goldstein, Esq.
         Matthew G. Norgard, Esq.
         KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD
         20 Wacker Drive, Suite 1006
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 606-0500
         E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com
                 ken@krislovlaw.com
                 mnorgard@krislovlaw.com

SPA MANAGEMENT: Underpays Nail Technicians, Quizhpi Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELBA GLADYS PACA QUIZHPI and DELIA SARA PACA QUIZHPI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SPA
MANAGEMENT SERVICE INC. and 243 WILLIS NAILS INC. d/b/a ELITE NAILS
& SPA, SON DINH TRAN, and ANH DIEP DO, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00906 (S.D.N.Y., February 3, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to timely pay wages,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to comply
with notice and recordkeeping requirements.

Plaintiffs Elba Gladys Paca Quizhpi and Delia Sara Paca Quizhpi
were employed by the Defendants as nail technicians from October
2011 until January 2023 and from April 2013 until January 2023,
respectively.

Spa Management Service Inc. is a spa business located in New York.

243 Willis Nails Inc., doing business as Elite Nails & Spa, is a
nail salon based in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591
         Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

SPINNAKER INSURANCE: Dulude Files Suit in N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spinnaker Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Christy Dulude, Sammy Robles,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Spinnaker Insurance Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00117-O (N.D. Tex.,
Feb. 7, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.

Spinnaker Insurance Company -- https://spinnakerins.com/ --
operates as a property and casualty insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shaun W. Hodge, Esq.
          HODGE LAW FIRM PLLC
          1301 Market Street
          Galveston, TX 77550
          Phone: (409) 762-5000
          Fax: (409) 763-2300
          Email: shodge@hodgefirm.com

               - and -

          James Brandon McWherter, Esq.
          MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Phone: (615) 354-1144
          Fax: (731) 664-1540
          Email: brandon@msb.law


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Mandeng Sues Over Wiretapping Communications
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Mandeng, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00233-RBM-AHG
(S.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2023), is brought against Spirit for
wiretapping the electronic communications of visitors to its
website, www.spirit.com, in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act and constitutes the torts of invasion of the privacy
rights and intrusion upon seclusion of website visitors.

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

After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications, Spirit
and the Session Replay Providers use those Website Communications
to recreate website visitors' entire visit to www.spirit.com. The
Session Replay Providers create a video replay of the user's
behavior on the website and provide it to Spirit for analysis.
Spirit's procurement of the Session Replay Providers to secretly
deploy the Session Replay Code results in the electronic equivalent
of "looking over the shoulder" of each visitor to the Spirit
website for the entire duration of their website interaction.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons in California whose Website Communications
were intercepted through Spirit's procurement and use of Session
Replay Code embedded on the webpages of www.spirit.com and seeks
all civil remedies provided under the causes of action, including
but not limited to compensatory, statutory, and/or punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff paid for the airline tickets through the
www.spirit.com website.

Spirit directly engages in commerce in California by offering
flights to and from California airports.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street
          Fourteenth Floor
          New York, NY 10034
          Phone: (646) 357-1100
          Fax: (212) 202-4322
          Email: snathan@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Phone: (202) 540-7200
          Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Stephen B. Murray, Esq.
          Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
          Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
          Thomas M. Beh, Esq.
          THE MURRAY LAW FIRM
          701 Poydras Street, Suite 4250
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Phone: (504) 525-8100
          Email: Tbeh@Murray-lawfirm.com


STANLEY STREET: Amaral Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stanley Street
Treatment and Resources, Inc. The case is styled as Kelsey Nicole
Amaral, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Stanley Street Treatment and Resources, Inc., Case No. 2373CV00075
(Mass. Super. Ct., Bristol Cty., Feb. 6, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Torts."

Stanley Street Treatment and Resources (SSTAR) is a non-profit
health care and social service agency.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kurt Hagstrom, Esq.
          HAGSTROM LAW GROUP
          66 North Second St.
          New Bedford, MA 02740


STAR ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Suit Over Anti-Money Laundering
---------------------------------------------------------------
AGBrief Editorial reports that The Star issued with second class
action lawsuit this week over alleged AML misconduct.

Australian casino operator The Star has been served with yet
another class action lawsuit, the second just this week, over
alleged 'misleading representations' and a lack of disclosure
'about its systems and processes for compliance with anti-money
laundering and counter-terrorism financing obligations'.

This is the fourth such class action lawsuit following two similar
claims filed in March and November of last year.

The claim furthers that The Star had not announced information
regarding 'conduct relating to junkets, Star's Accounts with the
Bank of China Macau, and China Union Pay transitions'.

The Star became the focus of anti-money laundering investigations
by both the state regulators and Australia's financial crimes
watchdog, AUSTRAC, being found unsuitable to continue to operate
its Australian casinos.

They have since been placed under the management of an independent
appointee, and the company has been ordered to pay a near-$68
million fee by Queensland authorities regarding its Treasury
Brisbane and Star Gold Coast casino operations.

An additional $68 million fine was issued for its Sydney property
and an ongoing investigation by AUSTRAC could result in further
penalties for the group. [GN]

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bid to Certify Class in Securities Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 3:18-cv-1818 (VAB) (D. Conn.), Judge Victor A. Bolden of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut grants the
motion for class certification.

The Court appoints:

     a. Lead Plaintiff Stichting Depositary APG Developed Markets
Equity Pool as the Class Representative;

     b. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as the Class
Counsel; and

     c. Motley Rice LLP as the Liaison Counsel.

On April 5, 2019, the Lead Plaintiff and Stichting Depositary APG
Fixed Income Credits Pool (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed an
Amended Complaint in the putative class action against, inter alia,
Defendants Synchrony, Margaret M. Keane, Brian D. Doubles, and
Thomas M. Quindlen. The Plaintiffs allege that Synchrony and
certain Synchrony executives violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t-1, and
78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On February 5, 2019, the Court appointed Stichting Depositary APG
Developed Markets Equity Pool as the Lead Plaintiff and approved
BLB&G as Lead Counsel for the proposed class. See Ruling and Order
on Mots. to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel, ECF No. 59
("Order Appointing Lead Pl.").

On April 5, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.

On March 11, 2022, the parties filed a joint Rule 26(f) report
outlining a proposed schedule for the anticipated class
certification motion and requested that the motion for class
certification would be filed by June 24, 2022, any opposition would
be filed by Aug. 26, 2022, and any reply would be filed by Oct. 7,
2022.

On June 24, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class,
a memorandum of law in support, and a declaration from Adam H.
Wierzbowski with supporting documents including a study done by Dr.
Steven Feinstein.

On Aug. 15, 2022, the parties filed a motion for extension of time,
which the Court granted on Aug. 16, 2022.

After resolving a discovery dispute, the Court sua sponte amended
the scheduling order to extend the deadline to oppose the motion
for class certification to Jan. 13, 2023.

On Nov. 23, 2022, the parties filed a motion for extension of time,
which the Court granted on Nov. 27, 2022. Judge Bolden's present
Order did not alter the Jan. 13, 2023 deadline to oppose the motion
for class certification. To date, the Defendants have not filed an
opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs urge the Court to define the class as "all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Synchrony between January 19, 2018 and July 12, 2018, inclusive
(the 'Class Period'), and who were damaged thereby."

Judge Bolden explains that to be certified, a class must satisfy
each of the Rule 23(a) prerequisites: (1) the class is so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are
questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

In addition to satisfying the requirements set forth in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), a plaintiff seeking class
certification must establish one of the bases for certification
identified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b). To do this,
the Plaintiffs argue they have satisfied the predominance and
superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).

Judge Bolden finds that (1) the Proposed Class will likely include
at least thousands of members, which is well above the 40-member
threshold that triggers a presumption in favor of numerosity; (2)
several of the questions the Plaintiffs identified necessarily
relate to all members of the Proposed Class because each question
primarily concerns the Defendants' conduct; (3) the Lead
Plaintiff's claims are typical of all Class members who traded
contemporaneously with the Defendants; (4) the Plaintiffs have
established that the representative party, the Lead Plaintiff, and
the selected counsel, BLB&G, and Motley Rice, will adequately
represent the Proposed Class; and (5) the Proposed Class is
ascertainable.

In addition, Judge Bolden finds that Dr. Feinstein's methodology
relies on easily ascertainable data points for calculating the per
share damages: the purchase date and sale date of Synchrony stock,
which are directly linked with the Plaintiffs underlying theory of
liability. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have established
predominance.

The Plaintiffs have also established that bringing the case as a
class action will promote judicial efficiency and provide relief to
those with claims too small to justify individual lawsuits.
Accordingly, they have established superiority, the final Rule 23
requirement.

Finally, BLB&G and Motley Rice, to date, have ably conducted the
litigation for several years, including on appeal to the Second
Circuit, and both firms have the necessary experience in complex
litigation, class actions, and cases of this type. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(g).

For the reasons he explained, Judge Bolden grants the motion for
class certification.

The Class is defined as: all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Synchrony between Jan. 19,
2018, and July 12, 2018, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

Judge Bolden appoints the Lead Plaintiff as the Class
Representative, BLB&G as the Class Counsel, and Motley Rice as the
Liaison Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Ruling & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4xkrx6cx from Leagle.com.


TAKARA SAKE: Sakes' Japanese Labeling "Deceptive," Tunick Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
COLBY TUNICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAKARA SAKE USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00572-TSH (N.D. Cal., February 8, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, California's False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law
and for breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust
enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its "Sho Chiku Bai" branded sakes. The Defendant packages and
labels the products in a manner which creates the false and
misleading impression that they are made in Japan. Specifically,
all of the products bear: (1) the "Sho Chiku Bai" Japanese brand
name; (2) large, conspicuous Japanese lettering; and (3) a gold
emblem on the front and center of the products' bottle which states
"Licensed by TaKaRa Japan, Since 1851." Unbeknownst to consumers
however, the products are not made in Japan, but in California. As
a result of the Defendant's false labeling scheme, consumers
seeking an authentic Japanese sake, including the Plaintiff, are
misled into believing that is what they are getting when they
purchase the products, says the suit.

Takara Sake USA Inc. is a sake brewery company, with its principal
place of business in Berkeley, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
         Joshua Nassir, Esq.
         Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
         TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
         10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 751-5948
         E-mail: bheikali@treehouselaw.com
                 jnassir@treehouselaw.com
                 rglezakos@treehouselaw.com

                - and -

         Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
         Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
         Alan Gudino, Esq.
         CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
         22525 Pacific Coast Highway
         Malibu, CA 90265
         Telephone: (213) 788-4050
         Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
         E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
                 agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com

TASTE OF FUSION: Underpays Waitresses, Chang Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, KA SIA CHANG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TASTE OF FUSION, LLC and WINNIE
ZHENG, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00048-SKC (D. Colo., January 6,
2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked as a Waitress at the Defendants'
restaurant located in Denver, Colorado from approximately August
2021 to October 2021.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants maintained unlawful
policies and/or practice which violated her and other tipped
employees' statutory rights. The Plaintiff claims that the
Defendants compensate them less than the applicable minimum wage
per hour for all hours they have worked. This is because the
Defendants are taking advantage of a tip credit which allows the
Defendants to include in their calculation of wages a portion of
the amounts its tipped employees receive as tips. In addition, the
Defendants failed to provide them with the statutorily required
notice of their intent to pay them the tipped minimum wage rate.
Moreover, the Defendants required them to spend substantial amount
of time to perform non-tip producing side work unrelated to their
tipped occupation. However, the Defendants did not compensate them
for the time they spent performing non-tipped duties.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated tipped
employees, to recover all damages allowed by the FLSA against the
Defendants that include back wages, liquidated damages in an amount
equal to FLSA-mandated back wages, legal fees, costs, post-judgment
interest, and all other relief to which they may be justly
entitled.

Taste of Fusion, LLC operates a restaurant known as 101 Asian
Fusion. Winnie Zheng is the owner of the restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
          400 North Saint Paul St., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
                  marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com

TELOS CORP: Va. Judge Tosses Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, disclosed that
on February 1, 2023, Judge Anthony J. Trenga of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed a
putative securities fraud action against a cybersecurity company
(the "Company") and several of its executives and directors
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act.
Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis, et al. v. Telos Corp., et
al., No. 1:22-cv-00135 (E.D. Va. Feb. 1, 2023). Plaintiffs alleged
that defendants misled investors about the status and prospects of
key government contracts and falsely certified to having reasonable
financial controls. The court dismissed the action without
prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to allege falsity or
scienter.

The Company specializes in cybersecurity and provides, among other
products and services, a digital identity services platform to the
government, military, and Fortune 500 companies. Prior to
conducting an initial public offering in November 2020, the Company
announced that it had been selected for significant contracts with
the Transportation Services Administration ("TSA") to provide
support for TSA Precheck enrollment services and the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"). A few months after the IPO,
in April 2021, the Company conducted a secondary offering, during
which offering the Company executives were permitted to sell their
personal shares to the Company.

In its registration statement filed with the IPO and its earnings
calls for the first and second quarters of 2021, the Company stated
that it expected to see substantial revenue growth attributed to
the TSA and CMS contracts and that they expected the TSA and CMS
contracts to be approved by the end of the second and third quarter
of 2021, respectively. Plaintiffs alleged that these statements
were misleading and false based on subsequent developments that
included the delay in the expected launch of the TSA and CMS
contracts and, after disclosing material weaknesses in its internal
controls and a delay in filing its 2021 10-K, an announcement in
March 2022 that the Company had uncovered mistakes in applying
Generally Accepted Account Principles ("GAAP") that had led to
errors in calculating the revenues attributable to the TSA and CMS
contracts, which plaintiffs claimed were overvalued by as much as
175%.

The Court held that plaintiffs failed to plead falsity with respect
to any of the three categories of alleged misstatements. First, the
Court held that statements related to the Company's predictions or
expectations about its future revenue or future operational growth,
as well as statements related to when the Company expected the TSA
and CMS contracts to begin yielding revenue, were all
forward-looking statements that were "accompanied by meaningful
cautionary statements identifying important factors that could
cause actual results to differ materially." Specifically, the
Company disclosed risks that: (i) it was "dependent on a few key
customer contracts for a significant portion of [its] future
revenue," (ii) these services were vulnerable to interruptions
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and cyberattack threats, and (iii)
the Company does "not control the decision-making timeline within
TSA." Second, the Court held that plaintiffs did not adequately
allege that the Company chairman's certification regarding
"reasonable financial controls" was false because that
certification was accompanied by cautionary and qualifying language
that the Company had made "certain estimates and assumptions
related to the adoption and interpretation of [the relevant
accounting] principles." Third, the Court held that statements that
the Company expected "strong results" and hoped to "meet or exceed"
financial guidance and that the sale cycle will "accelerate" were
all non-actionable puffery.

The Court also held that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that
defendants acted with actual knowledge of falsity or scienter.
First, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the Company's
statement that it was "in near daily communications with the TSA"
or its alleged subsequent admission that the Company failed to
conduct an analysis of the relevant accounting principles was
sufficient to show knowledge and stated that plaintiffs'
allegations were "nothing more than the fact of what happened --
the events themselves," and "conclusory ‘fraud by hindsight'
allegations." In a similar vein, the Court took note of the fact
that plaintiffs were not alleging that the Company was aware of and
failed to correct an accounting mistake. Second, the Court held
that stock sales by executives also did not establish scienter. The
Court noted that there was no other trading period with which to
compare sales to demonstrate that the trades were abnormal, but
also that one of the defendants also purchased shares during the
class period, another defendant sold his shares pursuant to a Rule
10b-5 trading plan, and the percentage of shares sold by the
remaining individual defendants were far below the percentage that
the Fourth Circuit has found to be sufficient to infer scienter.

The Court dismissed the Section 11, Section 20(a) and Section 15
claims on the same bases. [GN]

TESLA INC: Court Denies Bid to Transfer Venue of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE TESLA INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
18-cv-04865-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California enters an
Order memorializing his ruling:

   a. denying the Defendants' motion to transfer venue or to
      continue the trial; and

   b. granting their Administrative Motion to Seal.

Littleton filed a securities class action against Tesla, Elon Musk
(Tesla's CEO and former Chairman), and Tesla's Board of Directors
based on two tweets made by Mr. Musk in August 2018 about taking
Tesla from a public to a private company. After almost four and a
half years of litigation, the case is now in trial.

Eleven days before the jury was set to be selected -- but four days
before receiving the juror questionnaire responses -- the
Defendants moved to transfer venue or to continue the trial under
the theory that local media outlets had released so many biased and
negative stories about Mr. Musk that there was a presumption of
juror prejudice. After expediting briefing and hearing argument,
the Court orally denied the Defendants' motion. His memorializes
his ruling.

The case has been pending before the Court in the Northern District
of California since August of 2018. On April 18, 2022, the Court
set trial to begin on Jan. 17, 2023.

For purposes of the present motion, the Defendants claim that two
purportedly key events occurred in October 2022. First, the local
press began publishing an increasingly high number of stories
regarding Mr. Musk as Mr. Musk's anticipated purchase of Twitter
neared completion. For instance, since October 2022, the San
Francisco Chronicle has published 121 stories which mention Mr.
Musk. Some of this coverage is negative, and some of it discusses
Mr. Musk's use of Twitter. Second, from late October to the
present, Twitter (which is now owned by Mr. Musk) laid off a little
under 1,000 employees from Northern California. These layoffs
resulted in protests, picketing, and news stories reporting that
Mr. Musk failed to comply with federal law in terminating employees
without proper notice.

On Jan. 6, 2022, the Defendants moved to transfer venue or to
continue the trial under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), claiming that
the Northern District of California had been "saturated with
prejudicial and inflammatory publicity" regarding Mr. Musk that was
so severe that it gave rise to a presumption that a jury impaneled
in that forum could not be impartial. They also moved to expedite
the briefing schedule and hearing. The Court granted the motion to
expedite: the Plaintiff's opposition was filed on Jan. 11, 2022;
the Defendants' reply was filed on Jan. 12, 2022; and the Court
heard oral argument on Jan. 13, 2022.

The Defendants argue that the interests of justice require transfer
because the flood of "excessive and adverse pretrial publicity"
concerning Mr. Musk, when coupled with the recent layoffs at
Twitter, show that prejudice may be presumed.

Judge Chen finds the Defendants wrong. He says the Defendants have
not shown that the pretrial publicity gives rise to a presumption
of prejudice. First, while there has been significant press
attention devoted to Mr. Musk over the past year, the vast majority
of this coverage has involved issues which have no bearing upon the
present matter. Second, the Defendants gloss over the factual
nature of the press coverage. Additionally, the considerable
populace, geographic spread, and overall diversity of the Northern
District of California make it difficult for the Court to
countenance the Defendants' theory of prejudice.

The Defendants' second argument fares no better, Judge Chen finds.
It is difficult for the Court to accept the premise that the
layoffs of 1,000 individuals -- even accounting for the ripple
effects that the Defendants articulate -- would bias the jury pool.
And indeed, this premise is disproven by the jury questionnaire
responses, which revealed that none of the potential jurors worked
for Twitter and only two or three individuals knew someone who
worked for Twitter.

Finally, Judge Chen finds that the jury questionnaire responses are
the best evidence of the ability of the Defendants to get a fair
trial. The Court has diligently sought to ensure that each of the
selected jurors will be fair and unbiased. It seated nine jurors
(after excuse of peremptory challenges) who met that qualification.
The takeaway is that a significant number of individuals -- almost
five times the number needed -- indicated that they were available
to serve as jurors and that they could be fair. Simply put, the
proof is in the pudding.

Hence, the Defendants' motion to transfer venue based on a
presumption of prejudice fails is denied. And for the same reasons,
a continuance is not warranted, either.

The Defendants moved to seal the portions of their reply brief
which quote juror questionnaire responses and the responses
themselves. Courts in this district have recognized that juror
privacy and the need to ensure a fair and impartial trial are
compelling reasons that justify sealing juror questionnaire
responses. Judge Chen grants the Defendants' administrative motion
to seal.

The Order disposes of Docket Nos. 537 and 561.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/56ppdf7z from Leagle.com.


TEXAS HEALTH: Underpays Medical Assistants, Rehman Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDI REHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TEXAS HEALTH RESOURCES, Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-00118-P (N.D. Tex., February 7, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and unpaid straight time wages
pursuant to Texas common law.

Plaintiff Rehman has been employed by the Defendant in McKinney,
Texas as a medical assistant since approximately February 2022.

Texas Health Resources is an operator of healthcare facilities in
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                                    
                 
         Clif Alexander, Esq.
         Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
         Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
         ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
         101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
         Corpus Christi, TX 78401
         Telephone: (361) 452-1279
         Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
         E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com
                 carter@a2xlaw.com

                - and -

         J. Austin Franklin, Esq.
         KELLY HART & HALLMAN
         201 Main Street, Suite 2500
         Fort Worth, TX 76102
         Telephone: (817) 878-3588
         E-mail: austin.franklin@kellyhart.com

TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Wiretapping Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Taylor of Privacy Litigation reports that Illinois class
action lawsuit joins string of wiretapping claims arising out of
website operator use of session replay technology.

Last month in the Northern District of Illinois a class action
complaint was filed that alleges two defendants, TikTok and
ByteDance, violate Federal and State wiretapping laws. The
complaint alleges the conduct violates the Federal Wiretap Act and
Massachusetts, Maryland, and Missouri state equivalent laws. The
complaint does not allege violation of California, Florida, or
Pennsylvania wiretapping laws despite similar claims being filed
most often in these jurisdictions. The complaint also does not
allege violation of any Illinois statute despite being filed in the
Norther District of Illinois.

Approximately a dozen states currently require two-party consent to
record conversations. Most notably are California, Florida,
Illinois, and Pennsylvania, each of which saw an increase in class
action lawsuits alleging "session replay" technology -- originally
designed to help websites better understand how to improve the way
in which visitors interact with the site or, ironically, to capture
users' consent -- violates website visitors' privacy. Federal law
only requires one-party consent to record a conversation, so these
claims will likely remain at the state law. Last month's complaint
against TikTok, however, alleges the defendants' use of session
replay technology violates Federal law because it was used to track
not just the plaintiffs' communications with Tik Tok, but also with
third-party websites the plaintiffs browse from within the TikTok
app. If the plaintiffs' claims against TikTok are successful, we
may see an uptick in Federal claims against similar defendants who
allow access to third-party websites from within their own
program.

Session replay technology allows a website to monitor and capture
how a visitor interacts with the website, including the visitor's
behavior (e.g., mouse clicks, page scrolls, etc.) and keyboard
clicks, including what information the visitor provides in forms or
online chats between the user and the website operator.

Website operators that use the technology to capture only a user's
behavior are at reduced risk of a wiretapping violation claim as
several courts across jurisdictions have held session replay
technology does not violate wiretapping statutes when it is only
used to record a visitor's behavior because this is more akin to a
CCTV recording of a shopper's movements in a store.

Courts in California, Florida, and Pennsylvania have handled most
of these session replay claims since their rise in popularity in
the past few years. Florida-courts have been most critical of these
claims, repeatedly finding that plaintiffs' complaints failed to
state a claim under the Florida state law because the complaints
alleged un-sanctioned recording of behavior and not the content of
communications covered by the law. See, e.g., Goldstein v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., 559 F. Supp. 3d 1318, 1321 (S.D. Fl. 2021)
(holding "the mere tracking of Plaintiff's movements on Defendant's
website" did not violate the Florida Security of Communications Act
(FSCA) because it is akin to information obtained through a
security camera at a brick-and-mortar store); Cardoso v. Whirlpool
Corp., 2021 WL 2820822 (S.D. Fl. July 6, 2021) (adopting
state-court reasoning and dismissing complaint after finding that
FSCA does not apply to claims regarding session replay technology
on a commercial website). Where session replay technology is used
to capture chat-based communications, however, Florida courts have
allowed the claims to proceed beyond the pleading stage. See
Makkinje v. Extra Space Storage, Inc., 2022 WL 80437 (M.D. Fl. Jan.
7, 2022) ("Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated how her claim's
involvement of live chat communications distinguishes it from the
other session replay software cases recently dismissed by courts in
Florida. ").

California-courts have been less favorable to defendants than
Florida-courts. In 2021, a California-court examined a claim that
session replay technology violated Florida law by recording "mouse
clicks and movements, keystrokes, search terms, information
inputted by Plaintiff, pages and content viewed by Plaintiff, and
scroll movements, and copy and paste actions." Alhadeff v. Experian
Info. Sols., Inc., 541 F. Supp. 3d 1041 (C.D. Cal. 2021). The
California-court denied the motion to dismiss, finding "at this
early stage" the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged what the
defendant intercepted were "contents" under the FSCA. Id. at 1045.

In May 2022 the Ninth Circuit overturned a Northern District of
California's dismissal of a plaintiff's California Invasion of
Privacy Act (CIPA) claim after finding that although the plaintiff
consented to the recording, the plaintiff did so only after using
the website for some time. Javier v. Assurance IQ, 2022 WL 1744107
(9th Cir. May 31, 2022). The Ninth Circuit concluded the California
Supreme Court would interpret Section 631(a) of CIPA, California's
wiretapping statute, to require the prior consent of all parties to
a communication. Id. at *2. On remand, however, the case was again
dismissed, this time under the statute of limitations. 2023 WL
114225 at *7.
Notably, in the Ninth Circuit decision, Justice Bumatay issued a
concurring opinion that, although it agreed with the ultimate
decision that reversed the lower court's dismissal of the claim,
stated the case should be viewed "through a torts lens" because the
CIPA codified the common law of invasion of privacy. Id. at *2 (J.
Bumatay, concurring) (citing In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking
Litig., 956 F.3d 589, 598 (9th Cir. 2020). It remains to be seen
whether plaintiffs will take up session replay technology under a
tort lens.

California-courts have also split over whether the software
provider should be considered a third-party or an extension of the
website operator. Compare Johnson v. Blue Nile, Inc., 2021 WL
3602214 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug 13, 2021) (dismissing claims because
vendor "is not an outsider and instead is a software vendor that
provides a service that allows [the website operator] to analyze
its own data") and Graham v. Noom, Inc., 2021 WL 3602215 at *1
(N.D. CAl. Aug.13, 2021) (same) with Saleh v. Nike, Inc., 562 F.
Supp. 3d 503, 521 (C.D. Cal. 2021) (finding the same vendor as in
Blue Nile and Noom was a third-party and allowing Section 631 claim
to proceed) and Revitch v. New Moosejaw, LLC, 2019 WL 5485330, at
*2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019) (denying motion to dismiss claim that
website operator violated Section 631 (b) by helping third-party
software provider to eavesdrop).

Website operators that rely on session replay technology cannot
rely on how courts in their home jurisdiction have handled these
claims and should ensure they are compliant with the most-strict
requirements from any jurisdiction. The Third Circuit held under
the Pennsylvania wiretapping law that "the place of interception is
the point at which the signals were routed to [the third-party's]
servers." Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts Inc., 52 F.4th 121, 132 (3d
Cir. 2022). If other circuits adopt this reasoning, defendants may
face these claims in any of the all-party consent states so long as
the plaintiff(s) accesses the websites in that state.

The first step for any company is to determine whether it is using
session replay technology on its website. If so, the next step is
deciding whether the benefits of using the technology outweigh the
risks discussed above as simply not using session replay technology
is the most conservative approach. If a company wants to continue
using session replay technology, however, companies can take steps
to reduce their risk of litigation, including by adding proper
disclosures to their applicable policies and obtaining user consent
consistent with the requirements of applicable laws. [GN]

TROPIX MEDIA: Third-Party Complaint in Weingeist Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RACHEL WEINGEIST, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated who were employed by TROPIX MEDIA &
ENTERTAINMENT, TROPIX HOLDINGS LLC, and TROPIX INC.,
Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants v. TROPIX MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT,
TROPIX HOLDINGS LLC, TROPIX INC., MARIO BAEZA, TAYMI CESPEDES,
JAVIER RODRIGUEZ, and TANIA MILAN, Defendants-Counterclaim
Plaintiffs. TROPIX MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT, TROPIX HOLDINGS LLC,
TROPIX INC., and MARIO BAEZA, Third-Party Plaintiffs v. RACHEL
WEINGEIST, PERERA COMPANY LLC, and PICKLED PUNK SUBLEASE LLC,
Third-Party Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-275 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York grants Pickled Punk Sublease LLC's motion to dismiss
the third-party complaint with prejudice.

The action was commenced on Jan. 10, 2020, with the filing of a
complaint against Tropix Media & Entertainment, Tropix Holdings
LLC, Tropix Inc., Mario Baeza, Taymi Cespedes, Javier Rodriguez,
and Tania Milan. The Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint
on Jan. 12, 2020.

The FAC brings a putative class action, on behalf of Rachel
Weingeist and all others similarly situated, and contains five
claims for relief: (1) breach of employment contract; (2) unpaid
wages, overtime, and violations of record-keeping requirements
under New York Labor Law ("NYLL"); (3) unpaid wages, overtime, and
violations of record-keeping requirements under the Federal Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"); (4) quantum meruit; and (5) declaratory
judgment that the practices complained of are unlawful under the
FLSA and NYLL.

On April 27, 2022, Defendants Tropix Holdings LLC, Tropix Media and
Entertainment, Tropix Inc., and Mario Baeza (collectively,
"Tropix") filed an answer to the FAC and brought a third-party
complaint and a counter claim against Pickled Punk, Perera & Co.
LLC, and Rachel Weingeist.

During a pre-motion conference held on Oct. 18, 2022, the counsel
for Tropix was granted leave to file a motion to withdraw as
counsel and Pickled Punk was granted leave to file a motion to
dismiss. The briefing for this motion was scheduled as follows:
Pickled Punk's motion to dismiss was due Nov. 8, 2022; Tropix's
opposition was due Nov. 29, 2022; and Pickled Punk's reply was due
Dec. 6, 2022.

On Oct. 26, 2022, Geoffrey Mueller of the Law Offices of Geoffrey
D. Mueller, LLC, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Tropix.
The motion also moved to extend time to serve discovery demands and
to extend time to respond to discovery. An affirmation of Mr.
Mueller in support of the motion was filed under seal.

Meanwhile, on Nov. 8, 2022, Pickled Punk filed their motion to
dismiss the third-party complaint with prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

On Nov. 29, 2022, while the motion to withdraw as counsel remained
pending, Tropix requested that the motion to dismiss the
third-party complaint be adjourned until a decision was issued on
the motion to withdraw. The next day, Mueller's motion to withdraw
as counsel for Tropix was granted.  That Order also directed Tropix
to retain successor counsel and that successor counsel enter their
appearance by Jan. 3, 2023.

Successor counsel for Tropix did not enter an appearance by Jan. 3,
2023. On Jan. 9, 2022, Pickled Punk requested that the Court enters
an order granting its motion to dismiss the third-party complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As of the date of this
Order, no appearance has been filed on behalf of Tropix and no
opposition has been filed by Tropix in response to Pickled Punk's
motion to dismiss.

For this reason and the reasons set forth in their motion to
dismiss, Judge Ramos grants Pickled Punk's motion to dismiss,
concluding that the third-party complaint fails to meet the
standard for subject matter jurisdiction.

Weingesit entered an agreement with Pickled Punk on behalf of
Tropix Foundation to sublease a one room office located in Union
Square. Tropix brings seven state law claims against Pickled Punk
for (1) unjust enrichment; (2) conversion; (3) property taken
without authorization; (4) negligently caused economic loss; (5)
replevin; (6) negligence; and (7) conspiracy. They contend that
because of Pickled Punk's actions or inactions, Tropix has not able
to retrieve the assets (furniture, televisions, and computer
equipment) purchased by Tropix Media for the Union Square Office.
Tropix contends that subject matter jurisdiction is proper pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367 because the claims raised in the
third-party complaint are supplemental and related to the federal
question raised in Weingeist's initial complaint.

The third-party complaint fails to meet the requirements for
supplemental jurisdiction. Federal courts have subject matter
jurisdiction over state law claims when all plaintiffs are diverse
in citizenship to all defendants and the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs.

In the case, the third-party complaint seeks recovery for alleged
losses related to the office equipment totaling to an estimated
$17,000. Accordingly, the third-party complaint fails to meet the
$75,000 amount-in-controversy threshold, and, therefore, cannot be
maintained on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

Accordingly, Pickled Punk's motion to dismiss the third-party
complaint with prejudice is granted. The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to terminate the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc4uapnw from Leagle.com.


TURBO RESTAURANTS: Collects Biometrics Without Consent, Massel Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON HILL TURK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TURBO RESTAURANTS US, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00837 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 10, 2023)
alleges violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant illegally
collected, stored and used the Plaintiff's and other similarly
situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric
information without informed written consent, in direct violation
of BIPA.

TURBO RESTAURANTS US, LLC is an Arby's restaurant franchisee with
multiple locations throughout the state of Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jesse L. Young, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
         Kalamazoo, MI 49007
         Telephone:(269) 250-7500
         Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com

              -and -

         Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
         Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         One Towne Square, Suite 1700
         Southfield, MI 48076
         Telephone: (248) 355-0300
         Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                kmilz@sommerspc.com

UAB MEDICINE: Larkin Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Larkin and Mia Neustein individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. UAB MEDICINE ENTERPRISE (f/k/a UAB
HEALTH SYSTEM) and UAB HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-00142-ACA (N.D. Ala., Feb. 6, 2023), is brought for the
Defendants' failure to pay for "off-the-clock work" and overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs or other Nurses who all
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and did not pay proper
overtime premiums. The Plaintiffs were often not provided meal
breaks. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs routinely worked through meal
breaks without proper compensation. The Defendants were not only
aware of and permitted this practice, but the work schedules and
conditions imposed by the Defendants effectively required this
practice, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as Nurses in UAB
Medicine's Gynecology & Oncology Unit.

UAB medicine also operates the hospitals centers primary and urgent
care clinics, emergency rooms, specialty clinics, cancer clinics
and other medical facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          M. Clay Ragsdale
          Allison L. Riley
          RAGSDALE LLC
          517 Beacon Parkway W.
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: 205-290-6800
          Email: clay@ragsdalellc.com
                 allison@ragsdalellc.com

               - and -

          Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
          Lane L. Vines, Esq.
          Reginald Streater, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          Email: crodriguez@bm.net
                 lvines@bm.net
                 rstreater@bm.net


ULTA SALON: Licea Files Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ulta Salon, Cosmetics
& Fragrance, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Miguel Licea,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ulta
Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Does 1 through 25, inclusive,
Case No. 5:23-cv-00201 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 7, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Ulta Beauty, Inc. -- https://www.ulta.com/ -- formerly known as
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. and before 2000 as Ulta3, is
an American chain of beauty stores headquartered in Bolingbrook,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
          4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


UNITED STATES: Fails to Ensure Safety of Water, Williams Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN M. WILLIAMS; and MOSES R. JENKINS JR., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-00022-D-KS (E.D.N.C., Feb.
10, 2023) is an action arising out of the injuries suffered by
thousands of service members, civilian workers, and family members
who were exposed to contaminated water at Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune ("Camp Lejeune").

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that toxic chemicals escaped
from fuel tanks, industrial facilities, and other sources on and
around Camp Lejeune and seeped into the groundwater below. By
drinking, cooking with, bathing in, and otherwise coming into
contact with that water, hundreds of thousands of men and women
working and residing on base were exposed to these chemicals,
greatly increasing their risk of contracting cancer and the myriad
other life-destroying diseases they are known to cause. Even after
discovering the contamination in the early 1980s, government
officials failed to warn the victims for decades that they were at
increased risk for serious health problems—preventing the
screening and other measures that could have saved lives and
mitigated harm, the Plaintiffs assert.

As a result of their exposure to the contaminated water, thousands
of men and women who lived and worked at Camp Lejeune from the
1950s to the 1980s ("Relevant Time Period") have contracted serious
diseases and chronic conditions, including—but by no means
limited to—leukemias, cancers of the bladder, kidney, and liver,
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and Parkinson's disease, says the suit.

U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
         Eric Poulin, Esq.
         Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
         Paul Doolittle, Esq.
         POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC
         32 Ann Street
         Charleston, SC 29403
         Telephone: (843) 834-4712
         Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
                eric@akimlawfirm.com
                roy@akimlawfirm.com

UNITED STATES: ICE Police Impersonation Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paloma Sifuentes and Leslie Acevedo, writing for Davis Vanguard,
report that class certification has now been granted for a federal
lawsuit challenging U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement's
(ICE) impersonating police officers, among other abusive tactics,
when conducting warrantless arrests of community members at their
homes, according to the ACLU SoCal.

Lizbeth Abel, deportation defense director of the Inland Coalition
for Immigrant Justice (ICIJ), a plaintiff in the case, said the
case is "monumental for the millions of undocumented people who
consider the U.S. their home."

Abel added community members should be able to feel safe in their
home as they continue their "fight against ICE's abusive practice,"
noting the order certifies two classes of community members in the
Southern California region, those "who have been or are at risk of
being subjected to the policies and practices challenged in the
lawsuit."

Angelica Salas, a plaintiff in the case, and executive director of
the Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights (CHIRLA), adds families
subjected to "ICE procedures are unknowingly thrown into a carceral
system they lack the legal resources to face."

Salas added ICE procedures are an invasion of community members'
homes, and need to stop…they are widespread and encouraged by
high-ranking officials in the agency, violating constitutional
rights.

Stephanie Padilla, staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of
Southern California, added that the court's decision confirms ICE's
practice impacts the community as a whole, and said she was hopeful
for: "Class-wide relief against ICE's unconstitutional enforcement
actions."

Attorneys with the ACLU SoCal, Law Firm Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
and UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic filed this case
in April 2020.

An attorney with Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Giovanni Saarman
Gonzalez, said, "This is a critical step forward in the litigation
of this case, for our clients and for all those impacted by ICE's
practices."

The case is set to begin on Aug. 29, but before June 12 the court
will hear motion for the final relief.

A third year student with the UCI Immigrant Rights Clinic explained
the case was only possible with the stories by individuals in the
community who were "courageous" in coming forward. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Silverthorne Mulls Postal Service Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer Wilson, writing for CBS News, reports that things have
gotten so bad with some mountain mailrooms in Colorado that one
town, Silverthorne (backed up by a smattering of other mountain
towns), is considering taking legal action against the federal
agency of the United States Postal Service.

"I know we are in a current extreme crisis with the post office.
Someone in my office showed me a letter they got on Feb. 11 that
was mailed to them on Dec. 13," Silverthorne town manager Ryan
Hyland told CBS News Colorado.

Hyland said lawyers are looking into what it would take to move on
this sweeping potential class-action lawsuit but are focused on any
solution that seems plausible, such as teaming with the post office
to offer affordable housing for workers.

"We are working on ways to try and engage with the postal service,
and this (a lawsuit) might be a last resort," Hyland said.

As with many of these stories, it's not the postal workers
themselves that are under fire here, it's an institution that has
led to the almost-collapse of many of the post offices in remote --
or sometimes not-so-remote -- mountain towns in Colorado.

"I think our local postal service workers are doing everything that
they can. They are heroes in this conversation," Hyland said. "It
is the larger postal system and not acknowledging some of the
issues in places they work."

Among issues listed from individual residents frustrated with late
or complete lack of delivery, Hayland said people simply deserve to
have a post office that functions like the post office functions
for everyone else. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University Of Dayton.
The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. University Of Dayton, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00987 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2023).

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

The University of Dayton -- https://udayton.edu/ -- is a private,
Catholic research university in Dayton, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


UNIVERSITY OF DETROIT MERCY: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against University Of Detroit
Mercy. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, for himself and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. University Of
Detroit Mercy, Case No. 1:23-cv-00990 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2023).

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

The University of Detroit Mercy -- https://www.udmercy.edu/ -- is a
private Roman Catholic university in Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal

VARSITY BRANDS: Extension of Time to File Class Cert. Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FUSION ELITE ALL STARS et
al., v. VARSITY BRANDS, LLC et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02600-SHL-tmp
(W.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting
their joint motion for extension of time to file class
certification and Daubert motions.

The current deadline for submitting responses to motions for class
certification and motions to exclude expert testimony is March 3,
2023.

the Parties request that the Court enter an order allowing the
Parties through March 10, 2023, to file responses to motions for
class certification and motions to exclude expert testimony.

Varsity Brands is an American apparel company owned by Bain
Capital. It is primarily focused on academic apparel and
memorabilia.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YhDc0G at no extra charge.[CC]

Liaison Counsel for the Proposed Direct Purchaser Class, are:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH
          & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  beng@bsjfirm.com

Attorneys for U.S. All Star Federation, Inc., are:

          Grady Garrison, Esq.
          Nicole Berkowitz Riccio, Esq.
          James Andrew Roach, Esq.
          Karen Lott Glover, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
          CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0866
          E-mail: ggarrison@bakerdonelson.com
                  nriccio@bakerdonelson.com
                  aroach@bakerdonelson.com
                  kglover@bakerdonelson.com

Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the Proposed Direct Purchaser Class,
are:

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Esq.
          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Michael J. Kane, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: hlmontague@bm.net
                  ecramer@bm.net
                  mkane@bm.net

                - and-

          Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 689-9292
          E-mail: jdavis@bm.net

                - and-

          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
          Veronica Bosco, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLC
          485 Lexington Ave., 10th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 933-1000
          E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com
                  kgarvey@dicellolevitt.com
                  vbosco@dicellolevitt.com

                - and-

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Victoria Sims, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  vicky@cuneolaw.com

Counsel for the Proposed Direct Purchaser Class, are:

          Benjamin D. Elga, Esq.
          JUSTICE CATALYST LAW, INC.
          81 Prospect Street Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (518) 732-6703
          E-mail: belga@justicecatalyst.org

                - and-

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Istvan, Esq.
          Mary L. Russell, Esq.
          FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
          One South Broad St., 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  jistvan@finekaplan.com
                  mrussell@finekaplan.com

                - and-

          Nathan A. Bicks, Esq.
          Sarah E. Stuart, Esq.
          Aubrey B. Harwell, Jr., Esq.
          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          Aubrey B. Harwell III, Esq.
          NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
          1201 Demonbreun St., Suite 1000
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 244-1713
          E-mail: aharwell@nealharwell.com
                  cbarrett@nealharwell.com
                  tharwell@nealharwell.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          George S. Cary, Esq.
          Steven J. Kaiser, Esq.
          Linden Bernhardt, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
          HAMILTON LLP
          2112 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 974-1500
          Facsimile: (202) 974-1999
          E-mail: gcary@cgsh.com
                  skaiser@cgsh.com
                  lbernhardt@cgsh.com

                - and-

          Jennifer Kennedy Park, Esq.
          Heather Nyong'o, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
          HAMILTON LLP
          1841 Page Mill Road, Suite 250
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 815-4100
          Facsimile: (202) 974-1999
          E-mail: jkpark@cgsh.com
                  hnyongo@cgsh.com

                - and-

          Matthew S. Mulqueen, Esq.
          Adam S. Baldridge, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
          CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Phone: (901) 526-2000
          Fax: (901) 577-0866
          E-mail: mmulqueen@bakerdonelson.com
                  abaldridge@bakerdonelson.com

VI OF ST. IGNACE: Allan Sues Over Unpaid Waitresses' Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE ALLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VI OF ST. IGNACE, INC., and NANCY N. POTTER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00028 (W.D. Mich., January 6, 2023)
brings this collective action complaint against the Defendants for
their alleged unlawful practices that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a waitress from
approximately December 2013 to April 2022.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendants failed to provide adequate notice of their
payment of sub-minimum wages to servers, bartenders, and other
properly tipped employees;

     -- The Defendants required him and other similarly situated
tipped employees to spend more than 20% of their time and
continuous periods of time exceeding 30 minutes at work engaged in
non-tipped side work related to the tipped profession; and

     -- The Defendants required them to perform non-tipped side
work unrelated to the tipped profession.

However, the Defendants failed to properly pay her and other tipped
employees, thereby violating the FLSA's minimum wage provision.
Thus, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated tipped
employees, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all damages allowed by
the FLSA, including back wages, liquidated damages in an amount
equal to FLSA-mandated back wages, legal fees, costs, post-judgment
interest, and all other relief to which they may be justly
entitled.

VI of St. Ignace, Inc. operates a restaurant known as Village Inn
of St. Ignaces. Nancy N. Porter is the owner of the Corporate
Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Tel: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Yslas Seeks Denial of Bid to Extend Reply Time
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL YSLAS and MICHAEL
SPRAGUE, on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly
situated, known and unknown v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., d/b/a
SAM'S CLUB, and SAM'S CLUB, a division of WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01880-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs asks the
Court to enter an order:

  a) denying Sam's Club's motion for extension of time to
     respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
     Certification;

  b) denying any attempt by Sam's Club to stay briefing and a
     decision on Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
     Certification;

  c) denying Sam's Club's request to conduct pre-certification
     discovery;

  d) prohibiting a reply brief by Sam's Club on their motion,
     which would only further delay a decision on conditional
     certification and erode statutes of limitations of putative
     class member; and

  e) requiring Sam's Club to file any response in opposition to
     Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification by
     February 10, 2023.

The 10-week delay proposed by Sam's Club would thereby eliminate
more than 10 weeks of the statutes of limitations of many putative
class members, including both the time of the requested stay and
additional time it would take the Court to rule on Plaintiffs'
motion.

On January 7, 2023, the Plaintiffs moved for conditional
certification of this FLSA collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b).

Sam's Club's response was due January 30, 2023. However, rather
than filing a timely response, Sam's Club has moved this Court for
an "extension of time" permitting them an additional 10 weeks to
respond to Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HPEw41 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          7900 E. Union Avenue, Suite 1100
          Denver, CO 80237
          E-mail: sengelson@billhornlaw.com
                  jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Naomi G. Beer
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1144 15th Street, Suite 3300
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 572-6549
          E-mail: BeerN@gtlaw.com

WARDMAPS LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WardMaps, LLC. The
case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. WardMaps, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01039
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2023).

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

WardMaps, LLC -- https://wardmapsgifts.com/ -- is an intimate shop
specializing in 19th-century maps & transit memorabilia, plus
map-themed gifts.[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


WASH WAG: Pierce Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Holly Pierce, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly-situated v. WASH WAG, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00234-JPC
(N.D. Ohio, Feb. 7, 2023), is brought for the recovery of unpaid
minimum, overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA").

Through a company-wide failure to pay employees one-and-a-half
times their pay for all hours worked over forty in a given work
week, the Defendant systematically failed to pay Plaintiffs the
proper overtime rate. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of
40 hours per week. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff overtime
at a rate of one-and one-half times in excess of 40 hours per week,
in violation of the FLSA and the OMFWSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Wash Wag as a Dog Groomer at Wash Wag's
Akron location.

Wash Wag is a full service pet groomer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Wido, Esq.
          SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY
          25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200
          Beachwood, Ohio 44122
          Phone: (216) 291-4744
          Fax: (216) 291-5744
          Email: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com


WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER: Pileggi Sues Over Breach of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Pileggi, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER PUBLISHING COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00345 (D.D.C., Feb. 7, 2023), is brought to recover damages
on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals under
the Video Privacy Protection Act as a result of the Defendant
sharing its users' private video viewing information without
obtaining the legally required consent.

When consumers visit Washington Examiner's website, they can choose
to visit pages with videos they find relevant or interesting and
stream the videos using their internet browsers. These videos
include politically charged content, usually with a conservative
bent. Unbeknownst to the consumers, however, their video viewing is
not private.

In violation of the VPPA, since at least 2020, Washington Examiner
has partnered with Meta Platforms, Inc. and its "Facebook" social
media platform to collect personally identifiable information each
time a consumer views a video on Washington Examiner's website.
Simultaneously, as soon as a consumer decides to visit a video page
on Washington Examiner's website, a tiny, invisible piece of
computer code called the "Meta Pixel" collects the page's address,
including the video's title, and sends the information directly to
Facebook, together with a digital ID that allows Facebook to match
the information to the consumer's Facebook profile and all of the
other information Facebook may have about that consumer's
demographics, affiliations, and tastes.

Washington Examiner benefits from this unauthorized disclosure by
receiving enhanced analytics and advertising services, and Meta
benefits by adding consumers' valuable information to its marketing
databases, which it can then use to sell targeted advertisements.
The only losers are the unwitting consumers. Without even realizing
what is happening, they have valuable information about their
opinions, tastes, affiliations, and private media consumption
appropriated to fuel Facebook's multi-billion-dollar advertising
machine. Plaintiff brings this action to vindicate these consumers'
rights, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been a regular visitor to Washington Examiner's
website at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/.

Washington Examiner is a conservative media company that operates a
news website and publishes a weekly magazine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202.463.2101
          Fax: 202.463.2103
          Email: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          628 East 9th Street
          Houston, TX 77007
          Phone: 713.751.0400
          Fax: 713.751.0906
          Email: mac@caddellchapman.com
                 cbc@caddellchapman.com
                 aet@caddellchapman.com


WELLPATH LLC: Faling-Davis Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patty Faling-Davis, individually and for others similarly situated
v. WELLPATH LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03017 (E.D. Wash., Feb. 7, 2023),
is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from
Defendant under the Revised Code of Washington ("RCW");
Washington's Minimum Wage Act ("WMWA"); Washington's Administrative
Code ("WAC"); and any relevant regulations and/or rules adopted by
the Washington Director of Labor and Industries ("Washington Wage
Laws").

Throughout the relevant period, the Defendant subjected Plaintiff
and the Putative Class Members to a common policy and practice of
automatically deducting time from these employees' recorded hours
worked for meal periods. But the Defendant fails to provide
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members with bona fide meal
periods. Instead, the Defendant requires Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members to remain on-duty and responsible for patient care
throughout their shifts, continuously subjecting them to
interruptions, even during their unpaid meal periods.

Thus, under the Defendant's common policies and practices,
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are not completely
relieved of all duties during meal periods and are denied pay for
those on-duty meal periods in violation of Washington Wage Laws.
Further, because the Defendant fails to pay Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members for their on-duty meal periods, the
Defendant fails to maintain accurate employment records for these
employees and fails to pay them all wages due upon their separation
in violation of Washington Wage Laws, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has worked for WellPath as a Registered Nurse in
Yakima, Washington since February 2018.

WellPath is a healthcare services company that bills itself as "the
premier provider of localized, high-quality, compassionate care to
vulnerable patients in challenging clinical environments."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas D. Kovarik, Esq.
          PISKEL YAHNE KOVARIK, PLLC
          522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 700
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Phone: 509.321.5930
          Facsimile: 509.321.5935
          Email: nick@pyklawyers.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713.352.1100
          Facsimile: 713.352.3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com


WONG FLEMING: Loeffler FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Yaakov Loeffler, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wong Fleming, P.C., Case No.
030072/2023 was removed from the Supreme Court State of New York
County of Rockland, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on Feb. 9, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:23-cv-01098-VB to the
proceeding.

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

Wong Fleming -- https://www.wongfleming.com/ -- is a minority and
women owned law firm with nationwide offices throughout many of the
major population centers of the United States.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dafney Dubuisson Stokes, Esq.
          WONG FLEMING
          821 Alexander Road, Suite 200
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: (609) 951-9520
          Email: dstokes@wongfleming.com


XEROX BUSINESS: 9th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration in Hill Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIFFANY HILL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES,
LLC; LIVEBRIDGE INC., an Oregon Corporation; AFFILIATED COMPUTER
SERVICES INC, a Delaware Corporation; AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellants,
Case No. 20-35838 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's order, which denied the
Appellant's motion to compel arbitration.

XBS operated call centers in Washington State and elsewhere that
responded to customer calls on behalf of third-party clients such
as phone companies, airlines, and hotels. It compensated its call
center agents according to a proprietary system of differential pay
rates known as Achievement Based Compensation ("ABC"). Under the
ABC plan, XBS agents received different rates of pay for each task
performed.

Beginning in 2002, most, but not all, XBS call center agents signed
the company's Dispute Resolution Plan ("2002 DRP"). Section 4 of
the 2002 DRP required XBS and its agents to submit "All Disputes"
to binding arbitration for final and exclusive resolution.
"Disputes" included "all legal and equitable claims, demands, and
controversies, of whatever nature or kind, whether in contract,
tort, under statute or regulation, or some other law."

Hill worked at an XBS call center under an ABC compensation plan
from September 2011 until April 2012. All agree that Hill never
signed the 2002 DRP and never agreed to submit disputes with XBS to
arbitration or to waive her right to bring claims against XBS in
court.

On April 24, 2012, Hill brought Washington state law employment
compensation claims against XBS based on diversity jurisdiction in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on
behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former call
center agents compensated under the ABC plan. Hill made minor
changes in a first amended complaint filed several weeks later. On
June 1, 2012, in its answer to the first amended complaint, XBS
denied the allegations of the amended complaint and asserted
several affirmative defenses against all of Hill's claims, one of
which is relevant here: "Failure to exhaust administrative and
contractual remedies."

In September 2012, and perhaps independent of this litigation, XBS
issued an updated DRP ("2012 DRP"). The 2012 DRP provides that
"each Dispute will be arbitrated n an individual basis" and barred
the initiation of or participation in "a class, collective,
consolidated or representative Dispute."

On Jan. 22, 2013, Hill filed her operative second amended
complaint. She asserted six claims against XBS for allegedly
violating Washington's state law wage, overtime, and consumer
protection provisions by underpaying agents for ordinary work and
refusing to compensate agents for "off the clock" work completed
prior to scheduled shifts. Hill proposed a class of all current and
former XBS agents who worked at XBS call centers in Washington
"between June 5, 2010 and the date of final disposition of this
action." To remedy the alleged violations on behalf of herself and
the putative class, Hill sought a declaratory judgment,
compensatory and exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On Feb. 6, 2013, in its answer to the second amended complaint, XBS
denied its allegations and renewed its contractual affirmative
defenses, now specifically identifying the 2012 DRP, which unlike
the 2002 DRP expressly barred class-wide litigation of any claims:
"Failure to exhaust administrative and contractual remedies. On
June 17, 2013, it responded to Hill's discovery requests and
produced both the 2002 DRP and the 2012 DRP.

On Oct. 16, 2013, Hill filed a motion for class certification under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). On Nov. 18, 2013,
XBS opposed certification.

As previewed in its opposition to class certification, on Nov. 27,
2013, XBS did file a motion for partial summary judgment on the
merits of Hill's claims, in which it argued that Hill, and the
putative class members, had received all the compensation to which
she, and they, were entitled under the MWA as a "piecemeal"
worker.

On July 10, 2014, the district court denied XBS's motion for
partial summary judgment and granted Hill's motion to certify a
class of current and former XBS call center agents compensated
under the ABC plan ("the ABC Class") pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).
However, it refused to provide a fulsome definition of the scope of
the ABC Class until the parties submitted additional briefing on
the effective date of the related Sump class arbitration
settlement, which covered similar state law claims brought by a
similar class of XBS call center agents.

On July 24, 2014, following the district court's ruling
provisionally certifying the class, XBS filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which, in relevant part, asked for the court to
reconsider its denial of XBS's summary judgment motion and its
rulings about predominance. In the same filing, on July 24, 2014,
XBS moved in the alternative to have the district court amend its
order to certify the summary judgment ruling for interlocutory
appeal.

On Sept. 18, 2014, the court denied XBS' motion for
reconsideration. It left its provisional class certification
decision in place. Subsequently, the district court entered a stay
pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal.

The Ninth Circuit began those proceedings on Dec. 3, 2014, and
ultimately certified the question to the Washington Supreme Court;
adopted that court's decision that call center agents are hourly
workers protected under the MWA; and affirmed the district court's
denial of summary judgment. On July 3, 2019, the final mandate from
the Ninth Circuit issued with respect to those matters, and on July
16, 2019, the district court lifted the stay and instructed the
parties to file a joint status report.

After the stay was lifted, Hill filed a Motion to Define Scope on
July 18, 2019, which requested that the district court define the
scope of the certified ABC Class to include signatories to the 2012
DRP, notwithstanding her previous concession that such signatories
be excluded from the class. On Aug. 5, 2019, in its Response to
Hill's Motion to Define Scope, XBS urged the district court to
"find that individual arbitration agreements preclude class
certification altogether." It again argued that arbitration
agreements under both the 2002 and the 2012 DRP barred the
participation of many putative class members

On Aug. 13, 2019, the district court issued an order defining the
scope of the ABC Class. Specifically, it defined the ABC class as
follows: All persons who have worked at Defendants' Washington call
centers under an Activity Based Compensation or ABC plan that paid
per minute rates for certain work activities between June 5, 2010,
and the date of final disposition of this action.

Thereafter, and in light of the district court's class
certification order, Hill and XBS worked together to develop a
final list of 5,772 class members for the purposes of notice under
Rule 23(c)(2)(B). And on Nov. 13, 2019, while explaining to the
district court how the class list was populated, XBS reiterated its
position that although the signatories under the 2002 DRP were
included in the class list, it anticipated moving to compel
arbitration against them after the notice and opt out time window
had run.

The day after the notice administrator gave his report on the final
class size, on March 5, 2020, XBS filed a motion to compel
individual arbitration by 2,927 class members who had signed the
2002 DRP. The district court agreed and found that XBS had waived
its right to compel arbitration. XBS timely appealed.

The Ninth Circuit is called on to decide whether the district court
correctly determined that the actions of Appellant XBS constituted
a waiver of its right to compel arbitration as against unnamed
parties to the class action. The test for waiver of the right to
compel arbitration consists of two elements: (1) knowledge of an
existing right to compel arbitration; and (2) intentional acts
inconsistent with that existing right.

XBS challenges both prongs by asserting that it neither had
knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration under the 2002
DRP, nor performed any acts inconsistent with its right to compel
arbitration under the 2002 DRP.

The Ninth Circuit explains that the Supreme Court's recent decision
in Morgan v. Sundance, 142 S.Ct. 1708 (2022), has removed prejudice
to the non-moving party as an element of waiver in the context of
arbitration contracts. Accordingly, it takes occasion to restate
the Ninth Circuit's rule of waiver of the right to arbitrate, which
is nothing more than the general rule of waiver of a contractual
right: a party waives its right to compel arbitration when (1) it
has knowledge of the right, and (2) it acts inconsistently with
that right.

Moreover, the body of caselaw in this Circuit applying these two
elements remains good law following Morgan, which by its own terms
decided only "a single issue" and held that federal courts cannot
"condition a waiver of the right to arbitrate on a showing of
prejudice." Thus, relying on established Ninth Circuit precedent,
the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's order which denied
the Appellant's motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bdda2ney from Leagle.com.

Todd L. Nunn -- todd.nunn@klgates.com -- (argued), Daniel P. Hurley
-- daniel.hurley@klgates.com -- Ryan D. Redekopp --
ryan.redekopp@klgates.com -- and Patrick M. Madden --
patrick.madden@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, Seattle, Washington,
for the Defendants-Appellants.

Daniel F. Johnson -- djohnson@bjtlegal.com -- (argued), Breskin
Johnson & Townsend PLLC, Seattle, Washington; Toby J. Marshall --
tmarshall@tmdwlaw.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Seattle,
Washington, for the Plaintiff-Appellee.


YAMA SEAFOOD INC: Donet Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yama Seafood, Inc.
The case is styled as Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Yama Seafood, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01181 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2023).

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

Yama Seafood, Inc. -- https://www.yamaseafood.com/ -- have been
providing high end seafood to hundreds of restaurants up and down
the eastern seaboard.[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


YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN: G.B. Files ADA Suit in N.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young Men's Christian
Association and Woman's Community Center of Rome, New York. The
case is styled as G.B., an infant by his Parent and Natural
Guardian, FELICIA BOHNING, on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated v. Young Men's Christian Association and Woman's
Community Center of Rome, New York doing business as: Rome Family
YMCA, Case No. 6:23-cv-00188-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2023).

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

The YMCA -- http://www.ymcatrivalley.org/-- is a nonprofit
organization whose mission is to put Christian principles into
practice through programs that build healthy spirit, mind and
body.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik Bashiam, Esq.
          BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
          500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
          Garden City, NE 11530
          Phone: (516) 279-1555
          Fax: (516) 213-0339
          Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com


[*] Clarksburg to Join Suit v. "Forever Chemicals" Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JoAnn Snoderly, writing for The Exponent Telegram, reports that the
Clarksburg Sanitary Board on Feb. 14 voted to sign on to a class
action lawsuit against manufacturers of so-called "forever
chemicals" in an effort to help recoup any costs that may come in
the future to comply with federal testing and treatment
requirements for the chemicals.

The suit against manufacturers of perfluorinated and
polyfluoro-alkyl compounds, also known as PFAS, is one of a growing
number of lawsuits against makers of the class of chemicals, which
are found in a number of consumer products and can be present in
water, soil, air and food.

These chemicals break down slowly and can build up in people,
animals and the environment over time, according to the
Environmental Protection Agency. For that reason, they earned the
nickname "forever chemicals."

Research has suggested high levels of certain PFAS may lead to
increased cholesterol levels, decreased vaccine response in
children, changes in liver enzymes, increased risk of high blood
pressure or pre-eclampsia in pregnant women, small decreases in
infant birth weights, and an increased risk of kidney or testicular
cancer, according to the CDC.

The Sanitary Board voted to enter into a retainer agreement with
AquaLaw, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC and Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd
LLP to join the class action lawsuit against the chemical
manufacturers.

Utilities will soon have to test for these chemicals in water,
according to Drew Eddy, wastewater treatment plant superintendent.

"Sooner or later, we're going to have to figure out a way to treat
that," he said.

The class action lawsuit will seek renumeration for possible costs
that are incurred by utilities, according to City Engineer Tom
Brown.

The law firms have asked wastewater treatment utilities across the
state to join the suit. The firms will only be paid if they win the
suit.

"If we won, they would take 25%," Eddy said.

The suit is likely to drag on for years, however, according to
Interim City Manager Steve Pulice.

Also on Feb. 14, the Sanitary Board approved payment of a $60,000
invoice for planning of the West Fork Co-op area sewer project. The
project would extend sewer service to the Arlington community in
its first phase.

The board also voted to recommend City Council approval for using
$500,000 in American Rescue Plan Act funds for the Phase 5a
project, which would upgrade the wastewater treatment plant,
including a belt press, roof, pump repair and new boilers; separate
stormwater from the sewer system from McDonald's on West Pike
toward Milford Street; and fix an interceptor issue near Milford
Street, according to Daniel E. Ferrel, senior project manager with
The Thrasher Group.

The total Phase 5a project cost is about $7.8 million. The board is
expected to seek additional funding and loans from the state if the
project moves forward.

Using the ARPA funds would lower the amount the Sanitary Board
would have to borrow, decreasing interest paid over the life of the
loans, according to board member Frank Ferrari.

City Council was expected to consider the Sanitary Board
recommendation at council's regular meeting on Thursday, Feb. 16.

Also, the Sanitary Board will issue a request for proposals for
legal services in the next fiscal year. There is no commitment, but
the request will allow the board to review services available,
according to Pulice.

"This would just be for the Sanitary Board for any questions," Eddy
said. ". . . We're paying three different lawyers, and we could
just pay one firm." [GN]


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***