/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230228.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, February 28, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 43

                            Headlines

A. FISHMAN & SON: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Court Narrows Claims in LeGrand Class Suit
AGRESERVES INC: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AIL HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bordner Suit Alleges
ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Martens Suit

ALLIED WASTE: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to May 8
ALMO CORPORATION: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Pension Fund Files Suit Over Dilution Claims
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Steen Seeks to Certify Policy Owner Class
ASPYR LLC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

AYVAZ PIZZA: Echeverria Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
B. BOYS INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BANK OF NEW YORK: Third Amended Case Management Order Entered
BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: Scheduling Order Entered in Gonzalez Suit
BEYOND MEAT: Zakinov Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

BLACKBIRDS BROOKLYN: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BLUE CROSS: New Mexico Court Denies Bid to Remand Graham Class Suit
BLUE KNIGHT: Fails to Pay Security Guards' OT Wages, Sanchez Says
BON APPETIT: Nordman Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Omori, et al., Seek to Certify Classes

BRANDON RENTAL: Klyn Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
BRASS AND BURL: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BREADBERRY INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Calderon Labor Class Suit
BUDDI US: Scheduling Order Entered in S.C. Class Action
CALIFORNIA: Blake, et al., Seek to Certify Class

CASH ADVANCE: Appeal From Arbitration Denial in Stanton Suit Tossed
CASH EXPRESS: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Lumpkin et al. Claim
CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Following Cyberattack
CGS STORES: Joint Bid to Certify Conditional Class OK'd
CHARLES SCHWAB: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration

CHRISTIAN DIOR: Judge Tosses Biometrics Privacy Class Action Suit
CHRISTOPHER WRAY: Brewer Files Suit in D. Columbia
CIRCLE K: McDonald Suit Remanded to California State Court
CNG RESTAURANTS: Underpays Servers & Bartenders, Murphy Claims
COCA-COLA CO: Class Action Over Fanta "100% Natural" Claims Tossed

CONAGRA BRANDS: Richburg and Ruiz Suits Dismissed With Prejudice
CONAGRA BRANDS: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set on May 22
CORECIVIC INC: Modifications of Scheduling Order Sought
CORIZON INC: Denial of Kensu's Bid for Relief From Judgment Upheld
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Case Management Order Entered in Johnstone

CSX TRANS: Seeks to Expedite Ruling on Class Cert Postponement
CVI SGP: Cotte Seeks to Certify Settlement Classes
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICE: Chairse Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
DERMSTORE LLC: Zagury Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
DMCG INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barraza-Benitez Suit Alleges

DOLLAR GENERAL: Wright Suit Removed to M.D. Georgia
DOLLAR TREE: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
DOORDASH INC: Silva Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
ELAP SERVICES: Must File Class Cert Bid Response by March 15
ESS TECH INC: Faces Budikiewicz Suit Over Drop in Share Price

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: Kitchen Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
FINWISE BANCORP: Caban Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
FLORISSANT, MO: Rogers' Report and Testimony Excluded in Baker
FRESHWORKS INC: Scott+Scott Named Lead Counsel in Sundaram Suit
GATEWAY GENOMICS: Muse Telemarketing Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.

GEISINGER HEALTH: Wins Summary Judgment on McWilliams' Return Claim
GENWORTH LIFE: Settlement With Lang Objectors in Haney Suit OK'd
GOLDEN STAR: Mejia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
GOLDEN STATE FC: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines
GREAT WOLF RESORTS: Faces Augustine Suit Over Wiretapping Violation

GREENBOX LOAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Suit Alleges
GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES: Maxine Furs Files Suit in N.D. California
HABERFELDE FORD: Morris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HARBOR FREIGHT: Allowed to Seal Opposition to Comes Class Cert Bid
HARBOR FREIGHT: Hearing on Bid to Exclude Expert Set for March 15

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Heymer Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
HERITAGE PROVIDER: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Abedi Says
HEXO CORP: Fasken Discusses Securities Class Action Ruling
HRONIS INC: Armenta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
IDEAL HOME HEALTH: Calderon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation

INLAND RESTORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Compensation
JILL ACQUISITION: Serrieh Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
JOHN KASICH: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Ball
KASTRIOT INC: Leon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
KEYBANK NATIONAL: Brouty Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia

KEYBANK NATIONAL: Pittman Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
LASHIFY INC: Adams Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
LEPRINO FOODS: Loses Renewed Bid to Decertify Class in Vasquez Suit
LEVEL 3: Seeks More Response Time to Conditional Class Cert Bid
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Gralia Sues Over Harmful Chocolate Products

LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Sued Over Unsafe Chocolate Products
M & M: Fails to Pay Tire Technicians' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Conditional Cert of Collective Action Sought
MASTERCARD INC: May Face Class Suit Over Illegal Interchange Fees
MATTERPORT INC: Pretrial Conference in Lynch Set for Dec. 6

MDL 2903: Bid to Dismiss Alfaro's Unsafe Sleeper Class Suit Denied
MDL 2936: Court Suggests Remand of DJ Action to E.D. Louisiana
MDL 3014: Dobbs v. Aerocare Transferred to W.D. Pa.
MDL 3044: MSP Recovery v. Exactech Inc. Transferred to E.D. N.Y.
MDL 3047: Youngers v. Meta Platforms Transferred to N.D. Cal.

MDL 3055: Nine Data Breach Suits Consolidated in D.N.J.
MDL 3056: 6 Data Breach Suits Transferred to N.D. Ga.
MDL 3058: Credit Reporting Litigation Denied Transfer to N.D. Ill.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Bolling Sues Over Defective Panoramic Sunroof
MICHIGAN: Boussum Complaint v. Washington Dismissed w/o Prejudice

MIDLAND CREDIT: Limas Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Information
MOGA TRANSPORT: Benitez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MOL EUROPE: CAT Restricts Communications With Class Members
MOUNTAIN LAKES: Court Denies B.L.'s Bid to Proceed Under Pseudonyms
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Bid to Decertify Class in Portillo Suit Denied

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Khaimov Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Wins Bid to Seal Arbitration Ruling in Bush Suit
NIRMAL LC: Fails to Pay Technicians' Proper Wages, Herrera Claims
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Canterburry Suit Over Chemical Spill
PARRY'S PIZZA VI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Domowicz Alleges

PEABODY ENERGY: $1.16MM in Attys. Fees Awarded in Securities Suit
PEABODY ENERGY: Final Order & Judgment Entered in Securities Suit
PEABODY ENERGY: Plan of Allocation in Securities Suit Approved
PLDT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 3
PRISMA LABS: Faces Class Action Over Lensa "Magic Avatar" Feature

PROPERTY SERVICES: Faces Scott Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
PROTECH INSTALLATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Henderson Says
REAL TIME: Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Jones
REGAL MEDICAL: Austin Sues Over Security Incident and Data Breach
REGAL MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Valentine Says

S.O.S. MAINTENANCE: Jimenez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SA HOSPITALITY: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SAFE HAVEN: Faces Jackson Suit Over Technicians' Unpaid Overtime
SAIRAM FOOD: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SANDORA CAPITAL: Parrilla Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls

SECURITAS SECURITY: Ulloa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SILVERGATE BANK: Faces Bhatia Suit Over Cryptocurrency Scheme
SIXT RENT A CAR: Lopez Files Suit in S.D. Florida
SONY INTERACTIVE: Bid to Dismiss Caccuri Class Complaint Denied
SUR LA TABLE: Court Grants Chen Leave to Amend Consumer Suit

SURMODICS INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
TARGET CORP: Wiretaps Electronic Communications, Calderon Claims
TESLA INC: To Appeal Verdict in Shareholder Class Action
TIMBERLINE CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guerrero Says
TRANSUNION LLC: Wilson Sues Over Illegal Selling of Personal Info

TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Woldanski Suit Transferred to S.D. California
UCOR LLC: Speer Suit Seeks to Stay Class Certification Briefing
UNITED STATES: Bassen Files Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED STATES: Scheduling Order Entered in Jimenez Class Suit
VERTAFORE INC: Court Dismisses Claims in Mulvey Suit With Prejudice

VICTORIA'S SECRET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harman Suit Alleges
VISAGE SCREEN-PRINT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges
VISION SOLAR: Bid to Toss Landy TCPA Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice
VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Thompson Seeks Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime
WHITE CASTLE: Ogletree Deakins Discuss BIPA Class Action Ruling

WINK BROW BAR: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ZEN RAMEN AND SUSHI: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
[*] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Register Now!
[*] UK Law Firms Earned GBP-1B From U.S.-Style Class Action Suits

                            *********

A. FISHMAN & SON: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A. Fishman & Son
Jewelry, Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. A. Fishman & Son
Jewelry, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01191 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2023).

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

A. Fishman & Son -- https://www.afishman.com/ -- is a direct
importer, cutter and manufacturer of loose diamonds.[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


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Court Narrows Claims in LeGrand Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CONDALISA LEGRAND, et al., Plaintiffs v. ABBOTT
LABORATORIES, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Thomas S. Hixon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Abbott's Motion to Dismiss.

Abbott is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business in Abbott Park, Illinois. It sells a line of "nutrition"
drinks under the "Ensure" brand, including Ensure Original
Nutrition Shake, Ensure Complete Nutrition Shake, Ensure Enlive
Advanced Nutrition Shake, Ensure Compact Therapeutic Nutrition
Shake, Ensure Clear Nutrition Drink, and Ensure Original Nutrition
Powder.

Abbott markets the Ensure Nutrition Drinks with health and wellness
labeling, such as "#1 Doctor Recommended Brand," and "Complete,
Balanced Nutrition for everyday health." It sells Ensure Nutrition
Drink on a nationwide basis, including in New York and California,
and did so for the four years prior to filing of the instant
action.

LeGrand is a California resident, and Larissa Bates is a New York
resident. She purchased the Ensure Original Nutrition Shake at
different times in California in the four years prior to filing the
Complaint. Bates purchased Ensure Complete Nutrition Shakes in New
York in the four years preceding filing. In purchasing the Ensure
Nutrition Drinks, both Plaintiffs were exposed to, and relied on,
Abbott's label representations, such as that the products were
"Doctor Recommended" and "nutrition shakes."

There is a vast body of scientific evidence demonstrating that
consuming sugar-sweetened beverages harms, rather than supports,
overall health. Abbott adds up to 22 grams of sugar per serving to
the Ensure Nutrition Drinks. As a result of this sugar content and
scientific evidence, the Plaintiffs allege that the labeling on
Ensure Nutrition Drinks advertising them as balanced, nutritious,
and healthy is false and misleading.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant action on Oct. 6, 2022, seeking to
bring a class action under Rule 23 on behalf of themselves and
other consumers who bought Ensure Nutrition Drinks. They define
members of a nationwide class, as well as California and New York
subclasses, as "all persons in the United States, and subclasses of
all persons in California and in New York, who, at any time from
four years preceding the date of the filing of this Complaint to
the time a class is notified (the 'Class Period'), purchased, for
person or household use, and not for resale or distribution, any of
the Ensure Nutrition Drinks (the 'Class')."

The Plaintiffs bring the following causes of action: 1) violation
of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") (California subclass); 2)
violation of the False Advertising Law ("FAL") (California
subclass); 3) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA")
(California subclass); 4) breach of Express Warranties under Cal.
Com. Code Section 2313(1) (California subclass); 5) breach of
Implied Warranty of Merchantability under Cal. Com. Code Section
2314 (California subclass); 6) violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. L.
Section 349 (New York subclass); 7) violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. L.
Section 350 (New York subclass); 8) Unjust Enrichment; 9) Negligent
Misrepresentation; and 10) Intentional Misrepresentation.

On Dec. 12, 2022, Abbott filed the present Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). On Dec. 27, 2022, the
Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On Jan. 6, 2023, Abbott filed a
reply.

First, Abbott argues that the Court lacks general or specific
jurisdiction over Abbott as to New York resident Bates' claims.
Bates does not allege general jurisdiction but argues that the
Court has specific jurisdiction over Abbott because this is a class
action suit, or, alternatively, that the Court should exercise
pendent personal jurisdiction.

Bates does not argue, nor does it appear as though, her claims
against Abbott arise out of or relate to Abbott's California
activities. Judge Hixon concludes she has not made a showing of
personal jurisdiction over Abbott as to her claims. Alternatively,
he concludes that given the current state of the caselaw in this
district, he declines to exercise pendent personal jurisdiction
over Bates' claims.

Therefore, Judge Hixon grants Abbott's Motion to Dismiss Bates'
claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2). Because he finds the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction, he declines to address Abbott's other
arguments for dismissal of Bates' claims. He grants leave to amend
the Complaint, should Bates have claims pursuant to federal
questions.

Second, Abbott moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' five causes of
action under statutes related to false advertising, specifically
California's FAL, UCL, and CLRA and New York's False Advertising
and Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices statutes, on multiple
bases, including that the alleged false advertising statements are
not misleading as a matter of law, that federal law preempts
certain challenged statements from being found to be false
advertising, that the pleadings are insufficient under Rule 9(b),
and that LeGrand lacks statutory standing for products she did not
purchase.

Judge Hixon finds that (i) all the relevant products contain added
sugar in harmful amounts, the key ingredient underpinning LeGrand's
false advertising claim; (ii) LeGrand may not rely upon these
statements to argue that the advertising for Ensure products is
misleading because it suggests the products are healthy despite
unhealthy added sugar; and (iii) disclosure of sugar content on a
label necessarily precludes a claim alleging advertising promoting
a product as healthy is misleading because of the harmful amounts
of added sugar in the product.

Based on the facts pled and drawing all inferences, Judge Hixon
finds plausible that a significant portion of consumers, acting
reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled by Ensure
Nutrition Drinks' advertising statements.

Judge Hixon further finds LeGrand sets forth more than the neutral
facts necessary to identify the transaction" as well as "what is
false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false.
Accordingly, he denies Abbott's Motion to Dismiss the false
advertising claims brought under California law.

Judge Hixon also denies Abbott's Motion to Dismiss the express
warranty claim. As LeGrand's consumer protection claims are
sufficient to state a claim under the reasonable consumer standard,
they are likewise sufficient to state a claim for breach of express
warranty.

Lastly, Judge Hixon denies Abbott's Motion to Dismiss the unjust
enrichment claim. He finds that LeGrand alleges the same
misrepresentations that underlie her other claims, and thus she has
sufficiently pled unjust enrichment.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Hixon grants in part and denies in
part Abbott's Motion to Dismiss. He grants dismissal of the causes
of action based on violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. Section 349,
violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. Section 350, Unjust Enrichment under
New York law, Negligent Misrepresentation under New York law, and
Intentional Misrepresentation under New York law.

Judge Hixon grants in part dismissal of claims brought based on
violation of UCL, FAL, and CLRA, breach of Express Warranties under
Cal. Com. Code Section 2313(1), Implied Warranty of Merchantability
under Cal. Com. Code Section 2314, Unjust Enrichment under
California law, Negligent Misrepresentation under California law,
and Intentional Misrepresentation under California law (1) to the
extent those claims rely on statements that the Court has
determined are preempted nutrient content claims, as discussed
above, and (2) to the extent those claims rely on the statement
"Discover More at Ensure.Com," and otherwise denies dismissal of
those claims.

Finally, Judge Hixon grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend. The
Plaintiffs may file a First Amended Complaint within 30 days of the
date of his Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/244mrmbf from Leagle.com.


AGRESERVES INC: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Agreserves, Inc. The
case is styled as Carlos Marin Rivera, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Agreserves, Inc., Case No. BCV-23-100439 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., Feb. 14, 2023).

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

AgReserves, Inc. -- https://www.agreserves.com/ -- operates
investment farms. The Company through its subsidiaries produces
potatoes and sweet corn for the food processing industry.[BN]

AIL HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bordner Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BORDNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AIL HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a AIL HOSPITALITY
GROUP; LUDLOW STREET, LLC d/b/a DAYS INN BY WYNDHAM; EASTWOOD
DRIVE, INC. d/b/a RAMADA BY WYNDHAM; SAMEER AILAWADI; and MIGUEL
GONZALEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00033 (W.D. Pa., Feb. 14,
2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Bordner was employed by the Defendant as maintenance
technician.

AIL HOSPITALITY LLC was founded in 2015. The company's line of
business includes operating public hotels and motels. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
          Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
          Michael J. Bradley, Esq.
          Steve T. Mahan, Esq.
          WEISBERG CUMMINGS P.C.
          2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 238-5707
          Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
          Email: smahan@weisbergcummings.com
                 dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
                 lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
                 mbradley@weisbergcummings.com

ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Martens Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN MARTENS and PAT MARTENS, Individually and as
Co-Personal Representatives of the ESTATE OF V.M.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, JOHN DOES 1-10, and
JANE DOES 1-10, Individually, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
A-1-CA-39614 (N.M. App.), the Court of Appeals of New Mexico
reverses the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
complaint against the City of Albuquerque.

Plaintiffs John and Pat Martens, individually and on behalf of the
Estate of V.M., appeal the district court's dismissal of their
complaint against the City for violations of the New Mexico Tort
Claims Act (TCA), NMSA 1978, Sections 41-4-1 to -27 (1976, as
amended through 2020). The district court concluded that the
Plaintiffs' written notice did not comply with Section 41-4-16(A)
of the TCA, which requires persons who claim damages under the TCA
to provide a written notice stating the time, place and
circumstances of the loss or injury.

In 2016, the Plaintiffs sent a "Notice of Claims Resulting in
Injury/Death Per Section 41-4-16" to the Bernalillo County Clerk,
the Risk Management Division, and the Mayor of the City of
Albuquerque. The City, in relevant part, responded, regarding the
claim against the City of Albuquerque, it was determined that
subsequent to a murder investigation by the Albuquerque Police
Department (APD), the manner in which the crime was investigated
was appropriate and in accordance with departmental policies and
procedures.

The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a complaint and alleged that the
City, APD, and unknown officers were negligent in failing to
investigate a referral made by CYFD that arose from an incident
before V.M. was killed. After significant litigation, the district
court dismissed the complaint based on lack of written and actual
notice of the claim as required by the TCA under Section 41-4-16.
This appeal followed.

The City contends that the Plaintiffs waived any challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court's
dismissal and that they failed to establish written and actual
notice. The Plaintiffs, however, do not appear to challenge the
evidence and have explicitly abandoned any challenge to the actual
notice ruling. Instead, they argue solely that the contents of the
Notice satisfied the Section 41-4-16(A) written notice
requirement.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals limits its analysis accordingly. It
concludes that the Notice provided the City with the information
necessary to investigate its involvement with the circumstances
leading to V.M.'s injuries and death. The written Notice satisfied
the requirements of Section 41-4-16(A). It therefore reverses the
district court and remands for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p83e2va from Leagle.com.

Bowles Law Firm, Jason Bowles, Albuquerque, NM.

Gorence Law Firm, LLC, Robert J. Gorence -- INFO@GOLAW.US --
Albuquerque, NM, for the Appellants.

Lauren Keefe, City Attorney, Stephanie M. Griffin, Deputy City
Attorney, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee City of Albuquerque.


ALLIED WASTE: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended to May 8
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEILA CROSS, in behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. ALLIED WASTE SERVICES
OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, D/B/A REPUBLIC SERVICES, Case No.
9:21-cv-00145-SEH (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Sam E. Haddon entered
an order granting the Parties joint motion for extension of time:

   -- The Parties shall have to and including April 24, 2023, in
      which to conduct discovery on issues relevant to Cross's
      motion for class certification.

   -- Cross shall have to and including May 8, 2023, in which to
      file an appropriate motion for class certification and
      supporting brief.

   -- Republic shall have to and including June 9, 2023, in
      which to file a response brief in opposition to a class
      certification.

   -- A reply brief from Cross will be due on or before June 23,
      2023.

Allied Waste provides non-hazardous solid waste management
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan 31, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Yxe0DA at no extra charge.[CC]



ALMO CORPORATION: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randolph Johnson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ALMO CORPORATION and ALMO DISTRIBUTING WISCONSIN, INC.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00207-LA (E.D. Wis., Feb. 14, 2023), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and Wisconsin's
Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") by Plaintiff for
purposes of obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.

The Defendants operated an unlawful compensation system that
deprived and failed to compensate the Plaintiff for all hours
worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, by failing to include all forms of non-discretionary
compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or
other rewards and payments, in said employees' regular rates of pay
for overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and
WWPCL. The Defendants' failure to compensate its hourly paid,
non-exempt employees at the correct, proper, and lawful overtime
rate of pay each workweek was intentional, willful, and violated
federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set forth in
the WWPCL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants into the position of Lead
working primarily at the Defendants' Mequon, Wisconsin location in
August 2022.

Almo Corporation is an appliance distributor that owns, operates,
and manages physical locations and facilities throughout the United
States, including but not limited to in the State of
Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Pension Fund Files Suit Over Dilution Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard at Bloomberg News reports that AMC Entertainment
Holdings Inc. is facing investor litigation over allegations it's
using a complex corporate engineering scheme to wrongfully sideline
small retail investors who flocked to the company in a "meme stock"
frenzy at the height of the pandemic.

A pension fund sued AMC and members of its board on Feb. 20,
claiming they're illegally empowering holders of nearly a billion
fractional preferred shares called "APEs" -- each worth 1/100th of
a supervoting preferred share -- in an end run around investors'
votes rebuffing their efforts to increase the class A share limit.
[GN]


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Steen Seeks to Certify Policy Owner Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MYRA STEEN, Individually,
and as successor-in-interest to JANICE WILLIAMS and on Behalf of
the Class; JANET WILLIAMS, Individually, and on Behalf of the
Class, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas Corporation,
Case No. 2:20-cv-11226-ODW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action under Federal Rule
      of Civil Procedure 23.

      "All vested owners and beneficiaries of life insurance
      policies issued or delivered by Defendant in California
      before 2013, and which, after January 1, 2013, were lapsed
      or terminated for nonpayment of premium without Defendant
      first providing all the protections required by Insurance
      Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72."

   2. Appointing Plaintiffs Myra Steen and Janet Williams as
      Class Representatives.

   3. Appointing the law firms of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP and
      Winters & Associates as Class Counsel.

In the action, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to
comply with California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and
10113.72. The Plaintiffs assert that class certification is
appropriate under 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
because:

   (1) the Class that Plaintiffs seek to certify is so numerous
       that joinder of all members is impracticable;

   (2) there  are questions and answers of law or fact common to
       class members;

   (3) the claims of the representative Plaintiffs are typical
       of the claims of the Class they seek to represent; and

   (4) the representative Plaintiffs and their counsel will
       fairly and adequately protect 16 he interests of the
       proposed Class.

The Plaintiffs also assert that certification is appropriate under
Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 23(b)(2) because Defendant has
acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the
Class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory
relief is appropriate respecting the class members as a whole.

American National is a group of companies writing a broad array of
insurance products and services

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 3,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lQaYvL
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19 th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

                - and -

          Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
          Sarah Ball, Esq.
          WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
          8489 La Mesa Boulevard
          La Mesa, CA 91942
          Telephone: (619) 234-9000
          Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
          E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
                  sball@einsurelaw.com

ASPYR LLC: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ASPYR, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Sylvia Martinez, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ASPYR, LLC, DHS1, LLC, Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2023-00334699-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Feb.
14, 2023).

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

Aspyr -- https://www.aspyr.com/ -- is a leading entertainment
publisher that creates, packages and delivers fun to millions
around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com


AYVAZ PIZZA: Echeverria Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Echeverria, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. AYVAZ PIZZA, LLC; PALO ALTO, INC.; SHOUKAT DHANANI; ROB
ALVARADO; LINDA ALVARADO; DOE CORPORATION 1-10; and JOHN DOE 1-10;
Case No. 2:23-cv-00134-GJF-KRS (D.N.M., Feb. 13, 2023), is brought
against the Defendants' willful failure to compensate the Plaintiff
with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"), and unjust
enrichment.

The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and NMMWA by failing to adequately reimburse delivery
drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay
delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours
worked. All delivery drivers at the Defendants' Pizza Hut stores,
including Plaintiff, have been subject to the same or similar
employment policies and practices with respect to wages and
reimbursement for expenses, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has worked at the Pizza Hut store located in Truth or
Consequences, New Mexico since July 2021.

The Defendants operate and/or operated Pizza Hut locations across
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Moody, Esq.
          MOODY & STANFORD, P.C.
          4169 Montgomery Blvd., NE
          Albuquerque, NM 87109
          Phone: 505-944-0033
          Fax: 505-944-0034
          Email: moody@nmlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Emily Hubbard, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Phone: 513-202-0710
          Fax: 614-340-4620
          Email: abiller@billerkimble.com
                 akimble@billerkimble.com
                 ehubbard@billerkimble.com
          Web: www.billerkimble.com


B. BOYS INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B. Boys, Inc. The
case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. B. Boys, Inc. d/b/a Belgian Boys, Case
No. 1:23-cv-01161-MKB-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2023).

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

B. Boys, Inc. doing business as Belgian Boys --
https://www.belgianboys.com/ -- produces delights from breakfast to
dessert, all made in Europe for sharing worldwide.[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


BANK OF NEW YORK: Third Amended Case Management Order Entered
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN WALDEN and LESLIE
WALDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION and BNY
MELLON, N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-01972-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
entered a third amended case management order:

   1. The parties shall complete a first phase of discovery by
      February 17, 2023. All interrogatories, depositions, and
      requests for admission and/or production of documents
      shall be served within sufficient time to allow responses
      to be completed prior to the close of fact discovery.

   2. The Plaintiffs' Expert Reports as to class certification
      are due on or before March 17, 2023. The Defendant's
      Expert Reports as to class certification are due on or
      before April 17, 2023.

   3. The Plaintiffs' rebuttal Expert Reports as to class
      certification (if any) are due on or before May 15, 2023.

      Depositions of all experts pertaining to class
      certification shall be completed on or before June 16,
      2023.

   4. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and any
      Motions for Summary Judgment as to the Named Plaintiffs'
      claims, Memoranda in Support, and all supporting evidence
      are due on or before July 17, 2023.

   5. The Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Class
      Certification and Oppositions to any Motions for Summary
      Judgment as to the Named Plaintiffs' claims, and all
      supporting evidence, are due 45 days after said motions
      are filed.

   6. The parties shall complete the ADR process that they
      select by November 30, 2023.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41behNY at no extra charge.[CC]

BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: Scheduling Order Entered in Gonzalez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK GONZALEZ, FRANCISCO
GONZALEZ RIOS, and PABLO GONZALEZ RIOS, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. BARNARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
INC., a corporation; BFBC, LLC, a limited liability company; Case
No. 3:22-cv-00534-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen S.
Crawford entered a scheduling order through the filing of any class
certification motions:

  1. Any motion to join other parties,      February 17, 2023
     to amend the pleadings, or to
     file additional pleadings shall
     be filed on or before:

  2. Fact and class discovery are not       April 21, 2023
     bifurcated but all class discovery
     shall be completed by all parties
     on or before:

  3. Any discovery motions related to       May 19, 2023
     class certification shall be
     brought no later than:

  4. A motion for class certification       June 16, 2023
     shall be filed no later than:

  5. A telephonic Case Management           August 25, 2023
     Conference (CMC) has been scheduled
     for:

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4132qS3 at no extra charge.[CC]


BEYOND MEAT: Zakinov Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stan Zakinov, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Beyond Meat, Inc., Case No.
4:23-cv-00144 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 13, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00840 to the
proceeding.

The nature suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Beyond Meat, Inc. -- https://www.beyondmeat.com/ -- is a Los
Angeles–based producer of plant-based meat substitutes founded in
2009 by Ethan Brown.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Kinney Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRUNDAL NAUEN & HOLSTEIN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CORY FEIN LAW FIRM
          712 Main St., Suite 800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: (281) 254-7717
          Email: cory@coryfeinlaw.com


BLACKBIRDS BROOKLYN: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blackbirds Brooklyn,
LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Blackbirds Brooklyn, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-01174 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2023).

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

Blackbirds Brooklyn doing business as Four & Twenty Blackbirds --
https://birdsblack.com/ -- is a pie and coffee shop.[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


BLUE CROSS: New Mexico Court Denies Bid to Remand Graham Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULIE GRAHAM, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NEW
MEXICO, Defendant, Civ. No. 22-0305 KG/GJF (D.N.M.), Judge Kenneth
J. Gonzales of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Mexico denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

Graham, a citizen and resident of New Mexico, filed the lawsuit
against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico (BCBSNM) in New
Mexico state court March 21, 2022. She brings claims against BCBSNM
for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the New
Mexico Insurance Code, and violations of the New Mexico Unfair
Practices Act related to the alleged wrongful denial or delay of
pre-authorization for out-of-network medical services. She also
proposes a class action against BCBSNM.

BCBSNM, which contends it should have been identified as HCSC
Insurance Services Company (HISC), a wholly owned subsidiary of
Health Care Service Corporation, a Mutual Legal Reserve Company,
timely removed the case to federal court on April 22, 2022, on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(a) and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d).

The Plaintiff timely filed a motion to remand on May 13, 2022,
arguing that BCBSNM is a citizen of New Mexico, such that diversity
does not exist, and, in the alternative, that BCBSNM consented to
litigate disputes related to its Medicaid provider agreement with
the State of New Mexico only in New Mexico's First Judicial
District Court. She admits she is a citizen of New Mexico and
concedes that the diversity amount-in-controversy requirement is
satisfied.

The Plaintiff passingly disputes that the CAFA
amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied, solely on the basis
that it "is not readily ascertainable at this time." She disputes
only the citizenship of the BCBSNM and the applicability of a forum
selection clause in the Medicaid contract with the State of New
Mexico.

Judge Gonzales faces two legal questions: 1) is BCBSNM a legal
entity separate and distinct from HISC, and if so, is it a New
Mexico citizen?; and 2) does the forum selection clause in BCBSNM's
Medicaid contract with State of New Mexico deprive this Court of
jurisdiction? He answers both questions in the negative: BCBSNM is
not a separate and distinct legal entity and is not a New Mexico
citizen, and the forum selection clause in the Medicaid contract
does not apply to the case.

Initially, Judge Gonzales is not persuaded that BCBSNM has a
separate legal character from HISC and is not persuaded that HISC
is a citizen of any state other than Illinois. The removing party
bears the burden of establishing the jurisdictional facts by a
preponderance of the evidence. BCBSNM has satisfied its burden with
respect to citizenship: BCBSNM is a trade name utilized by HISC,
which is a incorporated in Illinois with its principal place of
business in Illinois. For jurisdictional purposes, BCBSNM is a
citizen of Illinois.

Because the Plaintiff is a citizen of New Mexico and Defendant is a
citizen of Illinois, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,
the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1332.

Next, the Plaintiff seeks to define the class as: "All citizens of
New Mexico who were participants in the BCBS Blue Cross Community
Centennial program and who have been denied benefits and/or
reimbursement for goods or services for which they were eligible
under the program, who then requested an appeal of those denials,
suffered a denial of their appeal, requested a Fair Hearing after
denial of their appeal, and where Defendant BCBS then reversed its
denial of the appeal, causing the Fair Hearing Bureau appeal to be
vacated or dismissed."

Having found that the case satisfies CAFA's numerosity and
amount-in-controversy requirements, and having already determined
that BCBSNM is a citizen of Illinois and the Plaintiff is a citizen
of New Mexico, Judge determines that CAFA provides a separate basis
for exercising subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, the local
controversy exception does not apply and does not mandate remand.

As a final basis in support of her Motion to Remand, the Plaintiff
argues that the forum selection clause in HISC's Medicaid contract
with the State of New Mexico applies to this case and is mandatory,
meaning that the case can only be heard in New Mexico's First
Judicial District Court.

Judge Gonzales holds that the Plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing that she is an intended third-party beneficiary of the
Medicaid contract with the right to enforce its provisions. He
opines that the Plaintiff has not carried her burden. Indeed, the
clear language of the contract shows that there are no intended
third-party beneficiaries. Because the Plaintiff is not a party to
the Medicaid contract and is not an intended third-party
beneficiary, she cannot enforce the forum selection clause
contained therein.

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

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/22cmhs9f from
Leagle.com.


BLUE KNIGHT: Fails to Pay Security Guards' OT Wages, Sanchez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeria Sanchez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Blue Knight Security and Marilyn Robinson O'Hara,, Case
No. 4:23-cv-00564 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 14, 2023) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants allegedly violated the FLSA by failing to pay the
Plaintiff and Class Members time and one-half for each hour worked
in excess of 40 per work week. The Defendants also failed to
compensate the Plaintiff at the federally mandated minimum wage
rate. Furthermore, the Defendants had Plaintiff Valeria Sanchez
sign a document "waiving" her right to overtime pay before paying
her. The Defendants also had the other Plaintiff Class Members sign
similar "waivers", the suit claims.

Plaintiffs Valeria Sanchez and Class Members were employed as
security guards and provided service for Defendants and Defendants'
customers.

Blue Knight provides security services throughout Harris County,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles M.R. Vethan, Esq.
          THE VETHAN LAW FIRM , PC
          820 Gessner Rd., Ste.1510
          Houston, TX 77024
          Telephone: (713) 526-2222
          Facsimile: (713) 526-2230

BON APPETIT: Nordman Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JULIE NORDMAN and LINDA PEPPARS, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BON APPETIT
MANAGEMENT CO., a California corporation; COMPASS GROUP USA, INC.,
a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23-CIV-00188, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, in and for the County of San Mateo, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on Feb. 16, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00703 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges eight causes of action for: (1) failure to
pay all wages owed; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3)
failure to provide rest periods; (4) failure to timely pay wages;
(5) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (6) failure to
reimburse necessary business expenses; (7) conversion; and (8)
unfair competition.

Bon Appetit Management Co. is a Palo Alto, California-based on-site
restaurant company that provides café and catering services to
corporations, colleges, and universities.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq.
          Joel Moon, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 330-4500
          Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
          E-mail: lgiamela@fisherphillips.com
                  jmoon@fisherphillips.com

BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Omori, et al., Seek to Certify Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN THOMAS OMORI and
LINFEI YANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-11021-NMG (D.
Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
the following classes:

  -- Tuition Class

     "All students enrolled at Brandeis University during the
     Spring 2020 academic term and charged tuition by Brandeis."

     The Proposed Class Representatives are Alan Omori and
     Linfei Yang.

  -- Studio Fee Class

     "All students enrolled at Brandeis University during the
     Spring 2020 academic term  and charged a Studio Fee by
     Brandeis.

     The Proposed Class Representative is Linfei Yang.

The Plaintiffs also seeks the appointment of Poulin | Willey |
Anastopoulo, LLC, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Stanzler
Levine, LLC as class counsel.

Brandeis University is a private research university with a liberal
arts focus in Waltham/Boston, Massachusetts.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EkB00z at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
          Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
          32 Ann Street,
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 614-8888
          E-mail: roy@akimlawfirm.com
                  eric@akimlawfirm.com
                  pauld@akimlawfirm.com
                  blake@akimlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
          Rachel Downey, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com
                  whitneys@hbsslaw.com
                  racheld@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

          Richard E. Levine, Esq.
          STANZLER LEVINE, LLC
          37 Walnut Street, Suite 200
          Wellesley, MA 02481
          Telephone: (617) 482-3198
          E-mail: rlevine@stanzlerlevine.com

BRANDON RENTAL: Klyn Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Klyn, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
BRANDON RENTAL CENTER, INC. a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No.
8:23-cv-00315 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 13, 2023), is brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, (hereinafter "FLSA"), to
recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week during many weeks
of his employment, without being paid the federally mandated wage
for overtime. Specifically, the Plaintiff was paid only straight
time for all hours worked, even those hours in excess of forty per
work week. The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay
Plaintiff for all overtime hours worked in excess of forty per week
at the applicable time and one-half rate, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly maintenance technician by
the Defendant.

RENTAL CENTER is a Florida Profit Corporation doing business within
the Middle District of Florida, and is an enterprise engaged in an
industry affecting commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Norell, Esq.
          ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
          300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Phone: (954) 617-6017
          Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
          Email: rob@floridawagelaw.com


BRASS AND BURL: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brass and Burl, Inc.
The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Brass and Burl, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01262 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2023).

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

Brass & Burl -- https://www.brassandburl.com/ -- is a luxury
retailer specializing in furniture and decor for the thoughtfully
curated home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BREADBERRY INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Calderon Labor Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VANESSA DEL CARMEN ALVARADO CALDERON on behalf of
herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v.
BREADBERRY INC. d/b/a Breadberry, and SAMUEL GLUCK, Defendants,
Case No. 22-CV-1601 (MKB) (LB) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Margo K. Brodie of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants
the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration as to all of the
Plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiff Alvarado commenced the action on behalf of herself, the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class, against the Defendants, alleging that the Defendants
violated her rights under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq.,
and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Lab. Law Sections 650 et
seq.

Beginning in April of 2017 through February of 2020, the Plaintiff
was employed as a deli worker in the Breadberry supermarket in
Brooklyn, NY, which was owned by the Defendants. She was a
dues-paying member of Local 713 of the International Brotherhood of
Trade Unions.

In April of 2017 when the Defendants hired the Plaintiff, a
Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") governing the terms and
conditions of union-member employment was already in place. On Jan.
1, 2018, a new CBA ("2018 CBA") replaced the 2014 CBA, and remained
in effect through the end of the Plaintiff's employment by the
Defendants. The 2018 CBA contains two arbitration provisions, one
of which is included in the 2014 CBA.

On Aug. 19, 2022, the Defendants moved to compel arbitration and
dismiss the complaint or, in alternative, stay the action pending
arbitration, and on Sept. 30, 2022, the Court referred the motion
to Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for a report and recommendation. By
report and recommendation dated Dec. 15, 2022, Judge Bloom
recommended that the Court grants the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration as to certain claims and deny as to others (the
"R&R").

On Dec. 29, 2022, the Defendants filed a partial objection to the
R&R, arguing that Judge Bloom erred in recommending that the Court
deny Defendants' motion as to certain claims. The Plaintiff has not
yet filed a response, and the time for doing so has passed.

No party has objected to Judge Bloom's recommendations that the
Court: (1) grants the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration with
respect to the Plaintiff's FLSA and NYLL claims from Jan. 1, 2018
to February 2020; (2) stays the case pending the resolution of the
Plaintiff's claims in individual grievance, mediation, or
arbitration; and (iii) denies the Plaintiff's request that the
Court finds two provisions of the arbitration agreement
unconscionable and modify the agreement.

Judge Brodie has reviewed the unopposed portions of the R&R and,
finding no clear error, adopts the recommendations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1).

The Defendants object to Judge Bloom's recommendation that the
Court denies their motion to compel arbitration with respect to the
Plaintiff's pre-2018 FLSA and NYLL claims, arguing that: (1) the
recommendation is contrary to Second Circuit precedent; and (2) the
Plaintiff did not argue and therefore waived the argument that the
pre-2018 claims did not fall within the scope of the 2018 CBA
arbitration provision.

Judge Brodie finds that the Plaintiffs' contractual position did
not materially change between the time of the execution of the two
agreements. Nor is the scope of the arbitration clause temporally
limited. In view of the fact that the broad language of the 2018
CBA is not temporally limited, the 2018 CBA applies to all of the
Plaintiff's FLSA and NYLL claims and requires that these claims be
submitted to arbitration.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Brodie grants the Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration as to all of the Plaintiff's claims.
She also denies the Plaintiff's request that the Court modifies the
arbitration agreement. She stays the case pending resolution of the
Plaintiff's claims in arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mpuheyhd from Leagle.com.


BUDDI US: Scheduling Order Entered in S.C. Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as S.C. v. BUDDI US LLC, et
al., Case No. 8:20-cv-01370-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling order as follows:


   1. All discovery, including discovery    December 21, 2023
      motions, shall be completed by:

   2. Discovery motions must be filed       December 21, 2023
      and heard prior to this date:

   3. The parties shall have until          February 19, 2024
      to file and have heard all
      other motions, including
      motions to join or amend the
      pleadings:

   4. A pretrial conference will be         April 22, 2024
      held on:,

   5. The case is set for a jury trial:     April 30, 2024

   6. The parties shall have until:         January 4, 2024
      to conduct settlement proceedings:

   7. The Plaintiff shall have until        July 24, 2023
      to file and have heard any
      class certification motion:

Buddi US is a Software company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IwLw7t at no extra charge.[CC]


CALIFORNIA: Blake, et al., Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenyata Blake, Charles
Stevenson, on their own behalf and those similarly situated, v.
Kathleen Allison, Secretary of California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR), et al., the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify class of:

   "all presently incarcerated within the California Department
   of Corrections and Rehabilitation;"

The Plaintiffs filed the action for injunctive relief and
declaratory relief on Feb. 3, 2023 for violations of the 8th
Amendment's Protections against cruel and unusual punishment, and
also the 14th Amendment's Protections against Equal Protection as
well as Deliberate Indifference.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is the
penal law enforcement agency of the government of California
responsible for the operation of the California state prison and
parole systems. Its headquarters are in Sacramento.

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


CASH ADVANCE: Appeal From Arbitration Denial in Stanton Suit Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Kamisha Stanton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cash Advance
Centers, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Case
No. 22-1466 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit dismisses the appeal from the district court's order
denying the motion to compel arbitration for lack of jurisdiction.

Stanton brought a putative class action against Cash Advance
Centers, Inc., alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. The counsel purporting to
represent Cash Advance Centers, Inc., moved to compel arbitration
based on arbitration provisions contained in loan agreements
between Stanton and non-party Advance America, Cash Advance Centers
of Missouri, Inc. The district court denied the motion to compel.
The counsel also moved to substitute Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers of Missouri, Inc., for Cash Advance Centers, Inc., as the
party defendant, but the district court denied that motion as
well.

A notice of appeal was docketed to appeal the district court's
order denying the motion to compel arbitration. It was purportedly
was filed by attorneys for Defendant Cash Advance Centers, Inc. and
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc. At oral
argument, however, the counsel for the Appellant clarified that she
represents only non-party Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of
Missouri, Inc., and does not represent the party Defendant Cash
Advance Centers, Inc.

Given this unusual procedural posture, the Eighth must consider
whether the court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Only parties to
a lawsuit may appeal an adverse judgment. The federal rules of
procedure reflect this principle by requiring that the notice of
appeal specify the party or parties appealing by naming each one in
the caption or body of the notice.

Because Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc., is
not a party to the lawsuit, its notice of appeal is insufficient to
confer jurisdiction on the Eighth Circuit. It says it has
recognized limited exceptions to the rule that only parties to a
lawsuit may appeal, but none of the recognized exceptions is
applicable.

In this case, the motion to compel arbitration was purportedly
filed only by Cash Advance Centers, Inc. The non-party Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc., made no appearance
in connection with the motion, and the court's order addressed only
a motion advanced by the party defendant.

The notice of appeal also names Cash Advance Centers, Inc., the
party defendant, as an appellant. But while attorneys purporting to
represent Cash Advance Centers, Inc., filed a notice of appeal, the
counsel acknowledged at oral argument that she represented only
non-party Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc.,
and not Cash Advance Centers, Inc. The answer to Stanton's
complaint similarly lists the attorneys who filed the notice of
appeal as counsel for non-party Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers of Missouri, Inc. The answer asserts that Cash Advance
Centers, Inc., was "improperly identified" in the complaint. The
appellant's briefs contain similar language.

No person has the right to appear as an entity's attorney without
the entity's authority, the Eighth Circuit says. An appeal taken by
someone unauthorized to do so should be dismissed. Because the
attorneys who filed the notice of appeal on behalf of Cash Advance
Centers, Inc., concededly did not represent that party, the notice
of appeal was unauthorized and invalid.

For these reasons, the Eighth Circuit dismisses the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. Stanton's motion to strike is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/35k9hupa from Leagle.com.


CASH EXPRESS: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Lumpkin et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLISON LUMPKIN and MALLORY BOWLIN, individually and on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. CASH EXPRESS, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, and
GARRY MCNABB, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00003
(M.D. Tenn., January 20, 2023) is a collective action complaint
brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants an hourly-paid
non-exempt employees - Plaintiff Lumpkin as a Manager at their
Rogersville, Tennessee Cash Express location, while Plaintiff
Bowlin as an Assistant Manager at their Mount Carmel, Tennessee
Cash Express location - during the three-year period immediately
preceding the filing of this complaint.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated individuals were typically scheduled by the Defendants to
work at least 40 hours or more per week, but routinely worked
additional hours. However, the Defendants did not properly
compensate them for all hours they worked. The Defendants also
failed to include non-discretionary bonuses they received for the
purpose of calculating the proper overtime rate of pay. As a
result, despite working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants
failed to properly pay them overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover all unpaid back wages pursuant to
the applicable wage and overtime rates, as well as liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and all costs of this action, and other relief to which they
and other similarly situated employees may be entitled.

Cash Express, LLC is a check cashing nontraditional financial
institution. Garry McNabb is an owner, member and key principal of
the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
             OWEN & BRYANT
          Attorneys at Law
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Following Cyberattack
----------------------------------------------------------------
News 12 reports that hundreds of thousands of patients'
confidential information were leaked from CentraState Healthcare
System, and now patients are suing.

A woman has filed a class-action lawsuit against CentraState, a
week after the cyberattack. The breach happened in December but was
only reported recently.

A hacker had obtained a copy of the archived database, which forced
CentraState to temporarily divert ambulances to other hospitals and
halt outpatient care. The health care center notified over 600,000
patients that their names, addresses, Social Security numbers and
medical records were leaked.

The health care center began mailing letters to patients affected
on Feb. 17. The company released a statement that said, "We deeply
regret any concern this incident may have caused and want to assure
you that we are committed to the security of our systems, and we
remain ready to provide the high-quality care that our patients and
families have come to expect from CentraState."

The woman who filed the lawsuit did not wish to speak to News 12
about it.

CentraState says it is now enhancing its security around patient
data. [GN]

CGS STORES: Joint Bid to Certify Conditional Class OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEVERLY LEWIS, v. CGS
STORES, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01166-JDB-jay (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge Jon A. York entered an order granting joint motion to certify
conditional class as follows:

   The Plaintiff initially filed a Motion to Certify Class on
   November 11, 2022. That Motion was referred to the
   undersigned for determination pursuant to Federal Rule of
   Civil Procedure 72.

   Since that filing, the parties have conferred and agree to
   the terms of conditional class certification. such, the
   parties' Joint Motion is granted and the Plaintiff's
   individual motion is denied as moot.

   The following collective is conditionally certified pursuant
   to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

   "All current and former hourly-paid employees who (1) worked
   in Defendant's Camden, Tennessee store from March 21, 2021,
   to the entry date of this order, and/or (2) worked in the
   Defendant's Waverly, Tennessee store from June 13, 2022 to
   the entry date of this order. Persons fitting this definition
   will be referred to as "FLSA Collective Members."

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XDfOcI at no extra charge.[CC]



CHARLES SCHWAB: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CRAGO, et al., v.
CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-03938-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting
motion to compel arbitration and denying renewed motion for class
certification.

Lead Plaintiff Robert Wolfson and named Plaintiff K. Scott Posson
filed a renewed motion for class certification, which seeks
certification of an issues class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c)(4).

The Defendants Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., and The Charles Schwab
Corporation move to compel arbitration.

The Plaintiffs previously moved for class certification under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(3). That motion
was denied on October 27, 2021, on the grounds that there was "no
presumption of reliance in this case, and requiring individualized
proof of reliance as to each plaintiff defeated the commonality
requirement of Rule 23(a).

Further, the lack of a presumption of reliance precluded
establishing predominance as required by Rule 23(b)(3)."

The order did not specify whether class certification was denied
with prejudice. To address the deficiencies identified in the
order, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on
September 23, 2022, seeking a narrower issues class under Rule
23(c)(4).

The Defendants, meanwhile, argue that Plaintiffs' renewed motion
must be denied, and arbitration must now be compelled, under the
terms of Schwab's Account Agreement. The parties agree that the
Agreement contains the following provision.

Charles Schwab provides financial solutions. The Company offers
brokerage and trading, order execution, mutual funds, stocks, and
bonds.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IuAXl1 at no extra charge.[CC]


CHRISTIAN DIOR: Judge Tosses Biometrics Privacy Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge has determined eyeglass sellers have exemption from
Illinois' biometric privacy law because their virtual try-on
software qualifies as provision of health care, even if customers
are only shopping for sunglasses.

U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo issued an opinion Feb. 10
dismissing a complaint customer Delma Warmack-Stillwell lodged
against designer Christian Dior.

Her ruling follows the path of other federal judges who determined
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act doesn't apply to
websites where a user uploads a photo of their face, then places
images of eyeglasses on the face photo to determine how they might
look wearing the products. Judge Charles Kocoras dismissed a
similar complaint in Vo vs. VSP Retail Development Holding in March
2020, and U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber dismissed a class
action against Frames for America in September 2022.

According to Warmack-Stillwell, Dior's virtual try-on tool uses
FittingBox software and a customer's web camera to display
real-time images of the shopper's face. During that process, she
alleged, the software scans the shopper's facial geometry and
transfers the data to a FittingBox server without Dior following
BIPA's mandates to collect written consent for the use of personal
data and without providing written data use, retention and
destruction policies. She also alleged the company is improperly
profiting off biometric data.

In arguing for dismissal, Dior said Warmack-Stillwell failed to
allege a legal injury. Bucklo rejected that argument, pointing to a
2020 U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, Bryant v.
Compass Group USA. Although that opinion did say the allegation of
failing to publicly disclose a data retention policy can't sustain
a BIPA claim, Bucklo noted the court later clarified claims can
survive when they allege violations of "the full range" of the data
policy guidelines.

According to Bucklo, Warmack-Stillwell alleged "violation of the
full panoply" of policy requirements, including that Dior neither
developed nor followed a data collection and retention plan. Bucklo
also said the complaint adequately alleged Dior used biometric data
to increase sales of its sunglasses.

However, Dior won dismissal by invoking one of BIPA's statutory
exemptions. The law prevents lawsuits when the data in question is
"captured from a patient in a health care setting" and excludes
from protection any "information collected, used, or stored for
health care treatment, payment, or operations under the federal
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996."

Dior only sought the general health care exemption, Bucklo wrote,
and rejected Warmack-Stillwell's contention she is not a "patient"
because she only shopped for non-prescription lenses.

"Sunglasses, even if non-prescription, protect one's eyes from the
sun and are Class I medical devices under the Food & Drug
Administration's regulations," Bucklo wrote. "By using the (virtual
try-on tool) to try on sunglasses, plaintiff was 'an individual
awaiting … medical care,' and therefore a 'patient,' because the
tool facilitates the provision of a medical device that protects
vision. Indeed, according to the complaint, using the VTOT is the
'online equivalent' of going to a brick-and-mortar location to get
sunglasses."

Bucklo agreed website users like Warmack-Stillwell might "be
surprised to learn" the technology established a patient/provider
relationship, she said her objective application of BIPA's
exemption shouldn't change just because some customers might only
be shopping for the purpose of fashion. She also said the fact BIPA
specifically mentions other medical settings, such as organ
donation and X-rays, doesn't make it "a stretch" to count trying on
and selling sunglasses as health care.

"This conclusion comports with the one reached by the other courts
that have considered whether BIPA's general health care exemption
applies in the context of virtual try-on tools for eyewear," she
wrote, adding that both Judges Kocoras and Leinenweber "recognized
that the virtual try-on tools were also used for nonprescription
sunglasses."

Bucklo further acknowledged lawsuits in which plasma collectors
have been unable to end BIPA lawsuits but noted judges in those
cases observed the intent of users wasn't health care, but to get
paid for selling blood. She did not consider Dior's other arguments
for dismissal.

The ruling in favor of Dior came squarely between two significant
Illinois Supreme Court rulings cementing the ability of plaintiffs
to seek financial damages under BIPA.

The first, a Feb. 2 opinion, established BIPA should be governed by
a five-year, rather than one-year statute of limitations. The
second, dated Feb. 17, held that each individual data collection
event can constitute a separate actionable violation. That, for
instance, could include customers like Warmack-Stillwell suing for
each time they visited the Dior website, even if they used the
technology the same way on each shopping trip. Such interpretation
could have exposed a retailer like Dior to massive potential
liability, potentially running into the hundreds of millions or
even billions of dollars.

Warmack-Stillwell has been represented by attorneys Adam J. Levitt,
Amy E. Keller, Nada Djordjevic and James Ulwick, of the firm of
DiCello Levitt, of Chicago.

Dior has been represented by attorneys Robert E. Shapiro, Maile H.
Solís, Connor T. Gants and David B. Lurie, of the firm of Barack
Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg, of Chicago. [GN]

CHRISTOPHER WRAY: Brewer Files Suit in D. Columbia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christopher Wray, et
al. The case is styled as Dennis Sheldon Brewer, individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Christopher Wray,
Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Kimberly Cheatle,
Director, United States Secret Service; ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS,
Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; JANET YELLEN,
Secretary, Department of the Treasury; WILLIAM BURNS, Director;
LLOYD AUSTIN, Secretary of Defense; STEFANIE TOMPKINS, Director,
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; FRANK KENDALL, III,
Secretary; CHRISTINE WORMUTH, Secretary; CARLOS DEL TORO,
Secretary; Case No. 1:23-cv-00415-UNA (D.D.C., Feb. 14, 2023).

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

Christopher Asher Wray is an American attorney who is the eighth
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, serving since
2017.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

CIRCLE K: McDonald Suit Remanded to California State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY MCDONALD, v.
CIRCLE K STORES, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00495-L-AGS (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion to remand action to the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Diego.

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
in this action.

The Defendant filed an opposition and Plaintiff replied.

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 January
1, 2021.

The Plaintiff also filed this action pursuant to the California
Private Attorneys General Act, Cal. Lab. Code.

The Plaintiff alleged that 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.

Circle K is a chain of convenience stores owned by Alimentation
Couche-Tard, based in Laval, Canada

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I5AsMY at no extra charge.[CC]


CNG RESTAURANTS: Underpays Servers & Bartenders, Murphy Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIN MURPHY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CNG RESTAURANTS LLC, d/b/a Twin Peaks
Restaurant, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00055 (M.D. Tenn., January 20, 2023) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendant to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and other damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as one of its employed
servers and bartenders to serve food and beverage items to
customers.

The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated servers
and bartenders were suffered and/or permitted to work 30 minutes
"off the clock" until 11:00 am when the restaurant officially
opened, but were not paid at all for this 30-minute window.
Additionally, despite working more than 40 hours per week, they
were not paid overtime pay at the legally mandated overtime rate.
Instead, they only receive the tipped credit rate of $2.13 per hour
and any tips received.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated servers and
bartenders, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and minimum wages, as well as liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, expenses and disbursements together
with reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees, and other relief
as the Court deems just and proper.

CNG Restaurants LLC is a franchisee of Twin Peaks Restaurants and
owns and operates the Twin Peaks Restaurant located at 1634
Galleria Boulevard, Brentwood, Tennessee 37027-2925. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
             OWEN & BRYANT
          Attorneys at Law
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

COCA-COLA CO: Class Action Over Fanta "100% Natural" Claims Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Radow, Esq., of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, in an article
for Mondaq, disclosed that don't you wanna, wanna another false
advertising suit involving a "100% natural" claim? A New York
federal court dismissed a suit over assertions that Fanta's pina
colada-flavored drink is 100% naturally flavored.

Specifically, Plaintiffs filed suit in October 2021 against the The
Coca-Cola Co. claiming its pina colada-flavored Fanta drink's "100%
natural" labeling is false, deceptive, and misleading because the
product contains artificial ingredients. The court said consumers'
allegations were "bare" and "unsubstantiated," lacking factual
support.

The complaint alleges that the pina colada-flavored drink
represents on the label as containing "100% Natural Flavors" with
the claim sitting above pictures of half a coconut a wedge of
pineapple. Because of these representations, Plaintiff said,
"consumers expect only natural flavors, because that's what the
label says."

The suit claimed the product actually contains artificial flavoring
"to help make the product taste tart and fruity, like the pictured
fruits taste naturally," as well as "to create, enhance, simulate,
and/or reinforce the sweet, fruity, and tart taste that consumers
associate with the pictured fruits." Specifically, the allegations
include that the product contains artificial malic acid rather than
natural malic acid.

The Court determined that the suit failed to allege that a
reasonable consumer would be misled by the product's label, stating
that the Plaintiff makes bare, unsubstantiated allegations about
the possibility that the product contains artificial malic acid,
without additional factual support from product testing.

The opinion states, "Even taking the allegations as true -- as this
Court must -- at a motion to dismiss, the allegations in the
instant Complaint are a far cry from raising 'any factually
substantiated allegations' that the Product contains artificial
malic acid, rather than natural malic acid." The suit was dismissed
with prejudice.

Check out some other "natural" claim suit examples, including those
involving a fruit punch water enhancer product, chicken,
toothpaste, and potato chips.

Janie Hawkins v. the Coca-Cola Co., case number 7:21-cv-08788, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

"Even taking the allegations as true -- as this Court must -- at a
motion to dismiss, the allegations in the instant Complaint are a
far cry from raising 'any factually substantiated allegations'"[GN]

CONAGRA BRANDS: Richburg and Ruiz Suits Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, KATHY RICHBURG, ADRIANA GAMBOA, JEFFREY KOENIG, and
CINDY McGLONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., Defendant. JULIE
RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CONAGRA BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22 CV 2420,
No. 22 CV 2421 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss all counts of
both complaints with prejudice.

Before the Court are motions from two related cases: Richburg v.
Conagra Brands, Inc., 22 CV 2420, and Ruiz v. Conagra Brands, Inc.,
22 CV 2421.

In Richburg, Plaintiffs Kathy Richburg, Adriana Gamboa, Jeffrey
Koenig, and Cindy McGlone, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, bring a ten-count class action complaint
against the Defendant. The Richburg Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant falsely and misleadingly marketed and labeled its Orville
Redenbacher's(R) microwave popcorn products.

The Plaintiffs bring individual and class claims under consumer
fraud and deceptive trade practice statutes in Illinois (Counts I
and II), California (Counts III, IV, and V), New York (Counts VI
and VII), Florida (Count VIII), in addition to a multi-state
consumer protection class (Count IX) and nationwide class (Count
XI).

In Ruiz, Plaintiff Julie Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, brings a five-count class action
complaint against the Defendant. She alleges that the Defendant
falsely and misleadingly marketed and labeled its Angie's
BOOMCHICKAPOP(R) microwave popcorn products.

Ruiz brings individual and class claims under California consumer
fraud and deceptive trade practice statutes (Counts I, II, and
III), in addition to a multi-state consumer protection class (Count
IV) and nationwide class (Count V).

In both Richburg and Ruiz, the Defendant moves to dismiss all
counts of each complaint, in addition to requesting judicial notice
of the Food & Drug Administration's document entitled "Authorized
Uses of PFAS in Food Contact Applications" in each case.

Judge Gettleman begins by taking judicial notice of the FDA
document entitled, "Authorized Uses of PFAS in Food Contact
Applications," which is available at
https://www.fda.gov/food/chemical-contaminants-food/authorized-uses-pfas-food-contact-applications.
This document states that "the FDA has authorized specific PFAS for
use in specific food contact applications," expressly including
microwave popcorn bags. The document states that the FDA "conducts
a rigorous scientific review before they are authorized for the
market," which includes data on migration of the food contact
substance "from its intended use and other sources of dietary
exposure."

Moreover, food contact substances are generally regulated by the
FDA as food additives due to "their potential to migrate into
food." According to the document, in paper and paperboard
packaging, small PFAS "sidechains" can detach from non-PFAS
polymers in the packaging, resulting in the potential for PFAS
migration to food.

Judge Gettleman states that the judicially noticed FDA document may
answer the Defendant's question regarding the type of PFAS at
issue, where it indicates that in paper and paperboard packaging,
small PFAS "sidechains" result in the "potential" for PFAS
migration to food.

Next, Judge Gettleman evaluates the Defendant's motions to dismiss
all counts of the complaints.

The Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss the complaints
for various reasons: (1) the Plaintiffs lack standing under Article
III of the U.S. Constitution; (2) the Plaintiffs have not plausibly
alleged the presence of PFAS in the products; (3) the challenged
statements and omissions cannot mislead a reasonable consumer; (4)
the Plaintiffs' claims are expressly preempted; and (5) other
miscellaneous reasons.

Judge Gettleman agrees with the Defendant and grants its motion to
dismiss all counts of both complaints. Assuming as true that the
microwave popping bags contain PFAS, that such PFAS migrates into
the popcorn, and that the popcorn subsequently contains
non-incidental, harmful PFAS levels, the question is whether
reasonable consumers would consider such undisputedly artificial,
migratory chemicals to be an "ingredient" in the challenged food
products based on the packages' representation that the products
contain "only real ingredients" and "100% ingredients from natural
sources."

Judge Gettleman concludes that such an interpretation is
implausible in light of the FDA's exemption of migratory substances
from the mandated list of "ingredients" on food product packaging.
Put another way, the representation on the packaging is correct as
a matter of law. Thus, the Court does not need to evaluate whether
the Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by federal statute. Moreover,
because the Plaintiffs do not allege independent theories of unjust
enrichment, Judge Gettleman also dismisses the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claims because he dismisses all other claims in both
complaints.

For these reasons, Judge Gettleman grants the Defendant's requests
for judicial notice and grants its motions to dismiss both
complaints, with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8p9het from
Leagle.com.


CONAGRA BRANDS: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set on May 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily O'Brien, writing for Don't Waste Your Money, reports that
people make mistakes -- and so do companies. But since the errors
companies may make can affect many of their customers, they can be
very costly. Civil class-action lawsuits are filed all the time to
allow customers to recoup losses due to common injuries and
inconveniences as a result of a company's widespread practices.

In a class-action lawsuit, a plaintiff or several plaintiffs
represent an entire group, or class, of people. If a business loses
the case or chooses to settle outside of court without admitting
fault, it generally sets aside a large amount of money from which
settlements are distributed to all customers represented by the
plaintiffs.

However, just because money is exchanged doesn't necessarily mean
you're entitled to receive payment. Payments are divided among
affected class members, so they're likely to only be a fraction of
the payout. It's still worth receiving, though -- when it comes to
keeping money in the bank, every little bit helps.

To be eligible for a portion of the settlement, you'll need to see
if you qualify. This process may be as simple as filling out a
short online form. Remember, these are legal documents and you must
tell the truth about how you've been affected and the damages
you've experienced. Some class-action lawsuits may later ask you to
provide proof of your expenditures as well. Note that if you accept
settlement money, you are waiving your right to file your own
related lawsuit.

If you're looking to see if you might be entitled to free money,
here is a list of 10 class-action settlements that you may qualify
for.

Wesson Cooking Oil
If you reside in one of the 11 different states involved in this
lawsuit and bought the popular Wesson brand cooking oil from
Conagra foods, you may be able to file a claim.

The lawsuit against Conagra claims that the company violated
certain laws in the marketing, advertising and sale of Wesson
cooking oils by stating they were natural, even though they used
genetically-modified ingredients. Customers may receive monetary
damages from a $3 million settlement fund if they live in Colorado,
California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, New York, Ohio,
Oregon, South Dakota or Texas.

You must have purchased Wesson oil in the decade or so before July
1, 2017, to be eligible to receive a settlement (the actual time
period varies per state). To participate, fill out this form --
https://www.wessonoilsettlement.com/ -- by May 22.

Circle K Store Employment
Current and former Circle K convenience store workers who feel they
have been discriminated against may be entitled to part of an $8
million settlement. The settlement benefits Circle K workers who
sought reasonable accommodations for a disability or pregnancy and
were subsequently fired between July 10, 2009, and Sept. 26, 2022.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) says Circle K
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII and the
Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Circle K has admitted no wrongdoing
in its settlement of the suit.

Current and former employees who were terminated between July 10,
2009, and Sept. 25, 2022, should file a claim by Feb. 26. If
eligible under conditions set by the EEOC, they may receive
monetary damages as determined by a settlement administrator.

American Airlines Baggage Fees
If you booked a plane ticket with American Airlines between Feb.
23, 2017, and April 9, 2020, you might have been charged an
unnecessary baggage fee. Certain customers are allowed free bag
check-in when flying, but plaintiffs claim American didn't honor
this part of the contract.

As a result of a settlement, affected customers may receive a 100%
refund of those baggage fees. Payments totaling $7.5 million may be
provided for all eligible customers in the class.

The deadline to file this claim is right around the corner:
Feb. 22.

Thinx Period Underwear
Thinx arrived at a $5 million settlement late last year in a suit
that alleged that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were
present in the company's products. Studies have linked PFAS to a
higher risk of cancer, reproductive problems, liver and immune
system damage and other health issues. Thinx says PFAS are not in
its product design and that it takes measures to ensure they're not
added, but they've been ordered to reimburse customers under the
terms of the settlement.

The settlement affects customers who bought Thinx underwear between
Nov. 12, 2016, and Nov. 28, 2022. Customers can get a $7 refund for
each purchase up to three pairs of period underwear if proof of
purchase is provided. They can get a $3.50 refund for each purchase
up to three pairs if no proof of purchase is provided. Customers
can also get a voucher for 35% off purchases of up to $150 in
eligible Thinx products during a single transaction on its
website.

The deadline to file is April 12.

Apple Macbook
Macbook owners who purchased laptop models between 2015 and 2019
with a faulty keyboard may be eligible to receive part of the
settlement. These laptops in question in this class-action suit
used "butterfly" technology in their keyboards. The term refers to
the shape of the hardware under each key, which many users found to
be quite troublesome.

Thanks to a $50 million fund, Macbook users who got repairs that
didn't fix the problems can receive up to $395. Specifically, those
who received two or more top case replacements in the four years
following their purchase can get the maximum amount. Those who
received one top case replacement or one or more cap replacements
can receive $125, and those who received one cap replacement can
get $50.

See if you qualify here. You must submit a claim by March 6.

All-Clad Cookware
Recent purchasers of All-Clad's D3, D5 and LTD Cookware may be
entitled to compensation. The company claimed these products were
dishwasher-safe, but when cleaned in one, some of the metal cooking
layers allegedly became thin and sharp, especially along the rim.

As part of the proposed settlement, All-Clad will set aside $4
million for refunds. Customers have several options: They can
exchange damaged cookware for new and get a $75 refund; they can
exchange damaged cookware for a hard-anodized five-piece frying pan
set or a 13-piece cookware set; or they can return the cookware and
get 50% off all purchases up to $1,200 for any products on
All-Clad's website.

Customers who threw the cookware out instead of returning it can
still get 35% off purchases up to $750 with proof of purchase. You
are eligible if you live in the U.S. and purchased the items
between Jan. 1, 2015 and July 29, 2022. Submit a claim form by
March 27.

Toyota Prius
If you own or lease a 2010-2015 Prius or 2012-2017 Prius V (or did
so previously), you may be eligible for benefits from a lawsuit
concerning allegedly defective intelligence power modules
(IPMs)/inverters that were installed in these cars.

The settlement dictates that Toyota will pay for repairs and
replacements, plus related towing and rental car expenses. Toyota
is also putting a new Customer Confidence Program in place that
will extend the warranty for the IPMs and inverters installed in
these vehicles and pay for towing/loaners.

The deadline to make your claim is May 12.

Nestle Coffee-Mate Powder Creamer
This class-action suit alleges that certain Nestle Coffee-mate
products contained fewer servings than advertised. So if you
purchased powdered creamer products between Jan. 1, 2017 and Dec.
8, 2022, you may benefit. The list of qualifying creamers includes
French Vanilla, Caramel Latte, Hazelnut, Original, Vanilla Caramel,
Peppermint Mocha, Creamy Chocolate, Caramel and Coconut, and
Pumpkin Spice, along with some of the sugar-free versions of these
flavors.

The lawsuit resulted in changes in the labeling on the Coffee mate
creamer products and established an amount of $10 million to pay
individuals who purchased the brand's products for personal use
between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 8, 2022.

Fill out the claim form by March 14.

Toyota And Lexus Models With Denso Fuel Pumps
This class-action lawsuit against Toyota covers various vehicles
— including Toyota and Lexus models — that were equipped with
faulty Denso brand fuel pumps with the part number prefixes 23220-
and/or 23221-. Toyota recalled 2.7 million cars because the fuel
pumps allegedly crack and degrade, resulting in rough engine
running, an engine that fails to start, or an engine that stalls at
low speeds.

The proposed settlement offers a Customer Support Program to
provide coverage of repairs for 15 years from the date of the
original sale, or an Extended new Parts Warranty of 15 years or
150,000 total odometer miles. Towing and loaners are provided as
well. The settlement also provides for reimbursement if you
repaired or replaced a fuel pump in a covered vehicle.

If you own a Toyota or Lexus, fill out this form by March 21.

Volkswagen/Audi Data Breach
Did you receive notice from Volkswagen and/or Audi in June of 2021
that your personal data may have been exposed in a data breach
between August 2019 and May 2021? This breach affected more than 3
million Audi owners and resulted in a class-action lawsuit.

A $3.5 million settlement fund has been established to pay monetary
awards to class members — up to $350 for California customers
whose information was exposed. Nationwide customers can receive
cash payments of $80 or $20, depending on what type of information
was exposed. Customers who experienced out-of-pocket losses from
identity theft may also seek reimbursement. Shift Digital, which
was named as a defendant, is taking steps to secure the personal
information of users.

File your claim by April 12 if you were affected.

Do you fit the requirements for any of these class-action lawsuits?
If so, don't hesitate to accept the free money and services that
are on the table. [GN]

CORECIVIC INC: Modifications of Scheduling Order Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kathleen Bliss, on behalf
of herself, the Proposed Nationwide Rule 23 Class, and the Proposed
Nevada Subclass, v. CoreCivic, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-01280-JAD-EJY
(D. Nev.), the parties request that the Court adopt the
modifications to the scheduling order with respect to Defendant's
expert disclosures and both parties' class certification briefing:

       Filing                     Current         Proposed
                                  Deadline        Deadline

  Plaintiff's opening class    March 31, 2023   June 2, 2023
  certification brief

  Defendant's class            May 1, 2023      July 14, 2023
  certification response
  brief

  Plaintiff's class            May 31, 2023     August 14, 2023
  certification reply
  brief

CoreCivic is a company that owns and manages private prisons and
detention centers and operates others on a concession basis.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KeEXrf at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
          Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
          Charles A. Delbridge, Esq.
          Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq.
          Charles J. O'Meara, Esq.
          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: morgan@nka.com
                  aprakash@nka.com
                  cdelbridge@nka.com
                  bailey@nka.com
                  comeara@nka.com
                  helland@nka.com

                - and -

          Michael Hodgson, Esq.
          THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
          3609 SW Pryor Road
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Telephone: (816) 600-0117
          E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Lance D. Sandage, Esq.
          SANDAGE LAW LLC
          1600 Genessee Street, Suite 655
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: 816.753.0800
          E-mail: lance@sandagelaw.com

                - and -

          Joseph K. Eischens, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH K. EISCHENS
          8013 Park Ridge Dr.
          Parkville, MO 64152
          Telephone: (816) 945-6393
          E-mail: joe@jkemediation.com

                - and -

          Paul S. Padda, Esq.
          PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC
          4560 South Decatur Blvd., Suite 300
          Las Vegas, NV 89103
          Telephone: (702) 366-1888
          E-mail: psp@paulpaddalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel P. Struck, Esq.
          Rachel Love, Esq.
          Jacob B. Lee, Esq.
          Ashlee B. Hesman, Esq.
          Anne M. Orcutt, Esq.
          Eden G. Cohen, Esq.
          STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI &
          ACEDO, PLC
          3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300
          Chandler, AZ 85226
          E-mail: dstruck@strucklove.com
                  rlove@strucklove.com
                  jlee@strucklove.com
                  ahesman@strucklove.com
                  aorcutt@strucklove.com
                  ecohen@strucklove.com

                - and -

          Gina G. Winspear, Esq.
          DENNETT WINSPEAR
          3301 North Buffalo Dr., Suite 195
          Las Vegas, NV 89129
          E-mail: gwinspear@dennettwinspear.com

CORIZON INC: Denial of Kensu's Bid for Relief From Judgment Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TEMUJIN KENSU, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CORIZON INC., et
al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-1493 (6th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the district court's
denial of Kensu's Rule 60(b)(1) motion for relief from judgment.

The case was originally a class action on behalf of prisoners
housed within the Michigan Department of Corrections, but Kensu
dismissed the class claims and kept his individual Eighth Amendment
claim. Kensu claims that the Defendants unreasonably denied him
access to medically necessary treatment and were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs. He alleges that their
unconstitutional practices, policies, and customs are meant to
maximize profit at the expense of prisoners' health. The Defendants
moved for summary judgment on July 30, 2021.

Around that same time, Kensu's counsel suddenly lost vision in his
right eye, which led to a brief hospitalization and several doctor
visits locally and in Iowa. Because his counsel is the only
attorney at his firm, his staff filed several motions for emergency
continuance for him in other cases. However, on Aug. 16, 2021, he
realized he had not filed for a continuance in the case -- the same
week the response to the motion for summary judgment was due.
Despite his intent to file the response in opposition, because he
was in Iowa for medical appointments, he missed the Aug. 20, 2021,
deadline. The district court granted the Appellees' motion for
summary judgment on Oct. 18, 2021.

Four days after the district court granted summary judgment, Kensu
filed a Rule 60(b)(1) motion for relief from judgment. The district
court denied the motion. It concluded that the failure to file a
response was not due to excusable neglect because the counsel had
ample time prior to the deadline to notify the court, ask for an
emergency continuance, or seek leave to file a late response, but
he did not, despite doing so in several other cases. It determined
that the counsel's "accidental neglect," forgetfulness, or
carelessness do not constitute excusable neglect. The court also
held that, even if it found excusable neglect, Kensu did not have a
meritorious underlying claim because he did not show a causal
connection between the prison policy and his alleged injury.

Kensu timely appealed the denial of his Rule 60(b)(1) motion. He
argues that his attorney's sudden medical issues suffice to show
excusable neglect for his failing to file a timely response to the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Sixth Circuit opines that whether the counsel was culpable --
that is, whether his conduct amounted to excusable neglect --
presents an unusually close question. Because Kensu cannot obtain
the relief he seeks unless he can present evidence that he has a
meritorious underlying claim -- even if the neglect were held to be
excusable -- the Sixth Circuit reviews the district court's
conclusion that he did not.

Kensu alleges that the Defendants engage in policies, practices, or
customs that result in their being deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs. Besides alleging that the staff are
purposely refraining from treating him, falsifying records, and
taking away approved devices, he alleges that the Defendants engage
in the following policies, practices, or customs:

     A. Deferring 90% to 99% of all physician-recommended referrals
for surgery or consultations with specialists; and

     B. Denying any outpatient surgery that required an overnight
stay.

     C. Ignoring treatment recommendations of specialists selected
by Defendants to assess the medical condition of Plaintiff and the
Class.

     D. Disguising treatment denials as `deferments' in which
prisoners never get needed treatment, despite recommendations by
their treating physicians.

The Sixth Circuit opines that even if these policies do exist,
Kensu needed to provide at least some evidence that his medical
needs have been denied because of one or more of those policies. He
failed to do so. Although he attached to his Rule 60(b) motion his
proposed Response in Opposition to the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment, he provided no documentation to connect the dots
between one of these alleged policies and the medical care he
claims to have been denied. Further, some of Kensu's complaints
appear to be disagreement with how he is being treated, which is
not sufficient to show a constitutional violation. Without at least
some admissible evidence upon which a jury could find in his favor,
Kensu cannot demonstrate a meritorious claim. The district court
therefore did not abuse its discretion when it denied Kensu's Rule
60(b)(1) motion.

For the foregoing reasons, the Sixth Circuit affirms.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ycyjffnw from Leagle.com.


CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Case Management Order Entered in Johnstone
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA JOHNSTONE, v.
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01111-BMB (N.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered an case management
order:

   1. The parties do not consent to the jurisdiction of a
      United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
      section 636(c).

   2. The pleadings shall be amended without leave of the Court
      and new parties shall be joined on or before February 15,
      2023.

   3. Electronically Stored Information. The parties agree to
      follow the default standard for discovery of
      electronically stored information.

   4. All discovery into the individual merits ("Phase I") shall
      be completed by March 15, 2023. Phase I discovery shall be
      conducted according to the guidelines set forth in Local
      Rule 16.2 for cases assigned to this track.

   5. The Phase I dispositive motion deadline is May 1, 2023.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HZguDC at no extra charge.[CC]


CSX TRANS: Seeks to Expedite Ruling on Class Cert Postponement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jimmy Edwards, et al., v.
CSX Transportation, Inc., Case No. 7:18-cv-00169-BO (E.D.N.C.),
CSXT moves to expedite consideration of and ruling on its motion to
postpone class certification proceedings pending resolution of
summary judgment motion, or in the alternative, to Set class
certification briefing schedule.

   1. With discovery complete, on January 27, 2023, CSXT filed a
      motion for summary judgment. Later on January 27, 2023,
      plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

   2. With its motion to postpone, CSXT requests that the Court
      postpone briefing and consideration of plaintiffs' motion
      for class certification pending resolution of CSXT's
      motion for summary judgment.

   3. CSXT's motion to postpone alternatively requests (with
      plaintiffs' consent) that briefing on plaintiffs' motion
      for class certification proceed on the same schedule the
      Court has ordered for briefing on CSXT's motion for
      summary judgment.

CSXT is a Class I freight railroad company operating in the Eastern
United States and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z5p6PQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          April N. Ross, Esq.
          Scott L. Winkelman, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          Telephone: (202) 624-2500
          Facsimile: (202) 628-5116
          E-mail: aross@crowell.com
                  swinkelman@crowell.com

                - and -

          Henry L. Kitchin, Jr., Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Wilmington, NC 28401
          Telephone: (910) 254-3800
          Facsimile: (910) 254-3900
          E-mail: hkitchin@mcguirewoods.com

CVI SGP: Cotte Seeks to Certify Settlement Classes
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUGUSTO COTTE and MERCEDES
HIDALGO, v. CVI SGP ACQUISITION TRUST; CVI SGPCO ACQUISITION TRUST;
and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:21-cv-00299-JNP-DAO (D. Utah), the
Hon. Judge Jill N. Parrish entered an order certifying settlement
classes, appointing the plaintiffs as class representatives,
appointing class counsel, and providing for notice to class
members.

The Defendants allegedly filed debt collection lawsuits against
over a hundred Utah residents without registering as collection
agencies, bureaus, or offices pursuant to UTAH CODE ANN. Section
12-1-1.

The Plaintiffs bring this action under the Utah Consumer Sales
Practices Act ("UCSPA") and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") to seek recovery for the violation of these borrowers'
rights.

On June 16, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims. On February 15, 2022, the court granted this
motion in part and denied it in part. While allowing claims under
the FDCPA to move forward, the court found that the Plaintiffs'
complaint did not contain sufficient allegations to support a claim
under the UCSPA.

The Plaintiffs sought to define the FDCPA class as:

   1. All individuals;

   2. Against whom a Defendant filed a debt collection lawsuit;

   3. Where the lawsuit was filed in Utah;

   4. To collect a 'debt' as defined by 15 U.S.C. section
      1692(a)(5);

   5. While said Defendant was unregistered as a debt collector
      pursuant to Utah Code sectyopn 12-1-1; and where the
      lawsuit was filed between April 10, 2020, and the date on
      which the Court enters a Preliminary Approval Order.

And they sought to define the UCSPA class as:

   1. All individuals;

   2. Against whom a Defendant filed a debt collection lawsuit;

   3. Where the lawsuit was filed in Utah;

   4. To collect a debt incurred in connection with a "consumer
      transaction" as defined by Utah Code § 13-11-3(2); and

   5. Where the lawsuit was filed between April 10, 2016, and
      the date on which the Court enters a Preliminary Approval
      Order.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3YE57b9 at no extra charge.[CC]

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICE: Chairse Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as O'Shea Chairse, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Department of Human Service State of
Minnesota, Minnesota Commissioner of Human Services, Jodi
Harpstead, in her official and individual capacities, Case No.
27-CV-23-960 was removed from the Hennepin, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota on Feb. 13, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-00355 to the
proceeding.

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

The Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) --
https://mn.gov/dhs/ -- helps provide essential services to
Minnesota's most vulnerable residents.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Emily Beth Anderson, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL
          445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Phone: (651) 757-1374
          Email: emily.anderson@ag.state.mn.us


DERMSTORE LLC: Zagury Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Natalie Zagury, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Dermstore LLC, was removed to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb.
13, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-20582-XXXX to
the proceeding.

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

Dermstore -- https://www.dermstore.com/ -- is US web store which
sells cosmetics and skin care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher George Oprison, Esq.
          DLA Piper LLP (US)
          200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131-5341
          Phone: (305) 423-8522
          Fax: (305) 657-6366
          Email: chris.oprison@dlapiper.com


DMCG INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barraza-Benitez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR M. BARRAZA-BENITEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DMCG, INC.; and BAIL HOTLINE BAIL
BONDS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 23STCV032669 (Cal. Sup., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 14, 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 Barraza-Benitez was employed by the Defendants as bail
agent.

DMC INC. operates as a consulting company. The Company specializes
in information technology for the digital industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
          MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES, APLC
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
          Telephone: (310) 312-0299
          Facsimile: (310)-312-0296

               - and -

          Michael F. Rahmanou, Esq.
          9100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 220 West Bldg.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (424) 777-3842
          Facsimile: (424) 999-3088

DOLLAR GENERAL: Wright Suit Removed to M.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mary Jones Wright, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. Dollar General Corporation, Case
No. SUCV2022001085 was removed from the Dougherty County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia on Feb. 14, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00027-LAG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Dollar General Corporation -- https://www.dollargeneral.com/ -- is
an American chain of variety stores headquartered in
Goodlettsville, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Brent Irby, Esq.
          2201 Arlington Ave S
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: (205) 936-8281
          Email: brent@irbylaw.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          RICHARD C BEAULIEU, Esq.
          1230 Peachtree St., Ne. Ste. 2100
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 443-5500
          Email: rbeaulieu@mcguirewoods.com


DOLLAR TREE: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar Tree Stores,
Inc. The case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case
No. 0:23-cv-00368-KMM-LIB (D. Minn., Feb. 14, 2023).

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

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartree.com/-- is an American
multi-price-point chain of discount variety stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad Throndset, Esq.
          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
          St. Michael, MN 55376
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Fax: (763) 226-2515
          Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com
                 pat@throndsetlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET & MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE LLC
          One Central Avenue West, Suite 101
          St. Michael, MN 55330
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com


DOORDASH INC: Silva Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL SILVA, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOORDASH, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 6:23-cv-00104 (M.D. Fla., January 20, 2023) files this
collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant as a delivery driver
in August 2021 and continues to work in this capacity.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and other similarly situated delivery
drivers were incorrectly classified by the Defendant as independent
contractors. Although they worked more than 40 hours at various
times, the Defendant deprived them of 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. The Defendant also
failed to make, keep, and preserve records with respect to each of
its employees in a manner sufficient to determine their wages,
hours, and other conditions of employment.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, for himself
and all other similarly situated delivery drivers, against the
Defendant. The Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages,
pre-judgment interest, all costs and attorney's fees incurred in
prosecuting these claims, and other relief as the Court deems just
and equitable.

Doordash, Inc. operates a nationwide food delivery service in
Orange County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Direct: (813) 337-7992
          Main: (813) 224-0431
          Fax: (813) 224-0431
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  aheystek@wfclaw.com
                  gdesane@wfclaw.com

ELAP SERVICES: Must File Class Cert Bid Response by March 15
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as South Broward Hospital
District v. Elap Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-61007
(S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order that the
Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification by March 15, 2023.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.

ELAP is a leading healthcare solution provider.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]


ESS TECH INC: Faces Budikiewicz Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BUDUKIEWICZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESS TECH INC.; ERIC P.
DRESSELHUYS; and AMIR MOFTAKHAR, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00234-HZ (D. Or., Feb. 15, 2023) is a class action on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded ESS securities between August 11, 2022 and December
7, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), the Plaintiff seeks to
recover damages caused by the Defendants under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the statements filed by
the Defendants with the SEC were materially false or misleading
because they misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts
pertaining to the Debtors' business, operations, and prospects,
which were known to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them.

As a result of the Defendant's wrongful acts and omissions and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Debtors' securities,
the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages.

The price of ESS' stock fell 7.7 per cent to close at $2.64 per
share on December, 2022, damaging investors.

ESS TECH, INC. provides energy storage systems. The Company
designs, builds, and deploys iron flow batteries for long-duration
commercial and utility-scale energy storage applications requiring
from 4 to 12 hours of flexible energy capacity. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Esq.
          RANSOM GILBERTSON MARTIN & RATLIFF, LLP
          5441 S. Macadam Avenue, Suite 301
          Portland, OR 97239
          Telephone: (503) 226-3664

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: Kitchen Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Assistance,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as William Kitchen, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Financial
Assistance, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00555 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 14,
2023).

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

Financial Assistance, Inc. -- https://www.faicollect.com/ -- is a
third-party debt collection agency based in Bellevue,
Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FINWISE BANCORP: Caban Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
EMILIO CABAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FINWISE BANCORP, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-000829 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., January 20, 2023) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes. According to the complaint, the
Defendant began attempting to collect the alleged debt by sending
the Plaintiff an electronic mail communication on December 29,
2022. The Defendant's collection letter was sent from
fw.servicing@upstart.com and delivered to the Plaintiff's personal
e-mail address between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time
zone of the Plaintiff without his consent, thereby violated Section
559.72(17) of the FCCPA.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, the
Plaintiff requests relief and judgment that include statutory
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, expert fees, and
other relief that the Court deems appropriate under the
circumstances.

Finwise Bancorp. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 907-1136
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  jen@jibraellaw.com

FLORISSANT, MO: Rogers' Report and Testimony Excluded in Baker
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS BAKER, et al., v.
CITY OF FLORISSANT, Case No. 4:16-cv-01693-NAB (E.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Nannette A. Baker entered an order denying Florissant's
motion to disqualify and exclude the Report and Testimony of Dr.
William Rogers and John Ward Economics.

  -- The plaintiffs' motion to exclude the Report and Testimony
     of Dr. Thomas R. Ireland is denied to the extent plaintiffs
     seek to exclude Dr. Ireland's report and testimony in toto,
     but granted consistent with the limitations set out in this
     Memorandum and Order.

  -- The Plaintiffs' characterization that Ireland provides only
     personal and not expert opinions in response to Dr. Rogers'
     opinions is understandable, especially given Dr. Ireland's
     admission that he did not review the materials or
     references cited by Dr. Rogers. Also, in Dr. Ireland's
     report he employs a strategy of condescension in an attempt
     to persuade the Court that all of Dr. Rogers' opinions are
     unreliable and not appropriate in litigation.

     Dr. Ireland does refer to his own economic background and
     expertise as the basis upon which he disagrees with Dr.
     Rogers' application of otherwise sound economic principles
     to the facts of this case. The reasonableness of Dr.
     Ireland's criticisms of Dr. Rogers' analysis and methods of
     calculation is a matter for the jury's consideration in
     weighing the evidence.

     However, 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 this case or Dr. Rogers'
     motivation in the selection of certain publications and
     references to support his opinions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XycbVI at no extra charge.[CC]



FRESHWORKS INC: Scott+Scott Named Lead Counsel in Sundaram Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MOHAN R. SUNDARAM, Plaintiff v. FRESHWORKS INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-06750-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California appoints Mohan R. Sundaram as the Lead
Plaintiff and Scott+Scott LLP as the Lead Counsel.

Before the Court are dueling motions to appoint lead plaintiff and
lead counsel under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 ("PSLRA"). Two prospective class members seek appointment:
Mohan R. Sundaram, the Plaintiff, who seeks appointment of
Scott+Scott LLP as lead counsel, and Vivek Nagarajan, who seeks
appointment of Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel.

Freshworks is a Delaware corporation based in San Mateo,
California. It provides customer support software and tools for
small- and medium-sized businesses. In the class action complaint,
Sundaram alleges that Freshworks' Offering Documents in connection
with its IPO contained untrue statements of material facts or
omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made
not misleading, and were not prepared in accordance with the rules
and regulations governing their preparation.

To convince prospective investors of Freshworks' vitality, the
Offering Documents touted Freshworks' continued growth in the lead
up to the IPO, its "broad appeal," its "healthy" net dollar
retention rates, and its year-over-year revenue growth rate. The
class action complaint alleges that such statements were false and
misleading because they omitted that, at the time of the IPO,
Freshworks' net dollar retention rate had plateaued and its revenue
growth rate was decelerating.

Despite this, on Sept. 22, 2021, the Defendants priced the IPO at
$36 per share, and filed the final prospectus for the IPO. After
the company announced its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2021,
which reported the growth deceleration, Freshworks' stock dropped
18%, to $18.41 per share.

Sundaram brings claims under Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the
Securities Act, "on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities that purchased, or otherwise acquired, Freshworks common
stock issued in connection with the Company's IPO."

On Jan. 3, 2023, Nagarajan and Sundaram filed the competing motions
to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel at issue. Those motions
are now fully briefed.

Judge Breyer first addresses the PSLRA's financial loss
requirement, and then the Rule 23(a) adequacy and typicality
requirements.

Sundaram argues that he suffered the greatest loss, calculating his
losses at $32,840 based on a loss calculation method that tracks
the remedy available under Section 12 of the Securities Act, one of
the claims Sundaram brings in this action. But Nagarajan contends
that he suffered the greatest loss, calculating his losses to be
approximately $23,677, applying the statutory methodology for
calculation of losses pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act,
another claim brought in the action. Under Nagarajan's model, he
alleges that Sundaram's losses would in fact be lower than
Nagarajan's at $22,840, which Sundaram does not dispute.

Thus the question is whether Cavanaugh's requirement that a
calculation method be both rational and consistently applied
requires that Nagarajan's Section 11 calculation method (as opposed
to Sundaram's Section 12 method) be used -- if so, Nagarajan,
rather than Sundaram, would be the class member with the "largest
financial interest" and thus the presumptive lead plaintiff.

Because either proposed calculation method may be applied under  In
re Cavanaugh, 306 F.3d 726, 729-31 (9th Cir. 2002), Judge Breyer
examines both parties' fitness to serve as lead plaintiff under the
Rule 23(a) requirements to determine whether either Sundaram or
Nagarajan "otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23.

He finds that Sundaram meets both the adequacy and typicality
requirements of Rule 23(a). Sundaram's injury is therefore similar
to other prospective class members and Sundaram's selected counsel
is qualified and experienced in prosecuting securities class
actions.

However, the same cannot be said of Nagarajan. Nagarajan has not
plausibly alleged that his shares are traceable to the IPO and
therefore, his claims are atypical. Thus, because Nagarajan does
not meet the requirements of Rule 23(a), Judge Breyer appoints
Sundaram as the Lead Plaintiff.

Sundaram has selected Scott+Scott LLP, a fine with experience
prosecuting complex securities class actions. Judge Breyer finds no
reason to disapprove Sundaram's choice. Accordingly, he appoints
Scott+Scott LLP as the Lead Counsel.

For these reasons, Judge Breyer grants Sundaram's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/nar9d2kz from Leagle.com.


GATEWAY GENOMICS: Muse Telemarketing Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMANDA LYNN MUSE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GATEWAY GENOMICS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 22-006106-CI, was removed from the Sixth
Judicial Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
Feb. 16, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:23-cv-00353 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's single-count complaint seeks relief from Defendant,
on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly-situated
persons, for allegedly making or causing to be made multiple
unlawful "telephonic sales calls" without the "prior express
written consent" of Plaintiff and the putative class members, in
purported violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

Gateway Genomics, LLC is a genetic testing and precision medicine
company.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

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

GEISINGER HEALTH: Wins Summary Judgment on McWilliams' Return Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAYLEE McWILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEISINGER HEALTH PLAN, and
SOCRATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-CV-01236 (M.D. Pa.),
Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment on McWilliams' Count VII.

In Count VII, McWilliams demands that the Defendants return the
money she reimbursed them.

McWilliams sues Defendants Geisinger Health Plan ("GHP") and its
subrogation agent, Socrates, alleging one cause of action under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1001 et seq.

McWilliams was injured by a third-party tortfeasor. She sought and
received compensation from GHP for her injuries through her
father's insurance plan.

McWilliams was insured through her father's employer, Big Heart Pet
Brands, a subsidiary of the J.M. Smucker Co. J.M. Smucker had an
employee welfare benefit plan -- termed the J.M. Smucker Master
Health Plan -- that included a health insurance plan from GHP. GHP
set out its coverage of J.M. Smucker employees and their dependents
-- including McWilliams -- through a document known as the Group
Subscription Certificate.

Eventually, McWilliams sued and later settled with the tortfeasor
who injured her. After the settlement, the Defendants demanded that
McWilliams reimburse them for the payments they made pursuant to
her insurance policy, relying on a subrogation clause in the
Certificate that did not explicitly set out a right to
reimbursement. They also obtained a lien against her personal
injury recovery. McWilliams later negotiated with Socrates to
reduce the lien amount by 30%. She then paid the Defendants the
reduced sum, under protest.

McWilliams' Second Amended Complaint alleged several ERISA causes
of action. The Defendants previously moved to dismiss all claims in
the SAC save McWilliams' demand that they return the money she
reimbursed them (Count VII). The Court converted that motion into
one for summary judgment and granted it, dismissing all claims
except McWilliams' demand for monetary damages contained in Count
VII. The Defendants now move for summary judgment on Count VII.

Both parties appear to agree that the Court's legal analysis in its
Nov. 16, 2022, opinion disposes of Count VII as well. However,
McWilliams raises several arguments to ensure a clear record and
that her arguments are preserved on appeal.

McWilliams makes two arguments. First, she argues the Court erred
by not applying the common-fund doctrine. Second, she argues the
Defendants violated ERISA by failing to identify the J.M. Smucker
Master Health Plan as the basis for their reimbursement demand.

Judge Brann disagrees. First, he explains that in its prior
opinion, the Court refused to apply the doctrine because the
Defendants had already reduced their lien on Freitas' recovery by
25%. That appears to be precisely what McWilliams seeks: a
"reduction of GHP's lien by its share of the Plaintiff's counsel's
fees." She fails to explain why the 25% reduction the Defendants
already agreed to is insufficient to satisfy the common-fund
doctrine. Therefore, Judge Brann won't reconsider its prior
decision not to apply to the common-fund doctrine to former
plaintiff Lori Freitas' ERISA claim.

Second, McWilliams does not allege that the Defendants denied her
claim for benefits or issued an adverse benefit determination. She
does allege -- and the Defendants do not appear to contest -- that
the Defendants paid her claim. As the Court previously explained,
it does not appear that seeking reimbursement from an insured is
equivalent to denying a claim for benefits or issuing an adverse
benefit determination, as to trigger section 1133(1) or section
2560.503-1(g).

Judge Brann opines that the Defendants' right to seek reimbursement
from McWilliams has nothing to do with the adequacy of her claim
for benefits. Indeed, all of the cases McWilliams relies upon
involve an insurance plan denying a claimant benefits. Without
saying as much, McWilliams invites the Court to extend those
benefit-denial cases to the reimbursement provisions relevant in
the case. Judge Brann declines her invitation. If Congress wished
its comprehensive benefit-denial procedures to also apply to
reimbursement claims, it would have said so explicitly.

Having addressed all of McWilliams' arguments, Judge Brann
concludes that summary judgment is appropriate on Count VII.
Therefore, he grants the Defendant's motion.

An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4bahcjh4 from Leagle.com.


GENWORTH LIFE: Settlement With Lang Objectors in Haney Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRED HANEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. GENWORTH LIFE
INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:22cv55 (E.D.
Va.), Judge Robert E. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, grants the Joint
Motion to Approve the Settlement with Lang Objectors.

The matter is before the Court on Langs' Settlement Motion filed by
the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and Lonny and Carrol Lang. On Feb.
7, 2023, the Court provided an opportunity for the parties to
provide argument on the Langs' Settlement Motion beyond the
papers.

Class Representatives Fred Haney, Marsha Merrill, Sylvia Rausch,
Stephen Swenson, and Alan Wooten, individually and on behalf of a
proposed class of Genworth Choice 2, Choice 2.1, California CADE,
California Reprice, and California Unbundled policyholders as of
Jan. 1, 2013, filed the class action against Defendants Genworth
Life Insurance Co. ("GLIC") and Genworth Life Insurance Co. of New
York ("GLICNY") (collectively "Genworth" or "Defendants").

Before the Complaint was filed, the parties engaged in three-days
of mediation and extensive discovery that resulted in a Memorandum
of Understanding ("MOU") that set forth the material terms of an
agreement-in-principle to be incorporated into a formal Settlement
Agreement for the Court's approval. The Complaint asserts two
claims. Count One alleges a claim of fraudulent inducement by
omission. Count Two is a claim for declaratory relief under 28
U.S.C. Section 2201.

The Plaintiffs each have Choice 2, Choice 2.1, California CADE,
California Reprice, or California Unbundled Long Term Care
Insurance policies issued by Genworth. Long Term Care ("LTC")
insurance is intended to defray the cost of home care, assisted
living care, nursing home care, and other specialized skilled
facility care required when an individual can no longer perform the
basic activities of daily life.

The Plaintiffs allege that, since 2013, Genworth has steadily and
substantially increased the premiums on their LTC insurance
policies. They also allege that, to avoid reporting a current
negative loss recognition testing margin, Genworth relied almost
entirely on billions of dollars in future rate increases to plug
the hole in its reserves. However, say the Plaintiffs, Genworth's
plan for those substantial future rate increases was never shared
with Genworth's LTC policyholders.

In other words, it is alleged that the undisclosed information was
material to decisions that LTC policyholders made respecting
whether, and to what extent, to renew or retain their LTC coverage;
that the undisclosed information was necessary to make accurate the
information that was disclosed; and that, therefore, the omissions
made the disclosed information fraudulent. It is also alleged that
Genworth intended that policyholders would rely on the knowingly
inadequate disclosures in making the election among their policy
choices.

Armed with knowledge and evidence obtained in previous similar
cases against Genworth, and after engaging in a period of
confirmatory discovery, the Class Counsel filed the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Direct Notice of Proposed Settlement to the Class, which
the Court granted on May 2, 2022. On July 6, 2022, the parties
submitted an Amended Settlement Agreement to amend the final
Release. The Court preliminarily approved the Amended Settlement
Agreement on July 7, 2022, and directed that notice be sent to the
Class.

On Nov. 17, 2022, the Court held a hearing to give objectors the
opportunity to explain their objections, including counsel for the
Langs, and for counsel to the parties to respond. The afternoon
before that hearing, the parties informed the Court that an
agreement had been reached with the following objectors: Michael
Podoll, Jane Belkin, and Dr. David Friedman, James Perry, Thomas
Toman, Doug and Bonnie Ebstyne, and William and Linda Dudley
(collectively "settlement objectors"). The listed parties agreed
that in exchange for making certain enhancements to the Special
Election Options in the Amended Settlement Agreement, the objectors
would withdraw their objections. That agreement has been approved
and is incorporated in the Second Amended Settlement Agreement. The
counsel for the objectors was also granted attorneys' fees, and
each settlement objector was awarded a $7,500 incentive payment.

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on Dec. 12, 2022, the
Court overruled the Langs' objections to the settlement except for
the objection pertaining to attorneys' fees. On Dec. 13, 2022,
during the final hearing, the counsel for the Langs renewed their
objection to the attorneys' fees, arguing more specificity was
needed. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on Jan. 30, 2023,
the Court overruled the Langs' objection to the attorneys' fees.

The terms of the Langs' Settlement Agreement are as follows. As
described in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Join Motion to
Approve Settlement with the Lang Objectors filed on Jan. 30, 2023,
the cash damages amount for the non-forfeiture option will increase
from $1,150 to $1,250. Second, even though they are overruled, the
Langs agree that all of their objections are withdrawn and will be
denied as moot. Id. at 6. Third, the Langs agree not to further
object to the settlement, file any appeals, or otherwise interfere
with the settlement's finality. Lastly, Genworth agrees to pay the
Langs an incentive payment of $7,500 each and attorneys' fees not
to exceed $237,500, all paid separately from the payments to class
members. The incentive payment and fees will be addressed in a
separate memorandum opinion.

The Court held a hearing on Langs' Settlement Motion on Feb. 7,
2023.

Citing In re Jiffy Lube Sec. Litig., 927 F.2d 155, 159 (4th Cir.
1991), Judge Payne states that in assessing the adequacy of the
proposed settlement, a court considers: (1) the relative strength
of the plaintiffs' case on the merits; (2) the existence of any
difficulties of proof or strong defenses the plaintiffs are likely
to encounter if the case goes to trial; (3) the anticipated
duration and expense of additional litigation; (4) the solvency of
the defendant and the likelihood of recovery on a litigated
judgment; and (5) the degree of opposition to the settlement.

Under the Jiffy Lube factors, Judge Payne finds that the Langs'
Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Therefore,
he grants the Langs' Settlement Motion, and approves the settlement
therein. Its terms will be included in the Third Amended Settlement
Agreement.

Judge Payne will address the Langs' request for attorneys' fees and
incentive awards in a separate opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3d42wdkc from Leagle.com.


GOLDEN STAR: Mejia Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elver Benigno Zuniga Mejia, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated, known and unknown v. GOLDEN STAR
RESTAURANT, INC., an Illinois corporation d/b/a GOLDEN APPLE GRILL
& BREAKFAST HOUSE, and ATHANASIOS DALAKOURAS, an individual, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00865 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 13, 2023), is brought arising
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Chicago Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave
Ordinance ("CMWO"), for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff
statutory minimum wages and overtime compensation for hours worked
over 40 in a workweek.

Based on his variable work schedules, Plaintiff regularly worked at
least 60 hours in individual workweeks, and as much as 75 hours in
individual workweeks. The Defendants imposed a dual wage payment
scheme on the Plaintiff in which they paid a portion of the
Plaintiff's wages with a payroll check, usually for 40 hours or 45
hours of work per week, and paid for the remainder of Plaintiff's
work hours with unreported cash at his straight time hourly rate of
pay. With respect to wages paid with a payroll check, the
Defendants elected to pay the Plaintiff using a tip credit.
Defendants paid hourly wages below the minimum wage and purported
to use tips to make up the difference.

However, Defendants committed numerous minimum wage and tip credit
violations which invalidated the tip credit and required Defendants
to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, the full
minimum wage. Defendants' violations included: paying insufficient
direct wages; falsely recording tips as having been paid to
Plaintiff, failing to pay any direct wages for certain hours of
work; and, failing to notify Plaintiff of the tip credit rules and
regulations.

As a result of Defendants' payment schemes, Plaintiff was paid
below the statutory minimum wage rates throughout his term of his
employment.  Additionally, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff,
and other non-exempt dishwashers, busboys, cleaners and kitchen
staff employees, at one and one-half times their regular hourly
rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in individual
workweeks, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a dishwasher, busboy and cleaner at the
Defendants' restaurant from the summer of 2019 through the end of
October, 2022.

The Defendants is an Illinois corporation that operates the Golden
Apple Grill & Breakfast House restaurant, engaged in selling and
serving prepared food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages,
to customers for consumption on and off its premises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy M. Nolan (No. 6194416)
          NOLAN LAW OFFICE
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 322-1100
          Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com


GOLDEN STATE FC: Court Sets Class Certification Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Trevino v. Golden State FC
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00120 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe entered an order setting
class certification deadlines and hearings:

  -- A further status conference is set for April 4, 2023.

  -- The parties shall file a joint status report no later than
     March 28, 2023, to apprise the Court of the status of their
     discussions and to indicate whether the status conference
     should proceed as scheduled.

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

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

The nature of suit states labor litigation.[CC]

GREAT WOLF RESORTS: Faces Augustine Suit Over Wiretapping Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OPHELIA AUGUSTINE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREAT WOLF RESORTS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00281-DMS-BGS (S.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2023) alleges
violation of the Federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant illegally
tapped, made an unauthorized connection to, intercepted and
recorded the Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic
communications, when they visited the Defendant's website. The
Defendant infringed upon the Plaintiff's and Class Members' rights
to privacy codified in the Wiretap Act and CIPA, says the suit.

GREAT WOLF RESORTS, INC. owns and operates resorts. The Company
offers family-oriented suites, waterparks, arcades, restaurants,
and spa facilities. Great Wolf Resorts serves customers in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Tel: (866) 219-3343
          Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Tel: (619) 222-7429

GREENBOX LOAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Davis Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JASON DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREENBOX LOAN INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV03314 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 15, 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 Davis was employed by the Defendants as account
executive.

GREENBOX LOAN INC. operates as a loan service company. [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

GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES: Maxine Furs Files Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Groundhog
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Maxine Furs of Hoover,
Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Groundhog Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A Merchant Lynx Services, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00641 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2023).

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

Groundhog Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Merchant Lynx
Services -- https://merchantlynx.com/ -- provides credit and debit
processing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Paul Cutler, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
          4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 701-1145
          Fax: (816) 531-2372
          Email: mcutler@wcllp.com
                 abrane@wcllp.com


HABERFELDE FORD: Morris Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haberfelde Ford. The
case is styled as Passion Morris, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Haberfelde Ford, Jim Burke Ford Lincoln, Case No. BCV-23-100471
(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 14, 2023).

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

Haberfelde Ford, doing business as Jim Burke --
https://www.jimburkeford.com/ -- provides automotive services. The
Company offers new and used automobiles, as well as auto parts and
services.[BN]

HARBOR FREIGHT: Allowed to Seal Opposition to Comes Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee
entered an order granting HFT's application for leave to file
portions of its opposition to Plaintiffs Mel Comes and Markeith
Mitchell's motion to certify class and supporting exhibits under
seal.

   1. HFT has shown compelling reasons sufficient to overcome
      the presumption in favor of granting public access to
      these records.

   2. The information sought to be sealed is non-public,
      competitively sensitive and proprietary business
      information of HFT and/or its affiliates that constitutes
      traditionally kept trade secrets, consistent with
      prevailing Ninth Circuit law.

   3. Accordingly, HFT's application is granted. Pursuant to
      Local Rule 79-5.2.2(c), HFT shall e-file the unredacted
      documents listed below consistent with this Order within
      three days of this Order.

Harbor Freight is a privately held tool and equipment retailer.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KeJLwJ at no extra charge.[CC]


HARBOR FREIGHT: Hearing on Bid to Exclude Expert Set for March 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARENCE CARTER, MEL
COMES, DUANE THOMAS, and MARKEITH MITCHELL, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-05451-DMG-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Dolly M. Gee entered an order approving stipulated briefing
schedule for motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert Philip J.
O'Keefe.

  1. The Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the motion to
     exclude Mr. O'Keefe on February 15, 2023.

  2. The Defendant may file a reply to the motion by February
     22, 2023.

  3. The hearing on the motion to exclude shall be conducted
     concurrently with the Motion for Class Certification
     hearing, which remains scheduled for March 3, 2023 at 10:00
      a.m.

Harbor Freight is a privately held tool and equipment retailer.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XBMF1I at no extra charge.[CC]

HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR: Heymer Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Edward Heymer, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group,
LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-02085 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for Central District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for Eastern District of Wisconsin on Feb. 13, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00175-WCG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group LLC produces and sells
motorcycles. The Company offers sports bikes, heavyweight
motorcycles, and other accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth A. McKenna, Esq.
          MILBERGCOLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          800 S. Gay St.-Ste. 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Phone: (212) 594-5300
          Fax: (212) 868-1229
          Email: emckenna@milberg.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Acciavatti, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          405 E 50th St.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (610) 842-5801
          Fax: (212) 868-1229
          Email: macciavatti@milberg.com

               - and -

          Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          100 Garden City Pl-Ste 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Phone: (212) 594-5300
          Email: pwedgworth@milberg.com


HERITAGE PROVIDER: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Abedi Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAM ABEDI and FARNAZ DOROODIAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. HERITAGE PROVIDER NETWORK, INC. and
REGAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01113 (Court, Feb. 14,
2023) alleges that Defendants failed to safeguard, monitor,
maintain and protect customers' highly sensitive Personal Health
Information (PHI) and Personally Identifiable Information (PII).

On December 1, 2022, four medical groups owned or operated by or
otherwise affiliated with Defendants -- Regal Medical Group,
Lakeside Medical organization, ADOC Medical Group, and Greater
Covina Medical -- were impacted by a cyberattack during which
criminal hackers obtained access to and ultimately stole the
Plaintiffs' and the Class's Sensitive Information.

The Defendants discovered the Data Breach on December 8, 2022,
several days after having experienced difficulties accessing their
servers, including servers maintaining patients' Sensitive
Information. Although the Data Breach began in December of 2022 and
despite Defendants' knowledge that the hackers stole patient
information, the Defendants waited until February 1, 2023, to
notify the impacted patients, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiffs and the
Class have and will be required to continue to undertake
time-consuming and, often costly, efforts to mitigate the actual
and potential harm caused by the Data Breach's exposure of their
Sensitive Information, including placing freezes and alerts with
credit reporting agencies, contacting their financial institutions,
closing or modifying financial accounts, reviewing and monitoring
their credit reports and accounts for unauthorized activity,
changing passwords on potentially impacted websites and
applications, and requesting and maintaining accurate medical
records.

The Plaintiffs and the Class bring this action to recover for the
harm they suffered, and assert the following claims: negligence,
negligence per se, violations of the California Consumer Privacy
Act and the California's Unfair Competition Law.

Plaintiffs Sam Abedi and Farnaz Doroodian are members of the
Defendants' medical group and has received medical services from
providers within Defendants' medical network.

HPN administers health care groups in California, including Regal
Medical Group, ADOC Medical Group, and Lakeside Medical Group.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          Jason P. Johnston, Esq.
          Michael J. Laird, Esq.
          Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
                  brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  jason.johnston@zimmreed.com
                  michael.laird@zimmreed.com
                  rachel.tack@zimmreed.com

                - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          THE JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372-1300
          E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com

HEXO CORP: Fasken Discusses Securities Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Fasken disclosed that on January 23, 2023, the Superior Court of
Quebec refused to authorize (certify) a securities class action
brought against HEXO Corp., a licensed producer and distributor of
medical and recreational cannabis, and its Chief Executive Officer,
Mr. Sebastien St-Louis.

The Plaintiff sought authorization to institute a class action
against Defendants for damages resulting from misrepresentations
and breaches of disclosure obligations in both the primary and
secondary markets, under Division II of the Quebec Securities Act
[2] (QSA) and under article 1457 of the Civil Code of Quebec
(CCQ).

Section 225.4 QSA, like the other provincial securities acts,
allows for secondary market claims on authorization from the court
where the plaintiffs are in good faith and there is a reasonable
possibility that the action will be resolved in their favor on the
merits.

While the ordinary rules of civil liability require the Plaintiff
to prove fault, damages, and a causal link between the two, the QSA
regime facilitates an investor's recourse in the secondary market,
by removing the civil liability requirements requiring a plaintiff
to prove a causal link between reliance on false or misleading
information and the damage he or she has suffered.

The Court agreed with the Defendants that there was "no reasonable
possibility" that the secondary market claim filed under the QSA
had a reasonable chance of success, or that the Plaintiff had
demonstrated an arguable case for a primary market class action or
a civil liability class action for misrepresentation under the
general principles at civil law.

Because the test for instituting a statutory claim under the QSA is
more demanding than pursuant to the general rules respecting class
actions (a reasonable possibility of success rather than a mere
arguable case), the practice is for the court to begin its analysis
with the claims under the Securities Act.

Plaintiff's first ground was based on the supply agreement between
HEXO and the Societe Quebecoise du Cannabis ("SQDC").

The Cannabis Supply Agreement Between HEXO and the Societe
Quebecoise du Cannabis
HEXO signed a five-year supply agreement with the SQDC, the
province-owned corporation tasked with selling cannabis products in
Quebec. Pursuant to this agreement, HEXO agreed to supply the SQDC
with 20,000 kg of products in the first-year post-legalization,
35,000 kg in the second year, and 45,000 kg in the third year. The
agreement contained a take or pay clause. In the press release
announcing this agreement, HEXO added that SQDC had the right to
terminate the agreement in certain circumstances and inserted
cautionary language that one should not read the agreement as an
assurance that actual product volumes will be supplied by HEXO.

Plaintiff claimed that HEXO had made misrepresentations [3] with
respect to the supply agreement, by stating that the agreement
"guaranteed" revenues associated with the sale of 20,000 kg of
cannabis products.

The Court disagreed that HEXO had misled investors, noting that
"[t]he fact that the SQDC did not fulfill its first-year purchase
commitment or that defendants decided not to enforce the take or
pay features are not evidence that the public statement were untrue
or misleading at the time they were made. As stated previously, the
Court does not make assessments with the benefit of hindsight."

The Acquisition of Newstrike: The Regulatory Issues
HEXO purchased Newstrike, another publicly traded Canadian cannabis
producer in 2019. This acquisition resulted in the addition of
470,000 square feet in production space. HEXO announced that this
acquisition would boost production and revenues. Later it was
revealed that a block amounting to 17% of the Newstrike Niagara
Facility and 4% of the cultivation area was not adequately
licensed. Plaintiff, however, did not allege any facts or provided
any credible evidence that Defendants knew or should have known
about the licensing deficiencies. To the contrary, Plaintiff's
evidence showed that the problem only came to light on the very day
that it was first disclosed by HEXO.

The Court also noted that, at the time of statements, HEXO had
temporarily suspended its operations of the Niagara facilities as
part of cost-cutting measures, making the licensing deficiencies
entirely immaterial as "[c]ommon sense dictates that such
information could not reasonably be expected to have any impact on
the investor decision to buy or sell HEXO securities let alone a
significant one."

HEXO did not consider this situation to merit disclosure and the
Court agreed that by not disclosing it, HEXO did not fail to omit a
material fact [5]. The Court also agreed that HEXO did not fail to
disclose a material change in relation to the same facts.

Newstrike Synergies, Q4 Revenue Projections for 2019, and Fiscal
Guidance for 2020
Plaintiff further claimed that the "accretive synergies" mentioned
by HEXO in the amount of $10 million were a misrepresentation.
However, as pointed out by Justice Conte, he does not allege
misrepresentation of a material fact, appearing only to rely on the
fact that the synergies were not realized in order to conclude that
the statement was untrue or misleading. This, as Justice Conte
notes, is "backwards reasoning", just like the estimates or
forecasts that were not realized.

Plaintiff argued that HEXO should have revised its revenue
projections downward but as Justice Conte notes, "a change in
financial results is not, in itself, a change in the issuer's
business, operations or capital, there can be no breach of a timely
disclosure."

Plaintiff thus failed to meet the threshold of a reasonable
possibility of success at trial in respect of his secondary market
claim under the QSA and also failed to meet the less demanding
arguable case threshold for his primary market claim.

Conclusion
This case stands as a reminder that the mere non-realization of
targets and projections is not in itself evidence that a statement
contains misrepresentations as to material facts at the time it is
made. Importantly, it is a reminder to issuers of the importance of
including reserves and cautionary language in its statements in
this regard.

This decision is also one of several recent decisions from the
Superior Court refusing a proposed class action under the
Securities Act for want of sufficient evidence.[7] However, with
the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal overturning the
dismissal of the authorization of the securities class action in
Nseir v. Barrick Gold [8], and the more general trend from the
Court of Appeal overturning first-instance decisions refusing to
authorize class actions, any appeal of Justice Conte's judgment in
this matter will certainly be watched closely.

Plaintiff has 30 days from the notice of the judgment to appeal to
the Court of Appeal. [GN]

HRONIS INC: Armenta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hronis, Inc. The case
is styled as Martin Armenta and Leopoldo Ontiveros, as individuals
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hronis, Inc.,
Case No. BCV-23-100448 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 14,
2023).

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

Hronis Inc. -- https://www.hronis.net/ -- operates as a vineyard.
The Company owns and operates numerous vineyards that produces
markets and distributes a wide variety of grapes and citrus
products.[BN]

IDEAL HOME HEALTH: Calderon Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Calderon, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. IDEAL HOME HEALTH INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01184 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.
13, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover from the
Defendant: unpaid wages, including overtime compensation, due to
time-shaving, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Despite the Plaintiff starting work upon arrival, Defendant's
policy does not permit these employees to clock-in immediately.
Instead, the Plaintiff is reliant upon the client to call on their
behalf to clock the employees in. This procedure of the Plaintiff
commencing work, but not being clocked-in until the Defendant's
clients, who have no incentive to timely clock employees in, find
their phone, ensure it is charged, acquire Defendant's number, and
properly call to clock-in the Plaintiff. This procedure takes an
average 5-10 minutes per clock-in for the Plaintiff.

Additionally, the Defendant's requirement that the Plaintiff clock
in and out for her shifts using the Client's smartphone resulted in
approximately 12 days for which the Plaintiff was not paid at all.
The Defendant's Client's phone was unable to be used by the
Plaintiff for clocking in or out of her shifts for these 12 days
and, despite the Plaintiff notifying the Defendant of the Client's
inability to clock her in, Defendant never compensated Plaintiff
for any of these days.

The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with proper wage
statements at all relevant times, in violation of the NYLL. The
Defendant never provided the Plaintiff with a proper wage notice as
required by the NYLL. In failing to provide proper wage statements
and notices, the Defendant has failed to comply with the law in a
manner that clearly entails a concrete risk of harm to an interest
identified by the New York State legislature. The Defendant's
failure to provide such notices trivializes the importance of these
notices in protecting the Plaintiff's interest in ensuring proper
pay, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a direct
support professional with the job title Home Attendant for the
Defendant.

IDEAL HOME HEALTH INC, is a domestic corporation organized under
the laws of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          CK Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-465-1188
          Fax: 212-465-1181


INLAND RESTORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INLAND RESTORATION, INC., and STEVEN KNIGHT, Case No.
2:23-cv-00040 (E.D. Wash., Feb. 13, 2023), is brought against
Defendants for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, (the "FLSA"), and the provisions of the
Washington Minimum Wage Act, (the "WMWA") as a result of the
Defendants' policy and practice of failing to pay proper overtime
compensation.

In weeks in which the Plaintiff performed work related to earning a
bonus and worked over 40 hours, the Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff and other Hourly Technicians 1.5 times their regular
hourly rate for hours worked over 40 in that week. The Defendants
violated the FLSA and the WMWA by not including all forms of
compensation, such the nondiscretionary bonuses of the Plaintiff,
in their regular rate when calculating their overtime pay.

The Plaintiff consistently worked in excess of forty hours per
week. The Plaintiff tracked their time via Defendants' electronic
timekeeping system. The Defendants knew or should have known that
the Plaintiff worked hours over forty in at least some weeks. The
net effect of the Defendants' practices and policies regarding
Plaintiff's bonuses and pay is that the Defendants intentionally
avoided including bonuses in the Plaintiff's regular rate to avoid
paying him a proper overtime premium for hours worked over forty
each week. The Defendants made no reasonable efforts to ascertain
and comply with applicable law. The Defendant knew, or showed
reckless disregard for whether, the way it paid the Plaintiff
violated the FLSA and the WMWA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was first employed by the Defendants as a helper
technician and then as a lead technician from March of 2022 to
August of 2022.

Inland Restoration, Inc. is a domestic for-profit corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AK 72211
          Phone: (800) 615-4946
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          Email: ecfnotices@sanfordlawfirm.com


JILL ACQUISITION: Serrieh Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DINA SERRIEH, an individual, on behalf of herself
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JILL
ACQUISITION LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. S-CV-0049697, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Placer, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Feb. 16, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-at-00139 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, nine total causes of action, eight of
which are for various violations of the California Labor Code and
one for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business &
Professions Code.

Jill Acquisition LLC provides retail store and mail order catalog
services.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jon D. Meer, Esq.
          Paul J. Leaf, Esq.
          Justin J. Jackson, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                  pleaf@seyfarth.com
                  jujackson@seyfarth.com

JOHN KASICH: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Ball
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHYLLIS BALL, et al., v.
JOHN KASICH, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00282-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order:

  -- granting the joint motion for summary judgment of the
     Defendants and the County Boards,

  -- granting the County Boards' Supplemental Motion for Summary
     Judgment, and

  -- granting the unopposed Motion to File as Amicus Curiae, and

  -- granting 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.

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.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lINE32 at no extra charge.[CC]



KASTRIOT INC: Leon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vicente Juarez Leon, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. KASTRIOT INC. (D/B/A GIOVANNI'S PIZZA) and KASTRIOT
RAPAJ AKA CHRIS, Case 1:23-cv-01186 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2023), is
brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, ("FLSA"), and for violations of the
N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime
wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the
"Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff Juarez worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay Plaintiff Juarez appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Juarez the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work
over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff Juarez wages on a timely basis. In this regard,
Defendants have failed to provide timely wages to Plaintiff
Juarez.

The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiff Juarez as a
delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties
required a significant amount of time spent performing the
non-tipped duties. Regardless, at all relevant times, Defendants
paid Plaintiff Juarez at a rate that was lower than the required
tip-credit rate. However, under both the FLSA and NYLL, Defendants
were not entitled to take a tip credit because Plaintiff Juarez's
non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday, or 2 hours per day,
whichever is less in each day, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker and a food preparer
at the pizzeria.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located in New
York City under the name "Giovanni's Pizza."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


KEYBANK NATIONAL: Brouty Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Brouty, Melissa Kauffman, Lebertus
Vanderwerff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KeyBank National Association, KeyCorp, Overby-Seawell
Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-01885 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District
Court for Northern District of Georgia on Feb. 14, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00672-SDG to the
proceeding.

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

KeyBank -- https://www.key.com/personal/index.html -- the primary
subsidiary of KeyCorp, is an American regional bank headquartered
in Cleveland, Ohio, and is the only major bank based in
Cleveland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street, Ste. 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 540-7200
          Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Steven Nathan, Esq.
          HAUSFELD, LLP
          33 Whitehall Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (646) 357-1194
          Fax: (212) 202-4322
          Email: snathan@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT AND CASEY LLC
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Phone: (440) 953-8888
          Email: marka@dicellolaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lisa M. Ghannoum, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER-CLEVELAND
          1900 East Ninth Street
          3200 National City Center
          Cleveland, OH 44114-3485
          Phone: (216) 861-7872

KEYBANK NATIONAL: Pittman Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jacint Pittman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KeyBank National Association,
KeyCorp, Overby-Seawell Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-01513 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for Western District of
Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of
Georgia on Feb. 14, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00673-SDG to the
proceeding.

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

KeyBank -- https://www.key.com/personal/index.html -- the primary
subsidiary of KeyCorp, is an American regional bank headquartered
in Cleveland, Ohio, and is the only major bank based in
Cleveland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR.
          429 Forbes Avenue
          519 Allegheny Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1649
          Phone: (412) 391-5164
          Email: yateslaw@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert P. Leeson, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP-P. PA
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 568-3100

               - and -

          Jesse M. Endler
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ ELEMAN & DICKER-PA
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 627-6900
          Fax: (215) 627-2665


LASHIFY INC: Adams Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Courtney Adams, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lashify, Inc., Case No.
2022-CA-002869 was removed from the Osceola County Circuit Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
Feb. 13, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:23-cv-00243-PGB-DCI to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Lashify, Inc. -- https://www.lashify.com/ -- offers award-winning &
life-changing DIY lash extensions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
          KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
          2110 West Platt Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: (813) 422-7782
          Fax: (813) 422-7783
          Email: ben@thekrfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tyler Newby, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          555 California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 875-2300

               - and -

          Aaron S. Weiss, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
          700 NW 1st Avenue, Suite 1200
          Miami, FL 33136
          Phone: (305) 530-0050
          Fax: (305) 530-0055
          Email: aweiss@carltonfields.com


LEPRINO FOODS: Loses Renewed Bid to Decertify Class in Vasquez Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA HEFKE, on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. LEPRINO FOODS
COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS
COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California:

   a. denies the Defendants' Renewed Motion for Class
      Decertification;

   b. denies the Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 1; and

   c. denies the Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 8 without
      prejudice.

The class action lawsuit involves an employment dispute between
Plaintiff class representatives Vasquez and Hefke and Defendants
Leprino Foods Co. and Leprino Foods Dairy Products Co.
(collectively, "Leprino" or "Defendants"). On March 30, 2020, the
Court certified the Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendants required
their non-exempt workers to remain "on-call" during their meal and
rest breaks in violation of California law.

The Defendants thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration, which
the Court denied on Aug. 11, 2020. On Jan. 14, 2022, the Defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative,
decertification. On April 29, 2022, the Court denied the
Defendants' motion on the ground that genuine issues of material
fact exist with respect to numerous factual disputes and that the
certification requirements under Rule 23, particularly the
commonality and predominance requirements, were still satisfied.

On Nov. 7, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Pretrial Statement,
which included each party's list of prospective witnesses to be
called at trial. The Plaintiffs' prospective witness list named 49
prospective witnesses, and the Defendants' list named 1,608
prospective witnesses. The Plaintiffs objected to the Defendants
calling all 1,608 individuals to testify at trial, and the
Defendants responded that if liability is to be established on a
class-wide basis, they must be allowed to present all their witness
testimony to challenge the Plaintiffs' showing. They further argued
that they would file a renewed motion to decertify the class
because the Plaintiffs cannot prove class-wide liability through
the individualized testimony of their 49 witnesses.

To assist with the determination of an appropriate number of
class-member witnesses to be called at trial, the Court ordered the
parties to submit memoranda listing their prospective class-member
witnesses with a brief summary of each witness's expected testimony
at trial. It also gave the Defendants until Jan. 10, 2023 to file a
renewed motion to decertify the class.

On Dec. 4, 2022, the Plaintiffs submitted a list of 13 prospective
class witnesses with proffers of their expected testimony. On Dec.
28, 2022, the Defendants submitted a list of 1,389 prospective
class witnesses with proffers of their expected testimony. On Jan.
4, 2023, the Plaintiffs submitted a list of 7 prospective rebuttal
class member witnesses with proffers of their expected testimony at
trial. On Jan. 10, 2023, the Defendants filed their renewed motion
to decertify the class.

The Defendants argue that decertification is appropriate because
Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority requirements are no
longer satisfied. Specifically, they assert that these requirements
are not met because the Plaintiffs have not proposed any manageable
plan on the eve of trial to prove that their official policies and
practices effectively created a facility-wide requirement that
workers remain on-call during breaks.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants' renewed motion for
decertification should be denied because there is no compelling
reason to decertify the class, such as discovery of new facts,
changes in the parties, or changes in the substantive or procedural
law. According to them, the Defendants' renewed motion presents
many of the same arguments that the Court rejected in its previous
orders, and the cases the Defendants cite for the first time in
support of decertification are distinguishable.

In light of the parties' arguments, the central issue before the
Court is whether the evidence the Plaintiffs intend to use at trial
is sufficiently "common" for each class member to make a prima
facie showing, or overly "individualized" such that any common
question among the class members consists of an unmanageable
variety of individual legal and factual issues.

Judge Ishii concludes that decertification of the class is
inappropriate because there is sufficiently reliable evidence to
establish the elements for class certification. Specifically, he
says, based on the Plaintiffs' expert survey and class member
testimonies, the jury could reasonably conclude that Leprino's
official policies and practices effectively put class members
on-call during their breaks. Allowing the Plaintiffs to offer
representational evidence at trial will not violate the Defendants'
due process rights because the latter can rebut that evidence with
their own rebuttal expert and representational testimony. Whether
the Plaintiffs' evidence is factually representative of the class
is a merits dispute for the jury to decide.

Accordingly, Judge Ishii denies the Defendants' Renewed Motion for
Class Decertification and their Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 1.
He denies the Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 8 without
prejudice.

The Defendants are ordered to submit a revised prospective class
member witness list with their expected proffers within seven days
of the date of the Order. The Plaintiffs will thereafter submit
their revised rebuttal prospective class member witness list with
their expected proffers within seven days of the filing of the
Defendants' revised list.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4v9mfv6n from Leagle.com.


LEVEL 3: Seeks More Response Time to Conditional Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS JOHNSON, on behalf
of Himself and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. LEVEL
3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 9:22-cv-81066-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending its time to
respond to the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and
court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and
class certification pursuant to Rule 23, from February 7, 2023 to
February 28, 2023.

The Named plaintiff, Thomas Johnson, and opt-in plaintiffs, Luis
Pow-Sang and Joseph Hernandez, filed the Motion on January 24,
2023. The Plaintiffs' Motion asks the Court to conditionally
certify a collective action for

   "all current and former Field and Network Technicians who
   worked for Defendant any time during the last three years
   within the United States;" and

a class action for:

  "all persons employed by Defendant in the United States and
   denied compensation for work performed within four years of
   the filing of this complaint through the date of the final
   judgment in this action."

Level 3 offers network management, data, voice, and video
electronic telecommunication services.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lJdGDf at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian M. McPherson, Esq.
          Holly Griffin Goodman, Esq.
          GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART, P.A.
          777 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 500 East
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (231) 655-1980
          Facsimile: (561) 655-5677
          E-mail: bmcpherson@gunter.com
                  hgoodman@gunster.com

                - and -

          Timothy M. Threadgill, Esq.
          J. Lott Warren, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW LLP
          1020 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 1400
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 948-5711
          Facsimile: (601) 985-4500
          E-mail: tim.threadgill@butlersnow.com
                  lott.warren@butlersnow.com


LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Gralia Sues Over Harmful Chocolate Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Gralia, Kamila Harkavy, Sarah Sherman, and Crystal Rodriguez,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
LINDT & SPRUNGLI (USA), INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01186 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 13, 2023), is brought seeking to recover damages and
injunctive relief for Defendant's continuing failure to disclose to
consumers that certain Lindt dark chocolate products (collectively,
the "Products"), contain unsafe levels of lead and cadmium
(collectively "Heavy Metals").

The Lindt Dark Chocolate Products in question are the Lindt
"Excellence Dark Chocolate 70% Cocoa" bar and the Lindt "Excellence
Dark Chocolate 85% Cocoa" bar. Dark chocolate is often touted as
being a healthier alternative to milk chocolate, however, a
December 2022 report by Consumer Reports revealed that certain dark
chocolate bars, including the Products, had high enough levels of
lead and cadmium that "eating just an ounce a day would put an
adult over a level that public health authorities and Consumer
Reports' experts say may be harmful."

Heavy Metals in foods pose a significant safety risk to consumers
because they can cause cancer and often irreversible damage to
brain development as well as other serious health problems.
Consumers who purchase the Products are injured by Defendant's acts
and omissions concerning the presence (or risk) of Heavy Metals. No
reasonable consumer would know, or have reason to know, that the
Products contain (or risk containing) Heavy Metals. Worse, as
companies across the industry have adopted methods to limit heavy
metals in their dark chocolates, Defendant has stood idly by with a
reckless disregard for its consumers' health and well-being.

Had the Defendant disclosed on the label that the Products
contained (or risked containing) unsafe toxic Heavy Metals, the
Plaintiffs would have been aware of that fact and would not have
purchased the Products or would have paid less for them, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Products from the Defendants.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells dark chocolate,
including the Products, throughout New York, California, and the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: mroberts@bursor.com

               - and -

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
          Luke W. Sironski-White, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 slitteral@bursor.com
                 lsironski@bursor.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Phone: (619) 215-1741
          Email: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com


LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Sued Over Unsafe Chocolate Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Jason Goldstein, Lynn Minck, and Michelle Sturgis, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LINDT & SPRUNGLI
(USA), INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01213-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2023),
is brought against Defendant regarding the manufacture,
distribution, and sale of its Lindt Excellence 70% Cocoa Dark
Chocolate Bars and Lindt Excellence 85% Cocoa Extra Dark Chocolate
Bar products (collectively the "Affected Products") which contain
unsafe levels of lead and cadmium (collectively, "Heavy Metals").

The marketing for and labeling of the Affected Products are silent
as to the presence of elevated levels of Heavy Metals in the
Affected Products. Lindt's advertising and packaging are false,
misleading, and reasonably likely to deceive the public.

Lead is a harmful chemical when consumed and is especially
dangerous to pregnant women and children. Lead poisoning occurs
when lead builds up in the body, over months or years. Any amount
of lead exposure can lead to serious health problems. Children
younger than 6 years are especially vulnerable to even mild lead
exposure, which can severely affect mental and physical
development. At very high levels, lead poisoning can be fatal in
adults and children. Cadmium is also dangerous when consumed.
Cadmium can be found in cigarette smoke and a wide variety of
industrial products, including batteries, pigments, metal coatings,
and plastics. Cadmium is carcinogenic and exposure to even low
levels of cadmium over time may result in a toxic build-up of
cadmium in the kidneys, leading to kidney disease4 and bones damage
and osteoporosis.

A December 2022 report by Consumer Reports revealed that a
selection of dark chocolate bars sold to the public, including the
Affected Products, contained high levels of heavy metals:
specifically, cadmium and lead. The Defendant knew or should have
known that its representations and advertisements regarding the
Affected Products were false and misleading and that they failed to
disclose material information. He Defendant had been notified by
previous cadmium exposure notice in 2014 raised by watchdog group
As You Sow, which filed Proposition 65 Notices for elevated lead
and cadmium levels found in the products of multiple dark chocolate
brands, including Lindt.

Consumers could not have known about the unsafe levels of lead and
cadmium in the Affected Products before purchasing them without
having conducted extensive and expensive scientific testing.
Defendant, on the other hand, is positioned to test its products
and has exclusive knowledge of the quality control testing on the
Affected Products and the ingredients contained therein. If the
Plaintiffs knew that the Affected Products contained the Heavy
Metals, they would not have purchased the Affected Products on the
same terms, if at all, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Affected Products.

The Defendant manufactures, advertises, labels, and sells dark
chocolate.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          Email: mreich@zlk.com
                 cmaccarone@zlk.com


M & M: Fails to Pay Tire Technicians' Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ROSAS and JOSE ORELLANA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. M AND M LA SOLUCION FLAT FIXED INC.,
MARCO T. MEJIA, and ELMA BUSTILLOS,, Case No. 1:23-cv-01212
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2023) seeks to recover minimum and overtime
wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs were non-exempt
employees pursuant to the FLSA and the NYLL. Mr. Rosas worked four
days per week, for a total of 48 hours worked per week. He was not
afforded meal or rest breaks throughout his employment with the
Defendants. From December 1, 2019 until January 2020, the
Defendants compensated Rosas at a rate of $80.00 per day, and
failed to compensate Rosas with overtime premiums for hours worked
in excess of 40 per week, says the suit.

The Defendants allegedly violated federal and state law by
willfully failing to pay Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs the applicable minimum wages for all hours worked,
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week,
spread of hour wages for every day on which their shifts exceeded
10 hours per day, and by failing to provide the required payroll
notices and wage statements.

Mr. Orellana worked for the Defendant as a tire technician from
January 1, 2016 up to February 21, 2022. Mr. Rosas worked for the
Defendant as a tire technician from December 1, 2019 to April 25,
2022.

M and M specializes in the sale, service, and repair of tires for
motor vehicles, offering mechanical work that includes tire
rotation, balance, alignment, puncture repair, and replacement of
tires. The business also offers related services, such as oil
changes, brake checks, and suspension repairs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          370 Lexington Ave, Suite 1512
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
          E-mail: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com

MARRIOTT HOTEL: Conditional Cert of Collective Action Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY STANGER, On Behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. MARRIOTT HOTEL
SERVICES, INC. d/b/a GAYLORD OPRYLAND RESORT & CONVENTION CENTER,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00800 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
      pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
      (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); and

   2. authorizing notice of this action to the following
      individuals:

      "All current and former employees who Defendant paid a
      tipped hourly rate of less than the $7.25 per hour minimum
      wage as well as tips at Gaylord Opryland Resort &
      Convention Center ("Gaylord") at any time since October
      10, 2019."

The Plaintiffs also specifically request that the Court adopt
Plaintiffs' proposed notice procedures by ordering that:

     (1) Defendant shall produce within fourdays of the Court's
         order a list containing the following information for
         each member of the Collective Class: name(s), last
         known mailing address(es), last known e-mail
         address(es), and last known telephone number(s).

     (2) The Plaintiffs' proposed Notices and Consent Form are
         approved.

     (3) The Plaintiffs' counsel are authorized to distribute
         the approved Notices and Consent Form to members of the
         Collective Class via U.S. Mail, E-mail, and Short
         Message Service (SMS) / text message; and Consent Forms
         to join this action must be postmarked or otherwise
         received by.

         The Plaintiff's counsel within 90 days of the date
         notices are sent via U.S. Mail, E-mail, and SMS / text
         message.

Marriott Hotel owns and operates hotels. The Company offers
accommodation, dining, spa, and fitness center facilities.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ei7zMr at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON , LLC
          Philips Plaza, 414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E_mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
                  nchanin@barrettjohnston.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert Earl Boston, Esq.
          WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP
          Nashville City Center
          511 Union Street, Suite 2700
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-6380
          Facsimile: (615) 244-6804
          E-mail: bob.boston@wallerlaw.com

                - and -

          Ariel Cudkowicz, Esq.
          Hillary J. Massey, Esq.
          Michael Steinberg, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          Two Seaport Ln #1200
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 946-4800
          E-mail: acudkowicz@seyfarth.com
                  hmassey@seyfarth.com
                  msteinberg@seyfarth.com

MASTERCARD INC: May Face Class Suit Over Illegal Interchange Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Kanowsky, writing for Investing.com, reports that Mastercard
(NYSE:MA) and Visa (NYSE:V) face a series of potential
multibillion-pound legal claims as a London-based law firm gears up
to file a major class action lawsuit on behalf of British
businesses, Sky News reported on Feb. 21.

The outlet said that commercial litigation firm Harcus Parker is
close to filing what it thinks could be among the largest
competition compensation claims in British history.

The filing will argue that the two payments giants charged
companies too much for multilateral interchange fees, or the amount
companies pay banks to accept purchases made with a credit or debit
card. According to Sky News, it will also allege that Mastercard
and Visa -- and not market forces -- imposed the level of these
fees on banks as a condition of doing business with them.

A source quoted by Sky News said the size of the legal action could
be at a minimum of GBP7.5 billion (GBP1 = $1.2089), although the
amount may ultimately be double that sum. Harcus Parker declined to
comment in the report.

Mastercard and Visa have previously settled similar lawsuits
regarding allegations of overcharged interchange fees. The two
declined to comment to Sky News. [GN]

MATTERPORT INC: Pretrial Conference in Lynch Set for Dec. 6
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN LYNCH, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, v. MATTERPORT,
INC, Case No. 3:22-cv-03704-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William
Alsup entered an order pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure ("FRCP") and Civil Local Rule 16-10, as follows:

  -- The non-expert discovery cut-off        August 31, 2023
     date shall be:

  -- The last date for designation           August 31, 2023
     of expert testimony and
     disclosure of full expert
     reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) as to
     any issue on which a party has
     the burden of proof ("opening
     reports") shall be:

  -- The last date to file dispositive       October 12, 2023
     motions shall be:

  -- The final pretrial conference           December 6, 2023
     shall be held on:

Matterport is a developer of a 3D media platform used to establish
3D and virtual reality models.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E7u0Uw at no extra charge.[CC]


MDL 2903: Bid to Dismiss Alfaro's Unsafe Sleeper Class Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FISHER-PRICE ROCK 'N PLAY SLEEPER MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No.
1:19-md-2903 (W.D.N.Y.), Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York denies the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing.

Elizabeth Alfaro is the mother of several children. In September
2017, she or her husband -- it makes no difference -- purchased a
Rock 'n Play Sleeper ("RNPS") for her newborn son for $50 at a
Target store. Ms. Alfaro placed the little boy in the RNPS for half
of his daytime naps and 75-80% of his overnight sleep during the
first six months of his life. The child suffered no ill
consequences from sleeping in the RNPS and appears to have enjoyed
it. He was followed by a little sister. She did not enjoy sleeping
in the RNPS and did not use the product much during her infancy.

In April 2019, Ms. Alfaro learned about the recall of the RNPS
supervised by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. She
participated in the recall and received a plush child's toy. The
Defendants placed a value of $30 on the toy. Ms. Alfaro's children
did not like to play with the toy. Ms. Alfaro seeks a refund of the
full price her family paid for the RNPS.

The Defendants seek dismissal of the New York class action on
standing grounds. The Court previously issued a decision certifying
an "issues class" on some but not all liability issues. It
identified causation for purposes of NY GBL Section 349 as well as
damages as subject to individual proof. It also noted that the
Defendants intended to challenge the standing of the Plaintiffs
sole New York class representative, Ms. Alfaro.

The Defendants return to these issues with a motion to dismiss on
the ground that Ms. Alfaro is a satisfied customer who suffered no
loss -- even if the Plaintiffs establish at trial that the Rock 'n
Play Sleeper ("RNPS") was marketed by means of false statements.
The Plaintiffs respond that Ms. Alfaro's injury occurred when she
overpaid for the RNPS, believing that it was safe for infant sleep,
and that statutory damages, however nominal in amount, are
sufficient to confer standing on a consumer.

Judge Crawford states that standing is legal shorthand for the
constitutional requirement that plaintiffs in a civil lawsuit prove
that they have suffered an injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable
to the conduct of the defendant and likely to be redressed by a
favorable judicial decision. In the absence of a concrete,
particularized injury, a lawsuit fails to meet the case or
controversy requirement of Article III of the Constitution. Federal
courts lack jurisdiction to hear cases which do not meet this
standard.

Judge Crawford begins by identifying the injury that Ms. Alfaro
claims. Through counsel, Ms. Alfaro describes her injury as being
misled into purchasing the RNPS by false statements about safety.
The Defendants contend that Ms. Alfaro has suffered no
injury-in-fact because she was satisfied with the product while she
used it -- going so far as to recommend it to others -- and had no
plans to resell at a loss.

Ms. Alfaro has alleged a concrete and particularized injury
sufficient to establish standing, Judge Crawford concludes. He
finds that Ms. Alfaro claims that she would never have bought the
RNPS if she had known about the risk of infant death. That is a
view that every new parent would share. As the Court previously
observed, there is no market for childcare products discounted to
reflect the risk of death or injury. A jury could well believe Ms.
Alfaro if she testifies that she or her husband would never have
purchased the RNPS if the Defendants had disclosed what they knew
about the risk of infant death.

The case does not end at the point of purchase. The Defendants are
entitled to introduce evidence of Ms. Alfaro's positive experiences
with the RNPS and whatever offset they can establish through the
receipt of the plush toy. These may reduce the damages to zero or a
jury may give them less weight. But that is a factual dispute over
the amount of the damages. Evidence that Ms. Alfaro obtained value
from using the RNPS does not alter the original claimed injury of
$50 for a purchase that she states she would not have made if
Defendant's promotion of the product had been truthful.

Judge Crawford leaves for trial the parties' dispute over whether
the damages are $50 or zero or some figure in between. In his view,
Ms. Alfaro's allegations that she was misled into purchasing the
RNPS are sufficient to establish standing for jurisdictional
purposes.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yscuxpxk from Leagle.com.


MDL 2936: Court Suggests Remand of DJ Action to E.D. Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SMITTY'S/CAM2 303 TRACTOR HYDRAULIC FLUID
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. SMITTY'S
SUPPLY, INC., et al., Defendants, Master Case No.
4:20-MD-02936-SRB, Case No. 4:21-cv-00071-SRB (W.D. Mo.), Judge
Stephen R. Bough of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Western Division, suggests that the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remands the declaratory
judgment action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana for further proceedings.

The declaratory judgment action ("DJ Action") is part of a
multidistrict litigation proceeding ("MDL") that involves product
liability claims brought against Smitty's. Smitty's manufactured,
marketed, and sold tractor hydraulic fluids ("THF Products"). The
MDL Plaintiffs purchased Smitty's THF Products, which they claim
they are defective and caused them to suffer property damage.

Judge Bough's Order recommends the remand of the DJ Action, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00071-SRB, only. It does not recommend remand of other
claims contained in the MDL, docketed as Master Case No.
4:20-MD-02936-SRB.

Plaintiff Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co. ("Nationwide")
issued Smitty's various commercial general liability insurance
policies, effective April 30, 2014, to April 30, 2020. The Policies
provide that Nationwide will indemnify Smitty's for "those sums the
insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages" because of
"property damage."

In May 2018, a class action entitled Shawn Hornbeck, et al. v.
Tractor Supply Company, et al., No. 4:18-cv-00523-NKL ("the
Hornbeck Action") was filed in the Circuit Court of Cass County,
Missouri, and subsequently transferred to this Court. The Hornbeck
Plaintiffs alleged that Smitty's THF Products were defective and
caused property damage to their equipment. Smitty's sought
indemnity in the Hornbeck Action from Nationwide under the
Policies. Nationwide agreed to retain counsel, but disputed that it
was obligated to provide coverage. Nationwide participated in and
agreed to settle the Hornbeck Action in August 2019 ("the Hornbeck
Settlement").

In October 2020, Nationwide filed the DJ Action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking a
determination as to what portion, if any, it is required to
indemnify Smitty's for the Hornbeck Settlement. The JPML
transferred this DJ Action to Judge Bough for inclusion in the MDL
due to common issues of fact as to Smitty's knowledge of the
alleged product defect and causation of property damages.

Since transfer to this Court, the parties have engaged in discovery
and the Court ruled on motions for summary judgment. The case no
longer benefits from centralized proceedings and is subject to
remand. The DJ Action should be remanded to the Eastern District of
Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407(a). To assist the
Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Bough's Order describes events
that have taken place in the DJ Action in his. A copy of his order,
along with the case files and materials, will be available to the
Eastern District of Louisiana after remand.

Judge Bough suggests that the JMPL should remand the DJ action
because the purpose of consolidated proceedings has been fulfilled.
He says all issues relating to Smitty's knowledge of the alleged
THF Product's defects and the causation of property damages, the
motivating factors of consolidation, have been resolved by the
Court in the parties' motions for summary judgment.

All that remains are case-specific issues regarding (1) the amount
of damages sustained by Smitty's due to Nationwide's failure to
indemnify Smitty's fall within the period policy; and (2) whether
Nationwide's failure to indemnify was in bad faith, in violation of
Louisiana law. These issues do not involve common issues of fact
with the MDL proceedings.

As the instant case would not benefit from further consolidated
pretrial proceedings, Judge Bough therefore suggests that the JPML
remand the DJ Action, Case No. 4:21-cv-00071-SRB, only, to the
Eastern District of Louisiana for further proceedings. He does not
recommend remand of other claims contained in the MDL, docketed as
Master Case No. 4:20-MD-02936-SRB.

The Clerk of the Court will forward a certified copy of the Order
to the JPML.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Suggestion of Remand &
Transfer Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mwy4xwh5 from
Leagle.com.


MDL 3014: Dobbs v. Aerocare Transferred to W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned In Re: Philips Recalled
CPAP, Bi-Level PAP and Mechanical Ventilator Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 3014, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the
case docketed as Dobbs, et al. v. Aerocare Home Medical, Inc., et
al., (C.A. No. 4:22−03408, S.D. Tex.) to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and with the consent of
that court, assigned to the Honorable Joy Flowers Conti for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Dobbs moved to vacate said order by arguing that federal subject
matter jurisdiction over their action is lacking and that the
transferor court should decide their pending remand motion before
any transfer. But the panel contends that this is not an impediment
to transfer.

The actions here asserts overlapping claims for violations of state
consumer protection statutes, breach of warranties and unjust
enrichment arising from recalled ventilators and the potential harm
that can be caused by their alleged inherent defect. The recalled
devices allegedly contain polyester-based polyurethane (PE-PUR)
sound abatement foam that may degrade into particles or off-gas
volatile organic compounds that may then be ingested or inhaled by
the user, causing injury, ruled the panel.

A full-text copy of the court's February 1, 2023 order is available
at https://bit.ly/3SjEwxY

MDL 3044: MSP Recovery v. Exactech Inc. Transferred to E.D. N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned IN RE: Exactech
Polyethylene Orthopedic Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
3044, regarding knee or hip replacement devices' premature failure,
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case styled as MSP Recovery
Claims Series, LLC v. Exactech, Inc., et al., (C.A. No. 1:22-00313,
N.D. Fla.) to the Eastern District of New York and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

MDL plaintiffs and defendants stress that transfer is inappropriate
because plaintiff MSP Recovery allegedly lacks standing to bring
its claims, which are not yet ripe because no injured patient has
been compensated for his or her injuries by Exactech. These
arguments invite the panel to discourse on the substance of
plaintiff's allegations, which it historically has declined to do.

This litigation concerns a case concerning the polyethylene
components of Exactech medical devices. On June 28, 2021, Exactech
issued a product safety alert regarding the clinical performance of
the polyethylene liner used in its Connexion GXL hip systems. On
August 31, 2021, Exactech initiated a recall related to
polyethylene inserts used in its knee and ankle devices because
such devices were packaged in out-of-specification vacuum bags that
are oxygen resistant but do not contain a secondary oxygen barrier
of ethylene vinyl alcohol. In August 2022, Exactech expanded its
June 2021 recall to include additional Connexion GXL hip liners and
other polyethylene liners.

Plaintiffs in the MDL allege that their knee or hip replacement
devices (Optetrak and Truliant and Connexion GXL, respectively)
failed prematurely because of degradation of the device's
polyethylene component, which resulted in the premature removal (or
planned removal) of the prosthesis at issue. All actions can be
expected to share factual questions concerning the design,
manufacture, testing, marketing, packaging and performance of the
polyethylene components of their Exactech devices. They allege that
oxidation of the moderately cross-linked polyethylene used in the
Exactech hip, knee and ankle devices causes inflammatory responses
when implanted, generates polyethylene debris, crack, and loosen
the device, all of which in turn requires revision surgery.

According to the panel, MSP Recovery was involved in other products
liability MDLs where centralized litigations included a third-party
payer action brought by MSP Recovery along with consumer plaintiff
claims. That said, given that Exactech and MDL plaintiffs raise
serious questions about the ability of MSP Recovery to bring its
claims, the transferee judge may find it prudent to engage in
threshold motion practice about the viability of such claims
before, for instance, establishing a third-party payer MDL track.

A full-text copy of the court's February 6, 2023 order is available
at https://bit.ly/3XWG5D0


MDL 3047: Youngers v. Meta Platforms Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In litigations involving Meta platforms'(Facebook and Instagram)
alleged encouragement of addictive behavior, failure to verify
users' ages, encouragement of adolescents to bypass parental
controls and inadequately safeguarding against harmful content
and/or intentionally amplify harmful and exploitive content, Judge
Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers case styled as "Youngers, Et Al.
v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al.," (C.A. No. 1:22-00608, D. N.M.) to
the Northern District of California and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings in IN RE: SOCIAL MEDIA ADOLESCENT
ADDICTION/PERSONAL INURY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No.
3047.

This action involves common questions of fact arising from
allegations that defendants' social media platforms are defective
because they are designed to maximize user screen time, which can
encourage addictive behavior in adolescents. The Youngers
plaintiffs allege their daughter became addicted to the corporate
defendants' social media products and experienced "serious mental
health illness," including depression and anxiety. They also allege
that the individual defendants used the social media platforms to
manipulate and harm her.

The panel said that centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with
respect to motions to dismiss and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel and the judiciary. Plaintiffs in the
Youngers case moved to vacate the panel's order that conditionally
transferred the action to the Northern District of California for
inclusion in MDL No. 3047 while Meta Platforms, Inc. opposed the
motion.

A full-text copy of the court's February 1, 2023 order is available
at https://bit.ly/3Kkoq5c

MDL 3055: Nine Data Breach Suits Consolidated in D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned IN RE: Samsung Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 3055, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, transfers five cases from the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, two from the Northern District of
California and one each from the Northern District of Illinois and
Southern District of New York, all to the District of New Jersey,
and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Christine P.
O'Hearn for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in all actions and common defendant Samsung Electronics
America, Inc., unanimously support centralization, with the
disagreement limited to the appropriate transferee district.
Plaintiffs in two actions on the motion and five potential
tag-along actions support movants' request for the Northern
District of California or, alternatively, the District of New
Jersey. Plaintiffs in six actions on the motion and one potential
tag-along action request the District of New Jersey as transferee
district. Defendant requests centralization in the District of
Nevada or, alternatively, the Southern District of New York.

These actions involve common questions of fact over an alleged data
security breach of Samsung's U.S. systems in or around July 2022
that allegedly compromised the personal information of millions of
consumers using Samsung products and services. Common factual
questions include (1) Samsung's data security practices and whether
the practices met industry standards, (2) how the unauthorized
access occurred, (3) the extent of personal information affected by
the breach, (4) when Samsung knew or should have known of the
breach, (5) the investigation into the breach and (6) whether
plaintiffs are entitled to damages as a result of defendant's
alleged conduct.

According to the Panel, centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with
respect to class certification and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The District of New
Jersey is an appropriate transferee district since the defendant's
headquarters is in New Jersey, where common witnesses and other
evidence likely will be found. Six related actions are pending
there, and all responding plaintiffs support this district as their
first or second choice for the transferee venue.

A full-text copy of the court's February 1, 2023 order is available
at bit.ly/3XKhv8l

MDL 3056: 6 Data Breach Suits Transferred to N.D. Ga.
-----------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned IN RE: Keybank Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 3056, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, transfers three cases from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, two from the Northern District of
Ohio and one from the Western District of Pennsylvania, to the
Northern District of Georgia and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to Judge Stephen D. Grimberg for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. It was further ordered that the
caption of this litigation be changed to "In Re: Overby-Seawell
Company Customer Data Security Breach Litigation."

All responding parties support centralization but disagree as to
the transferee district. Plaintiffs in the two constituent Northern
District of Ohio actions suggest centralization in that district
while plaintiffs in the three constituent Northern District of
Georgia actions suggest centralization in that district. Defendants
KeyBank, N.A., KeyCorp. And Overby-Seawell Company (OSC) support
centralization in the Northern District of Georgia, and OSC
alternatively supports the Northern District of Ohio as transferee
district. Plaintiffs in one Northern District of Georgia action and
KeyBank suggest renaming the litigation to reflect that OSC is the
main defendant in this litigation. OSC is a technology services
vendor for financial institutions that provides ongoing
verification that the institutions' residential mortgage customers
are maintaining required property insurance.

These putative nationwide class actions share factual issues
relating to a July 2022 incident in which an "unauthorized external
party" gained remote access to OSC's network and acquired certain
personally identifiable information of OSC's financial institution
clients' customers. All plaintiffs allege that OSC failed to
maintain adequate security measures, and they assert similar claims
including for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of
contract. Common factual issues will include how OSC's system was
breached, what security measures OSC had in place to protect
against such a breach, what information was compromised in the
breach, and whether OSC provided timely notice of the breach to its
financial institution clients.

The panel opined that centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with
respect to class certification and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The Northern District of
Georgia is an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation, it
held. Five of the ten actions now pending are in this district and
several plaintiffs and both OSC and KeyBank support centralization
there. And since OSC is headquartered there, relevant evidence and
witnesses likely will be in this district, concluded the panel.

A full-text copy of the court's February 1, 2023 order is available
at bit.ly/3SisOmY

MDL 3058: Credit Reporting Litigation Denied Transfer to N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district litigation captioned IN RE: Trans Union, LLC,
Balance after Bankruptcy Discharge Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
Litigation, MDL No. 3058, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denied the
move of defendant Trans Union, LLC to centralize this litigation,
which involves the alleged misattribution of balances to accounts
for which debts were discharged in bankruptcy, in the Northern
District of Illinois.

This litigation currently consists of five actions pending in the
U.S. District Court of Nevada, two in the District of Utah and one
each from the Southern District of California and the District of
Hawaii. Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and
Equifax Information Services LLC do not oppose centralization while
all responding plaintiffs oppose centralization.

The actions contain common factual questions that the plaintiffs in
all actions previously obtained bankruptcy relief and had certain
of their debts discharged but all contend that Trans Union
inaccurately reported a balance on one or more former accounts that
were subject to discharge. Plaintiffs bring claims solely for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The panel held that centralization does not appear needed to
further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation involving
seemingly straightforward claims that a balance was misattributed
to certain discharged accounts. Plaintiffs argue that
centralization is not appropriate because the actions will turn on
specific circumstances such as the adequacy of any reinvestigation
conducted based on plaintiffs' correspondence in each of the eight
individual actions. Further, they assert that centralization is not
needed because there is only one class action among the nine
actions. Plaintiffs contend that coordination in each of the
districts with multiple cases could streamline the litigation.

A full-text copy of the court's February 6, 2023 order is available
at bit.ly/3Z4HVmn

MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Bolling Sues Over Defective Panoramic Sunroof
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE BOLLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC; and MERCEDES-BENZ
GROUP AG, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00671-TWT (N.D. Ga., Feb.
14, 2023) alleges that the Defendants manufacture and sell
defective motor vehicle's panoramic sunroof.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
satisfactorily meet the engineering challenges presented by
panoramic sunroofs. Mercedes vehicles with panoramic sunroofs
suffer from a design, manufacturing and materials defect whereby
their panoramic sunroofs will spontaneously shatter under normal
driving conditions creating a safety hazard for the vehicle
occupants and surrounding traffic. The alleged defect may be
present in every Mercedes vehicle equipped with a panoramic sunroof
(the "Class Vehicles"). The defect may be a product of Mercedes'
panoramic sunroof design, or alternatively, the defect may result
from part of the manufacturing process, or the materials used
during production. The existence of the defect is a material fact
that a reasonable consumer would consider when deciding whether to
purchase or lease a Class Vehicle. Had Plaintiff and other Class
Members known of the defect, they would have paid less for the
Class Vehicles or would not have purchased or leased them, says the
suit.

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC was founded in 2000. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of new and used
passenger automobiles, trucks, trailers, and other motor vehicles.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent Irby, Esq.
          IRBY LAW LLC
          The Highland Building
          2201 Arlington Ave. S.
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 936-8281
          Email: brent@irbylaw.net

MICHIGAN: Boussum Complaint v. Washington Dismissed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK A. BOUSSUM, et al., Plaintiffs v. HEIDI
WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-12232 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division:

   a. denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration; and

   b. dismisses the Complaint without prejudice for failure to
      prosecute.

A group of disabled inmates have filed a pro se class action
alleging numerous federal claims and seeking to be represented by
an inmate who purports to be a paralegal.

The Plaintiffs are prisoners held in a "Medically Frail Housing
(MFH) Unit" at the Thumb Correctional Facility (TCF) in Lapeer,
Michigan. The MFH Unit was developed to house medically frail
inmates, but the Plaintiffs claim that TCF began to admit such
inmates before it was fully prepared to meet their housing and
medical needs. They add that problems with staffing and the MFH
Unit's programming, care, and other services violate the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Plaintiffs'
rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Plaintiffs have various disabilities, and examples of their
complaints include a lack of medical staff, missing handrails near
beds and in showers requiring mobility-impaired prisoners to carry
medical equipment up and down stairs, and the denial of the
opportunity to participate in school, work, and recreation
programming. And the Plaintiff Boussum filed a motion for a
temporary restraining order, newly complaining that Defendants are
"double bunking" "regular" (i.e., nondisabled) prisoners in the MFH
Unit, placing the "patients at risk to property theft, assaults,
and/or death."

The case was stayed for three months to seek pro bono counsel for
the Plaintiffs because prison inmates may not represent each other
in federal lawsuits. But no counsel accepted their case pro bono,
so the stay was lifted, their motions for class certification and
appointment of counsel were denied, they were directed to correct
deficiencies in their applications for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and their motion for a temporary restraining order was
denied without prejudice.

Then the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration but not the
documents required to correct the deficiencies in their in forma
pauperis applications.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration makes three arguments:
(1) they meet Rule 23's requirements for class certification; (2)
the Court should appoint class counsel; and (3) the Court erred in
denying their request for a temporary restraining order.

With respect to class certification, Judge Ludington opines that
the Plaintiffs merely rehash all their arguments for why their
purported class meets the requirements of Rule 23. Those arguments
do not warrant consideration, because the Court already considered
and rejected them. The Plaintiffs' only new argument is that the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow for the denial of
class certification based on appointment of counsel. But that
argument lacks merit. Hence, all the Plaintiff's arguments
regarding class certification lack merit.

With respect to pro bono counsel, because the Plaintiffs were given
90 days to seek pro bono counsel, no attorney accepted their case,
and they may not represent each other in a class action, their
second argument lacks merit.

Finally, the Plaintiffs rehash all their arguments regarding their
request for a temporary restraining order. Because there is no
connection between the Complaint and the Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order's alleged harm of housing nonaide inmates with
medically frail inmates, their argument lacks merit.

The Plaintiffs each filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
without the required form that authorizes withdrawal of their
funds. So they were granted the maximum 30-day extension to submit
either the $350.00 filing fee and $52 administrative fee (i.e.,
$402) or the required Prisoner's Application to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees and Costs and Authorization to Withdraw from the
Trust Fund Account.

Although the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration, they
failed to provide the required form that authorizes withdrawal of
their funds. Nor have they paid the required fees. Nor have they
requested another 30-day extension. Therefore, under binding Sixth
Circuit precedent, the Court is now required to presume that the
prisoner is not a pauper, to assess the inmate the full amount of
fees, and to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint for want of
prosecution. For failure to prosecute, the Plaintiffs' Complaint
must be dismissed.

Lastly, the Plaintiffs may not appeal in forma pauperis, because an
appeal from this Order would be frivolous and not taken in good
faith.

Accordingly, Judge Ludington denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration. He dismisses the Complaint without prejudice for
failure to prosecute.

The case is prohibited from being reinstated to the district
court's active docket -- even if the Plaintiffs pay the filing
fees. The Plaintiffs are denied a certificate of appealability and
leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

It is a final order and the case is closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4rrk4cr5 from Leagle.com.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Limas Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Information
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAL LIMAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
37-2023-00002607-CU-MC-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct., January 20, 2023) files
this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has allegedly incurred a debt for personal, familial,
and household purposes. Accordingly, the alleged debt was
transmitted to the Defendant for collections. Consequently, on
January 20, 2022, the Plaintiff has received a collection letter
from the Defendant. However, the Defendant utilized a third-party
vendor to send the letter, thereby disclosing the Plaintiff's
personal information to a third-party in violation of the FDCPA.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking for judgment against
the Defendant for statutory damages pursuant to the FDCPA, as well
as an injunctive relief stopping the Defendant from using third
party vendors. The Plaintiff also seeks reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs, and other relief as may be just and proper.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Sibilia, Esq.
          OCEANSIDE LAW CENTER
          P.O. Box 861
          Oceanside, CA 92049
          Tel: (760) 666-1151
          Fax: (818) 698-0300
          E-mail: robert@oceansidelawcenter.com

MOGA TRANSPORT: Benitez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MOGA Transport, Inc.
The case is styled as Leobardo Benitez, Ramon Aragon, and Eleazar
Del Toro on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
MOGA Transport, Inc., Case No. BCV-23-100472 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., Feb. 14, 2023).

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

Moga Transport, Inc. -- http://www.mogatransport.co/-- is a
professional and reliable milk hauling/logistics company serving
clients in California.[BN]

MOL EUROPE: CAT Restricts Communications With Class Members
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sarina Williams, Esq., Jason Shardlow-Wrest, Esq., and Alice Chung,
Esq., of Linklaters, in an article for Global Competition Review,
disclosed that the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has continued
its trend of handing down landmark decisions in its ever-expanding
case law on collective actions. In a judgment in the McLaren class
action at the end of November 2022, the CAT unanimously ruled that
class action defendants cannot communicate with actual or potential
members of the class, unless the CAT directs otherwise or the
parties agree. However, it then went on to issue guidance to Visa
and Mastercard in the interchange fee class actions to provide
clarity on the application of its ruling.

Background
The CAT made a collective proceedings order (CPO) for McLaren's
claim to proceed on an opt-out basis back in May 2022, following
which potential UK class members were given nearly three months to
opt out. In that time, solicitors for the majority of the
defendants wrote letters directly to businesses that formed part of
the proposed class pointing out that unless they opted out of the
action they could be required to disclose documents, which would
involve time and expense and possibly require them to disclose
confidential information. The letters went on to suggest that if
businesses intended to form part of the class action, they should
seek legal advice as to their document preservation obligations.

McLaren's representatives were copied to these letters and
subsequently made an urgent application pursuant to the CAT's case
management powers under the 2015 Competition Appeal Tribunal Rules,
seeking an order that the defendants would not be allowed to
communicate with actual or potential members of the class.

The key question: can defendants communicate with actual or
proposed class members?
While the need for urgency had dissipated by the time of its
decision, the CAT acknowledged that the application raised an
"important point": to what extent can defendants to collective
proceedings communicate with actual or proposed class members?

McLaren argued that, while the 2015 rules did not expressly address
the point, they made it clear that defendants could not communicate
with class members. Alternatively he contended that even if the
rules did not prohibit such communication, the letters sent by the
defendants' solicitors "crossed the line of what was acceptable"
and so the CAT should exercise its discretion under its case
management powers to prevent any further communication.

The defendants disputed the application on several grounds,
including that:

   -- the rules did not (expressly or impliedly) restrict them from
communicating with class members;
   -- their right to freedom of expression -- protected by Article
10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) -- would be
infringed if such a restriction was found; and
   -- the letters were, as they put it, "conspicuously fair" in
their presentation of the issues and in having copied McLaren's
representatives.

The CAT's answer: communication from defendants is not permitted
The CAT unanimously decided that there was an "inherent"
restriction in the relevant rules that prevents defendants from
communicating with class members. This applies not only when an
action has been certified, but also to communications by any
proposed defendants with any proposed class members where a CPO is
being sought.

Concluding that such a restriction was "clearly framed", the CAT
appeared to rely heavily on a purposive interpretation -- as
opposed to being guided by what the rules expressly do (or do not)
say. For example, it emphasised the process established by the
rules (in particular, rules 75 and 76, which address the procedure
for commencing and responding to a CPO application) and the
regime's intention, which is to allow claims to be brought on
behalf of individuals without them each having to incur their own
costs. The CAT determined that a restriction on defendants'
communications with class members "arises inevitably" from the
rules and is even "necessary to" the structure of the collective
action regime. In the CAT's words: "The whole point of the
collective proceedings regime is that the represented persons are
represented by a class representative" (original emphasis).

The CAT gave short shrift to the arguments relating to freedom of
expression, noting that a restriction to the defendants' qualified
Article 10 rights was justified in the circumstances, as that
restriction was intended to ensure due process (which is itself
protected by Article 6 of the ECHR) in the collective action
regime.

In all, the CAT found that, unless it rules otherwise or the
parties agree (which, even then, would still be subject to the
CAT's supervision), defendants cannot communicate with actual or
proposed class members. Despite the defendants in this case having
agreed to cease communicating with class members, the CAT proceeded
to grant an order preventing them from doing so. It went on to
include a form of postscript, which included observations on the
content of the letters sent and what it called the "canard that
this non-communication obligation in some way inhibits
defendants… from properly exercising their rights of defence".
The CAT observed that, had it not found the rules to contain a
clear restriction on communications from defendants, it would in
any event have deemed the letters sent to be unacceptable (again,
due to them "cut[ting] across and undermin[ing]" the potential
benefits of the collective action regime).

The McLaren judgment appeared to close the door on any possibility
of direct communications between defendants and actual or potential
class members. Yet, despite this clear messaging, the McLaren
judgment left important questions unanswered, including:

Where should the line be drawn in terms of defendants'
communications?
How should defendants treat communications with parties who cannot
be part of a class (eg, because they have already brought a
separate action) but who, prior to certification, technically fall
within a class representative's proposed class definition?
Are defendants allowed to inform parties of this fact, which would
save all parties time and expense?
Are they allowed to settle with those parties?
The judgment also risked cutting across parallel claims in the
courts that overlap with any collective proceedings.

The complexity of these issues became stark as Visa and Mastercard
asked the CAT to address the judgment's application at the first
case management conference in the interchange fee class actions in
December 2022.

A more nuanced approach for parallel individual proceedings . . .
but what next?
To set the scene, the interchange fee class actions were brought
against a backdrop of myriad claims already proceeding against Visa
and/or Mastercard in both the High Court and the CAT. These were
brought on an individual basis, relating to a wide variety of
interchange fees (often including, but not limited to, the
commercial and inter-regional fees subject of the class actions),
some of which are being managed as umbrella proceedings.

Following the McLaren judgment, it appeared that Visa and
Mastercard would be unable to respond to merchant communications
prior to a certification decision, given that they may form part of
a potential class. Visa and Mastercard therefore sought
clarification from the CAT on the application of the McLaren
judgment in these circumstances, which it handed down on 13 January
2023.

The CAT acknowledged that a tension arose between encouraging
procedural efficiencies/settlement and protecting the purpose of
the CPO regime. Ultimately, the CAT largely upheld the McLaren
judgment, but decided that a more nuanced approach was required as
to whether -- and how -- Visa and Mastercard could respond to
communications in circumstances where there are existing individual
proceedings.

In broad terms, it found that Visa and Mastercard could engage with
communications in certain circumstances (eg, in relation to issues
outside the scope of the class actions and/or where claims involved
issues both within and outside the scope of the class actions or if
the merchant is represented and had been alerted by the defendants
to the existence of the class actions).

Key takeaways
Given the unique and inherently complex backdrop to the interchange
class actions and the circumstance-specific nature of the CAT's
conclusions in the interchange fee judgment, it remains to be seen
whether this narrow carve-out will be applied to other cases.
However, with the CPO regime gaining popularity, this is unlikely
to be the end of the CAT's iterative navigation through these
difficult issues.

More generally, the CAT's choice to fiercely protect the CPO
regime's purpose from the perspective of class members arguably
overlooks the potential downside to barring communications from
defendants. Even-handed communications, drafted and sent by legal
representatives (who are themselves subject to professional
standards and regulatory obligations) and copied to the class
representative could play a valuable role in curbing the
mass-claim-hungry, book-building exercises that claimant law firms
and litigation funders are embarking upon as the collective action
regime gains confidence, particularly where class members are
sophisticated businesses with access to legal advice. Further,
while the CAT's approach admirably seeks to support the regime's
purpose, the regime was not intended to facilitate the flooding of
judicial systems with unmeritorious or uninformed claims that could
be discouraged through legitimate and responsible defendant
communications.

In light of the implications and remaining uncertainties arising
from the CAT's decisions, we will be betting our blue suede shoes
that this is not the end of the matter.[GN]

MOUNTAIN LAKES: Court Denies B.L.'s Bid to Proceed Under Pseudonyms
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, B.L., individually and on behalf of J.L., his minor
child at all pertinent times, and on behalf of all similarly
situated students, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL J. FETHERMAN, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 22-3471 (JMV) (JSA) (D.N.J.),
Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey denies the Plaintiffs B.L. and J.L.'s
motion for leave to proceed in the case under pseudonyms.

The case arises out of the Plaintiffs' legal challenge to portions
of Mountain Lakes School District's ("MLSD") public-school
curriculum on the basis that it is discriminatory against white
students. Thus, according to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have
unlawfully discriminated against J.L., have violated his
constitutional rights and have subjected him to a hostile
educational environment. B.L. also brings his own claims, alleging
that the Defendants' responses to his concerns violated his
constitutional rights.

In the Amended Complaint filed on July 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs
refer to themselves only by their initials. On Aug. 24, 2022, they
filed the instant motion, seeking leave to proceed under
pseudonyms, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a).

In support of their motion, B.L. claims that he has been portrayed
as a "villain" for challenging MLSD's curriculum, and that he has
received threats, causing him to fear for his and J.L.'s safety.
The Plaintiffs raise concern for their well-being and contend that
the standard adopted by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Doe
v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 2011), supports them proceeding
under pseudonyms. B.L. further contends that he has a reasonable
fear of harm if his identity is publicly disclosed and that the
interests of minors and the nature of Plaintiffs' claims warrant
proceeding by pseudonyms.

The Defendants oppose the motion, contending that the use of
pseudonyms has been reserved for only the most exceptional cases.
They argue that the Plaintiffs have described only vague and
speculative concerns about proceeding in their real names and that
B.L has not shown that his fear of harm is reasonable.

The Defendants further argue that a balancing of the factors in
Megless does not support Plaintiffs' request to proceed by
pseudonyms. Finally, they question whether J.L. has reached the age
of majority during the pendency of this litigation since B.L. will
not confirm whether J.L. is still a minor, and the Plaintiffs seek
relief under Rule 10(a) rather than under Federal Rule 5.2, which
permits a minor to use his or her initials without first seeking
leave of court.

Judge Allen explains that in Megless, the Third Circuit noted that
courts within their circuit have primarily relied on a test for the
use of pseudonyms set forth in Doe v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins.
Co., 176 F.R.D. 464, 467 (E.D. Pa. 1997). That case sets forth a
non-exhaustive list of factors to be weighed both in favor of
anonymity and also factors that favor the traditional rule of
openness.

Under that test, the Provident Life Court requires that a court
first consider the following factors that generally support the use
of a pseudonym: (1) the extent to which the identity of the
litigant has been kept confidential; (2) the bases upon which
disclosure is feared or sought to be avoided, and the
substantiality of these bases; (3) the magnitude of the public
interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the litigant's
identity; (4) whether, because of the purely legal nature of the
issues presented or otherwise, there is an atypically weak public
interest in knowing the litigant's identities; (5) the
undesirability of an outcome adverse to the pseudonymous party and
attributable to his refusal to pursue the case at the price of
being publicly identified; and (6) whether the party seeking to sue
pseudonymously has illegitimate ulterior motives.

Thereafter, a reviewing court must consider three additional
factors that traditionally weigh against the use of a pseudonym:
(1) the universal level of public interest in access to the
identities of litigants; (2) whether, because of the subject matter
of this litigation, the status of the litigant as a public figure,
or otherwise, there is a particularly strong interest in knowing
the litigant's identities, beyond the public's interest which is
normally obtained; and (3) whether the opposition to pseudonym by
counsel, the public, or the press is illegitimately motivated.

The Third Circuit, in Megless, endorsed the test set forth by the
Provident Life Court (the "Provident Life test"). In the present
case, there is no dispute that the Provident Life test as endorsed
by the Third Circuit applies to the Court's use of pseudonym
analysis. Accordingly, Judge Allen turns to address the test's
application to the Plaintiffs' motion.

After considering the Provident Life test factors weighing in favor
of and in opposition to proceeding anonymously as adopted by the
Third Circuit in Megless, Judge Allen finds that the Plaintiffs
have not carried their burden to show that they should be permitted
to proceed by pseudonyms in the case. Accordingly, she denies the
Plaintiffs' motion to proceed by pseudonyms. The Plaintiffs will
file an Amended Complaint, disclosing their identities.

An appropriate Order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yc4r4u7k from Leagle.com.


NATIONAL FREIGHT: Bid to Decertify Class in Portillo Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN F. PORTILLO, RAFAEL SUAREZ, MARTIN DURAN, GERMAN
BENCOMSE, EDIN VARGAS, LUIS A. HERNANDEZ, JOSUE PAZ, and ALVARO
CASTANEDA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC. and NFI INTERACTIVE
LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants, Civil No. 15-cv-07908 (D.N.J.), Judge
Joseph H. Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey denies the Defendants' motion to decertify the
previously certified class.

Defendants National Freight, Inc., and NFI Interactive Logistics,
LLC moved for an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ, P. 23(c)(1)(C)
decertifying the class previously certified by the Court on June
30, 2020, and vacating the Court's June 9, 2022 Summary Judgment
Order.

The Plaintiffs are truck drivers, who allege that Defendants
National Freight, Inc. and NFI Interactive Logistics, LLC
(collectively, "NFI") erroneously classified them as independent
contractors and resultingly made unlawful deductions from their pay
in violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, N.J. Stat. Ann.
Section 34:11-4,.1 et seq.

On July 1, 2020, the Court granted class certification under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and defined the class of Plaintiffs as:

      1. All individuals who: (1) entered into, either personally
or through a corporate entity, an independent contractor agreement
with NFI that had a New Jersey choice-of-law clause; and (2) drove
a vehicle on a full-time basis to perform deliveries of goods to
Trader Joe's stores anywhere on the East Coast on behalf of NFI at
any time since June 22, 2009.

      2. Full-time basis means having delivered at least 80% of the
loads assigned to the contractor.

In arriving at this definition in the July 1, 2020 Opinion deciding
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Court took into
account Judge Simandle's earlier decision making certain
choice-of-law determinations in the context of Plaintiffs' motion
for declaratory relief. Specifically, it found that Judge
Simandle's conclusion that New Jersey law applies to the named
Plaintiffs' claims extended to then-absent class member Plaintiffs
who meet the class criteria.

Following the Court's certification of the class, NFI sought
permission to appeal that decision by way of petition to the Third
Circuit under Fed. R. Civ, P. 23(f), which the Third Circuit
denied. The Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment and NFI
cross-moved for summary judgment.

NFI's instant motion follows the Court's Order granting summary
judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs upon finding that they were
misclassified as independent contractors applying the ABC test
under New Jersey law.

The determinations set forth in the Court's decisions on each of
these earlier motions are implicated by NFI's present motion to
decertify. NFI challenges the Court's earlier conclusions that New
Jersey law applies to the Plaintiffs' claims based on the recent
decision in Johnson v. Diakon Logistics, Inc., 44 F.4th 1048 (7th
Cir. 2022) and that damages are not calculable on a class-wide
basis

In Diakon, The Seventh Circuit held that choice-of-law provisions
contained in defendants' service agreements with plaintiff truck
drivers were irrelevant because the plaintiffs' rights under the
Illinois wage law arose under and were governed by the wage payment
statute, not their service agreements. It argues that Diakon shows
this Court "incorrectly analyzed which state's wage payment law
governs the work of interstate drivers allegedly misclassified as
independent contractors."

According to NFI, this Court erred when it applied the most
significant-relationship test from the Restatement (Conflicts) of
Law and concluded a New Jersey choice-of-law provision in the
parties' ICOA was in effect determinative. It further claims that
in doing so, the Court inappropriately extended the choice-of-law
ruling beyond named plaintiffs to all class members at the class
certification stage, which minimized the relationship between the
parties and the claims, on one hand, and Pennsylvania, on the
other.

As to damages, NFI argues that individual issues overwhelm
questions common to the class because Plaintiffs' expenses vary
both plaintiff-to-plaintiff and year-to-year. It contends that this
makes it impossible to determine the Plaintiffs' costs and expenses
across the entire class, thus rendering the claims improper for
adjudication on a class-wide basis.

Judge Rodriguez finds that NFI has identified no new or changed
circumstances or changes in controlling substantive or procedural
law to warrant decertification. Likewise, it fails to meet the
standard for decertification based on its assertion that the
Plaintiffs' damages are not susceptible to class-wide proof. For
the same reasons, he need not decertify the class at this juncture
based on the possibility that if NFI's position is accepted, a
factfinder may be required to offset any damages with the benefit
of tax write-offs for claimed business expenses.

Ultimately, because outstanding damages-related questions
concerning whether to employ a "sum-of-deductions model" or NFI's
proposed "standard economic model" and the import of tax-offsets
implicate consequential questions of law and statutory
interpretation, Judge Rodriguez  finds that these are more
appropriately considered in the context of a fully-briefed motion
for judgment. For now, he says it is enough to observe that
alternative and conflicting theories of damages among the parties
are insufficient to warrant wholesale decertification.

Indeed, the potential existence of individualized damage
assessments does not detract from the action's suitability as a
class where it is not clear that questions of individual damage
calculations will inevitably overwhelm questions common to the
class. As the Third Circuit held, obstacles to calculating damages
may not preclude class certification" provided that the class can
show "the fact of damages on a common basis, citing Harnish v.
Widener Univ. Sch. of Law, 833 F.3d 298, 306 (3d Cir. 2016). The
Plaintiffs have met that burden, while NFI has failed to meet its
burden of showing a change in circumstances or controlling law that
would warrant the drastic step of decertifying the class.

For the reasons set he forth, Judge Rodriguez denies NFI's motion
to decertifying the class. An accompanying order will be issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2s4cf73b from Leagle.com.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Khaimov Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NIKADEM KHAIMOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT AND COLLECTION, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 701442/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 20, 2023)
brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant
seeking for damages and declaratory relief pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to the creditor,
Northwell Health GoHealth Urgent Care. According to the complaint,
the Defendant was contracted by the creditor for the purpose of
debt collection. Consequently, the Plaintiff received a collection
letter from the Defendant on a date better known by the Defendant.
Since the Plaintiff is a Medicaid beneficiary, he disputed the
existence of the alleged debt. The Plaintiff asserts that he
provided the healthcare provider with Medicaid insurance and paid
any residual balance in the form of a co-pay. The Plaintiff also
claims that the healthcare provider is not allowed to assign a
remainder of a debt to a debt collector once Medicaid pays them as
it is a violation of Medicaid laws. Allegedly, the Defendant unduly
pressured Medicaid recipients to pay additional funds for medical
services that were already paid for in full by sending out dunning
letters to make it appear as if money is truly owed, says the
Plaintiff.

As a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair
debt collection practices, the Plaintiff suffered a concrete harm
by receiving a collection letter or a debt that he obviously does
not owe. Moreover, the Plaintiff was confused and misled to his
detriment by the statements and/or omissions in the dunning
letters, and relied on the contents of the letter to his detriment,
the suit added.

Nationwide Credit and Collection, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christofer Merritt, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Tel: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: cmerritt@steinsakslegal.com

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Wins Bid to Seal Arbitration Ruling in Bush Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, R. MITCHELL BUSH, and R.M. BUSH & COMPANY, Plaintiffs
v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. CV
420-219 (S.D. Ga.), Magistrate Judge Christopher L. Ray of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah
Division, grants Nationwide's motion to seal the arbitration
ruling.

Mr. Bush, the principal and owner of Plaintiff R.M. Bush & Co.,
entered several agreements with Nationwide. The Independent
Contractor Agent Agreement ("IC Agreement") provides that that any
claim or dispute between R.M. Bush and Nationwide, will be
adjudicated on an individual agent-by-agent basis, and not on a
class or representative basis. The adjudication will be by
mandatory binding arbitration under the American Arbitration
Association ("AAA") Rules.

Section 17(G) of the IC Agreement provides that it does not limit
either Party's right to pursue equitable remedies for a temporary
restraining order or preliminary or permanent injunctive relief
from a court of competent jurisdiction before, after, or during the
pendency of any arbitration proceeding, including in aid of
arbitration. The arbitration provision also states that the
enforceability of the IC Agreement, including the arbitration
clause, will be resolved by the arbitrator.

The parties also entered an Asset Transfer Agreement ("AT
Agreement"). The Plaintiffs allege that Nationwide obtained the AT
Agreement under duress with no valid consideration in pursuit of a
scheme to allow Nationwide to obtain an unlawful or improper tax
benefit. They filed the putative class action suit against
Nationwide seeking (1) a judgment declaring the AT Agreement to be
void and unenforceable ("declaratory judgment request"), (2)
equitable rescission of the AT Agreement, and (3) an injunction
prohibiting Nationwide from enforcing the AT Agreement ("injunction
request").

The District Judge granted, in part, and denied, in part,
Nationwide's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss the
Complaint, or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue. He found that
the arbitration clause in the IC Agreement applies to the parties'
dispute regarding the AT Agreement. Given that applicability, he
also found that the parties did not dispute that the declaratory
judgment request and equitable recission request must be submitted
to arbitration.

The Plaintiffs, however, argued that they could pursue their
injunction request in federal court based on Section 17(G)'s
provision that the IC Agreement does not limit either Party's right
to pursue equitable remedies for injunctive relief from a court of
competent jurisdiction.

The District Judge found that since the parties agreed to delegate
such "arbitrability" questions to an arbitrator, an arbitrator
should determine whether the Plaintiff's injunction request is
subject to arbitration. He ordered the parties to "submit the
underlying dispute to arbitration", and stayed and administratively
closed te case until an arbitrator rules on whether the Plaintiffs'
injunction request is subject to arbitration. He directed the
parties to file joint status reports updating the Court on the
arbitration proceeding every 60 days, and to immediately notify the
Court upon the arbitrator's determination of the threshold issue of
arbitrability."

The parties submitted five status reports updating the Court on the
arbitration proceedings. Nationwide subsequently filed a motion
explaining that the arbitration panel issued a ruling, and
requesting an order permanently sealing the ruling. The Plaintiffs
responded in opposition to the motion to seal, and Nationwide
replied. Nationwide also attached a joint status report to its
motion, which it does not seek to file under seal, in which all
parties inform the Court that the arbitration panel issued a
ruling, and request a status conference to address how to set a
case schedule given the procedural posture of the case.

Nationwide argues, inter alia, that the panel's ruling is not a
"judicial record" subject to the presumption of public access
because neither party has sought confirmation of the arbitration
ruling, nor requested any judicial action with respect to the
arbitration proceedings. Instead, the Parties filed the arbitration
ruling merely as an attachment to a status report. The Plaintiffs
counter that if the panel's ruling is sealed, the public will not
know why or on what terms and conditions the Court is now
proceeding with their injunction action.

Judge Ray cannot conclude that the panel's ruling is a "judicial
record." As noted, the District Judge decided that an arbitrator
should determine whether the Plaintiffs can pursue their injunction
request in federal court in light of Section 17(G)'s provision that
the IC Agreement does not limit either Party's right to pursue
equitable remedies for injunctive relief.

The parties subsequently notified the Court that the panel had
issued a ruling, and requested a status conference to address how
to set a case schedule given the procedural posture of this case.
That request indicates that no party disputes that the Plaintiffs
can proceed with their injunction request in federal court.
Further, no party has used the panel's ruling to make an argument
that the Court must take some action, e.g., allow or not allow
Plaintiffs to pursue their injunction request in federal court.

Further, the Plaintiffs do not argue that Nationwide's sealing
request must be denied even if the panel's ruling is not a
"judicial record."

Accordingly, Judge Ray grants Nationwide's motion to seal the
arbitration ruling. He directs the Clerk to maintain the filing
under seal.

Additionally, Judge Ray grants the parties' joint request for a
status conference. He will set a conference by separate Order.

Finally, Judge Ray directs the Clerk to redocket the parties' sixth
status report in a new and separate docket entry, maintaining the
exhibit to that status report under seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mrxdrjdd from Leagle.com.


NIRMAL LC: Fails to Pay Technicians' Proper Wages, Herrera Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REYNALDO HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NIRMAL, L.C.; and RAMESH PATEL,
Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00595 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 16, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Herrera was employed by the Defendants as maintenance
technician.

NIRMAL, L.C. owns and operates multiple hotels and motels known as
Super 8. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885-8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com

               - and -

          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885-8630
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          Email: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Canterburry Suit Over Chemical Spill
------------------------------------------------------------
AYSIA CANTERBURY; and LISA SODERGEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN
CORPORATION; NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-00298 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 15, 2023) alleges that the Plaintiff
and Class Members were significantly exposed to dangerous toxins
due to the Defendants' tortious actions, including the Defendants'
negligent, ultrahazardous, and willful and wanton conduct, in
setting fire to a 1.1 million pound chemical burn pit.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of Norfolk
Southern's decision to ignite a million pound chemical burn pit,
and subject surrounding communities to chemical warfare agents
instead of cleaning up its mess, the Plaintiffs and Class Members
have been exposed to toxic and noxious chemicals.

The Plaintiffs and others in the community have suffered
significant and sustained irritation to their throats, eyes, lungs,
mouths and lips, and had their properties invaded by dangerous
plumes of chemical smoke. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have
also been exposed as a result of Norfolk Southern's decision to run
Train 32N until it broke, instead of taking reasonable steps to
ensure safe operations. Despite the extreme toxicity of Vinyl
Chloride, Phosgene, and other chemicals resulting from Norfolk
Southern's conduct, and the near certainty that innocent
individuals would be exposed and injured, Norfolk Southern set fire
to a 1.1 million pound chemical burn pit anyway, the suit alleges.

NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION provides rail transportation services.
The Company transports raw materials, intermediate products, and
finished goods primarily in the Southeast, East, and Midwest and,
via interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse A. Shore, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          Morgan & Morgan, Kentucky PLLC
          300 Madison Avenue, Suite 200
          Covington, KY 41011
          Telephone: (859) 899-8786
          Facsimile: (859) 899-8807
          Email: jshore@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Rene F. Rocha, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, COMPLEX
          LITIGATION GROUP
          400 Poydras Street, Suite 1515
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3018
          Email: rrocha@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Frank Petosa, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, COMPLEX
          LITIGATION GROUP
          8151 Peters Road Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3018
          Email: fpetosa@ForThePeople.com

PARRY'S PIZZA VI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Domowicz Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELLIE DOMOWICZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARRY'S PIZZA VI, LLC; and PARRY'S PIZZERIA
AND BAR, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00433-RM (D. Colo., Feb.
15, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Domowicz was employed by the Defendants as waitress.

PARRY'S PIZZA VI, LLC operates a chain of restaurants known as
Parry's Pizzeria and Taphouse. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
          400 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, Texas 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
          Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com


PEABODY ENERGY: $1.16MM in Attys. Fees Awarded in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE PEABODY ENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:20-cv-08024-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the
Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and payment
of expenses.

The matter came on for the Settlement Hearing on Feb. 7, 2023 on
the Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and
payment of expenses, including an award to Lead Plaintiff pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Having considered all matters submitted to the Court at the
Settlement Hearing having considered and determined the fairness
and reasonableness of the award of attorneys' fees and expenses
requested, Judge Castel awards the Lead Counsel attorneys' fees in
the amount of $1,156,250, plus interest at the same rate earned by
the Settlement Fund (i.e., 25% of the Settlement Fund) and
$199,505.48 in payment of Litigation Expenses, plus accrued
interest, which sums he finds to be fair and reasonable.

Lead Plaintiff Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund is also
awarded $9,197.60 from the Settlement Fund in connection with the
time it dedicated to the action, for which it has been billed by
the Oregon Department of Justice directly related to its
representation of the Settlement Class, pursuant to Section
21D(a)(4) of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4).

Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Court's approval of any
attorneys' fees and expense application, including that of Lead
Counsel, will in no way disturb or affect the finality of the
Judgment.

Exclusive jurisdiction is retained over the Parties and the
Settlement Class Members for all matters relating to the Action,
including the administration, interpretation, effectuation, or
enforcement of the Stipulation and the Order.

In the event that the Settlement is terminated or the Effective
Date of the Settlement otherwise fails to occur, the Order will be
rendered null and void to the extent provided by the Stipulation.

There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Order, and
immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdfc6ufm from Leagle.com.


PEABODY ENERGY: Final Order & Judgment Entered in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York enters Final Order and Judgment in the case,
IN RE PEABODY ENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
1:20-cv-08024-PKC (S.D.N.Y.).

On Oct. 7, 2022, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff Oregon Public
Employees Retirement Fund, on behalf of itself and all other
members of the proposed Settlement Class, on the one hand, and
Peabody, Glenn L. Kellow, and Amy B. Schwetz, on the other, entered
into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement in the "Action.

Pursuant to the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Approving Form and Manner of Notice, and Setting Date
for Hearing on Final Approval of Settlement, entered Oct. 13, 2022,
the Court scheduled the Settlement Hearing for Feb. 7, 2023, at
2:30 p.m.

The Court ordered that the Notice of Pendency of Class Action,
Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
and a Proof of Claim and Release form be mailed within 10 business
days after the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order to
all potential Settlement Class Members who could be identified
through reasonable effort, and that the Summary Notice of Pendency
of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses be published in The Wall Street Journal and
transmitted over PR Newswire within 14 calendar days of the Notice
Date.

The Notice and the Summary Notice advised potential Settlement
Class Members of the date, time, place, and purpose of the
Settlement Hearing. The Notice further advised that any objections
to the Settlement were required to be filed with the Court and
served on counsel for the Parties such that they were received by
Jan. 17, 2023.

On Jan. 3, 2023, the Lead Plaintiff moved for final approval of the
Settlement, as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. The
Settlement Hearing was duly held before the Court on Feb. 7, 2023,
at which time all interested Persons were afforded the opportunity
to be heard.

Judge Castel has duly considered the Lead Plaintiff's motion for
final approval of the Settlement, the affidavits, declarations,
memoranda of law submitted in support thereof, the Stipulation, and
all of the submissions and arguments presented with respect to the
proposed Settlement. After due deliberation, he affirms the Court's
determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and filially
certifies, for purposes of the Settlement only, pursuant to Rules
23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Settlement Class of: all persons and entities who or which
purchased or otherwise acquired Peabody publicly traded common
stock during the period from April 3, 2017 through Oct. 28, 2019,
inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for
purposes of the Settlement only, Judge Castel re-affirms the
Court's determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and
finally certifies Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund as the
Class Representative for the Settlement Class; and finally appoints
the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP as the Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class.

There have been no objections to the Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Judge Castel approves the Settlement in all respects, including the
treatment of the Settlement Fund as a "qualified settlement fund"
within the meaning of Section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended, and will be consummated in accordance with the
terms and provisions of the Stipulation.

The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on March 19,
2021, is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, and without
costs to any Party, except as otherwise provided in the
Stipulation.

The Court finds that during the course of the Action, the Parties
and their respective counsel at all times complied with the
requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Upon the Effective Date, each of the Defendants, on behalf of
themselves and each of their respective heirs, executors, trustees,
administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns, in their
capacities as such, will be deemed to have fully, finally, and
forever waived, released, discharged, and dismissed each and every
one of the Released Defendants' Claims against each and every one
of the Released Plaintiff Parties and will forever be barred and
enjoined from commencing, instituting, prosecuting, or maintaining,
either directly or indirectly, whether in the United States or
elsewhere, on their own behalf or on behalf of any class or any
other person, any action, suit, cause of action, claim or demand
asserting any and all of the Released Defendants' Claims against
any and all of the Released Plaintiff Parties.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in the Judgment will bar any
action by any of the Parties to enforce or effectuate the terms of
the Stipulation or the Judgment.

In the event that the Settlement does not become effective in
accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, then the Judgment
will be rendered null and void to the extent provided by and in
accordance with the Stipulation and will be vacated.

A separate order will be entered regarding the Lead Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses as allowed
by the Court and the proposed Plan of Allocation for the Net
Settlement Fund.

Without affecting the finality of the Judgment in any way, the
Court retains continuing jurisdiction over: (i) implementation of
the Settlement; (ii) the allowance, disallowance, or adjustment of
any Settlement Class Member's claim on equitable grounds and any
award or distribution of the Settlement Fund; (iii) disposition of
the Settlement Fund; (iv) any applications for attorneys' fees,
costs, interest, and payment of expenses in the Action; (v) all
Parties for the purpose of construing, enforcing and administering
the Settlement and this Judgment, including the releases entered
herein; and (vi) other matters related or ancillary to the
foregoing.

The Clerk will terminate the open motions (ECF 80882) and close the
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Final Order & Judgment
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2uw4wwmk from Leagle.com.


PEABODY ENERGY: Plan of Allocation in Securities Suit Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE PEABODY ENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 1:20-cv-08024-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York approves the
Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement.

The matter came before the Court for a hearing on Feb. 7, 2023, on
the motion of Lead Plaintiff Oregon Public Employees Retirement
Fund for final approval of the proposed Settlement and approval of
the Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement.

Judge Castel, having considered all papers filed and proceedings
had therein, finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation for
the calculation of the claims of claimants that is set forth in the
Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, provides a fair and reasonable
basis upon which to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among
Settlement Class Members. He further finds and concludes that the
Plan of Allocation, as set forth in the Notice, is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.

Therefore, Judge Castel approves the Plan of Allocation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2s48bk6p from Leagle.com.


PLDT INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 3
---------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a
class action on behalf of all purchasers of PLDT, Inc. (NYSE: PHI)
securities between January 1, 2019 and December 19, 2022, for
violations of the Securities Act of 1934. Defendant PLDT purports
to be the Philippines' largest fully integrated telco company.

What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against PLDT. Shareholders who want
to act as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers by
April 3, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do
not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery.


All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

What is this Case About: PLDT, Inc. (PHI) Misled Investors
Regarding its Business Prospects  

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
touted PLDT's business prospects and its plans for implementation
of its capex budget. However, defendants failed to disclose that
there were capital spending budget overruns or address how these
weaknesses allowed such budget overruns.

On December 16, 2022, PLDT filed with the SEC a Form 6-K, which
highlighted an elevated capex spend, noting: "WHILE THESE
SUBSTANTIAL CAPEX INVESTMENTS WERE KEY TO MEETING PLDT'S GOALS,
THEY CAME AT A PRICE—CAPEX INVESTMENTS FOR THESE FOUR YEARS
AGGREGATED PHP 379 BILLION, INCLUDING AN ESTIMATED BUDGET OVERRUN
OF NO MORE THAN PHP 48 BILLION. WE MUST STRESS THAT THE MAXIMUM PHP
48 BILLION CAPEX BUDGET OVERRUN REPRESENTS ABOUT 12.7% OF TOTAL
CAPEX SPEND OVER THE PERIOD."

As a result, the Philippines' SEC launched an inquiry into the
48-billion peso ($866 million) capital spending budget overrun at
PLDT Inc. that triggered a record plunge in the stock amid
questions over its corporate governance and fiscal control. On this
news, on December 19, 2022, PLDT's share price fell $6.35 per
share, or more than 19%, to close at $20.46 damaging investors.

Contact us to learn more:

Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com
Shareholder Information Form

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action
against PLDT, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate
executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.

Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact:
Aaron Dumas
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com
https://www.facebook.com/RobbinsLLP/
https://www.linkedin.com/com [GN]

PRISMA LABS: Faces Class Action Over Lensa "Magic Avatar" Feature
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that the
company behind Lensa faces a proposed class action lawsuit that
alleges the mobile app's "magic avatar" feature unlawfully
captures, stores, and profits from users' biometric data.

The 27-page lawsuit says that through Lensa's "magic avatar"
feature, app developer Prisma Labs collects, stores, and benefits
from scans of facial geometry data gleaned from uploaded selfies
without disclosing to users what biometric information is being
collected or how long it will be retained, in direct violation of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the suit, Lensa's "magic avatar" feature, which
reportedly caused the app to skyrocket in popularity last November
and December, requires a user to upload at least eight selfies,
which the app then processes to generate an "art-enhanced,"
stylized image based on the user's face that can be posted on
social media. In the process of creating the "magic avatars" in
styles such as "cosmic," "anime," or "fairy princess," the
defendant captures a user's facial geometry in order to produce the
image -- but also to "train its neural network algorithms" and
thereby improve the app, the case explains.

"All of which, of course, leads to greater revenue and profits for
Prisma," the complaint says.

In its privacy policy, Lensa admits to the collection of users'
photos and videos, gender, subscription details, communications and
any information entered into the app, the filing relays. However,
"[n]otably absent from this list is any reference to the facial
geometry used to create the magic avatars," the lawsuit contends.

In fact, Prisma's privacy policy falsely suggests that facial
geometry is not captured because the biometric data is
"anonymized," the suit alleges.

"This statement simply cannot be true," the case argues. "… [T]he
user's identity and facial geometry must be collected in an
identifiable way in order for Prisma to deliver its product to the
user."

In later sections, the defendant's privacy policy contradicts
itself as it claims that the company captures "Face Data," which it
defines as a term that includes biometric data gleaned from images
-- the very thing Prisma denied collecting in previous paragraphs,
the complaint charges.

Per the lawsuit, Lensa's "magic avatar" feature is under fire for
more than alleged privacy violations, however. According to the
case, the app's use of an open-source AI model called Stable
Diffusion -- which was trained on billions of images from websites
like Pinterest, Flickr, DeviantArt, Shutterstock, and more -- has
raised copyright concerns from artists whose original art is posted
online.

Further, the app's capability of creating "highly sexualized
images," even of children, is "particularly worrisome," as is its
potential to be used by anyone for "insidious purposes," the
complaint says.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone residing in Illinois whose
biometric data was collected or obtained by Prisma through the use
of the Lensa app or otherwise. [GN]

PROPERTY SERVICES: Faces Scott Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PROPERTY SERVICES WARRANTY, INC., Case No. 166805828
(Fla. Cir., Feb. 14, 2023) contends that the Defendant promotes its
goods and services by placing telephonic sales calls to wireless
phone users, in violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
and Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On July 18, 2022, the Defendant sent telephonic sales calls to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number. The Defendant did not
provide the Plaintiff and the Class members with instructions on
how to opt-out of future text messages. The Defendant's failure to
provide opt-out instructions is indicative of the Defendant's
failure to maintain written policies and procedures regarding its
text messaging marketing, provide training to its personnel engaged
in telemarketing, and maintain a standalone do-not-call list, the
suit claims.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff never provided the Defendant with
express written consent authorizing the Defendant to transmit
telephonic sales calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
utilizing an automated system for the selection of dialing of
telephone numbers. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have
caused the Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including
violation of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance,
nuisance, and invasion of their privacy, asserts the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf
of himself and the Class members, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of the
Defendant.

Property Services is a full-service warranty company that sells
warranties covering HVAC, solar, and electrical systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Christopher Gold, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Office: (786) 289-9471
          Direct: (305) 975-3320
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  chris@edelsberglaw.com

PROTECH INSTALLATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Henderson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SETH HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROTECH INSTALLATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 6:23-cv-00127 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 16, 2023) is an action against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate
wage statements.

Plaintiff Henderson was employed by the Defendant as field
technician.

PRO-TECH INSULATION, INC. operates as drywall, plaster, and
insulation contractor. The Company offers installation,
maintenance, and repair services. [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

REAL TIME: Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Jones
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones v. Real Time
Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-01113-TJM-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Therese Wiley Dancks entered an uniform pretrial
scheduling order:

-- Any application to join any person as       May 1, 2023
    a party to the action shall be made on
    or before:

-- Any application to amend any pleading       May 1, 2023
    in this action shall be made on or
    before:

-- Rule 33 and 34 Requests to be served        March 10, 2023
    by:

-- All discovery in this matter is to be       Nov. 2, 2023
    completed on or before:

-- Discovery motions due:                      Nov. 16, 2023

Real Time is a full-service loan servicing and recovery company
specializing in mortgage, auto, student, credit card, and other
consumer loans.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xugt5N at no extra charge.[CC]

REGAL MEDICAL: Austin Sues Over Security Incident and Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Austin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Regal Medical Group, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01077 (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 13, 2023), is brought arising out of the recent data
security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against the
Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain
personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health
information ("PHI") (collectively, "the Private Information") of
the the Plaintiff and other patients of the Defendant, the putative
class members( "Class").

According to its notice letters to state Attorneys General and
victims of the breach, this Data Breach occurred between December
1, 2022 and December 8, 2022. The Private Information compromised
in the Data Breach included certain personal or protected health
information of current and former patients, including the
Plaintiff. This Private Information included, but is not limited
to: names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses,
diagnoses and treatment information, laboratory test results,
prescription data, radiology reports, health plan member numbers,
and phone numbers.

The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information
with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or
both. The Plaintiff bring this class action lawsuit to address
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private
Information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to
provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class
Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized
access of an unknown third party and including in that notice
precisely what specific types of information were accessed and
taken by cybercriminals.

The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless
manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
Defendant Regal's computer network in a condition vulnerable to
cyberattacks. The mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for
improper disclosure of the Plaintiff' and Class Members' Private
Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was
on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the
Private Information from those risks left that property in a
dangerous condition.

The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to disclose that it did not have adequately
robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard the
Plaintiff' and Class Members' Private Information; failing to take
standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach;
and failing to provide the Plaintiff and Class Members with prompt
and full notice of the Data Breach, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a patient of Regal.

The Defendant Regal has been providing health services throughout
Southern California for 30 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jill J. Parker, Esq.
          S. Emi Minne, Esq.
          PARKER & MINNE, LLP
          700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (310) 882-6833
          Email: jill@parkerminne.com
                 emi@parkerminne.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle Perry, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
          Washington, DC 20015
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Email: gmason@masonllp.com
                 dperry@masonllp.com
                 lwhite@masonllp.com


REGAL MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Valentine Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
TARA VALENTINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REGAL MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Case No. (Cal. Super., Feb.
14, 2023) alleges that RMG failed to reasonably secure, monitor,
and maintain the private information provided to it by its
customers and patients as a result of an alleged data breach.

The Plaintiff contends that the data breach resulted in
unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of the Plaintiff's
and Class Members' highly personal information, including names,
Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers
("personally identifying information" or "PII"), and diagnoses and
treatments, laboratory test results, prescription data, radiology
reports, and health plan member numbers ("protected health
information" or "PHI").

On December 1, 2022, the Defendant noticed difficulty in accessing
some of its servers. Two months later, on February 2, 2022, the
Defendant finally began sending the Plaintiff and other affected
parties Notice Letters. The Defendant allegedly did not use
reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the
nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it was maintaining
for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Private
Information for approximately 3,300,638 individuals.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other Class
Members, asserts claims for Negligence (Count I), a violation of
the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Count
II), Invasion of Privacy (Count III), Breach of Implied Contract
(Count IV), and a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
(UCL) -- Unlawful Business Practice (Count V).

Plaintiff Tara Valentine is a resident and citizen of Costa Mesa,
California.

RMG is one of the largest physician-led healthcare networks in
Southern California and has 3000+ primary care doctors, 10,000+
specialists, and hundreds of hospitals, urgent care centers, and
labs for patients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          Lirit A. King, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  lking@bradleygrombacher.com

                - and -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          Justin C. Walker, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                  jwalker@msdlegal.com

S.O.S. MAINTENANCE: Jimenez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Norma Jimenez, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. S.O.S. MAINTENANCE INC., PETER SEPULVEDA, and MARIA
OTANO, Case No. 2:23-cv-01177 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2023), is brought
for damages and equitable relief based on Defendants' violations of
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State
Department of Labor Regulations.

The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a single
workweek. The Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff at the
statutorily-required overtime rate for all hours that she has
worked and works in excess of forty in a week or at least at the
statutorily- required minimum wage rate for all hours worked, in
violation of the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff any additional compensation for the 5 additional hours
that she worked on Saturday each month. The Defendant failed to
compensate Plaintiff at the statutorily-required overtime rate for
all hours that she worked on call each month in violation of the
FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a customer service
representative.

The Defendant is engaged in the facilities maintenance
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SA HOSPITALITY: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SA Hospitality Group,
LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. SA Hospitality Group, LLC
d/b/a Sant Ambroeus, Case No. 1:23-cv-01188 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13,
2023).

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

SA Hospitality Group, LLC doing business as Sant Ambroeus --
https://www.santambroeus.com/ -- is an Italian Hospitality group
based in New York City consisting of restaurants, coffee bars, and
a gelateria in New York City, Southhampton, and Palm Beach.[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


SAFE HAVEN: Faces Jackson Suit Over Technicians' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAFE HAVEN SECURITY SERVICES, LLC, a Foreign
Limited Liability Company (fka) SAFE HAVEN SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-14015-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2023)
brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant for
its alleged failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an installation
technician, services technicians, or other job titles performing
the same and/or similar duties from April 2019 through 13, 2021.

The Plaintiff claims that although he worked at least 60 hours or
more during his employment with the Defendant, the Defendant did
not pay him overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times his regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
per workweek. Allegedly, the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated technicians' overtime for
overtime hours worked was willful and lacked a good faith basis.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation
against the Defendant, for himself and all other similarly situated
technicians, as well as liquidated damages, compensation for
illegal deductions from pay, pre- and post-judgment interest,
litigation costs and expenses together with reasonable attorneys'
fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Safe Haven Security Services, Inc. sells security systems. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SAIRAM FOOD: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saul Gonzalez, and other similarly current and former Tandoori
Cooks and Dish Washers v. SAIRAM FOOD CORP d/b/a PISTA HOUSE, SILU
DOE, and SRIMANNARAYANA GINJUPALLI, Case No. 9:23-cv-01308
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2023), is brought arising out of the
Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff: all hours worked;
overtime calculated at one and one half the minimum wage rate for
all hours worked in excess of forty hours per work week; spread of
hours pay for the days in which Plaintiffs worked in excess of ten
hours; wage notices; wage statement that conform with the
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), New York
Labor Law ("NYLL"), and applicable regulations.

The Plaintiff was not paid for all hours worked, hours in excess of
forty hours in a work week, spread of hours for having worked more
than 10 hours a day, failed to issue the Plaintiff a wage statement
and notice. The Defendant's unlawful practices, in violation of the
NYLL and applicable regulations include the failure to pay the
Plaintiff a minimum wage, wages due for overtime hours worked at
not less than one and one-half times the hourly rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Said regulations
include the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff for hours
worked in excess of 10 per day in spread of hours pay, failing to
provide wage statements and wage notices. The Plaintiffs seeks
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief
under the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Tandoori Cook and Dish
Washer.

SAIRAM FOOD CORP is registered as a domestic business corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
          THE MUHLSTOCK LAW FIRM
          35 Pinelawn Rd, Suite 105E
          Melville, New York 11747


SANDORA CAPITAL: Parrilla Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, EDWIN PARRILLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANDORA CAPITAL, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-23-000828 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., January 20, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent him at least two
unsolicited text messages to his telephone number (954) 600-0928
since July 6, 2022 without obtaining his prior express written
consent. Upon information and belief, the Defendant utilizes mass
text messaging or SMS marketing via an “automated system for the
selection or dialing of numbers” to send unsolicited text
messages in an attempt to promote its services.

As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct of placing
telephonic sales calls using an automated system for the selection
or dialing of numbers to the Plaintiff and other consumers without
their prior express written consent, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals were damages. Their privacy was
wrongfully invaded and they become aggravated having to deal with
repeated, unwanted robo-text messages forcing them to divert
attention away from their work and other activities, says the
suit.

Thus, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action
seeking to recover statutory damages against the Defendant, and an
injunction prohibiting the Defendant from its unlawful conduct that
violated FTSA, as well as reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and
other relief as the Court deems reasonable and just.

Sandora Capital, LLC is a financial company specializing in small
business funding. [BN]


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Simeon Genadiev, Esq.
          THE G LAW GROUP
          429 Lenox Ave., Suite 442
          Miami Beach, FL 33139
          Tel: (305) 486-7468
          E-mail: sgenadiev@theglawgroup.com

                - and -

          Alexander J. Korolinsky, Esq.
          AJK LEGAL
          1580 Sawgrass Corp Pkwy, Suite 130
          Sunrise, FL 33323
          Tel: (877) 448-8404
          E-mail: korolinsky@ajklegal.com

SECURITAS SECURITY: Ulloa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Securitas Security
Services USA, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michael Angel
Ulloa II, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Does 1
through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23604680 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Feb. 14, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (Class
Action Complaint Other Employment)."

Securitas -- https://www.securitasinc.com/ -- is a leading provider
of custom security & guarding solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Ave., Ste. 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-2497
          Phone: 310-531-1900
          Fax: 310-531-1901
          Email: MMatern@maternlawgroup.com


SILVERGATE BANK: Faces Bhatia Suit Over Cryptocurrency Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
SOHAM BHATIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SILVERGATE BANK; SILVERGATE CAPITAL
CORPORATION; and ALAN J. LANE, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00667-AGT (N.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2023) is an action against
the Defendants for aiding and abetting a multibillion-dollar
fraudulent scheme orchestrated by Sam Bankman-Fried through two of
his entities, the cryptocurrency exchange FTX and the
cryptocurrency hedge fund Alameda Research LLC.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Bankman-Fried and FTX
perpetrated a fraud upon the Plaintiff and class members through
materially false and misleading statements and omissions that
misled the Plaintiff and class members about the nature of FTX
investments and how investor money would be used. Bankman-Fried and
FTX knew these statements to be false. The Plaintiff and class
members reasonably relied to their detriment upon those
misrepresentations when they invested with FTX, says the suit.

On the other hand, Silvergate substantially assisted the fraud
perpetrated by FTX and Bankman-Fried, with knowledge that they were
defrauding investors like the Plaintiff and class members. In
connection with providing substantial and material assistance to
Bankman-Fried and FTX, Silvergate knew of its role in their scheme,
and acted knowingly in assisting, the suit alleges.

SILVERGATE BANK provides commercial banking services. The Bank
offers certificates of deposit, business savings, checking, money
market, cash management, online banking, and merchant card
processing services. Silvergate Bank serves customers in the State
of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Reiser, Esq.
          Matthew Reiser, Esq.
          Isabella Martinez, Esq.
          REISER LAW, P.C.
          1475 N. Broadway, Suite 300
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 256-0400
          Email: michael@reiserlaw.com
                 matthew@reiserlaw.com
                 isabella@reiserlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Kellogg, Esq.
          Victoria J. Wilson, Esq.
          Marcelo Diaz-Cortes, Esq.
          LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN
          SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP
          100 Southeast Second Avenue 36th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 403-8788
          Email: jk@lklsg.com
                 vjw@lklsg.com
                 jk@lklsg.com

SIXT RENT A CAR: Lopez Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SIXT Rent A Car, LLC.
The case is styled as Ernesto Lopez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SIXT Rent A Car, LLC, Case No.
0:23-cv-60293-WPD (S.D. Fla., Feb. 14, 2023).

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

SIXT Rent A Car -- https://www.sixt.com/ -- was founded in Munich,
Germany in 1912, and started out with a fleet of just three
vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Lynch, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER J. LYNCH, P.A.
          6915 Red Road, Suite 208
          Coral Gables, FL 33143
          Phone: (305) 443-6200
          Fax: (305) 443-6204
          Email: clynch@hunterlynchlaw.com

               - and -

          Edmund Alonso Normand
          Amy Lynn Judkins
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Phone: (407) 603-6031
          Email: Ed@ednormand.com
                 amy.judkins@normandpllc.com


SONY INTERACTIVE: Bid to Dismiss Caccuri Class Complaint Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AGUSTIN CACCURI, Plaintiff v. SONY INTERACTIVE
ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-03361-RS (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies Sony's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' consolidated amended class action complaint.

Sony moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CACAC, which avers violations
of federal antitrust law, the California Unfair Competition Law,
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE Sections 17200 et seq., and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiffs allege that Sony has engaged in anticompetitive
conduct by halting the sale of digital PlayStation game download
cards to third-party retailers. Their antitrust theory arises under
Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585
(1985), which establishes that a company engages in "prohibited,
anticompetitive conduct" when (1) it unilaterally terminates a
voluntary and profitable course of dealing; (2) "the only
conceivable rationale or purpose is to sacrifice short-term
benefits in order to obtain higher profits in the long run from the
exclusion of competition"; and (3) "the refusal to deal involves
products that the defendant already sells in the existing market to
other similarly situated customers."

The Plaintiffs' initial complaint was dismissed on July 15, 2022.
The order concluded that, although the Plaintiffs had "adequately
alleged a cognizable aftermarket," and had demonstrated antitrust
injury, they had not adequately pleaded any of the three Qualcomm
elements. Because the Plaintiffs had failed to explain how Sony
generated a revenue stream from the sale of download codes by third
party retailers, it would be difficult to analogize to Aspen
Skiing. The motion to dismiss was therefore granted, with leave to
amend, and the Plaintiffs subsequently filed the CACAC.

Having reviewed the amendments in the CACAC, Judge Seeborg denies
Sony's motion. Accepting the Plaintiffs' averments as true and
construing the pleadings in their favor, as is required, he finds
that the CACAC adequately describes the process under which Sony
profited from the previous course of dealing.

Sony and the Plaintiffs disagree as to whether the Plaintiffs are
required to plead that the "only conceivable rationale or purpose"
of Sony's conduct was to harm competition. The Plaintiff argues
that, to the extent this is in fact an element of Aspen Skiing
antitrust liability, it need not be shown at the pleading stage.
Sony bluntly replies that this makes no sense, as a plaintiff must
plead each element of his or her claim, and that Plaintiffs here
have fallen short.

Judge Seeborg holds that both parties are partly right and partly
wrong. He says FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 969 F.3d 974, 993-994 (9th
Cir. 2020), does require a plaintiff ultimately to prove that the
defendant's "only conceivable rationale or purpose" was to exclude
competition, and as such the pleadings must allege facts supporting
this element.

However, the CACAC does so, if just barely, by alleging that Sony's
financial performance with retail partners was not the impetus for
Sony's decision to refrain from selling digital games through
retailers, and by refuting the notion that Sony sought to save
costs by claiming that Sony continued selling gift cards through
these retailers -- products that would seem to incur similar types
of overhead as the digital game cards. That Sony's motion
identifies other potential rationales behind its conduct presents
an affirmative defense and a question of fact, both of which are
better left for a later stage of litigation.

The CACAC, therefore, states a claim, and Sony's motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n8r3kjb from Leagle.com.


SUR LA TABLE: Court Grants Chen Leave to Amend Consumer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WEIMIN CHEN, Plaintiff v. SUR LA TABLE, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00370-RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo
S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, grants Defendants SLT Holdco, Inc., SLT
Lending SPV, Inc., SLT IP Holdings, LP, and CSC Generation
Holdings, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and dismisses the case as to the
four moving Defendants with leave to amend.

On Feb. 24, 2021, Mr. Chen filed the two-count class action in King
County Superior Court, alleging that Defendant Sur La Table, Inc.,
had violated the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA")
and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") by transmitting
at least 22 commercial emails with purportedly false or misleading
information in their subject lines to Mr. Chen and other
consumers.

On March 10, 2021, Mr. Chen filed the operative First Amended
Complaint, which added five John Doe Defendants and the four moving
Defendants: SLT Holdco, Inc., SLT Lending SPV Inc., SLT IP
Holdings, LP, and CSC Generation Holdings, Inc. (collectively,
"SLT"). According to Mr. Chen, Sur La Table is a Washington-based
kitchenware and dinnerware retailer that operates approximately 130
stores throughout North America (including at least two locations
in Washington State) as well as an online store at
www.surlatable.com. He alleges that it conducts its business
through various business entities, which include Sur La Table,
Inc., SLT Holdco, Inc., SLT Lending SPV, Inc., SLT IP Holdings, LP,
CSC Generation Holdings, Inc., and the John Doe Defendants
(together, "Sur La Table").

Mr. Chen's FAC alleges that Sur La Table sent, or participated in
the sending of, marketing emails to consumers with subject lines
that falsely or misleadingly indicated that the person could
receive a specified percentage-off discount on their entire
purchase or on one item of their choosing. The subject lines of the
emails included language, such as: "xx% Off Your Purchase," "xx%
Off Your Order," or "xx% Off One Item."

Mr. Chen's FAC alleges that Sur La Table's subject lines are false
or misleading in that an ordinary consumer would understand these
statements to mean that Sur La Table was offering a percentage-off
discount from its regular selling prices for all of its products,
when, allegedly approximately 25% of its products -- including its
most popular products -- were excluded from the advertised sale.

On March 18, 2021, SLT removed the action to this Court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Sections 1332, 1441, 1446, 1453 and Fed. R. Civ. P.
81(c), asserting original federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1332(d)(2) and 1453(b).

On March 25, 2021, SLT moved to dismiss Mr. Chen's FAC for failure
to state a claim ("Motion"). Mr. Chen filed a response opposing the
Motion, SLT filed a reply, and subsequently Mr. Chen filed a
sur-reply.

First, Judge Martinez examines the CEMA claim. Mr. Chen asserts
that SLT violated subsection (b). SLT contends that the subsection
prohibits subject lines only when they are false or misleading as
to the commercial nature of the email. If SLT's interpretation of
subsection (b) is accepted, Mr. Chen fails to state a claim for
CEMA.

Judge Martinez finds that CEMA's statutory text combined with the
statute's legislative history and Washington caselaw supports SLT's
interpretation that subsection (b) in CEMA does not prohibit false
and misleading information in an email's subject line as to every
line of the email -- subsection (b) specifically prohibits false
and misleading information as to the nature of the email, i.e. that
the email is an advertisement. Mr. Chen's FAC does not allege that
Sur La Table's signature lines concealed the commercial nature of
their emails. As a result, Mr. Chen fails to state a CEMA claim,
and his claim must be dismissed.

Because he finds that SLT's interpretation of subsection (b) of
CEMA -- that it applies only to email subject lines that are false
or misleading as to the commercial nature of the email -- is a
reasonable interpretation of the statute based on its plain
language and supported by the statute's context, legislative
history and caselaw, Judge Martinez need not reach the issue of
preemption. He therefore also need not address Mr. Chen's
sur-reply.

Judge Martinez now turns to the CPA claim. Mr. Chen's CPA claim is
based upon a violation of CEMA. For the reasons he stated, Judge
Martinez finds that Mr. Chen has failed to state a CEMA claim.
Accordingly, his CPA claim should also be dismissed.

Lastly, Judge Martinez finds that the deficiencies with the
Complaint can possibly be cured by amendment. There has been no
evidence of undue delay or bad faith. SLT has not shown an
amendment would be futile. Prejudice to SLT if amendment is
permitted will be minimal. Weighing all of these factors, leave to
amend will be granted.

Having reviewed the relevant pleadings and the remainder of the
record, Judge Martinez grants SLT's Motion to Dismiss. The
Plaintiff's claims against the four moving Defendants are dismissed
with leave to amend. The Plaintiff will have 30 days to file an
amended complaint. If he fails to do so, the moving Defendants will
be removed as defendants in the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n6dkc5r from Leagle.com.


SURMODICS INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Surmodics Inc. (NASDAQ: SRDX) resulting from
allegations that Surmodics may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Surmodics securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=11326 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On January 19, 2023, Surmodics, Inc. announced
it had received a letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
related to its premarket approval (PMA) application for the
SurVeilTM drug-coated balloon (DCB). In the letter, the FDA
indicated that the application is not currently approvable, while
providing specific guidance as to a path forward. The letter stated
that certain information within two general categories --
biocompatibility and labeling -- must be added by an amendment to
the company's PMA application to place it in approvable form.
Although the information identified by the Agency to put the PMA
application in approvable form would require additional testing and
analysis, the letter did not question the human clinical data
submitted nor request any further human clinical data. Surmodic
stated, "We are evaluating the issues raised in the FDA's letter
and plan to meet with Agency representatives regarding its
contents. Based on our discussion with the Agency, our team and
external advisors will determine the appropriate path forward.
Concurrently, we will be evaluating options to reduce our use of
cash given this development."

On this news, Surmodic's price fell $10.57, or 28.31%, to close at
$26.77 on January 19, 2023.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

      Laurence Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      lrosen@rosenlegal.com
      pkim@rosenlegal.com
      cases@rosenlegal.com
      www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

TARGET CORP: Wiretaps Electronic Communications, Calderon Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANI CALDERON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
3:23-cv-00692-AGT (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2023) alleges violation of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant aid,
agree with, employ, or otherwise enable the wiretapping of the
electronic communications of visitors to Target's website,
target.com. The wiretaps, which are embedded in the chat function
on the Website by third party, Salesforce, Inc., are used without
the prior consent of visitors to the Website.

The Defendant contracts with Salesforce to provide the software
that secretly runs the chat function on Defendant's Website. The
electronic communications made in the chat function are routed
through the servers of and are used by Salesforce to, among other
things, secretly observe and record website visitors' electronic
communications in real time. The nature of Salesforce's licensing
agreement with Defendant is such that Defendant "aids, agrees with,
employs, or conspires" to permit Salesforce to read, attempt to
read, to learn, and/or to use the chats without the consent of
visitors to the Website, thus violating the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, says the suit.

TARGET CORPORATION operates general merchandise discount stores.
The Company focuses on merchandising operations which includes
general merchandise and food discount stores and a fully integrated
online business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com

               - and -

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
                 mroberts@bursor.com

TESLA INC: To Appeal Verdict in Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that after a stunning
Feb. 3 jury verdict cleared Tesla Inc CEO Elon Musk of defrauding
shareholders in 2018 tweets boasting that he had secured funding to
take Tesla private, Musk is now trying to capitalize on his
vindication in a separate battle with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission over Musk's right to speak publicly about
Tesla.

On Feb. 21, Musk's lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
filed a letter informing the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of
the jury's verdict in the shareholder class action, which was tried
in federal court in San Francisco.

The 2nd Circuit, obviously, is not involved in the class action.
But it is hearing a related appeal in which Musk is challenging a
provision from his 2018 settlement with the SEC, which had accused
Musk of fraud for the "funding secured" missives.

Quinn Emanuel, as I'll explain, told the 2nd Circuit in the
Feb. 21 letter that Musk's jury win in the shareholder class action
undermines the SEC's defense of what the Tesla CEO contends are
unconstitutional prior restraints on his ability to talk and tweet
about Tesla.

The dispute at the 2nd Circuit takes a bit of explaining. You
probably recall that the SEC has a longstanding policy of requiring
targets to agree, as a condition of settlement, that they will not
publicly dispute the SEC's allegations or criticize the
government's case. This so-called gag provision is quite
controversial. Challengers assert that the SEC can essentially
bludgeon targets into ceding constitutional rights, including a
crucial right to raise questions about the government's conduct. A
handful of federal judges have expressed sympathy for gag rule
challengers, but so far, no SEC targets -- including Elon Musk --
have managed to win post-settlement attempts to undo gag provisions
in their consent decrees with the SEC.

Musk is still trying to loosen that traditional gag, but it's a
very long shot. As U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman of Manhattan
ruled last year, 2nd Circuit precedent squarely holds that
defendants who have consented to SEC gag orders cannot rely on
after-the-fact 1st Amendment arguments to undo the agreements.
There's little hope for that precedent to be overturned anytime
soon, since the U.S. Supreme Court specifically declined last year
to take up the issue.

But the SEC also imposed additional -- and unusual -- speech
restrictions on Musk as a condition of his 2018 settlement: The
consent order required the Tesla CEO to obtain pre-approval from a
Tesla lawyer before tweeting or otherwise making public statements
that could affect Tesla shareholders.

Musk has since chafed repeatedly at this so-called "muzzle,"
accusing the SEC of running constant surveillance on his
communications and harassing him with investigations about
innocuous public statements.

The dispute came to a head in 2021, when Musk tweeted a poll asking
followers to vote on whether he should sell 10% of his Tesla stock.
The SEC subpoenaed Musk and Tesla about the tweets. Musk went to
court, arguing not only that the retroactive gag was
unconstitutional but -- more intriguingly, that the pre-clearance
requirement is a prior restraint on his free speech.

Liman sided with the SEC in his April 2022 decision, chiding Musk
for attempting to "retract the agreement he knowingly and willingly
entered by simply bemoaning that he felt like he had to agree to it
at the time but now -- once the specter of the litigation is a
distant memory and his company has become, in his estimation, all
but invincible -- wishes that he had not."

That's the decision now on appeal at the 2nd Circuit. Musk, in a
nutshell, argues that, at a minimum, the court should require the
SEC to excise the provision mandating pre-approval of his public
statements.

"The pre-approval provision in the consent decree qualifies as a
prior restraint on speech that runs afoul of the First Amendment,"
Quinn Emanuel wrote. "It forbids future lawful speech on a range of
topics absent approval. It does so under the threat of contempt and
subject to the asserted oversight and investigatory authority of
the SEC. And it chills such lawful speech due to the threat of
burdensome investigation and prosecution."

In response, the SEC said the pre-approval process was hardly
onerous – it simply required sign-off by a Tesla lawyer, in
compliance with protocols the company itself has adopted. The
agency also denied that it was surveilling or harassing Musk. The
SEC said it was just doing its job of protecting Tesla
shareholders, in part by assuring that Musk follows his company's
rules.

"These interests outweigh Musk's desire to communicate about Tesla
without any input from Tesla itself," the SEC said.

After all, the agency pointed out in a footnote in its appellate
brief, shareholders were sufficiently aggrieved by Musk's tweets to
have brought their class action in San Francisco -- and the judge
in that case, the SEC told the 2nd Circuit, had already determined
that Musk's "funding secured" tweets were false and misleading.

Musk's new letter to the 2nd Circuit threw that assertion back at
the SEC, informing the appeals court that the jury determined
Musk's tweets did not, in fact, amount to securities fraud. That
finding, argued Quinn Emanuel, undermines the SEC's argument that
its interest in protecting Tesla shareholders outweighs Musk's 1st
Amendment rights.

Indeed, Musk's lawyers argued, Musk represents the broad public
interest in his showdown with the SEC. The Tesla CEO, they said, is
standing up for the principle that the SEC cannot extort targets
into surrendering their constitutional rights.

The jury's verdict, Quinn Emanuel said, "provides further reason
why the public interest in avoiding unconstitutional settlements
easily subsumes the SEC's purported stake in the consent decree."

An SEC spokesperson declined my request for comment on the new
letter. Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel declined to provide a
statement.

Oral arguments at the 2nd Circuit are scheduled for May 8. [GN]

TIMBERLINE CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guerrero Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO GUERRERO; BRYCE TUBBS; and THOMAS JONES, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIMBERLINE
CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00200-JHE
(N.D. Ala., Feb. 16, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as field employee.

Timberline Construction Group LLC was founded in 2013. The
company's line of business includes providing special trade
contracting services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Hughes, Esq.
          HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
          2121 14th Street
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Telephone: (205) 523-0463
          Facsimile: (205) 344-6188
          Email: dhughes@hardinhughes.com

TRANSUNION LLC: Wilson Sues Over Illegal Selling of Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MANDY WILSON, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00131 (S.D. Ind., January 20, 2023) is a class action
complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant alleging
the Defendants of violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff had an alleged debt to US Bank relative to her
Kroeger Mastercard. On March 4, 2020, she filed a Chapter 7
bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, commencing bankruptcy case number
20-01283-JJG-7.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's alleged debt was
assigned to and/or purchased by a debt collector, Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC for collection. However, on or about July
18, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order discharging the
Plaintiff's debt, thereby extinguishing her liability for the debt
and the debtor-creditor relationship ended between the Plaintiff
and US Bank and/or Portfolio as to the debt.

Upon receiving notice of the fact that the Plaintiff had received a
bankruptcy discharge, Portfolio communicated to the Defendant that
the Plaintiff's alleged debt had been discharged, and that it no
longer wished to receive consumer reports and to refrain from
sending further consumer reports for the Plaintiff. Accordingly,
the Defendant has a symbiotic relationship with Portfolio such that
the Defendant receives information furnished to it by Portfolio and
also sells information to Portfolio regarding a consumer's
creditworthiness and their credit standing. Despite being cognizant
of the facts, the Defendant sold the Plaintiff's individual and
personal credit file to Portfolio on or about January 20, 2021 and
allowed Portfolio to review the Plaintiff's private information
without a permissible purpose to do so.

Because of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff had
suffered from frustration, anxiety and emotional distress that
manifested itself such that the Plaintiff had difficulty falling to
sleep and/or staying sleep, and had a loss of appetite.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover statutory damages,
punitive damages, and actual damages, as well as costs and
reasonable attorney's fees and other relief as may be just and
proper.

Transunion, LLC is a consumer reporting agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Marco, Esq.
          SMITHMARCO, P.C.
          5250 Old Orchard Road, Suite 300
          Skokie, IL 60077
          Tel: (312) 546-6539
          Fax: (888) 418-1277
          E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com

TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Woldanski Suit Transferred to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK WOLDANSKI, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS, INC.;
CHENG LU; PATRICK DILLON; ERIC TAPIA; XIAODI HOU; MO CHEN; JAMES
MULLEN; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.;
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; BOFA SECURITIES, INC.; CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC; NOMURA SECURITIES
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; NEEDHAM & COMPANY
LLC; OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC.; PIPER SANDLER & CO.; ROBERT W. BAIRD &
CO. INCORPORATED; and VALUABLE CAPITAL LIMITED, Defendants, Case
No. 22 Civ. 9625 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:

   a. grants the Defendants' motion to transfer venue to the U.S.
      District Court for the Southern District of California; and

   b. transfer the case to the Southern District of California.

The Plaintiff commenced the federal securities putative class
action in November 2022, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). He
seeks compensatory damages on behalf of all persons who: (a)
purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant TuSimple securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with TuSimple's April 15, 2021, initial public offering
("IPO"); and/or (b) that purchased or otherwise acquired TuSimple
securities between April 15, 2021, and Oct. 31, 2022, both dates
inclusive.

On Dec. 9, 2022, Defendants TuSimple, Cheng Lu, Patrick Dillon,
Eric Tapia, Xiaodi Hou, and James Mullen moved to transfer venue to
the Southern District of California.

Judge Hellerstein states that in assessing whether transfer is an
appropriate exercise of discretion, courts balance various factors
including: (1) the plaintiffs choice of forum; (2) the convenience
of witnesses; (3) the location of relevant documents and relative
ease of access to sources of proof; (4) the convenience of parties;
(5) the locus of operative facts; (6) the availability of process
to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (7) the relative
means of the parties; (8) the forum's familiarity with the
governing law; and (9) trial efficiency and the interest of
justice.

Applying the first step of the inquiry, he finds that the suit
could have been brought in the Southern District of California
because it is an appropriate venue for the matter and has personal
jurisdiction over the Defendants. The Plaintiffs do not contest
this. Second, the Southern District of California has personal
jurisdiction over all the Defendants.

Having determined that the suit could have been brought in the
Southern District of California, Judge Hellerstein now turns to the
second step of the inquiry and considers whether transfer would be
an appropriate exercise of the Court's discretion. He finds that it
would be. He says (i) the interests of justice and considerations
of trial efficiency favor transfer to the Southern District of
California; (ii) S.D. Cal is the locus of operative facts of the
case; (iii) S.D. Cal. is where most relevant documents are likely
located, where it will be easiest to access proof, and where, on
the whole, it will be most convenient for the litigation to proceed
for both witnesses and the Parties; (iv) the Plaintiff's choice of
forum does not weigh strongly against transfer; and (v)
consideration of the comparative familiarity of S.D. Cal. and
S.D.N.Y with the governing law and the relative means of the
parties do not weigh against transfer.

In sum, because the relevant factors favor transfer or are
otherwise neutral, Judge Hellerstein holds that the Defendant has
made a clear and convincing showing that transfer to the Southern
District of California would be convenient for the witnesses and
parties and in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the motion to
transfer venue is granted. He leaves determination as to the
appointment of the lead counsel to the transferee forum.

The Clerk of Court will terminate the Defendant's motion and all
pending motions, leaving them to the transferee court to decide.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Order & Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/my27k32w from Leagle.com.


UCOR LLC: Speer Suit Seeks to Stay Class Certification Briefing
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLTON SPEER, MALENA
DAVIS, and ZACHARIAH DUNCAN, on their own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. UCOR LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00426-TRM-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order staying briefing on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification until UCOR's pending partial motion to dismiss is
resolved.

In the alternative, UCOR requests that briefing be stayed on the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending entry of a
scheduling order for discovery and briefing on the issue of class
certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EdHxdp at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          William S. Rutchow, Esq.
          Darius Walker, Jr., Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          SunTrust Plaza, 401 Commerce Street, Suite 1200
          Nashville, TN 37219-2446
          Telephone: (615) 254-1900
          Facsimile: (615) 254-1908

                - and -

          Luci L. Nelson, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          The Ogletree Building, 300 North Main Street
          Greenville, SC 29601

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse D. Nelson, Esq.
          Gina M. Modica, Esq.
          Clint J. Coleman, Esq.
          NELSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
          10263 Kingston Pike
          Knoxville, TN 37922
          Telephone: (865) 383-1053
          E-mail: jesse@nlgattorneys.com
                  gina@nlgattorneys.com
                  clint@NLGattorneys.com

UNITED STATES: Bassen Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States.
The case is styled as Nick Bassen, Isaac Dailey, Andrew Merjil,
Paul Rodriguez, Hunter Springer, Derrick Wynne, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. USA, Case No.
1:23-cv-00211-MCW (U.S. Ct. of Fed. Cl., Feb. 13, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Military Pay - Back Pay.

The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- 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:

          Dale F. Saran, Esq.
          DALE F. SARAN, LLC
          19744 W 116th Ter
          Olathe, KS 66061
          Phone: (508) 415-8411
          Email: dalesaran@gmail.com


UNITED STATES: Scheduling Order Entered in Jimenez Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bernardo Sanchez Jimenez
v. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-00967-SSS-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes
entered a scheduling order regarding the parties' joint 26(f)
reports and class certification motion and hearing deadlines:

                    Event                       Deadline

  Deadline for Plaintiff to File Motion         May 26, 2023
  for Class Certification and Any Class
  Certification Expert Report

  Deadline for Defendant to File               June 9, 2023
  Opposition to Class Certification
  and Any Class Certification
  Expert Report

  Deadline for Plaintiff to File Reply         June 16, 2023
  in Support of Motion for Class
  Certification and Any Class
  Certification Rebuttal Expert Report

  Class Certification Hearing                  July 14, 2023

The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xn2MWm at no extra charge.[CC]

VERTAFORE INC: Court Dismisses Claims in Mulvey Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON MULVEY, individually, and on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
VERTAFORE INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-00213-E-BN
(N.D. Tex.), Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, grants in part and
denies in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third
Amended Complaint.

Before the Court is Defendant Vertafore's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, which sought to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims based on standing and failure to state a claim.
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and
a recommendation in the case. The Plaintiffs requested an extension
of time to file objections. However, the Plaintiff, thereafter,
timely filed objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's
findings, conclusions, and recommendation on Sept. 6, 2022. As
such, the Plaintiff's requested extension, is denied as moot.

Judge Brown reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was
made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, she accepts
the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge. She therefore (i) denies Vertafore's motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) but (ii) grants its motion to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6). She dismisses the Plaintiff's claims with
prejudice by separate judgment. Consequently, Judge Brown denies as
moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yckrs68k from Leagle.com.


VICTORIA'S SECRET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harman Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN HARMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VICTORIA'S SECRET & CO.; VICTORIA'S SECRET
STORES, LLC; and BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC. (f/k/a L BRANDS INC.),
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01348 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

Plaintiff Harman was employed by the Defendants as selling
associate.

VICTORIA'S SECRET & CO. retails apparel and accessories. The
Company offers lingerie, bras, panties, pajamas, sleepwear,
swimsuits, and other apparel, as well as offers personal care and
beauty products for women. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 981-9587

VISAGE SCREEN-PRINT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO GARCIA; and ALMA VALADEZ, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VISAGE SCREEN-PRINT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2023LA000159 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., Feb. 16,
2023) alleges violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant in
collecting and storing its employees' fingerprints, failed to
comply with BIPA. The Defendant failed in (1) notifying employees
the practice is taking place; (2) informing employees of how the
practice is implemented; (3) obtaining written consent from the
employees to collect and store their biometric data; (4)
maintaining their employees' biometric data in a sufficiently
secure manner; and (5) maintaining a publicly available disclosure
of how the biometric data will be handled and destroyed, says the
suit.

VISAGE SCREEN-PRINT, INC. provides printing services. The Company
specializes in printing tee shirts, sweatshirts, polo shirts, tote
bags, towels, shorts, and aprons. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (773) 831-8000
          Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                 whb@beaumontcostales.com

VISION SOLAR: Bid to Toss Landy TCPA Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRENNAN LANDY, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VISION SOLAR, LLC d/b/a/SOLAR
EXCHANGE, Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-20241 (D.N.J.), Judge
Joseph H. Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey dismisses the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without
prejudice.

The Plaintiff brings the Class Action Complaint against the
Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the
"Act"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c), to stop its practice of placing
unsolicited telemarketing calls without consent to consumers who
registered their phone numbers on the National Do Not Call
Registry. The Complaint consists of one count for violation of the
Act, arising out of the Plaintiff allegedly receiving more than one
"telephone solicitation" from the Defendant within a 12-month
period, despite being on the national do-not-call registry. The
proposed Class Action Complaint names Vision Solar as the sole
defendant.

The Defendant moves for dismissal as a matter of law, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(6), because it claims that no corporate
entity named "Vision Solar, LLC d/b/a Solar Exchange" exists or was
formed. In support of dismissal, it claims that the Plaintiff
wrongfully attempts to combine two legally distinct and separate
entities as a single entity without any support for using the
legally operative "d/b/a" designation or attempt to link the two
entities in the Complaint. The Defendant makes both a facial
challenge and an evidentiary challenge in support of its motion.
Facially, the Complaint lacks an allegation to support the claim
that Vision Solar, LLC did business under the name "Solar
Exchange." The Defendant claims this is fatal because "doing
business as" names must be registered under Delaware law. It claims
that the Plaintiff has sued an entity that does not exist.

Finally, the Complaint treats the two entities, Vision Solar and
Solar Exchange, singularly and refers to the unlawful alleged
activity as having been committed by the "Defendant." The
draftsmanship does not parse which of the two named entities
engaged in the complained of conduct and leaves open the question
of whether actions taken by either entity are attributable to both
entities. Without a foundation as to the corporate identification
of the sole "Defendant," the Defendant claims that the allegations
of unlawful conduct are speculative and seeks dismissal.

Although filed as a Rule 12 (b)(6) Motion, the Defendant also
provides documents purporting to show that the two corporate entity
registrations are no longer current: a Delaware registration for
Vision Solar, LLC with a status of "Voluntarily Cancelled," and a
Pennsylvania registration for a company called Solar Exchange, LLC
with a status of "Terminated." This is at odds with the Complaint
which identifies the "Defendant" as a citizen of New Jersey. The
printouts from Delaware's and Pennsylvania's respective Division of
Corporation websites were supplied to the Court to "to remove any
doubt that Vision Solar, LLC and Solar Exchange LLC are entirely
separate and distinct entities."

For all of these reasons, the Defendant seeks dismissal.

As he must, Judge Rodriguez has viewed the allegations in the
Complaint in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff and accepts
the allegations therein as true. Under Rule 12(b)(6), he says the
Court is restrained from considering evidence outside of the
complaint, but there are some exceptions. Relevant in the matter,
it appears that the exhibits attached to the Declaration of
Defendant's Counsel are matters of public record, as the counsel
avers they represent printouts from Delaware's and Pennsylvania's
respective Division of Corporation websites. In such circumstances,
Judge Rodriguez may consider this extraneous evidence. These
submissions appear to be relevant, but he finds that, without more,
they are not dispositive.

At the same time, Judge Rodriguez agrees with the Defendant that
the Complaint lacks a sufficient foundation for the connection
between Vision Solar and Solar Exchange. The Plaintiff submits that
should the Court find that the pleading does sufficiently identify
the Defendant and/or the Defendant's conduct, he is able to cure
the deficiencies by way of amendment.

Therefore, Judge Rodriguez must dismiss the motion without
prejudice and with leave to file a curative amendment.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Rodriguez dismisses the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiff will
be given leave to file an Amended Complaint sufficiently setting
forth the identity of the corporate defendant.

An appropriate Order will be issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 7, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y2ajxj55 from Leagle.com.


VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA: Thompson Seeks Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANIA THOMPSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA OF MINNESOTA and
DUNGARVIN, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00075-PP (E.D. Wis.,
January 20, 2023) is a collective and class action complaint
brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in approximately April
2021 into the position of Caregiver working primarily at client's
homes in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area until his employment ended
in approximately January 2023.

Throughout the Plaintiff and other similarly situated caregivers'
employment with the Defendants, they regularly worked more than 40
hours per week. However, the Defendants paid them on a bi-weekly
basis. The Defendants also failed to include all forms of
non-discretionary compensation in their regular rates of pay for
the purpose of calculating their overtime. As a result, despite
working more than 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated caregivers were not paid proper 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,
says the suit.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated caregivers,
the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages in the form of reimbursement
for unpaid overtime wages and/or regular wages for all time spent
performing compensable work for which they were unpaid. The
Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages in an amount equal to the
amount of wages and overtime wages owed to them, as well as
litigation costs and attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief that the Court deems just and
equitable.

Volunteers of America of Minnesota and Dungarvin, Inc. provide care
services. Defendant Dungarvin assumed the ownership, operations,
and/or management of Defendant Volunteers of America of Minnesota
in approximately December 2022. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

WHITE CASTLE: Ogletree Deakins Discuss BIPA Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anne E. Larson, Esq., and Harry J. Secaras, Esq., Zachary A.
Pestine, Esq., and Zachary V. Zagger, Esq., of Ogletree Deakins,
disclosed that on February 17, 2023, the Supreme Court of Illinois
held claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
(Privacy Act or BIPA) accrue on each and every scan or collection
and further allowed so-called per scan damages. The ruling could
open employers up to colossal and potentially devastating damages
if the legislature does not amend the Privacy Act. Defense counsel
for White Castle System, Inc. indicated that White Castle intends
to file a petition for rehearing within twenty-one days, a move
that will make the decision "non-final" until the petition is ruled
on by the Illinois Supreme Court.

The 4-3 ruling in Cothron v. White Castle System Inc. comes on a
certified question from the federal Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals in a putative class action by a White Castle employee over
the use of biometric technology that allegedly scans purported
fingerprints in the workplace. The justices rejected arguments that
the Privacy Act is violated, if at all, only the first time the
alleged fingerprint is scanned or collected. The court rejected a
reasonable "first collection" interpretation before it, which could
still result in multi-million dollar class actions but limit
exposure under Section 15(b) to $1,000 or $5,000 in statutory
damages per class member. Instead, the justices held that the
"plain language" of Sections 15(b) and 15(d) of the Privacy Act
"demonstrates that such violations occur with every scan or
transmission." Indeed, the court acknowledged that its
interpretation could mean White Castle faces a potential $17
billion-dollar liability. However, the opinion appears to overlook
the longstanding canon of statutory construction that a court
should interpret a statute to avoid "absurd results."

The ruling is tempered only by the court's observation that a judge
has the discretion to fashion an award that does not annihilate
defendant businesses. This per scan damages ruling would appear to
eliminate the reason to file Privacy Act claims as class actions
because any person who uses a biometric device for any extended
period (without informed consent) can purportedly now collect
millions individually. For the court to apply an interpretation
that allows such extraordinary liability is a puzzling result when
the court has previously stated that there is no physical,
emotional or even monetary harm in most Privacy Act cases.

Background

The Privacy Act, passed in 2008, regulates the use, collection, and
storage of biometric data, including retina or iris scans,
fingerprints, voiceprints, and scans of hand or face geometry.
Specifically, Section 15(b) of the Privacy Act provides that
entities, including employers, may not "collect, capture, purchase,
receive through trade, or otherwise obtain" individuals' biometric
data without providing notice and receiving consent. Section 15(d)
further states that a private entity may not "disclose, redisclose,
or otherwise disseminate" biometric data without consent.

The current case involves a White Castle restaurant manager who
filed a proposed class action alleging the company required
employees to scan their fingerprints to access pay stubs and
computers beginning in 2004. According to the decision, once a scan
was taken, it was transmitted to a third-party vendor for
verification and to authorize access. The employee alleged that the
company did not obtain the requisite consent to the collection
under the Privacy Act until 2018, nearly a decade after the statute
was enacted and approximately fourteen years after the company
began using biometric technology.

Plain Language

The majority decision rejected White Castle's argument that the
employee's claims were untimely because claims under Section 15(b)
and 15(d) only accrue once, the first time the biometric data is
collected or disclosed. The decision stated that the plain meaning
of "collect" and "capture" in Section 15(b) allows for the
possibility that they happen more than once. The majority pointed
out that company failed to show how technology "could work without
collecting or capturing the fingerprint every time the employee
needs to access his or her computer or pay stub."

Similarly, the majority was not convinced that the term "disclose,"
which may connote a "new revelation," did not limit the section to
first time disclosures. The court said that regardless, the terms
in Section 15(d) "are broad enough to include repeated
transmissions to the same party."

The majority was unpersuaded by White Castle's argument that
longstanding Illinois Supreme Court precedent provides that claims
only accrue when a legal right is invaded and injury inflicted and
that the primary purpose of the Privacy Act is about control --
specifically, control over the privacy and secrecy of one's unique
biometric data. Therefore, White Castle argued, when a fingerprint
is scanned and transmitted without informed consent, the injury has
occurred as plaintiff has lost the right to control his or her
biometrics and the information is no longer secret. White Castle
further argued that the injury only occurs once because the privacy
rights were lost on the first collection and the information is
already in the defendant's possession.

The majority held that an injury occurs when a statutory provision
is violated and that nothing in the Privacy Act limits a claim
under Section 15 "to the first time that a private entity scans or
transmits a party's biometric identifier or biometric
information."

Three justices joined a dissenting opinion by Justice David
Overstreet that argued the Privacy Act was not "intended to impose
cumbersome requirements or punitive, crippling liability on
corporations for multiple authentication scans of the same
biometric identifier." The dissent further argued that the Privacy
Act applies when "a private entity obtains a person's or customer's
biometric information without consent" and that it is "axiomatic,
however, that a private entity may obtain any one type of a
person's biometric information only once, at least until that
biometric identifier or information is destroyed."

Key Takeaways

The Illinois high court held that employers may violate the Privacy
Act each time biometric information is collected without requisite
notice and consent under the act, including with fingerprint
scanning technology used to protect access to sensitive
information. This holding may open the floodgates to even more
Privacy Act class actions. Further, because the Privacy Act
provides for liquidated or statutory damages for "each violation,"
potential damages in class actions could be devastating for
businesses.

The decision stated that "concerns about potentially excessive
damage awards under the Act are best addressed by the legislature,"
meaning the issue could still be decided in a legislative forum and
require effective lobbying by companies, their trade associations,
insurance companies, and consortiums of aligned companies.
Furthermore, White Castle's filing of a petition for rehearing will
make this decision non-final until the petition is ruled on by the
court. In the meantime, employers may want to review their use of
biometric technology and ensure they are in compliance with the
Privacy Act's policy, notice, and consent requirements.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor and report on
developments with respect to the Privacy Act cases before the
Supreme Court of Illinois and will post updates on the firm's
Illinois, Class Action, Technology, and Cybersecurity and Privacy
blogs as additional information becomes available. Important
information for employers is also available via the firm's webinar
and podcast programs. [GN]

WINK BROW BAR: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wink Brow Bar, LLC.
The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Wink Brow Bar, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01190 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2023).

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

Wink Brow Bar -- https://winkbrowbar.com/ -- offers a dedicated
place to go for expert services in regards to brow and eye zone
treatments as well as a vegan clean beauty line of curated
products.[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


ZEN RAMEN AND SUSHI: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zen Ramen and Sushi,
Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Zen Ramen and Sushi, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-01189 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2023).

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

Zen Ramen and Sushi, Inc. -- https://zenramensushi.com/ -- is a
Ramen restaurant.[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


[*] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Register Now!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Register now for the 7th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics
Conference!

The in-person conference will be held at The Harmonie Club, New
York City, on Monday, May 8th, 2023.

This value-packed event features special presentations from keynote
speakers, live panel discussions with industry experts and
networking with other professionals.  

Visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more information.

The conference is presented by Beard Group, Inc.


[*] UK Law Firms Earned GBP-1B From U.S.-Style Class Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ames, writing for The Times, reports that British law
firms have earned an estimated GBP1 billion from "a wave" of
American-style class action lawsuits since legal restrictions were
loosened eight years ago.

A report says that nearly 30 group action claims relating to
competition issues have been filed since 2015, brought under the
Consumer Rights Act, which allows cases to be filed on an opt-out
basis, meaning every potential claimant is automatically included.

Since the act came in to force, multibillion-pound actions against
companies including Apple, Google and Meta have been issued,
involving an estimated 195 million claimants.

On Feb. 21, lawyers announced a class action claim against Visa and
Mastercard, worth an estimated £7.5 billion. The claim, the latest
against global credit card businesses, is being brought by the
London office of [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 ***