/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230313.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 13, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 52

                            Headlines

A.B.C. CARPET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dudnauth Alleges
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Cheng Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
ACV AUCTIONS: Jerry Gradi Motors Class Suit Dismissed
AEROVIRONMENT INC: Continues to Defend California Labor Class Suit
AETNA LIFE: Agrees to Settle Proton Beam Therapy Suit for $3.4-M

ALEXANDRA LOZANO: Sanchez Sues Over Privacy, Labor Law Violations
ALLAKOS INC: Kim Securities Class Suit Dismissed
ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Court OKs Smith Bid for Class Certification
ALM AUTOMOTIVE: Colbert Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
AMARIN CORP. PLC: Continues to Defend Dang Securities Class Suit

AMARIN CORP: 3rd Circuit Affirms Sharma Securities Suit Dismissal
AMARIN PHARMA: Court Narrows Claims in IPP Antitrust Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Oct. 30
ANGI INC: Unit Continues to Defend Airequip Class Suit in Colorado
ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Judge Won't Recuse From Martinez-Sanchez Suit

APOLLO ASSET: Fongers Class Suit Settlement Wins Final Nod
APOLLO ASSET: Underwriters Dismissed from Class Suit
ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Chavez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
ARGO GROUP: Opposition to Dismissal Bid Due July 13
ATHENS FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gomez Suit Claims

ATRIA SENIOR: Loses Bid to Modify Class Definition in Stickles Suit
AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Skye Named Lead Plaintiff in Ortmann Suit
BALL STATE: Court Granted Transfer in COVID-19 Class Action Suit
BEN & JERRY'S: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Migrant Child Labor
BEN & JERRY'S: Faces Tyrnauer Class Suit Over Ethical Supply Chains

BETMGM LLC: Faces Sale Class Suit Over Risk-Free Bet Online Sports
BEYOND MEAT: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit
BLOCKFI INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 1
BLOCKFI INC: Misrepresents Unregistered Securities, Greene Alleges
BLUE OTTER: Faces Webb Class Suit Over Biometrics Info Collection

CALIFORNIA: Abrams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CALIFORNIA: Reconsideration Bid Denial in Fitzgerald Suit Appealed
CAMBRIDGE, ON: Faces $126-M Vaccine Mandate Class Action Suit
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Delaware Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Securities Suit Ongoing in Tennessee Court

CELSIUS HOLDINGS: March 31 Final Fairness Hearing for Prescot Suit
CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Failed to Protect Health Info, M.Z. Says
CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Kanthal-Cubides Sues Over Data Breach
CENTRO GLASS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lozado Suit Alleges
CLARIVATE PLC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending

CLOVER HEALTH: Bond Wins Class Certification Bid
CONCERNED HOME: $500K Class Deal in Quintyne Suit Wins Final Nod
CORECIVIC INC: Seeks More Time to File Writ of Certiorari in Owino
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Corker's $6.15-Mil. L&K Settlement Wins Final OK
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Corker's Counsel Awarded $3-Mil. in Fees & Costs

DAVEY TREE: Luna Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
DESHI SENIOR: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Saaba Says
DESKTOP METAL: Continues to Defend Campanella Securities Suit
DLOCAL LIMITED: Faces Hunt Class Suit Over 50% Common Stock Drop
EAST JORDAN: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages, Wilson Alleges

EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Lowe Class Suit Over Tampons' False Ads
EHEALTH INC: Judgment Motions Pleadings Hearing Set for April 13
ELANCO ANIMAL: Bid to Junk Saffron Class Suit Opposed
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
ENVIVA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Maryland

FCA US: Class Settlement in Moran Suit Gets Final Court Approval
FEDERAL EXPRESS: U.S. Supreme Court Denies Petition for Review
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 5
FIRE & ICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cooper Suit Alleges
FRANCISCO URENA: Faces Terenzio Suit Over COVID-19-Related Deaths

FRITANGA EL CHELE: Fails to Pay Regular & OT Wages, Soza Suit Says
FUNKO INC: Settlement in Ferreira Stockholder Suit Gets Final Nod
GNC HOLDINGS: Faces Mercado Suit Over Total Lean Bars' False Ads
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Terenzini Class Suit Closed
GREEN DOT: Seeks Dismissal of Koffsmon Class Suit

HERMES B NY: Fails to Pay Minimum OT Wages, Ramirez Suit Says
J.C. PENNEY: Faces Class Action Suit Over False Reference Pricing
JET LENDING: Avina Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Commissions
JTH TAX LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KEY STONE PLUMBING: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages

LAMON CONSTRUCTION: Josephson Employment Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
LAS VEGAS ACES: Chapman Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Nev.
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Dark Chocolates Contain Lead, Cadmium, Suit Says
LIVE AUCTIONEERS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 2

LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Voigt Suit Over Alleged Stock Price Drop
MANDARICH LAW GROUP: Watson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
MANDARICH LAW: Judgment in FDCPA Class Action Affirmed
MARK HENRY CORP: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MASTER FLOW: Fails to Pay Helpers' OT Wages, Martinez Alleges

MCDERMOTT CUE: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MDL 2895: Bid to Certify Interlocutory Appeal in Sensipar MDL Nixed
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Mandel v. Blackbaud
MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Martin v. Blackbaud
MDL 3062: Bohrer Farms Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.

MDL 3062: KM Farms Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.
MDL 3062: Psencik Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.
MDL 3062: Sheller Farms Antirust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.
MDL 3062: Turner Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.
ME & RO INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MEMORIAL HEALTH: Stendal Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
MEMPHIS, TN: Motion for Class Certification Awaits Ruling on Mar 22
METAL CREATIONS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Collins Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Class Cert. Bid in Price Fixing Suit Dismissed

MINNESOTA: District Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Jamison v. Ludeman
MUTUAL FUND: Garrison Point Wins Bid to Dismiss Claims in Koza Suit
MY BAIT SHOP: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MYRIAD GENETICS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Suit
NATIONAL GRID: Stearns Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

NATIONWIDE COMPLIANT: Mitchell Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
NEW YORK, NY: Muzumala Has 60 Days to File Second Amended Complaint
NEW YORK: Andersen Files Appeal in Labor Suit to N.Y. Appelate Div.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Sued Over Train Derailment, Chemical Spill
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Bid to Decertify in Antitrust Suit Denied

NOW COURIER: Babayemi Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification
OHIO: Supreme Court Orders Judge O'Donnell to Dismiss Parma Suit
PHYTAGE LABORATORIES: Baker Sues Over Unsolicited Messages
PINERY CLEANERS: Meija Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
POLOLO'S FRIED: Gonzalez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages

POPULUS FINANCIAL: Court Issues Final Judgment in Barragan Suit
PRESTIGE CAR: Faces Uribe Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
PRIME STYLE LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PSP GROUP LLC: Popa Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
RANCHO MESQUITE: Faces Class Suit Over Massive Data Breach

REAL ESTATE: Faces Suit Over Realtors' Price-Fixing Commissions
REGAL MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach in Calif.
RITE AID: S.D. New York Dismisses Martelli Suit With Prejudice
ROUTE 41: Pinkerton Seeks Drivers' Minimum Wages Under FLSA
RTR FINANCIAL: Jacobowitz Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Debt

RYDER INTEGRATED: Keefer Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
SEAWORLD PARKS: Lomeli Sues Over Unlawful Automatic Renewal
SERVICE WEST: De Leon Class Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages
SERVICE WEST: De Leon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
SIAM MARINA: Long Seeks Bartenders' Overtime Wages Under FLSA

SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Continues to Defend Sherman Antitrust Suit
SOCCER WEARHOUSE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOUTHERN SPECIALIZED: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Wages
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Trahan Sues Over Consultants' Unpaid Overtime
STATE FARM: Toms' Bid to Extend Sealing of Docs Granted in Part

STEWART SURFBOARDS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SYNGENTA CORP: H & R Sues for Monopoly of Crop Protection Products
TASTE OF ITALY: Faces Capir Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
TELADOC HEALTH: Thomas Class Suit Settlement Wins Final Nod
TIKTOK INC: Faces Federal Class Suit Over Data, National Security

TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
TRUSTEDID INC: Dismissal of O'Leary's Claim Under FIFITPA Vacated
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Cert. Bid in Breach Suit Upheld
UNILEVER UNITED: Court Stays Anderson Proceeding for 90 Days
UNITED COLLECTION: Adler Sues Over Misleading Collection of Debt

UNITED PARCEL: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 1
UNITED POOL: Austin Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Premium
UNITED STATES: Court Junks Bid to Review Mag. Judge Early Order
UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Deadline on Class Cert Bid Reply
VALENTINO USA: Benitez Bid for Class Status Denied w/o Prejudice

VALLEY BROOK, OK: Bid to Extend Case Deadlines OK'd
VEE PAK INC: Court Grants Class Cert. in Discrimination Class Suit
VERTEX ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 2
VERTEX ENERGY: Faces Duffy Suit Over Drop in Share Price
W. T. BYLER CO: Cardoso Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime

WESTCO CHEMICALS: Draney Bid for Class Cert. Denied as Moot
WESTMINSTER MANAGEMENT: Tenants' Class Action Revives in Maryland
WHOLE FOODS: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Extended
WONDER MONDAY: Donet Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
WORKHORSE GROUP: Weiss Class Suit to Start March 19, 2024

ZIFF DAVIS: Dismissal of Garcia Securities Suit Under Appeal

                            *********

A.B.C. CARPET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dudnauth Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
BOODRAM DUDNAUTH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A.B.C. CARPET & HOME, INC.; and
ABC HOLDCO 1 LLC d/b/a ABC CARPET; and HOME, PAULETTE COLE; DINESH
SEWNAUTH; and SYLVESTER CYRAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-01858-ER (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Dudnauth was employed by the Defendants as stocker.

A.B.C. CARPET & HOME, INC. operates as retail consumer products
company. The Company provides furniture, lighting, bed and bath
products, jewelry, baby and children products, and stationery
products. ABC specializes in fashion, interior design products, and
industrial design. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Cheng Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gary Cheng, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order and Judgment dated January 22, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit entitled GARY CHENG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.;
ROBERT A. KOTICK; DENNIS DURKIN, and SPENCER NEUMANN, Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-06240, in the United States District Court for
Central California, Los Angeles.

On August 3, 2021, the Plaintiff filed this complaint, on behalf of
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded Activision Blizzard securities between August 4, 2016 and
July 27, 2021, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, an amended
complaint was filed on December 3, 2021, purportedly on behalf of a
class of the Company's shareholders who purchased stock between
February 28, 2017 and November 16, 2021.

In an order dated April 18, 2022, the Court granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint with leave to amend.

The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 18, 2022, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased stock between November 8, 2018
and November 16, 2021, which defendants moved to dismiss on June
16, 2022.

In an order dated August 30, 2022, the Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with leave to
amend.

The Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on September 29,
2022. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint
was filed October 31, 2022.

On January 22, 2023, the District Court granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended class action complaint.
The action was dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.
Judge Percy Anderson further entered Judgment consistent with the
Order dismissing the case and held that Plaintiffs take nothing and
Defendants shall have their costs of suit.

The appellate case is captioned as Gary Cheng, et al. v. Activision
Blizzard, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-55158, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Feb. 21, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Nick Baldwin, Gary Cheng, Micah Ernst, Chris
Martin, Michael Noon, Jeff Ross and Alejandro Toiber Mediation
Questionnaire was due on Feb. 28, 2023;

   -- Appellants Nick Baldwin, Gary Cheng, Micah Ernst, Chris
Martin, Michael Noon, Jeff Ross and Alejandro Toiber opening brief
is due on April 24, 2023;

   -- Appellees Activision Blizzard, Inc., Dennis Durkin, Brian
Kelly, Robert A. Kotick and Armin Zerza answering brief is due on
May 24, 2023; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

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

          Laurence Mathew Rosen, Esq.
          275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016-1101
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060

Defendants-Appellees ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., et al., are
represented by:

          Kevin P. Muck, Esq.
          Susan Samuels Muck, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP
          One Front Street, Suite 3500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (628) 235-1029

               - and -

          Michael E. Romeo, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR, LLP
          350 S Grand Avenue, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-5319

ACV AUCTIONS: Jerry Gradi Motors Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
ACV Auctions Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York dismissed the Jerry Gradi
Motors class suit on January 31, 2023.

On March 19, 2021, a putative class action was filed by Jerry Gradl
Motors, Inc., et al. against ACV Auctions Inc., et al. in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York (the
“Court”), alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws and
New York State law related to an alleged conspiracy to set bids on
our marketplace from transactions that originated from one seller.
The complaint seeks statutory damages under such laws and other
relief. In July 2021, the complaint was amended to add and modify
allegations beyond the initial complaint, as well as to add certain
individuals as individual defendants, including George Chamoun, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer.

In January 2022, the Court heard arguments on the motion to dismiss
that the defendants had previously filed and dismissed the federal
claims with leave for the plaintiff to amend their complaint. In
the fourth quarter of 2022, the Company recorded a liability for
litigation matters in anticipation of the settlement.

As of January 31, 2023, the complaint has been settled and
dismissed by the court.

ACV Auctions Inc. -- https://www.acvauctions.com/ -- provides a
digital marketplace for wholesale vehicle transactions and data
services.[BN]

AEROVIRONMENT INC: Continues to Defend California Labor Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerovironment Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 6, 2023, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the California labor class suit in the in
California Superior Court in Los Angeles, California.

On August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint
against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Angeles,
California alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor
Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime and other
recordkeeping matters.

The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged
unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees in
unspecified amounts.

The Company filed its answer on December 16, 2021.

Discovery in this lawsuit has begun and is ongoing.

The Company continues to mount a vigorous defense.

Aerovironment Inc. designs, develops, produces, delivers and
supports a technologically-advanced portfolio of intelligent,
multi-domain robotic systems and related services based in
Virginia.


AETNA LIFE: Agrees to Settle Proton Beam Therapy Suit for $3.4-M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Cass of Becker's Payers Issues reports that Aetna has agreed
to pay up to $3.4 million to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit
alleging it wrongly refused to cover patients' cancer treatment,
Bloomberg Law reported March 6, 2023.

The settlement allows 142 patients who were denied proton beam
therapy treatment between June 2017 and October 2020 to receive
cash payments of up to $24,000, according to the report. Each class
member who submits a timely and valid claim form will receive a
minimum of $10,000.

The proposed class-action lawsuit argued Aetna wrongly denied
coverage of proton beam therapy when it argued the treatment was
experimental and investigational, according to the report. After
the lawsuit was filed, Aetna revised its coverage guidelines,
expanding the list of conditions for which it considered proton
beam therapy appropriate treatment.  

The agreement is subject to approval by Eastern District of
Pennsylvania Judge Cynthia Rufe, according to the report. [GN]

ALEXANDRA LOZANO: Sanchez Sues Over Privacy, Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ILSE SANCHEZ and KARLA VELAZQUEZ individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALEXANDRA LOZANO
IMMIGRATION LAW PLLC and ALEXANDRA LOZANO, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-01028 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 21, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for alleged violations of
the Revised Code of Washington and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint alleges Defendants' violations of state and federal
laws by forcing its low-wage employees (for example, $22 per hour
legal assistants) to sign restrictive non-competition agreements;
by recording the audio and video of its workers while they are
working in its offices; and by misclassifying some of its workers
as exempt to avoid paying them overtime premiums.

Plaintiff Ilse Sanchez worked for Immigration Law PLLC from
approximately October 17, 2022 to January 9, 2023 under a number of
different titles including, "Client Care Specialist," "Senior
Paralegal," and "Licenciados."

Karla Velazquez worked for Immigration Law PLLC from approximately
November 22, 2022 to January 9, 2023 and had the title of "Legal
Assistant."

Alexandra Lozano Immigration Law PLLC is one of the largest
immigration law firms in the United States and is headquartered in
the state of Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq.
          FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C.
          111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 861-1800

               - and -

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C.
          200 East 5th Avenue, Suite 115
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (312) 861-1800
          E-mail: docketing@fishlawfirm.com

ALLAKOS INC: Kim Securities Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Allakos Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
period ending June 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 6, 2023, that the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California dismissed the Kim
securities class suit on December 6, 2022.

on March 10, 2020, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Kim v. Allakos et al., No. 20-cv-01720 (N.D. Cal.) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr.
Robert Alexander, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Leo
Redmond. The complaint asserted claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and sought damages based on alleged
material misrepresentations and omissions concerning its Phase 2
clinical trials of lirentelimab.

The proposed class period was August 5, 2019, through December 17,
2019, inclusive.

On August 28, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding as defendants Dr. Adam Tomasi, its President, then Chief
Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and Dr. Henrik
Rasmussen, its then Chief Medical Officer.

On March 31, 2022, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss, with leave to amend.

On April 29, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
which extended the proposed class period from December 17, 2019 to
December 21, 2021 and added additional claims related to the
Company's Phase 3 ENIGMA clinical trial.

On June 13, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

On December 6, 2022, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss without leave to amend and entered judgment in the
defendants' favor. The plaintiffs did not appeal the judgment, and
the Company considers this matter closed.

Allakos Inc. is a clinical stage biotechnology company developing
lirentelimab (AK002), formerly known as antolimab, the company's
wholly-owned monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of various
mast cell and eosinophil related diseases. The company is based in
Redwood City, California.

ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Court OKs Smith Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RALPH SMITH, v. ALLEGHENY
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ET AL, Case No. 2:19-cv-00147-MRH-PLD (W.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak entered an order granting the
motion for class certification.

   1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification of the
      following class is granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P.
      23(a) and (b)(3):

      "All current or former hourly employees who were provided
      by Strom as a replacement labor force and who performed
      work at any ATI facility in Pennsylvania (Bagdad,
      Brackenridge, Latrobe, Midland, Natrona Heights,
      Vandergrift and/or Washington) during the August 15, 2015
      to March 4, 2016 lockout and labor dispute between ATI and
      the USW."

   2. Ralph Smith is appointed as the class representative.

   3. Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
      is appointed as Class Counsel.

   4. The action is referred back to Judge Dodge for further
      proceedings.

This civil action was referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia L.
Dodge for the conduct of pretrial proceedings, and the preparation
of relevant reports and recommendations. Pending is a Motion for
Class Certification. That Motion has been extensively briefed and
is supported by a comprehensive compendium of record materials
generated by the discovery process.

Judge Dodge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") that the
Motion for Class Certification by granted. Objections to the R&R
were filed, and such were then opposed. The undersigned, upon de
novo review, concluded that the R&R did not reveal any legal error
and was in accord with the applicable law when issued.

However, because in the interim, our Court of Appeals had issued a
precedential opinion in Allen v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc., 37
F. 4th 890 (3d Cir. 2022), which the undersigned observed could
potentially impact the reasoning of the R&R on the issues relevant
to class certification, the matter was remanded back to Judge Dodge
for appropriate further proceedings, and the Objections to the R&R
were dismissed without prejudice.

Allegheny produces titanium and titanium alloys, nickel-based
alloys and superalloys, stainless and specialty steels, zirconium,
hafnium, and niobium, tungsten materials, forgings and castings.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J2lkl8 at no extra charge.[CC]

ALM AUTOMOTIVE: Colbert Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL COLBERT, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALM AUTOMOTIVE GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00025-CAR (M.D. Ga., Feb. 23, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the overtime and
non-retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Colbert worked for the Defendant as a detailer at ALM's Athens,
Georgia location. He asserts that he was not paid by the Defendant
for hours worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek. Shortly
after Colbert made a complaint to ALM's human resources, he was
terminated from his position as a detailer, says the Plaintiff.

ALM Automotive Group is an independent used car dealership company
based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Ramsland, Esq.
          RAMSLAND LAW
          880 Monon Green Blvd Suite 101.51
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Telephone: (765) 267-1240
          E-mail: jason@rams.land

AMARIN CORP. PLC: Continues to Defend Dang Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corp. PLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Dang securities class suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On October 21, 2021, a purported investor in the Company's publicly
traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit against
Amarin Corporation plc, the former chief executive officer and the
former chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Vincent Dang v. Amarin Corporation plc,
John F. Thero and Michael W. Kalb, No. 1:21-cv-19212 (D.N.J. Oct.
21, 2021) and a subsequent case, Dorfman v. Amarin Corporation plc,
et al., No. 3:21-cv-19911 (D.N.J. filed Nov. 10, 2021), was filed
in November 2021. In December 2021, several Amarin shareholders
moved to consolidate the cases, or the Securities Litigation, and
appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2023 that
added as a defendant the Company's former general counsel.

The complaints in these actions are nearly identical and allege
that the Company misled investors by allegedly downplaying the risk
associated with the ANDA litigation described above and the risk
that certain of the Company's patents would be invalidated.

Based on these allegations, plaintiff alleges that he purchased
securities at an inflated share price and brings claims under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 seeking unspecified monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously
defend against the claims but cannot predict the outcome.

Amarin Corporation plc, a pharmaceutical company, engages in the
development and commercialization of therapeutics for the treatment
of cardiovascular diseases in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Ethical Holdings plc and changed its name to
Amarin Corporation plc in 1999. Amarin Corporation plc was
incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

AMARIN CORP: 3rd Circuit Affirms Sharma Securities Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corp. PLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the 3rd Circuit affirmed
the dismissal of the Sharma securities class suit by the trial
district court on June 14, 2022.

On June 14, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the matter by the trial district court.

On February 22, 2019, a purported investor in the Company's
publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit
against Amarin Corporation plc, the former chief executive officer
and chief scientific officer in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Debendra Sharma v. Amarin Corporation plc,
John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 2:19-cv-06601 (D.N.J. Feb.
22, 2019).

On March 12, 2019, another purported investor filed a substantially
similar lawsuit captioned Richard Borghesi v. Amarin Corporation
plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 3:19-cv-08423 (D.N.J.
March 12, 2019).

On May 14, 2019 the court consolidated the cases under the caption
In re Amarin Corporation PLC Securities Litigation, No.
3:19-cv-06601 and appointed two other purported shareholders, Dan
Kotecki and the Gaetano Cecchini Living Trust, as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, or Amended Complaint, on July 22, 2019 that added as
defendants the Company’s former chief medical officer and the
Company's former chief executive officer.

The Amended Complaint alleged that from September 24, 2018 to
November 9, 2018 the Company misled investors by releasing topline
results for the REDUCE-IT study without disclosing data on
biomarker increases in the placebo group as compared with baseline
measurement.

The Amended Complaint alleged that these data suggest that the
mineral oil placebo used in the REDUCE-IT study may have interfered
with statin absorption in the placebo group, which they alleged may
have increased adverse outcomes in the placebo group.

The Amended Complaint further alleged that these purported
misrepresentations and omissions inflated the share price.

Based on these allegations, the suit asserted claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought unspecified monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 29, 2021, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss this litigation for failure to state a valid claim. The
litigation was dismissed without prejudice, giving the plaintiffs
the right to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs in this action did not file an amended complaint within
the permitted filing deadline. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
of the motion to dismiss ruling, which has been denominated In re:
Amarin Corp. PLC, case number 21-2071 (3d Cir.).

On June 14, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the matter by the trial district court.

Amarin Corporation plc, a pharmaceutical company, engages in the
development and commercialization of therapeutics for the treatment
of cardiovascular diseases in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Ethical Holdings plc and changed its name to
Amarin Corporation plc in 1999. Amarin Corporation plc was
incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


AMARIN PHARMA: Court Narrows Claims in IPP Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNIFORMED FIRE OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION FAMILY PROTECTION PLAN LOCAL 854, et al., v. AMARIN
PHARMA, INC., et al, Case No. 3:21-cv-12061-ZNQ-TJB (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Zahid N. Quraishi entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss.

  -- The Court will grant the motion insofar as it will:

     dismiss without prejudice the Consolidated Complaint's
     claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (within
     Count Six); and

     dismiss without prejudice the Consolidated Complaint's
     claims for unjust enrichment under the laws of Alaska,
     Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
     Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New
     Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas,
     Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming (within Count 7); and
     will otherwise deny the Motion.

  -- Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs will be given leave to amend
     its Consolidated Complaint within 30 days.

     Given that the authority cited by Amarin does not support
     the relief they seek, this portion of the Motion will be
     denied.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the Named Plaintiffs and
the class members purchased, or reimbursed for, the purchase of
Vascepa and its generic equivalent, and that Amarin was unjustly
enriched by overcharges for these products.

It also alleges that "Amarin's enrichment and the impoverishment of
plaintiffs and the class are connected." At this stage of the
litigation, the Court rejects as premature Amarin's argument that
the connection between the purchases and Amarin's enrichment are
too tenuous because their position "raises factual questions" and
presumes that IPPs "can prove no set of facts allowing it to state
a common law claim for unjust enrichment.

Here, IPPs bring claims for violations of state antitrust and
consumer protection laws, as well as unjust enrichment on behalf of
themselves and a nationwide class of:

    all persons or entities in the United States and its
    territories who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided
    reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for
    generic and/or brand Vascepa from Amarin, Hikma, Dr.
    Reddy's Laboratories, or any other manufacturer of a generic
    version of Vascepa or any agents, predecessors, or
    successors thereof, for consumption by themselves, their
    families, or their members, employees, insureds,
    participants, or beneficiaries, other than for resale,
    during the period from August 7, 2020 through and until the
    anticompetitive effects of the defendants' unlawful conduct
    cease.

The suit is consolidated in RE: VASCEPA ANTITRUST LITIGATION
INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS.

Amarin operates as a biopharmaceutical company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kP7IQZ at no extra charge.[CC]


AMAZON.COM INC: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Oct. 30
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez entered a Rule 16(b) and Rule 23(d)(2)
scheduling order regarding class certification motion as follows:

  Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for      Oct. 30, 2023
  class certification:

  Opposition to Motion to Certify Class:          Jan. 12, 2024

  Reply in Support of Motion to Certify           Mar. 12, 2024
  Class:

  Hearing on Motion to Certify Class:             To be set by
                                                  the Court
                                                  after briefing
                                                  completed

Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing
on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence.

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


ANGI INC: Unit Continues to Defend Airequip Class Suit in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------------
Angi Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from the Airequip class suit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado.

In July 2016, a putative class action, Airquip, Inc. et al. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. 1:16-cv-1849, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint, as
amended in November 2016, alleges that HomeAdvisor engages in
certain deceptive practices affecting the service professionals
("SPs") who join its network, including charging them for
substandard customer leads and failing to disclose certain charges.
The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class consisting
of all HomeAdvisor SPs since October 2012, asserts claims for
fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and violation
of the federal RICO statute and the Colorado Consumer Protection
Act ("CCPA"), and seeks injunctive relief and damages in an
unspecified amount.

In July 2018, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate putative
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No.
1:18-cv-1802, on behalf of the same nine SPs proposed as new
plaintiffs in the Airquip case, naming as defendants HomeAdvisor,
Angi and IAC (as well as an unrelated company), and asserting 45
claims largely duplicative of those asserted in a proposed second
amended complaint in the Airquip case. In November 2018, the judge
presiding over the Airquip case issued an order consolidating the
two cases to proceed before him under the caption In re
HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation.

In January 2019, the plaintiffs renewed their motion for leave to
file a consolidated second amended complaint, naming as defendants,
in addition to HomeAdvisor, Angi and IAC, CraftJack, Inc. (a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and thus, an entity
affiliated with HomeAdvisor) and two unrelated entities. In
February 2019, the defendants opposed the motion on various
grounds. In September 2019, the court issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion.

In October and December 2019, the four defendants affiliated with
HomeAdvisor filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the amended
complaint. In September 2020, the court issued an order granting in
part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss.

On May 5, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.

On June 27, 2022, the Company opposed the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which remains pending.

The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are
without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them.

Angi Inc., formerly ANGI Homeservices, Inc., connects quality home
service professionals with consumers across 500 different
categories, from repairing and remodeling homes to cleaning and
landscaping. The company is based in Denver, Colorado.


ANTHONY VINEYARDS: Judge Won't Recuse From Martinez-Sanchez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SEBASTIANA MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v.
ANTHONY VINEYARDS, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01404-ADA-CDB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Ana de Alba of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California denies the
Defendants' motion to disqualify the Court.

On Dec. 12, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended
complaint as a putative class action alleging various state and
federal labor law violations. They filed a motion for class
certification on April 30, 2021.

On Nov. 18, 2021, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and
recommendations that, among other conclusions, recommended
certification of a monetary relief class defined as: "All persons
employed by Defendants as non-exempt field workers in
non-supervisory positions who performed agricultural work for
Anthony Vineyards' agricultural operations within the State of
California at any time between Oct. 4, 2015 through the date of
service of this order."

The Magistrate Judge also issued findings and recommendations on
Oct. 22, 2021 that recommend striking some, but not all, of the
Plaintiffs' PAGA claims. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed
objections to the Magistrate Judge's conclusions on both motions.
The findings and recommendations remain pending before the Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C).

On Aug. 24, 2022, Chief Judge Kimberly J. Mueller reassigned the
matter from the docket of Judge Dale A. Drozd to the docket of
Judge de Alba. On Jan. 10, 2023, the Defendants filed the instant
motion to disqualify the Court. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition
on Jan. 19, 2023, and the Defendants replied on Feb. 3, 2023. The
Court has determined that the matter is suitable for decision on
the papers, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).

The Defendants' allegations fall largely into three categories.
First, Judge de Alba's prior participation on the Boards of
Directors of California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. ("CRLA") and
Legal Aid at Work ("LAAW"). Judge de Alba served on the CRLA Board
of Directors from roughly 2015 through 2018 and the LAAW Board of
Directors from roughly 2014 through 2018. The Defendants tie each
of the Plaintiffs' co-counsel either to CRLA or LAAW in a manner
they contend exposes the Court's partiality in the matter.

Second, certain public comments Judge de Alba has made regarding
working conditions in California's Central Valley. Among other
things, the Defendants quote Judge de Alba from CRLA's 2015 annual
report that CRLA's client community is very personal to her because
the Central Valley is her home. Additionally, they point out that
CRLA listed the undersigned as a donor in both 2016 and 2017.

Lastly, Judge de Alba's legal advocacy for field workers before her
appointment to the bench. The Defendants point to the fact that
CRLA's 2015 annual report favorably compares Judge de Alba to Cesar
Chavez and Dolores Huerta, co-founders of the United Farmworkers'
Union and members of the first CRLA Board of Directors. They claim
that many of Sycamore's employees since 2017 would have also been
Medi-Cal participants in 2017, and that, therefore, the putative
class in that case would overlap with the putative class in the
instant matter.

Judge de Alba denies the Defendants' motion as untimely. She says
while she agrees that the timing of the Defendants' motion is
delayed -- the Defense counsel first conferred with the Plaintiffs'
counsel about the issue of disqualification on Sept. 20, 2022, less
than a month after the case was reassigned and slightly less than
four months before they filed their motion -- denial on the grounds
of timeliness would be inappropriate. The Defendants' affidavits
and arguments are deficient, but it is clear they do not follow any
adverse ruling from the Court.

Judge de Alba also finds that the Defendants' motion and affidavit
lack merit. She says requiring recusal based on a judge's prior
employment would be untenable -- at its logical extreme, it would
prevent former United States Attorneys and Federal Public Defenders
from hearing any criminal matters on their dockets.

In sum, Judge de Alba holds that none of the Defendants' arguments,
standing alone or taken together, suggest the existence of bias
warranting her recusal. She says the Defendants' objections simply
amount to a discomfort with her lived and professional experience.
Courts, however, have long recognized that judges are not sterile
creatures who don judicial robes without any prior contacts in the
community but rather are very likely to be men and women with a
broad exposure to all kinds of citizens of all shades of persuasion
and background.

Judge de Alba points out that bringing diverse experiences and
perspectives to the federal bench is a boon, not a detriment, to
the cause of equal justice under the law. To hold otherwise would
make social, cultural, and political ignorance a prerequisite for
judicial impartiality and elevate naivete over knowledge.

Accordingly, Judge de Alba denies the Defendants' motion for
disqualification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8m9jk3 from Leagle.com.


APOLLO ASSET: Fongers Class Suit Settlement Wins Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Asset Management Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2023, that the
court gave its final approval to the Fongers class suit settlement
on November 14, 2022.

On November 1, 2019, plaintiff Benjamin Fongers filed a putative
class action in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, against
CareerBuilder, LLC ("CareerBuilder") and AAM. Plaintiff alleges
that in March 2019, CareerBuilder changed its compensation plan so
that sales representatives such as Fongers would (i) receive
reduced commissions; and (ii) only be able to receive commissions
for accounts they originated that were not reassigned to anyone
else, a departure from the earlier plan.

Plaintiff also claims that the plan applied retroactively to
deprive sales representatives of commissions to which they were
earlier entitled.

Plaintiff alleges that AAM exercises complete control over
CareerBuilder and thus, CareerBuilder acts as AAM's agent. Based on
these allegations, Plaintiff alleges claims against both defendants
for breach of written contract, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, violation of the Illinois Sales Representative Act, and
violation of the Illinois Wage and Payment Collection Act.

The defendants removed the action to the Northern District of
Illinois on December 5, 2019, and Plaintiff moved to remand on
January 6, 2020.

On October 21, 2020, the district court granted the motion to
remand.

On January 11, 2021, the district court ordered the clerk of court
to take the necessary steps to transfer the case back to Illinois
Circuit Court, Cook County.

On March 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c) to recover attorneys' fees of approximately $35,000 for the
remand briefing.

Defendants filed their opposition on March 31, 2021, and Plaintiff
replied on April 14, 2021.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint in the Illinois
Circuit Court, Cook County on June 11, which were fully briefed on
August 13, 2021.

CareerBuilder has also filed a Motion for a Protective Order and to
Stay Discovery pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss.

On February 7, 2022, the court held a hearing on the motions to
dismiss and the request to stay discovery. At the hearing, the
court took the motions to dismiss under advisement and granted
CareerBuilder's motion to stay discovery.

On March 11, 2022, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement
notifying the court that the parties have reached an agreement to
resolve the case in full, and the court approved the settlement on
November 14, 2022. The settlement required no payment from any
Apollo-affiliated defendants.

Apollo Asset Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered
in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.

Apollo Asset Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered
in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.


APOLLO ASSET: Underwriters Dismissed from Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Apollo Asset Management, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2023, that the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed
all claims against the underwriters on December 2, 2022, but claims
against two of its executives and PlayAGS will proceed.

On August 4, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against
PlayAGS Inc. ("PlayAGS"), all of the members of PlayAGS's board of
directors (including three directors who are affiliated with
Apollo), certain underwriters of PlayAGS (including Apollo Global
Securities, LLC), as well as AAM, Apollo Investment Fund VIII,
L.P., Apollo Gaming Holdings, L.P., and Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC
(these last four parties, together, the "Apollo Defendants").

The complaint asserts claims against all defendants arising under
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with certain secondary
offerings of PlayAGS stock conducted in August 2018 and March 2019,
alleging that the registration statements issued in connection with
those offerings did not fully disclose certain business challenges
facing PlayAGS.

The complaint further asserts a control person claim under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Apollo Defendants and the
director defendants (including the directors affiliated with
Apollo), alleging such defendants were responsible for certain
misstatements and omissions by PlayAGS about its business.

On December 2, 2022, the Court dismissed all claims against the
underwriters (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC) and the
Apollo Defendants, but allowed a claim against PlayAGS and two of
the Company's executives to proceed.

No reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at
this time.

Apollo Asset Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.

ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Chavez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON CHAVEZ, on behalf of the State of California, and others
similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff v. ARAKELIAN
ENTERPRISES, INC., dba ATHENS SERVICES, a California Corporation;
ATHENS DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV03817 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angles Cty., Feb. 22, 2023) is a representative action filed by
Plaintiff, on behalf of all aggrieved employees and the State of
California, against the Defendants, pursuant to California's
Private Attorney General Act for Defendants' alleged violations of
the California Labor Code.

The complaint is brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum
and overtime wages, meal and rest period violations, inaccurate
wage statements, failure to produce employment records, inaccurate
payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, sick leave
violations, unlawful deductions, failure to provide supplemental
paid sick leave, failure to pay vested vacation/paid time off,
failure to timely pay all wages upon separation of employment, and
unlawful agreements/unlawful criminal history inquiries.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dispatcher and/or
similar title(s) from July 2017 through February 2022.

Arakelian Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Athens Services,
provides waste collection and recycling services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
          Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, PC
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 496-5818
          Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
          E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
                  zach@crosnerlegal.com
                  jamie@crosnerlegal.com

ARGO GROUP: Opposition to Dismissal Bid Due July 13
---------------------------------------------------
Argo Group International Holdings Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2023, that the
lead plaintiff in Police securities class suit should oppose the
defendants' motion to dismiss amended complaint on or before July
13, 2023.

The Police & Fire Retirement System City of Detroit v. Argo Group
International Holdings, Ltd., et al., No. 22-cv-8971 (S.D.N.Y.)

On October 20, 2022, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers, alleging securities fraud violations under sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff alleges that from February 13, 2018 through August 9,
2022, Defendants made false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's reserves and underwriting standards.

On January 18, 2023, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted
the Police and Fire Retirement System City of Detroit and the
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System's joint motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff.

With the Court's approval, lead plaintiffs are expected to file an
amended complaint on or before March 13, 2023.

Defendants anticipate making a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, due on or before May 12, 2023.

Lead plaintiff is expected to serve an opposition to said motion on
or before July 13, 2023, after which Defendants anticipate serving
a reply.

ARGO GROUP INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LTD. offers property casualty
insurance and reinsurance. The Company offers excess and surplus
lines, select markets, and international specialty insurance. [BN]


ATHENS FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gomez Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
WILFREDO GOMEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ATHENS FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00348-CEF (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 23, 2023) challenges policies
and practices of Defendant that violates the Fair Labor Standards
Act, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and Ohio Revised Code by
failing to pay all wages, including straight time and overtime to
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in the last three years in
its manufacturing facility in Cleveland, Ohio. Plaintiff's job
duties involved the manufacturing, packaging, and handling of food
products.

Athens Foods, Inc. manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells
food products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 East 9th Street, Ste. 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114  
          Telephone: (216) 230-2944
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher St., N.W., Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

ATRIA SENIOR: Loses Bid to Modify Class Definition in Stickles Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled GEORGE STICKLES and MICHELE RHODES,
Plaintiffs v. ATRIA SENIOR LIVING, INC., and ATRIA MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. C 20-09220 WHA (N.D. Cal.),
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies the Defendants' motion to clarify or
modify class definition, or to compel arbitrations in the
alternative.

Plaintiffs George Stickles and Michele Rhodes worked as "Community
Sales Directors" (CSDs) for Defendants Atria Senior Living, Inc.,
and Atria Management Co., LLC. This wage-and-hour class action
concerns whether the Defendants improperly classified CSDs as
exempt outside salespersons such that CSDs were not entitled to
overtime and meal and rest break rules under California law.

The Court's prior order certified a class of CSDs, who did not sign
arbitration agreements and whom the Defendants classified as exempt
outside salespersons from April 9, 2018, through Sept. 29, 2019.
The class was certified solely to the issue of whether the
Defendants properly classified CSDs as exempt outside
salespersons.

The parties each moved for summary judgment on that issue, and the
motions were fully briefed as of February 2022. The Defendants then
moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Rhodes' California Private
Attorneys General Act claim, which motion was fully briefed as of
April 2022. The parties subsequently entered settlement discussions
and moved for approval of a proposed class settlement, which was
rejected in June 2022. Outstanding motions were stayed pending
settlement.

In a status report dated June 21, 2022, the Defendants raised for
the first time they had discovered that, due to a clerical mistake,
a group of employees, who had been subject to arbitration
agreements had erroneously been included in the Class. The
agreements in question were not produced during discovery, and
consisted of arbitration agreements sent on one occasion in March
2019 to then-existing employees by email, informing them that they
would be subject to the agreement if they remained employed by the
Defendants 30 days afterwards.

An order resumed the litigation schedule due to the parties'
inability to settle on July 26, 2022. That order explicitly
explained that the class members the Defendants claimed to have
been erroneously included "are still members of the class," and
that it "would take substantial motion practice to compel them to
arbitrate." The outstanding motions for summary judgment were then
rescheduled for a hearing, and a summary judgment hearing was held
on Nov. 16, 2022. The resultant order granted summary judgment in
favor of the Plaintiffs on classification, determining that CSDs
are not exempt outside salespersons.

The Defendants now move to excise those class members they claimed
were erroneously included in the class.

Judge Alsup notes that this is not a close case. The Defendants
have been on notice since July 2022 that their apparent revelation
of emailed, unsigned arbitration agreements did not alter the
defined class, and that motion practice would be required to compel
arbitration. Nevertheless, the Defendants waited until after
summary judgment practice and resolution (which they lost) to try
to narrow the class definition and to compel arbitration.

This behavior is inconsistent with the Defendants' alleged right to
compel arbitration, Judge Alsup holds. The Defendants may not wait
to see how the judicial winds blow before reversing course towards
arbitration, Judge Alsup says.

Furthermore, Judge Alsup points out that the fact that the
Defendants waited until after the outcome of summary judgment
indicates waiver. If the Defendants had won their summary judgment
motion, the idea of arbitration would have sunk without trace, for
it would have struck an arrow through the heart of all class
members' claims, a strategic outcome that is difficult to
understate. So the Defendants waited to see the outcome and availed
themselves of a potential favorable judicial ruling. Judge Alsup
finds this was inconsistent with asserting the right to arbitrate.

Judge Alsup notes that the Defendants attempt to argue around the
issue by saying even if the right to compel arbitration is waived,
they can nevertheless seek to modify the class definition. Indeed,
the Defendants characterize their motion as primarily focused on
clarifying the class definition by shearing over half its members,
as it may not even be appropriate to determine, on a collective
basis, whether they should be compelled to arbitration. Surely the
inability to commit to arbitration at this penultimate hour
indicates waiver, Judge Alsup points out.

In any event, Judge Alsup finds the Defendants' arguments
supporting modification of the class are all premised on class
members being bound by arbitration. Because this order finds that
the right to compel arbitration has been waived, Judge Alsup holds
there is no reason to disturb the current class definition. There
is no dispute that the emailed arbitration agreements in question
were not signed, so as a factual matter the class definition
remains accurate.

Given the foregoing, Judge Alsup holds he need not reach the
credibility of the Defendants' claimed oversight, however
confounding it may be that they fully briefed prior motions to
certify the class and also to compel arbitration without a real
understanding as to which of its own employees were subject to
arbitration. The Plaintiffs have also prophylactically briefed and
filed a motion to intervene regarding standing, but the Defendants
do not contest the issue and neither party raises a question of
standing, so the motion to intervene is unnecessary.

For these reasons, the Defendants' motion to clarify or modify the
class definition, or to compel arbitrations in the alternative is
denied. The Plaintiffs' motion to intervene is denied as moot.

The hearing for this motion is vacated. Trial remains set for April
24, 2023, at 7:30 a.m. The final pretrial conference remains set
for April 19, 2023, at 2:00 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 16, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5ct7mn8y from Leagle.com.


AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Skye Named Lead Plaintiff in Ortmann Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge George J. Hazel of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland, Southern Division, appoints Skye Capital Partners as
Lead Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL J. ORTMANN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AURINIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., PETER GREENLEAF, and
JOSEPH MILLER, Defendants, Case No. GJH-22-1335 (D. Md.).

Plaintiff Michael J. Ortmann, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, brings this civil action against
Defendants Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc., Peter Greenleaf, and
Joseph Miller for violations of SectionS 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Pending
before the Court are multiple motions for appointment as lead
Plaintiff and approval of choice of counsel.

Aurinia is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes therapies to treat various diseases with unmet
medical need in Japan and China. The Company's only product is
LUPKYNIS, which is for adult patients with active lupus nephritis.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements about Aurinia as it pertains to its revenues, sales
outlook, commercial prospects, financial position, and public
statements.

On May 6, 2021, Aurinia issued a press release reporting the
Company's first quarter 2021 financial results and recent
operational highlights. On that same day, Aurinia hosted an
earnings call with investors and analysts. On Aug. 5, 2021, Aurinia
issued another press release reporting the Company's second quarter
and six-month 2021 financials. That same day, Aurinia likewise
hosted an earnings call with investors and analysts. On Nov. 3,
2021, Aurinia issued another press release for the third quarter
and nine-month 2021 financials. That same day, Aurinia hosted an
earnings call with investors and analysts to discuss the third
quarter 2021 results. The press releases and the earnings calls
presented an overwhelmingly positive outlook for Aurinia with a
high earning potential of an estimated $40-50 million for 2021.

On Feb. 16, 2022, Aurinia attended a Global Healthcare Conference
in which Defendant Greenleaf, CEO of Aurinia, made positive
statements about the financial outlook of Aurinia, stating that
amongst other things "aggressive numbers will come from us."

The Plaintiff states that all of these statements made from May 6,
2021, through Feb. 16, 2022, were false and misleading because: (i)
Aurinia failed to disclose that Aurinia was experiencing declining
revenues; (ii) Aurinia's 2022 sales outlook for LUPKYNIS would fall
well short of expectations; (iii) accordingly, the Company had
significantly overstated LUPKYNIS's commercial prospects; (iv) as a
result, the Company had overstated its financial position and/or
prospects for 2022; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On Feb. 28, 2022, Aurinia issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the quarter and full year ended Dec. 31,
2021. That press release provided a net revenue guidance of 115 to
135 million dollars from sales of LUPKYNIS for fiscal year 2022,
which according to a market analyst, was "well short of
expectations" with "wall street expecting the company's 2022
revenue forecast to come in around $178 million." The report also
showed a year-over-year decline. That same day, Aurinia's common
share price fell 24.26%, closing at $12.30 per share.

On April 15, 2022, the Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. On June 2, 2022, by
joint stipulation and order, the case was transferred to this
Court.

Of those movants seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff, three have
since withdrawn their motions or filed notices of non-opposition.
Remaining for the Court's determination are motions by movant
Rasik-Desai; movant ACDC Investments Limited; and movant Skye
Capital Partners.

As an initial matter, Judge Hazel notes that all three of these
movants have satisfied the first prong under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") and have filed a motion in
response to a PSLRA notice. The Plaintiff in this action published
a PSLRA notice of the pendency of the Action on April 15, 2022. The
notice informed members of the proposed class of the 60-day
deadline of June 14, 2022, to seek appointment as lead Plaintiff.
All three of these movants filed their motions on June 14, 2022.

As to the second prong, Judge Hazel says none of the parties'
dispute that Skye Capital Partners is the movant with the largest
financial interest, having lost approximately 6 million dollars as
a result of the Defendants' alleged misstatements and omissions.

Because Skye Capital is the movant with the largest financial
interest, the Court begins its analysis by determining whether Skye
Capital satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

At this stage, Judge Hazel finds Skye Capital has met its burden to
show typicality and adequacy. Skye Capital has satisfied the Rule
23 requirements and has established a rebuttable presumption that
they are the plaintiff that will most fairly and adequately
represent the interests of the class.

The only movant to challenge the rebuttable presumption raised by
Skye Capital Partners is ACDC Investments, the movant with the
second largest financial loss. ACDC states that Skye Capital is not
the most adequate Plaintiff because they are subject to a unique
defense as they failed to submit the statutorily required
certification, as the certification they submitted had no
indication that Mr. Cerchione, the individual who signed the
certification, is authorized to act on behalf of Skye Capital.

Skye Capital has since filed amended certifications that comply
with the requirements under PSLRA. Thus, Judge Hazel finds this
evidence is not enough to rebut the presumption raised by Skye
Capital.

ACDC investments next states, among other things, that Skye Capital
is not the most adequate Plaintiff and is subject to a unique
defense because of Mr. Cerchione's (the sole director of Skye
Capital Partners), alleged past fraudulent conduct. ACDC states
that Skye Capital is inadequate to serve as lead Plaintiff because
of a 2012 litigation where Mr. Cerchione was accused of using
client assets to benefit himself. Judge Hazel holds that ACDC also
fails to rebut the presumption raised by Skye Capital on this
ground, as well.

Skye Capital Partners has chosen the law firm of Bragar Eagel &
Squire, P.C. ("BES") as Lead Counsel and the law firm of Adelberg,
Rudow, Dorf & Hendler, LLC ("Adelberg") as Liaison Counsel to
represent it in this matter. The Court approves Skye Capital's
selection of counsel.

For these reasons, Skye Capital Partner's Motion is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Feb. 20,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3d5sjx from
Leagle.com.


BALL STATE: Court Granted Transfer in COVID-19 Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Carden of KPVI reports that The Indiana Supreme Court announced
March 6, 2023, it granted transfer in Mellowitz v. Ball State
University, thereby vacating a Court of Appeals ruling that struck
down a 2021 state law providing limited legal immunity to higher
education institutions.

Indiana Supreme Court to decide validity of COVID-19 class action
lawsuits against colleges and universities.

The state's highest court has agreed to review a lower court ruling
that opened the door to class action lawsuits against Indiana
colleges and universities stemming from the shutdown of in-person
instruction and residential campus services amid the COVID-19
pandemic.

Keller J. Mellowitz, a Ball State student, challenged the statute
at the appellate court after a Marion County judge said House
Enrolled Act 1002 barred his effort to seek, on behalf of all
affected Ball State students, a refund of in-person tuition and
student fees for the period after March 2020 when the Muncie
university closed to minimize the potential spread of the
coronavirus.

Mellowitz said the retroactive statute, approved by the
Republican-controlled General Assembly and Republican Gov. Eric
Holcomb 11 months after he initially filed suit, contravenes the
procedural rules relating to class action lawsuits prescribed by
Indiana's judicial branch.

Specifically, the law says a class action lawsuit "may not" be
filed against public or private colleges and universities in
Indiana for alleged contract violations or claims of unjust
enrichment in connection with COVID-19 prevention measures.

But that directly conflicts with the Indiana Rules of Trial
Procedure that specifically authorize a class action when certain
conditions are met, including questions of law common to all class
members for which a single resolution will promote efficiency and
economy of judicial resources.

In a 3-0 decision, the Court of Appeals said in this case the
state's trial rules prevail over a merely procedural statute
seeking to usurp them.

"It is a fundamental rule of Indiana law that when a procedural
statute conflicts with a procedural rule adopted by the Supreme
Court, the latter shall take precedence," wrote Judge Terry Crone,
a South Bend native, on behalf of the Court of Appeals.

He said instead of furthering judicial objectives, the law actually
frustrates them by encouraging a multiplicity of lawsuits from
similarly situated plaintiffs, since Ball State's legal liability
and potential payout for breach of contract or unjust enrichment
are not reduced by prohibiting a class action.

As a result, the appeals court said it concluded the law "is a
nullity" and ordered the case returned to the trial court for
further proceedings.

The Supreme Court's decision to grant Ball State's transfer request
supersedes that order. Oral arguments before the high court are
scheduled for April 11, 2023.

There is no timeline for a decision by the five justices.

Similar pending cases against Indiana University and Purdue
University have been put on hold awaiting a Supreme Court decision
in this case.

A different Indiana statute, Senate Enrolled Act 1 (2021), also
prohibited class action lawsuits for COVID-19 tort claims against
businesses and other entities, including consumer products. [GN]

BEN & JERRY'S: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Migrant Child Labor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that Ben & Jerry's faces a
proposed class action that alleges the ice cream icon's claims that
its products are ethically sourced are false given that its supply
chains make use of migrant child labor.

The 18-page lawsuit accuses Ben & Jerry's of wishing to "have its
ice cream and eat it too" by selling such products with the aid of
"ceaseless" human rights-centric and "virtue-signaling"
representations that profess concern for farmworker welfare.

The reality "could not be further from the truth," the case claims,
alleging that consumers have overpaid for Ben & Jerry's ice cream
that is not as ethically sourced as advertised.

According to the lawsuit, the "premiums" that buyers pay for Ben &
Jerry's ice cream "are not justified and constitute a breach of
consumer trust" by way of false advertising.

"Put simply, this is a case about greed run amok," the lawsuit,
filed on March 3 in New York, says.

The case was filed in the wake of a February 25 New York Times
exposé that shed light on the "widespread exploitation of migrant
children in the United States," including at the milk processing
facilities of "at least one" Ben & Jerry's supplier. The suit says
that although Ben & Jerry's appears to cut corners by utilizing
suppliers who use migrant child labor, the company nevertheless
raised prices by 13 percent in the fourth quarter of 2022.

"This is not only disgraceful, but it enriches Ben & Jerry's beyond
what is fair and equitable at the cost of consumers," the complaint
reads.

Vermont-headquartered Ben & Jerry's has historically "leaned into
social justice issues" as part of its advertising and marketing to
attract "like-minded consumers that seek to use their purchasing
power to promote a common ethos," the lawsuit relays. Overall, many
buyers are willing to pay more for Ben & Jerry's products, in part
because the company purports to maintain "some of the highest
ethical standards in the dairy industry," the filing says,
specifically highlighting the company's "Caring Dairy" and "Milk
with Dignity" programs as part of a larger “calculated business
decision” aimed at pulling in ethics-driven consumers.

By way of product packaging statements, and even some product
names, Ben & Jerry's implores consumers to buy its ice cream
because the company is "better" in comparison to other brands, the
suit states. Per the case, Ben & Jerry's "goes above and beyond to
tell consumers they should feel good about buying its products"
over others, especially because the company is using "ice cream to
change the world."

Despite its pervasive ethical messaging, Ben & Jerry's was
"recently exposed for using at least one supplier that employs
migrant child labor," the lawsuit says. In a February 25 piece
titled "Alone and Exploited, Migrant Children Work Brutal Jobs
Across the U.S.," the Times unpacked the systemic use and
exploitation of child labor nationwide, identifying Ben & Jerry's
as among the companies who "grind[] [migrant children] into
exhaustion."

In response to the Times report, the lawsuit shares, the non-profit
Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services
issued a statement in which it demanded that Ben & Jerry's end all
contracts with manufacturers who rely on migrant child labor.
Tellingly, in response to the Times exposé, Ben & Jerry's did not
deny the allegations or even claim to lack knowledge of them, but
instead "trotted out a hollow corporate-speak statement" attesting
that the company is "opposed to child labor of any kind
whatsoever," the case says.

In its statement, Ben & Jerry's vowed to "take decisive action in
connection with [its] suppliers and the Milk with Dignity Standards
Council," an independent farmworker-led human rights program,
should its monitoring programs or farmworker hotlines identify
instances of child labor on the farms its suppliers purchase dairy
from.

Neither the plaintiff, a New York resident, nor other consumers
would have bought Ben & Jerry's ice cream or paid as much as they
did, had they known the company's supply lines contained migrant
child labor, the complaint says.

In the wake of the Times report, the Biden administration announced
new initiatives to investigate child labor and improve aid for
migrant children in the United States. Since 2018, the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL) has seen a 69 percent increase in
children being employed illegally by companies. Late last month,
the DOL resolved one of the largest ever child labor cases in
history against Packers Sanitation Services, a food safety
sanitation services provider who paid $1.5 million in civil
penalties after being found to employ more than 100 children in
hazardous occupations and on overnight shifts at meat processing
facilities across eight states.

The case looks to cover all consumers in the United States who,
during the applicable time period, bought Ben & Jerry's products.

There's usually nothing you need to do to join or sign up for a
proposed class action lawsuit when it's first filed. It's only if
and when a case settles that consumers who are covered by the suit,
called "class members," would need to act. In this instance, a
class member may need to fill out and submit a claim form online or
by mail and may receive notice of the settlement with instructions
on what to do next and their legal rights.

However, class action cases tend to take some time - months or even
years - to resolve. [GN]

BEN & JERRY'S: Faces Tyrnauer Class Suit Over Ethical Supply Chains
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOVID TYRNAUER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01877
(S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023) alleges that Ben & Jerry's sold
throughout the world with ceaseless representations regarding the
product's supposedly ethical supply chains, including the "Caring
Dairy" and "Milk with Dignity" programs, which are human
rights-centric and designed to attract consumers wishing to buy
products that may be more ethically sourced, which unfortunately is
not the case.

According to the complaint, while Ben & Jerry's purports to use
ethical supply chains and professes concern about farmworker
welfare, the reality could not be further from the truth. Migrant
child labor is used in Ben & Jerry's supply chains. Ben & Jerry's
produces a premium priced ice cream brand by the same name, Ben &
Jerry's. Ben & Jerry's wishes to have its ice cream and eat it too.
It wishes to sell premium priced products with pompous
virtue-signaling representations regarding its supposedly ethical
sourcing all the while migrant child labor is used in its supply
chains. Put simply, this is a case about greed run amok. The
premiums that consumers pay for allegedly ethically-sourced
products, in this instance, are not justified and constitute a
breach of consumer trust through the misrepresentations that
Defendant makes, asserts the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this Action on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated who purchased Ben & Jerry's ice cream
during the applicable statutory period throughout the United
States.

Plaintiff Tyrnauer is, and at all relevant times was, a New York
resident. Plaintiff Tyrnauer purchased Ben & Jerry's ice cream
during the applicable statutory period.

Plaintiff Tyrnauer was harmed when he paid for Ben & Jerry's ice
cream during the applicable statutory period because had he known
that migrant child labor is used in Ben & Jerry's supply chain, he
either would not have purchased or would have paid less for the
products sold by Defendant, the suit added.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Israel David, Esq.
          Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
          Madeline Sheffield, Esq.
          ISRAEL DAVID LLC
          17 State Street, Suite 4010
          New York, NY 10004
          E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com
          blake.yagman@davidllc.com
          madeline.sheffield@davidllc.com

BETMGM LLC: Faces Sale Class Suit Over Risk-Free Bet Online Sports
------------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH SALE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BETMGM, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01872 (S.D.N.Y., March 3,
2023) alleges that large-scale marketing of BetMGM by Defendant,
including in television and print advertisements, in-arena
marketing, and extensive internet and social media advertising, are
and have been led with the false "free bet" or "risk-free bet"
representations.

In recent years, many states have legalized online sports betting
and it has quickly become a multi-billion-dollar industry. In a
crowded online betting marketplace, the stakes are extremely high
for operators to attract new sports betting customers. BetMGM has
become an industry leader in part by making untruthful and
deceptive promises to lure new bettors; specifically, by
advertising that the company will provide new users with a "free
bet" or "risk-free bet." But these promises are far from the truth:
the bet is not in any respect "free" or without risk, asserts the
suit.

The Plaintiff and other consumers would not have signed up for and
made a so-called "free" or "risk-free" bet with BetMGM in the
absence of these deceptive promises. Those advertisements contain
materially deceptive representations while omitting any warnings
regarding the acute and immediate risk that an initial bet is not
without risk and not, in fact, "free." Those representations and
omissions, which Plaintiff relied upon, are false and misleading.
These marketing representations and omissions violate state
consumer protection law and violate the duty of care owed, as
discussed in detail below. Consumers, including the Plaintiff, were
fraudulently induced to place bets with BetMGM because of its
misrepresentations, alleges the suit.

The Plaintiff and the Class members have been injured by signing up
for and using BetMGM for so-called "free" or "risk-free" initial
bets that actually cost them money. The Plaintiff brings this
action on behalf of himself, and the putative Classes, because
Plaintiff should not be responsible for monetary losses incurred
because of bets that were promised to be "risk-free" and "free."
The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, punitive damages, restitution,
and an injunction on behalf of the public to prevent BetMGM from
continuing to engage in their illegal practices, added the suit.

BetMGM is a Delaware gambling and entertainment limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Jersey City, New
Jersey. As explained on its website, under the heading "Who We
Are," BetMGM is a partnership between MGM Reports International and
the world's largest online betting technology company, Entain
Holdings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: 305-479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielgold.com
                  Adam A. Schwartzbaum*

               - and -

          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: adam@edelsberglaw.com

BEYOND MEAT: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Beyond Meat Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the protein claims consumer class suit in
Northern District of Illinois.

From May 31, 2022 through January 13, 2023, multiple putative class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company in various federal
and state courts alleging that the labeling and marketing of
certain of the Company's products is false and/or misleading under
federal and/or various states’ laws. Specifically, each of these
lawsuits allege one or more of the following theories of liability:
(i) that the labels and related marketing of the challenged
products misstate the quantitative amount of protein that is
provided by each serving of the product; (ii) that the labels and
related marketing of the challenged products misstate the percent
daily value of protein that is provided by each serving of the
product; and (iii) that the Company has represented that the
challenged products are "all-natural," "organic," or contain no
"synthetic" ingredients when they in fact contain methylcellulose,
an allegedly synthetic ingredient.

The named plaintiffs of each complaint seek to represent classes of
nationwide and/or state-specific consumers, and seek on behalf of
the putative classes damages, restitution, and injunctive relief,
among other relief. Additional complaints asserting these theories
of liability are possible.

Some lawsuits previously filed were voluntarily withdrawn or
dismissed without prejudice; though they may be refiled.

On November 14, 2022, Beyond Meat filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate all
pending class actions.

No party opposed the motion, and the Panel held oral argument on
the motion on January 26, 2023.

The Panel granted the motion on February 1, 2023, consolidating the
pending class action lawsuits and transferring them to Judge Sara
Ellis in the Northern District of Illinois for pre-trial
proceedings.

The initial status conference in the multidistrict litigation is
set for March 3, 2023.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted in the complaints. Based on the Company's current
knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any
material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible to
result from these lawsuits is not estimable.

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]


BLOCKFI INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 1
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC of BusinessWire reports that to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff will be until
May 1, 2023 in a a class action lawsuit has been filed against Zac
Prince, Flori Marquez, Amit Cheela, David Olsson, and Samia Bayou,
individuals who are or were officers and directors of BlockFi, Inc.
and related BlockFi entities, on behalf of all persons and entities
in the United States who invested in BlockFi Interest Accounts
("BIA") between March 4, 2019 to, and including, November 28, 2022
(the "Class Period").

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Zac Prince, Flori Marquez,
Amit Cheela, David Olsson, and Samia Bayou, individuals who are or
were officers and directors of BlockFi, Inc. and related BlockFi
entities, on behalf of all persons and entities in the United
States who invested in BlockFi Interest Accounts (“BIA”)
between March 4, 2019 to, and including, November 28, 2022 (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/blockfi.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that BlockFi, its affiliates, and the BlockFi
Individual Defendants made false and misleading statements to
promote BIAs, including that BIAs were a secure method of
collecting interest. In addition, the Complaint alleges that
BlockFi and the BlockFi Individual Defendants omitted and concealed
material information concerning the risks associated with BIAs. The
Complaint further alleges BlockFi and the Individual Defendants
unlawfully failed to register BIAs as securities before selling
them to individual investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/blockfi or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in BlockFi, you have until May 1, 2023, to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in
securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits.
The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.

Contacts
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]

BLOCKFI INC: Misrepresents Unregistered Securities, Greene Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
TREY GREENE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ZAC PRINCE, FLORI MARQUEZ, TONY LAURA, JENNIFER HILL
and GEMINI TRADING, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01165 (D.N.J., Feb. 28,
2023) alleges that unregistered securities sold by the BFI
Defendants on behalf of BlockFi were marketed and sold via a steady
stream of misrepresentations and material omissions by Prince and
Marquez over several years and through intermittent
misrepresentations by Defendant Gemini.

From March 4, 2019 to November 10, 2022, BlockFi, a New
Jersey-based financial services company has offered and sold
BlockFi unregistered BlockFi Interest Accounts to investors,
through which investors can earn a return from BlockFi which
deploys investors' assets in various ways.

On February 14, 2022, the SEC "charged BlockFi Lending LLC with,
inter alia, failing to register the offers and sales of its retail
crypto lending product." The truth about Prince and Marquez'
misrepresentations about BlockFi was revealed beginning on November
11, 2022, when California's financial regulator revoked BlockFi's
lending license for failure to comply with California loan
underwriting standards concerning the creditworthiness of borrowers
and their ability to repay loans. Thereafter, additional
disclosures established the extent and materiality of Prince and
Marquez' misrepresentations during the Class Period.

On November 10, 2022, BlockFi announced it would halt customer
withdrawals and freeze account access. Thereafter the Plaintiff and
class members have had no access to their investments. BlockFi made
this redemption freeze announcement even more permanent and
terrifying for customers when it filed for bankruptcy 18 days later
on November 28, 2022, leaving customers and 100,000 creditors in
the lurch, with liabilities and assets ranging from $1 billion to
$10 billion. Bankruptcy filings later revealed, inter alia, that
one of causes of BlockFi's failure and the loss of investors' fund
was that FTX affiliated Alameda had defaulted on $680 million worth
of loans to BlockFi. In its bankruptcy filing, BlockFi admitted
that its lockdown of investor accounts and bankruptcy was due to
its undisclosed exposure to FTX, a major cryptocurrency lender that
filed a bankruptcy petition on November 16, 2021, the suit
asserts.

Mr. Greene invested in unregistered securities from BlockFi in the
form of the BIA account. He opened an account with BlockFi in early
2020 and invested various amounts in Block Fi account holdings as
set forth in Rider A. He never withdrew any amounts of his assets/
investments.

Zac Prince is the CEO and co-founder of BlockFi and has been the
CEO since its inception in October 2017.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          305 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com

                - and -

          Fletcher Moore, Esq.
          Justin Kuehn, Esq.
          MOORE KUEHN, PLLC
          30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 709-8245
          E-mail: fmoore@moorekuehn.com
                  jkuehn@moorekuehn.com

BLUE OTTER: Faces Webb Class Suit Over Biometrics Info Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LANCE WEBB, an Illinois resident, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BLUE OTTER LLC d/b/a BLUE OTTER
POLARIZED, a Georgia limited liability company, Case No.
1:23-cv-01187 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 27, 2023) sues the Defendant for
collection without prior consent of the face geometry data of the
Plaintiff and a potential class of other visitors to
www.blueotterpolarized.com who used the Virtual Try-
On feature, pursuant to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

The Defendant allegedly collects detailed and sensitive biometric
identifiers and information, including complete face geometry
scans, of its users through the Virtual Try-On feature, without
first obtaining their consent, or informing them that this data is
being collected. In addition, and in direct violation of BIPA, the
Defendant also does not provide users with a schedule setting out
the length of time during which their biometric information or
biometric identifiers will be collected, stored, used, or will be
destroyed.

Further, the Plaintiff seeks an order requiring the Defendant to
disclose whether the Defendant has retained Plaintiff's and the
Class members' biometric identifiers, how Defendant uses the
Plaintiff's and the Class members' biometric identifiers, and the
identities of any third parties with which Defendant shared those
biometric identifiers. Approximately 3 to 4 times in June or July
2022, from his home in Chicago, Illinois, Mr. Webb visited
www.blueotterpolarized.com via the Safari browser on his iPhone and
iPad and used the Virtual Try-On feature to try on sunglasses
products he was interested in, says the suit.

Blue Otter sells sunglasses products at brick-and-mortar retail
shops throughout the United States and Illinois and through its
website www.blueotterpolarized.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Steven Sukert, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
          WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  sukert@kolawyers.com

                - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

CALIFORNIA: Abrams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of California,
et al. The case is styled as Eric Abrams, Manuel Barriga, CAL FIRE
Local 2881, a labor organization on behalf of itself and its
members, Daniel Lopez Jr., and all others similarly situated v.
State of California; California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection ('CAL FIRE'); California Department of Human
Resources('CalHR'); Betty Yee,in her official capacity as
Controller of the State of California; Eraina Ortega, in her
official capacity as Director of CalHRl; Joseph Tyler, in his
official capacity as Director of CAL FIRE; Does and Doe Entities
1-10, Case No. 34-2023-00335381-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Feb. 28, 2023).

The case type is stated "Other Misc. Complaints."

California -- https://www.ca.gov/ -- a western U.S. state,
stretches from the Mexican border along the Pacific for nearly 900
miles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary M. Messing, Esq.
          MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP
          2150 River Plaza Dr., Suite 140
          Sacramento, CA 95833


CALIFORNIA: Reconsideration Bid Denial in Fitzgerald Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS POLLARD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion for reconsideration of an order granting class
certification in the lawsuit entitled Rhonda Fitzgerald, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Marcus
Pollard, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00848-JM-NLS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

On May 5, 2020, Ms. Fitzgerald filed this suit in district court,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging that Defendants Marcus
Pollard, Lieutenant C. Moore, Sergeant H. Cruz, Officer Jackson,
and Officer Mann-Little (collectively "Defendants") violated her
civil rights and committed torts against her. In the complaint, the
Plaintiff asserts: (1) a claim for violation of her Fourth
Amendment right - search without reasonable suspicion against all
the Defendants; (2) a claim for violation of her Fourth Amendment
right - search without reasonable suspicion against Defendant
Pollard and Doe 1; and (3) a claim for violation of the Fourth
Amendment - failure to train and supervise against Defendant
Pollard and Doe 1. Ms. Fitzgerald also brings state law claims
against all the Defendants for intentional infliction of emotional
distress and negligence.

On June 1, 2021, the Defendants filed an early Motion for Summary
Judgment shortly after their request to bifurcate discovery was
granted in part.

On Sept. 15, 2021, the Court denied the Defendants' motion.

On Nov. 3, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification. In doing so, the Plaintiff's proposed class
definition was modified and it was ordered that if this case comes
to trial, it will proceed in two phases: the first to determine the
common liability questions, or class issues, with individualized
liability and damages issues being adjudicated in the second
phase.

On Nov. 17, 2022, the Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration
of the order on the Motion for Class Certification.

On Jan. 31, 2023, Judge Jeffrey T. Miller denied the Defendants'
Motion for Reconsideration. The Court ruled that the Defendants'
arguments do not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 23 and therefore, do not constitute grounds for the
Court to alter its Class Certification Order.

The appellate case is captioned Rhonda Fitzgerald v. Marcus
Pollard, et al., Case No. 2380016, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 23, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent RHONDA FITZGERALD, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Blair J. Berkley, Esq.
            Geralyn L. Skapik, Esq.
            SKAPIK LAW GROUP
            5861 Pine Avenue
            Chino Hills, CA 91709
            Telephone: (909) 724-8821
                       (909) 398-4404

Defendants-Petitioners MARCUS POLLARD, et al. are represented by:

            Damon Grant McClain, Esq.
            George R. Morris, Esq.
            AGCA - Office of the California Attorney General
            455 Golden Gate Avenue
            San Francisco, CA 94102
            Telephone: (415) 703-5750

CAMBRIDGE, ON: Faces $126-M Vaccine Mandate Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Vivian of Cambridge Today reports that one city firefighter
joins class action lawsuit claiming loss of dignity, mental anguish
and discrimination based on medical status.

Alleging the City of Cambridge's COVID vaccine mandate for
employees violated their constitutional rights, an employee on the
Cambridge Fire Department is asking the court to award them
$550,000 in compensation.

They're part of a class action involving more than 200 plaintiffs
throughout the province, largely first responders and essential
workers, seeking a collective $125.95 million from a variety of
defendant municipalities and taxpayer-funded service providers.

"All the plaintiffs were sent home on 'leave without pay' and/or
subsequently fired for refusing to take the COVID-19 'vaccines'
(inoculations) whether or not they were working from home, and/or
further refused to multi-weekly PCR testing in order to continue
working," notes the statement of claim filed earlier this month in
Toronto.

"All the plaintiffs possess a conscientious and/or physical
/medical reason for refusing to take the COVID-19 'vaccines'
(inoculation). "

None of the allegations have been tested or proven in court.

At this time, no statements of defense have been filed.

Efforts to reach a City of Cambridge spokesperson for comment
weren't immediately successful. In the past, the city has declined
to comment on matters before the courts.

A similar lawsuit filed by the same lawyer against a variety of
federal agencies and federally-regulated organizations was recently
thrown out, with the judge calling the claims "bad beyond
argument."

The list of plaintiffs in this latest lawsuit includes one
Cambridge firefighter. Their employment status with the city isn't
referenced in the court filing.

In all, there are nearly 250 plaintiffs behind the lawsuit, along
with almost 50 municipalities, school boards, municipal services
and individuals identified as defendants.

Each of the plaintiffs are asking for $550,000 in compensation, as
well as to have their employment status returned, back pay and
benefits from time missed. They claim loss of their livelihood,
mental anguish and distress, loss of dignity and discrimination
based on their medical status.

The City of Cambridge implemented its vaccine mandate in the fall
of 2021, requiring all employees to provide proof they are fully
vaccinated against COVID, or submit to regular testing and eduction
on the benefits of vaccination.

Three employees were placed on unpaid leave as a result of the
action.

"While 'exemptions' to these 'mandatory vaccine mandates' exist, in
theory, all of the plaintiffs who sought an exemption were
arbitrarily denied without reasons," the lawsuit states. "The
plaintiffs further state that there is no obligation to seek any
exemption before refusing the vaccines."

"All the plaintiffs are ineligible for employment insurance
benefits because they were dismissed for refusing the 'vaccines'
(inoculations)."

The lawsuit further calls on the court to declare vaccine mandates
to be "not scientifically or medically based." It further raises
questions about the accuracy of polymerase chain reaction tests,
often referred to as PCR or rapid response tests, used by the
various employers to check infection status.

"The plaintiffs state, and the fact is, that there is no, and there
has not been, a 'COVID-19' 'pandemic' beyond and/or exceeding the
consequences of the fall-out of the pre-covid annual flu or
influenza," the court filing continues.

"The fact, and data is, that the COVID-19 measures have caused, to
a factor of a minimum of five (5) to one (1), more deaths than the
actual purported COVID-19 has caused." [GN]

CBL & ASSOCIATES: Delaware Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the
Delaware shareholder class suit was voluntary dismissed on February
15, 2023.

On January 12, 2023, a purported shareholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit captioned John Haynes v. Charles B. Lebovitz, et
al., C.A. No. 2023-0033-NAC, in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the
"Delaware Action"), naming the Company and certain directors as
defendants. The Delaware Action alleged a claim against the Company
for violation of Delaware General Corporation Law § 213(a) due to
an improper record date for the 2022 annual meeting, and a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty against the director defendants.

The Delaware Action sought, among other things, a declaration that
the directors breached their fiduciary duties, an equitable
accounting, unspecified monetary relief, and attorneys’ fees.

Defendants denied that any such relief was warranted, and on
February 15, 2023, the Delaware Action was voluntarily dismissed.

CBL and Associates Properties is a self-managed,
self-administered,
fully integrated real estate investment trust. It owns, develops,
acquires, leases, manages, and operates regional shopping malls,
outlet centers, lifestyle centers, open-air centers and other
properties.

CBL & ASSOCIATES: Securities Suit Ongoing in Tennessee Court
------------------------------------------------------------
CBL & Associates Properties Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that a
securities class suit is ongoing in Tennessee.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as
defendants in three putative securities class action lawsuits, each
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities during a specified period of
time.

Those cases were consolidated on July 17, 2019, under the caption
In re CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. Securities Litigation,
1:19-cv-00149-JRG-CHS, and a consolidated amended complaint was
filed on November 5, 2019, seeking to represent a class of
purchasers from July 29, 2014 through March 26, 2019.

The operative complaint filed in the Securities Class Action
Litigation alleges violations of the securities laws, including,
among other things, that the defendants made certain materially
false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
Company's contingent liabilities, business, operations, and
prospects during the period of time specified above.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of
damages sought.

On May 3, 2022, the court dismissed the Company from the Securities
Class Action Litigation but declined to dismiss the individual
defendants.

The court also lifted the stay of the proceedings and, on June 9,
2022, entered a scheduling order. Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, which was opposed, was fully briefed and pending as
of December 31, 2022.

Following a January 31, 2023 mediation before a private mediator,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the
Securities Class Action Litigation, subject to documentation and
court approval.

The putative settlement is expected to be fully funded by directors
and officers liability insurance, subject to the terms and
conditions thereof, with no contribution expected from the Company
or the individual defendants.

By agreeing to resolve the matter in principle, neither the Company
nor any of the individual defendants are admitting any liability or
wrongdoing, and they have expressly denied both.

Rather, defendants entered into the agreement in principle to
eliminate the risks, costs, and distractions associated with
further litigation of this matter.

The outcome of these legal proceedings cannot be predicted with
certainty.

CBL and Associates Properties is a self-managed, self-administered,
fully integrated real estate investment trust. It owns, develops,
acquires, leases, manages, and operates regional shopping malls,
outlet centers, lifestyle centers, open-air centers and other
properties.

CELSIUS HOLDINGS: March 31 Final Fairness Hearing for Prescot Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Celsius Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the final Fairness
Hearing for the Prescod class suit is set for March 31, 2023.

In March of 2019, Daniel Prescod filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, filed on March 19, 2019, (the
"Prescod Litigation"). Daniel Prescod asserts that the Company's
use of citric acid in its products while simultaneously claiming
"no preservatives" violates California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.,
and California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, et
seq., because citric acid acts as a preservative.

The Company does not use citric acid as a preservative in its
products, but rather as a flavoring, and therefore it believes that
its "no preservatives" claim is fair and not deceptive.

A motion to certify the case as a class action was filed and on
August 2, 2021, that motion was granted. No fact discovery was
conducted on the merits.

On October 12, 2022, the Company and Mr. Prescod notified the
courts that an agreement in principle to settle had been reached to
resolve the case for an aggregate amount of $7.8 million.

The Company and Mr. Prescod submitted the settlement agreement to
the court, which entered its preliminary approval on November 23,
2022 and set a final Fairness Hearing for March 31, 2023.

As of December 31, 2022, $7.8 million was accrued and included in
accounts payable and accrued expenses in the consolidated balance
sheets.

Celsius Network LLC -- http://www.celsius.network/-- is a
financial services company that generates revenue through
cryptocurrency trading, lending, and borrowing, as well as by
engaging in proprietary trading.


CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Failed to Protect Health Info, M.Z. Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
M.Z., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. and SHAUNNA
ELLISON, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01049-ZNQ-LHG (D.N.J., Feb.
22, 2023) is a class action brought by Plaintiff, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated seeking to redress
Defendants' willful and reckless violations of their privacy
rights.

This action pertains to Defendants' unauthorized disclosure of the
Plaintiff's and other Class Members' protected health information
and personally identifiable information that occurred on or around
December 29, 2022. The Defendant allegedly disclosed Plaintiff's
and other Class Members' PHI and PII to unauthorized persons as a
direct and/or proximate result of Defendants' failure to safeguard
and protect her PHI and PII. The Defendants' wrongful actions
and/or inaction and the resulting breach have ultimately placed
Plaintiff at an imminent, immediate and continuing increased risk
of identity theft, identity fraud and medical fraud, the suit
asserts.

The Plaintiff and other Class Members seek all (i) actual damages,
economic damages, and/or nominal damages, (ii) injunctive relief,
and (iii) attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, costs and any
applicable prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

The Plaintiff was a patient of CentraState who entrusted her
protected health information and personally identifiable
information to Defendants.

Centrastate Healthcare System, Inc. is a non-for-profit community
health organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          Lucy McShane, Esq.
          MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
          1656 Washington Street, Suite 120
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 888-8010  
          Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
          E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
                  lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com

CENTRASTATE HEALTHCARE: Kanthal-Cubides Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO CUBIDES and LAURA KANTHAL-CUBIDES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTRASTATE
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. and ATLANTIC HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01075-ZNQ-LHG (D.N.J., Feb. 23, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence
per se, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, and violation of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The suit concerns CentraState's alleged failure to safeguard highly
confidential information of patients, including Plaintiffs. On
February 10, 2023, CentraState confirmed that they had suffered a
ransomware attack that disrupted its computer systems. The health
system detected the attack on December 29, 2022, and waited six
weeks before informing the public.

As a result of CentraState's actions, Plaintiffs and the Class
Members experienced damages from: (i) theft of their private
information and the resulting loss of privacy rights in that
information; (ii) improper disclosure of their private information;
(iii) loss of value of their private information; (iv) the amount
of ongoing reasonable identity defense and credit monitoring
services made necessary as mitigation measures; (v) CentraState's
retention of profits attributable to Plaintiffs' and other
customers' private information that CentraState failed to
adequately protect; (vi) economic and non-economic impacts that
flow from imminent, and ongoing threat of fraud and identity theft
to which Plaintiffs are now exposed to; (vii) ascertainable
out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time allocated to
fixing or mitigating the effects of this data breach; and (viii)
overpayments of CentraState's products and/or services which
Plaintiffs purchased, says the suit.

CentraState Healthcare System is a non-for-profit community health
organization based in New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Telephone: (917) 438-9189
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          E-mail: cayers@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Criden, Esq.
          CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
          7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
          South Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 357-9000
          E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com

CENTRO GLASS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lozado Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL BERMEO LOZADO; and MIGUEL BERMEO LOZADO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CENTRO
GLASS CORP.; and VICTOR ELIAS BERMEO GUZMAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-01680 (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 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.

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as general worker.

CENTRO GLASS CORP. provides glass installation, work, and
contracting services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 792-0046
          Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com

CLARIVATE PLC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Clarivate PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the dismissal motion of
the defendants to the amended complaint is pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Between January and March 2022, three putative securities class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York against Clarivate and certain
of its executives and directors alleging that there were weaknesses
in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting and
financial reporting procedures that it failed to disclose in
violation of federal securities law.

The complaints were consolidated into a single proceeding on May
18, 2022.

On August 8, 2022, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, seeking damages on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who acquired Clarivate securities between July 30,
2020, and February 2, 2022, and/or acquired Clarivate common or
preferred shares in connection with offerings on June 10, 2021, or
Clarivate common shares in connection with a September 13, 2021,
offering.

The amended complaint, like the prior complaints, references an
error in the accounting treatment of an equity plan included in the
Company's 2020 business combination with CPA Global that was
disclosed on December 27, 2021, and related restatements issued on
February 3, 2022, of certain of the Company's previously issued
financial statements; the amended complaint also alleges that the
Company and certain of its executives and directors made false or
misleading statements relating to the Company's product quality and
expected organic revenues and organic growth rate, and that they
failed to disclose significant known changes to the Company's
business model.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 7,
2022.

Clarivate is a global information services and analytics company
serving the scientific research, intellectual property, and life
sciences end-markets.[BN]

CLOVER HEALTH: Bond Wins Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------
Clover Health Investments Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the class
certification motion in the consolidated Bond class suit was
granted by the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee.

In February 2021, the Company and certain of its directors and
officers were named as defendants in putative class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee captioned Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et
al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.); Kaul v. Clover Health
Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00101 (M.D. Tenn.);
Yaniv v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No.
3:21-cv-00109 (M.D. Tenn.); and Tremblay v. Clover Health
Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00138 (M.D. Tenn.). The
complaints assert violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act. The
Kaul action asserts additional claims under sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act.

The complaints generally relate to allegations published in the
Hindenburg Article.

The complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or acquired Clover securities during the
class period (which begins on October 6, 2020, and, depending on
the complaint, ends on February 3, 2021, or February 4, 2021), as
well as certain other costs.

In April 2021, the Middle District of Tennessee class actions were
consolidated under Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.) as the lead case.

On June 28, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
also generally relates to allegations published in the Hindenburg
Article, but adds, among other things, allegations from
confidential witnesses who purport to be former employees of the
Company.

The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 28,
2021; that motion was denied on February 28, 2022. On February 14,
2023, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Clover Health Investments, Corp. provides Medicare Advantage plans
through a software platform based in Tennessee.


CONCERNED HOME: $500K Class Deal in Quintyne Suit Wins Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARJORIE QUINTYNE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONCERNED HOME MANAGERS FOR THE
ELDERLY, INC. d/b/a COME, Defendant, Index No. 150245/2020 (N.Y.
Sup.), Judge Lynn R. Kotler of the Supreme Court of New York County
grants the Named Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement, Service Award to Named Plaintiff, and
Class Counsel's Attorney's Fees and Costs.

The Named Plaintiff filed the present Class Action Complaint in New
York County Supreme Court on Jan. 8, 2020. The Complaint alleged
that the Defendant violated the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and its
supporting New York State Department Of Labor Regulations ("NYCRR")
during the Class Period because the Defendant allegedly required
its home health aides to work outside of their scheduled shift
without compensation. Additionally, the Defendant did not
compensate Aides for spread of hours when they worked more than 10
hours a day.

A Negotiated Settlement Agreement and Release was executed by all
parties to resolve this matter for $500,000. On Aug. 29, 2022, the
Named Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval Of The
Settlement Agreement And Release, Certification Of The Class For
Settlement Purposes, Appointment Of The Named Plaintiff As Class
Representative, Appointment Of The Law Firm Of Louis Ginsberg, P.C.
As Class Counsel and Approval Of The Class Notice and Claims Form.
On Oct. 28, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement And Release, certified the Class for
settlement purposes, appointed the Named Plaintiff as the Class
Representative, appointed the Law Firm of Louis Ginsberg, P.C. as
the Class Counsel and approved the Class Notice and Claims Form.

The Claims Administrator mailed the Settlement Class Notice and
Claims Form to Class Members. Subsequently, the Named Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Final Approval. The Defendant did not oppose the
Motion. No Class Member has objected to the settlement.

Having considered the Motion for Final Approval, the supporting
Declaration of Louis Ginsberg, Esq., and the complete record in the
matter, Judge Kotler grants the Motion for Final Approval and
finally approves the settlement as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement of $500,000.

Judge Kotler certifies the following class under Article 9 of the
CPLR, for settlement purposes only: All current and former home
health aides who worked for Defendant in the State of New York, who
are or were employed by Defendant at any time from January 8, 2014
through the date of Preliminary Approval.

Judge Kotler finds reasonable the service award of $10,000 for the
Named Plaintiff given the significant contributions she made to
advance the prosecution and resolution of the lawsuit. This award
will be paid from the settlement fund.

On Oct. 28, 2022, the Court appointed the Law Firm of Louis
Ginsberg, P.C. ("LG") as the Class Counsel. Judge KOtler holds that
the work that the Class Counsel has performed in litigating and
settling the case demonstrates their commitment to the class and to
representing the best interests of the class. The Class Counsel has
committed substantial resources to prosecuting the case on a fully
contingent basis.

Therefore, Judge Kotler grants the Class Counsel's request for
attorney's fees and awards it $166,666.67, which is 33% of the
settlement fund. She also awards the Class Counsel reimbursement of
their litigation expenses in the amount of $506.89. The attorney's
fees and the amount in reimbursement of litigation costs and
expenses will be paid from the settlement fund.

The Final Effective Date of the settlement will be 30 days
following the Order if no appeal is taken from the Order. If a
party appeals the Order, the Final Effective Date of the settlement
will be the day after all appeals are finally resolved in favor of
final approval.

Within 30 days after the motion for final approval is granted, the
Claims Administrator will pay:

     a. the Class Counsel attorneys' fees of $166,666.67 from the
settlement fund;

     b. the Class Counsel for litigation costs and expenses
totaling $506.89 from the settlement fund;

     c. the service award of $10,000 for the Named Plaintiff; and

     d. the remainder of the settlement fund (after subtracting for
the attorney's fees, and expenses, the Named Plaintiff's service
award, and the agreed upon Claims Administrator's fees which are
also approved), to the Authorized Claimants in accordance with the
allocation plan described in the Settlement Agreement.

The Court retains jurisdiction over the action for the purposes of
enforcing the Settlement Agreement and overseeing the distribution
of settlement funds. The parties will abide by all terms of the
Settlement Agreement and the Order.

The litigation will be dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Judgment & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yckja2tt from Leagle.com.


CORECIVIC INC: Seeks More Time to File Writ of Certiorari in Owino
------------------------------------------------------------------
CORECIVIC, INC. filed on February 21, 2023, a request to extend the
time to file a petition for writ of certiorari from March 20, 2023
to April 19, 2023. The petition for writ of certiorari seeks U.S.
Supreme Court to review of the judgment of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case captioned as Sylvester
Owino, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs vs. CoreCivic, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-55221.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in 2017,
Plaintiffs Sylvester Owino and Jonathan Gomez brought a class
action suit against CoreCivic. The Plaintiffs were previously held
in a civil immigration detention facility operated by CoreCivic --
Owino from 2005 to 2015, and Gomez from 2012 to 2013. They filed
suit "on behalf of all civil immigration detainees who were
incarcerated and forced to work by CoreCivic," seeking declaratory
and injunctive relief and damages, among other remedies, for
"forcing/coercing detainees to clean, maintain, and operate
CoreCivic's detention facilities in violation of both federal and
state human trafficking and labor laws." Specifically, Owino
alleged violations of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence
Protection Act of 2000, 18 U.S.C. Section 1589 et seq. ("TVPA"),
California Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Cal. Civ. Code
Section 52.5 ("CTVPA"), various provisions of the California Labor
Code, and other state laws.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's certification of
three classes. It held that CoreCivic retains its personal
jurisdiction defense and remands the personal jurisdiction question
to the district court for consideration at the appropriate
juncture.

The appellate case is captioned CoreCivic, Inc., Applicant vs.
Sylvester Owino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, et al., Case No. 22A767, in the Supreme Court of United
States, filed on February 23, 2023. [BN]

Defendant-Petitioner CORECIVIC, INC. is represented by:

            Roman Martinez, Esq.
            LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
            555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
            Washington, DC 20004
            E-mail: roman.martinez@lw.com

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Corker's $6.15-Mil. L&K Settlement Wins Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, issued a Final Judgment and Order
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the $6.15
million class settlement with two Defendants in the lawsuit titled
BRUCE CORKER, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing their Complaint on
Feb. 27, 2019, and ultimately filed a Third Amended Complaint on
April 30, 2020. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants violated
the Lanham Act by misleadingly labeling and selling coffee not from
the Kona region as "Kona" coffee. On Nov. 12, 2019, the Court
denied motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' original complaint and
discovery began.

The Plaintiffs have negotiated a class action settlement with
Defendants L&K Coffee Co., LLC and Kevin Kihnke. The Settlement
Agreement was attached as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of counsel
accompanying the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, filed on Sept. 29, 2022.

Through the Settlement Agreement, L&K will fully and completely
satisfy the claims of Class Members relating to the claims alleged
by the Plaintiffs in the Third Amended Complaint by paying the
Class Members a total payment of $6.15 million, and provide
injunctive relief relating to the labeling of the Kona coffee
products at issue. Attorneys' fees and costs of Class Counsel and
administrative costs will be paid from the Settlement Fund. By
entering into the Settlement Agreement, L&K made no admissions
relating to the claims raised in this lawsuit, nor did the
Plaintiffs make admissions relating to L&K's Defenses.

The Settlement Class, as defined in each of the Settlement
Agreements, includes the following: All persons and entities who,
between Feb. 27, 2015, and the date of Court's order granting
preliminary approval to the settlement (Oct. 4, 2022), farmed Kona
coffee in the Kona District and then sold their Kona coffee.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are any Defendants to the
action, as well as any judge assigned to the action, and the
judge's immediate family and staff.

The Settlement Agreement describes the claims that are being
settled on behalf of the Class. The Settlement Agreement and its
terms, including the definitions, are incorporated into this Final
Judgment And Order of Dismissal as if fully set forth herein. The
Settlement Agreement and Final Judgment will be referred to
collectively herein as the "Settlement."

The Court entered an order dated Oct. 4, 2022, directing that
notice of the proposed Settlement be effectuated as to the
Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"). The Preliminary Approval
Order set a hearing for Feb. 16, 2023, to determine whether the
proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate.

In general accordance with the Court's Preliminary Approval Order,
the Settlement Administrator caused to be mailed to potential
members of the Settlement Class for whom addresses could be
located, a notice (the "Settlement Notice") in the form approved by
the Court in the Preliminary Approval Order. The Court did not
receive any objections to the Settlement from class members.

L&K caused to be mailed to the appropriate federal and state
officials the materials required to be submitted by the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Court finds that CAFA's notice
requirements have been satisfied.

On Feb. 16, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the proposed
Settlement, at which time all interested persons were given an
opportunity to be heard. The Court grants the motion for final
approval of the Settlement.

In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court concluded that the
Plaintiffs showed that they were likely to satisfy the requirements
for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) & (b). The
Court has now determined that certification is warranted. The Court
finds no reason to disturb those conclusions.

The Court finds the Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and
adequate. Therefore, the Settlement is approved in all respects,
and will be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, all members
of the Settlement Class.

All Settled Claims, including the claims asserted against Kevin
Kihnke, are dismissed with prejudice.

This Final Judgment may not be used as an admission by or against
L&K or Kevin Kihnke of any fact, claim, assertion, matter,
contention, fault, culpability, obligation, wrongdoing or liability
whatsoever.

The Court has, by separate order, granted Class Counsel's "Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses." The
amount of Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses awarded to Class
Counsel will be distributed to Class Counsel by the Settlement
Administrator from the Settlement Funds.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order dated Feb.
16, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2kvdkk6h from
Leagle.com.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Corker's Counsel Awarded $3-Mil. in Fees & Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards in
the lawsuit styled BRUCE CORKER, et al., on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL (W.D.
Wash.).

The Plaintiffs have presented a class action settlement with
Defendant L&K Coffee Co., LLC for the Court's approval. The
settlement includes monetary relief totaling $6.15 million, and
injunctive provisions that institute labeling changes for the
products supplied and sold by L&K.

Class Counsel have requested attorneys' fees in the amount of
$2,029,500, or 33 percent of the settlement fund. Judge Lasnik
finds that the requested fees are fair and reasonable under the
circumstances. First, the results obtained by Class Counsel are
excellent. In addition to the substantial monetary component, the
settlement provides for meaningful injunctive relief in the form of
practice changes on the part of L&K.

Second, the Court finds that the complexity of this case presented
unusual risks, particularly in a contingent fee case. Third, the
Court has considered the benefits to the Settlement Class beyond
the cash component of the settlement. The Court finds that the
injunctive relief provisions of the settlement support the
requested fee. Fourth, the Court has considered other cases
involving the creation of both a cash fund and valuable injunctive
relief, and finds that the requested fee is consistent with awards
in analogous cases.

The Court grants Class Counsel's request of a fee of $2,029,500 to
be paid from the Settlement Funds generated by the settlement.

Class Counsel has also requested reimbursement of litigation
expenses in the amount of $970,500.

The Court has reviewed Class Counsel's costs and finds that they
were reasonably incurred, and accordingly, grants reimbursement of
$970,500 from the Settlement Funds.

Class Counsel requests service awards of $2,500 for each farm whose
owners have served as class representatives in this litigation:
Rancho Aloha, Kanalani Ohana Farm, and Smithfarms.

Judge Lasnik finds the requested awards are fair and reasonable.
Each class representative invested substantial amounts of time in
this case and have made significant contributions to the case on
behalf of the members of the Settlement Class.

The Court, accordingly, awards each farm the requested service
awards of $2,500.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 16, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mrwx2a59 from Leagle.com.


DAVEY TREE: Luna Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANGEL LUNA individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVEY TREE SURGERY COMPANY,
a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23CV00040, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, Santa Cruz County, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 23,
2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:23-cv-00822 to the proceeding.

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

Davey Tree Surgery Company provides horticultural services.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ruth Zadikany, Esq.
          Elisabeth M. Anderson, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          333 S. Grand Avenue, 47th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
          Telephone: (213) 229-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
          E-mail: rzadikany@mayerbrown.com
                  eanderson@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Harris, II, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600
          Facsimile: (312) 701-7711
          E-mail: charris@mayerbrown.com

DESHI SENIOR: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, Saaba Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sawsan Abi Saaba, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Deshi Senior
Center, LLC, and Misbah Abdeen, Case No. 1:23-cv-01685 (S.D.N.Y.,
Mar. 5, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
State Labor Law, and liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week,
but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times
her regular rate of pay for those hours. The Defendants’ conduct
extended beyond Plaintiff to all other similarly situated
employees. The Defendants failed to provide accurate wage notices
and accurate wage statements, denying the Plaintiff her statutory
right to receive true and accurate information about the nature of
her employment and related compensation policies, the lawsuit
says.

The Plaintiff was employed as a general worker at Deshi Senior
Center, from November 2020 to January 24, 2023.

Deshi is a Social Adult Day Care center for elderly people.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 792-0046
          E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com

DESKTOP METAL: Continues to Defend Campanella Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Desktop Metal Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Company continues to
defend the Campanella consolidated securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On November 22, 2021, purported stockholder Pietro Campanella filed
a class action lawsuit against ExOne, Desktop Metal, Inc., and
former ExOne directors and officers alleging breach of fiduciary
duties and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties in
connection with the ExOne Merger (Campanella v. The ExOne Company
et al., Case No. 2021-1013, Case No. 2021-1013-LWW).

In particular, Mr. Campanella alleges that ExOne’s proxy
statement and supplemental disclosures did not adequately disclose
information related to a whistleblower investigation at one of
Desktop Metal's subsidiaries, EnvisionTEC, and the resignation of
EnvisionTEC's CEO.

On December 21, 2021, January 14, 2022, February 2, 2022 and
February 22, 2022, four alleged shareholders of Desktop Metal stock
filed purported securities class action complaints in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. (Luongo v.
Desktop Metal, D. Mass., Case No. 1:21-cv-12099-IT; Hathaway v.
Desktop Metal, D. Mass., Case No. 1:22-cv-10059-IT; Guzman-Martinez
v. Desktop Metal, D. Mass, Case No. 1:22-cv-10173, Xie v. Desktop
Metal, Case No. 1:22-cv-10297-IT).

Each complaint alleges that Desktop Metal and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act by making false or misleading
statements regarding EnvisionTEC’s manufacturing and product
compliance practices and procedures.

On February 4, 2022, the court issued an order consolidating the
first three District of Massachusetts securities class actions.

On July 7, 2022, the court appointed Sophia Zhou lead plaintiff for
the class period of February 17, 2021 through November 15, 2021.

The court also vacated its earlier order consolidating the Xie
action with the other lawsuits and will allow that action to
proceed separately, with a new notice to investors, based on a
class period of January 15, 2021 to February 16, 2021.

On September 29, 2022, the Court re-consolidated the Xie action
with the other actions for all pre-trial proceedings.
The Company believes that these complaints are all without merit
and intends to defend against them vigorously.

Desktop Metal, Inc. is pioneering a new generation of additive
manufacturing technologies based in Massachusetts.


DLOCAL LIMITED: Faces Hunt Class Suit Over 50% Common Stock Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES HUNT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DLOCAL LIMITED, COGENCY GLOBAL INC., SEBASTIAN
KANOVICH, DIEGO CABRERA CANAY, ALBERTO EDUARDO AZAR, ANDRES
BZUROVSKI BAY, SERGIO ENRIQUE FOGEL KAPLAN, LUIZ O. RIBEIRO, MARTIN
ESCOBARI, TEREZA GROSSI, JACOBO SINGER, JITENDRA GUPTA, COLLEEN A.
DEVRIES, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, CITI
GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, BOFA SECURITIES,
INC., HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., and UBS SECURITIES LLC, Case No.
651058/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Feb. 28, 2023) is securities class action
on behalf of persons who purchased, or otherwise acquired, DLocal
Class A Common Shares pursuant or traceable to the F-1 Registration
Statement and related prospectus on Form 424B1 issued in connection
with DLocal's June 2021 initial public stock offering.

The action asserts non-fraud, strict liability claims under §§11,
12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, against DLocal, certain
DLocal officers and directors, the underwriters of the IPO, and
DLocal's U.S. representatives.

In June 2021, Defendants commenced DLocal's IPO, issuing over 33.8
million shares at $21.00 per share, including the full exercise of
the Underwriter Defendants' option to purchase additional shares,
all pursuant to the Registration Statement. The Registration
Statement repeatedly touts Dlocal's supposed “growing and
deepening relationships” with new and existing global merchant
clients.

The Registration Statement's numerous representations about
DLocal's TPV and its internal controls over financial reporting,
however, allegedly contained untrue statements of material fact and
omitted to state material facts both required by governing
regulations and necessary to make the statements made not
misleading.

Specifically, the Registration Statement misrepresents the TPV
derived from new merchants in DLocal's 2019 and 2020 cohorts,
which, at the time of the IPO, were severely lower than what the
Registration Statement reported, as well as the fact that the
remediation plan DLocal implemented before the IPO was patently
defective and, thus, incapable of improving the Company's internal
controls over financial reporting, says the suit.

On November 16, 2022, Muddy Waters published a report that called
into question the TPV derived from new merchants in 2019 and 2020.
Muddy Waters observed that the TPV attributed to DLocal's 2019
cohort and 2020 cohort had dropped to $56 million and $260 million
respectively. Consequently, the TPV derived from the cohort of
enterprise merchants that began using DLocal's products in 2019
(i.e., new merchants) did not (and could not) grow by 209%.

On this news, DLocal's common stock plummeted over 50% in a single
day, to close at $10.46 per share on November 16, 2022.

By the commencement of this action, DLocal's shares traded as low
$9.03 per share, representing a decline of over 57% from the $21
IPO offering price. As a result, investors have lost hundreds of
millions of dollars, the suit asserts.

DLocal is a Montevideo, Uruguay-based financial technology company
that provides cross-border payments connecting global merchants to
emerging markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  rswartz@scott-scott.com
                  jzimmerman@scott-scott.com

                - and -

          Brian Schall, Esq.
          THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 301-3335
          Facsimile: (310) 388-0192
          E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com

EAST JORDAN: Fails to Pay Technicians' OT Wages, Wilson Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EAST JORDAN PLASTICS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00205
(W.D. Mich., Feb. 27, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and unpaid agreed upon wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Michigan's Improved Workforce
Opportunity Wage Act, as well as liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any
such other relief the Court may deem appropriate.

The Defendant allegedly operated an unlawful compensation system
that deprived and failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours
worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, by:

   (1) shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from the
       Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees'
       weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours worked
       and/or work performed; and

   (2) failing to include all forms of non-discretionary
       compensation, such as monetary bonuses, shift
differentials,
       incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in
       all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees'
       regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes.

In October 2020, the Defendant hired the Plaintiff as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Maintenance
Technician working at Defendant's Beaverton Facility.

East Jordan manufactures thermoformed and injection molded
horticultural containers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Lowe Class Suit Over Tampons' False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIGETTE LOWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE COMPANY, Case No.
3:23-cv-00834-LB (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2023) is a civil class action
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of consumers who purchased o.b.
Organic (TM) tampons for personal hygiene purposes.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has intentionally
designed the front and back package label representations on the
Tampon Products, in order to lead reasonable consumers to believe
that the Tampon Products are a healthy product for absorbing
menstrual fluid, and that they do not contain any chemicals that
are potentially harmful to women's health. The Organic
Representations appear prominently on the front of the Tampon
Products' packaging label, which contains the word "organic" twice,
once in large font in the center of the package and another time as
part of the representation that that Tampon Products are "100%
Organic Cotton," the Plaintiff says.

Accordingly, despite Edgewell's consistent and pervasive marketing
of the Tampon Products as Organic, the Plaintiff's independent
testing has shown that the Tampon Products contain per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), a category of human-made
chemicals with a toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative nature
which are associated with numerous health concerns. The presence of
PFAS chemicals in the Tampon Products is entirely inconsistent with
Edgewell's uniform Organic Representations. As a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's acts, including its affirmative
misrepresentations, false statements and material omissions, the
Plaintiff has incurred economic injuries including financial
damages at the point-of-sale stemming from her purchase of and/or
overpayment for the Tampon Products, in addition to the loss of the
benefit of her bargain and the Tampon Products' intended benefits,
alleges the suit.

Plaintiff Lowe has purchased o.b. tampons for nearly three
decades.

Edgewell designs, manufactures, advertises, distributes, and sells
personal care products, including the Tampon Products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: mpearson@pwfirm.com
                  mweiner@pwfirm.com

                - and -

          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          Erin J. Ruben, Esq.
          Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN, LLP
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          E-mail: rsoffin@milberg.com
                  hsegui@milberg.com
                  eruben@milberg.com
                  tpacheco@milberg.com

EHEALTH INC: Judgment Motions Pleadings Hearing Set for April 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
eHealth Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the judgment motions
pleadings hearing for securities class suit is set for April 13,
2023.

On April 8, 2020 and April 30, 2020, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company, its then-chief executive
officer, Scott N. Flanders, its then-chief financial officer, Derek
N. Yung, and its then-chief operating officer, David K. Francis in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The cases are captioned Patel v. eHealth, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:20-cv-02395 (N.D. Cal.) and Bertrand v. eHealth, Inc. et
al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02967 (N.D. Cal.).

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company and
Messrs. Flanders, Yung and Francis made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information regarding the Company's accounting and modeling
assumptions, rate of member churn and the Company's profitability
during the alleged class period of March 19, 2018 to April 7, 2020.


The complaints allege that the specified defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaints seek compensatory and (in the Patel lawsuit)
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief
as the court deems proper.

On June 24, 2020, the Court consolidated the above-referenced
matters under the caption In re eHealth Securities Litig., Master
File No. 4:20-cv-02395-JST (N.D. Cal.).

The Court also appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the
consolidated matter. An Amended Complaint was filed on August 25,
2020, which Defendants moved to dismiss on October 23, 2020.

Defendants' motion, which Plaintiff opposed, was granted in part
and denied in part on August 12, 2021.

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims to the extent premised
upon alleged misrepresentations or omissions relating to churn, but
denied Defendant's motion with respect to alleged misstatements
regarding purported operating costs.

On October 1, 2021, the Company filed an Answer denying in part and
admitting in part the remaining allegations, and denying any
wrongdoing.

On November 11, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a suggestion of
death with respect to the lead plaintiff Billy White.

Plaintiff's counsel published notice regarding the appointment of a
new lead plaintiff on January 17, 2022.

On November 9, 2022, the Court appointed Chicago & Vicinity
Laborers’ District Council Pension Fund as the new lead plaintiff
and approved plaintiff's selection of counsel.

On November 29, 2022, the new lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel filed a supplement to the amended complaint, replacing the
names of the prior lead plaintiff and counsel and incorporating new
lead plaintiff’s previously filed certification.

On December 22, 2022, the Company, Mr. Flanders, and Mr. Yung moved
for judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining claims.

Mr. Francis also moved for judgment on the pleadings the same day,
and joined the motion by the Company, Mr. Flanders, and Mr. Yung.

The motions for judgment on the pleadings were fully briefed by
February 9, 2023, and are scheduled for a hearing on April 13,
2023.

eHealth, Inc. provides private health insurance exchange services
to individuals, families, and small businesses in the United
States
and China. The company operates through two segments, Medicare;
and
Individual, Family and Small Business. eHealth, Inc. was
incorporated in 1997 and is headquartered in Santa Clara,
California.






ELANCO ANIMAL: Bid to Junk Saffron Class Suit Opposed
-----------------------------------------------------
Elanco Animal Health Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the Saffron shareholder class suit dismissal
motion by defendants.

On October 16, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned
Saffron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al.
was filed in the Marion Superior Court of Indiana against Elanco,
certain executives, and other individuals and entities.

On December 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding an additional plaintiff.

The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its
executives made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's
relationships with third party distributors and revenue
attributable to those distributors within the registration
statement on Form S-3 dated January 21, 2020 and accompanying
prospectus filed in connection with Elanco’s public offering
which closed on or about January 27, 2020.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to
represent purchasers of Elanco common stock or 5.00% TEUs issued in
connection with the public offering.

From February 2021 to August 2022, this case was stayed in
deference to Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc.

On October 24, 2022, we filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs
filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 23,
2022.

The Company believes the claims made in the case are meritless, and
intends to vigorously defend its position.

Headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana, Elanco Animal Health Inc. is
a global manufacturer of animal health products. The company
develops, manufactures and markets products for a variety of
companion and food animals. Elanco revenue, pro forma for the
legacy Bayer business approximated $4.4 billion in 2020.


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emergent BioSolutions Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

On April 20, 2021, May 14, 2021, and June 2, 2021, putative class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
current and former senior officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the
Company’s common stock, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These complaints were filed by
Palm Tran, Inc. – Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577 Pension
Plan; Alan I. Roth; and Stephen M. Weiss, respectively. The
complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements about the Company's manufacturing
capabilities with respect to COVID-19 vaccine bulk drug substance
(referred to herein as "CDMO Manufacturing Capabilities").

These cases were consolidated on December 23, 2021, under the
caption In re Emergent BioSolutions Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
8:21-cv-00955-PWG (the "Federal Securities Class Action").

The Lead Plaintiffs in the consolidated matter are Nova Scotia
Health Employees' Pension Plan and The City of Fort Lauderdale
Police & Firefighters' Retirement System.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 19, 2022 and the
Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on July 19, 2022.


The defendants believe that the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and intend to defend the matters vigorously.

Headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland, Emergent BioSolutions
Inc.
is a life sciences company that provides pharmaceuticals,
vaccines,
medical devices and contract manufacturing services related to
public health threats affecting civilian and military populations.


ENVIVA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enviva Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Company continues to defend
itself from securities class suit in federal district court in the
District of Maryland.

On November 3, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in federal district court in the District of Maryland against
Enviva, John Keppler, and Shai Even. The lawsuit asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder based on allegations that the Company made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies, particularly relating to its
ESG practices. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Company's
statements were misleading as to the environmental sustainability
of the Company's wood pellet production and procurement and the
impact such statements would have on the Company's financials and
growth potential.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest
and costs, and attorneys' fees.

Lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed on January 31, 2023,
and their amended complaint is due to be filed on or before April
3, 2023.

Enviva has insurance coverage that, we believe, will cover some or
all of its liabilities related to the defense of this matter.

However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot
be certain that its coverage will be adequate for liabilities
actually incurred.

Enviva believes the case is without merit and intends to vigorously
defend the matter.

Enviva, formerly known as Enviva Partners, LP, develops,
constructs, acquires, and owns and operates, fully contracted wood
pellet production plants.[BN]

FCA US: Class Settlement in Moran Suit Gets Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALFONSO and ARLENE MORAN, individually, and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. FCA US
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
3:17-CV-02594-JO-AHG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jinsook Ohta of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California grants the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Having considered the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and attachments thereto, having received no
objections to the proposed Class Settlement, having held a final
fairness hearing on Feb. 15, 2023, and having carefully considered
all of the submissions and arguments of the parties, Judge Ohta
finds that the Settlement satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in all
respects and is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Judge Ohta finds the Settlement provides substantial benefits to
the Class, including the following:

     (a) The Defendant expanded the Class Vehicles'
5-year/60,000-mile powertrain warranty to include the crankshaft
position sensor, thereby extending coverage for repair or
replacement of engine crankshaft synchronization sensors;

     (b) The Settlement provides for reimbursement to the Class
Members for their out-of-pocket costs paid to repair their Class
Vehicle's crankshaft position sensors if the Class Members
purchased or leased their Class Vehicles more than five years
before the Effective Date of Settlement and before the Class
Vehicle reached 60,000 miles;

     (c) FCA will certify that all replacement crankshaft position
sensors installed from the date of Final Settlement Approval are
Part Number 68079375AD, or a subsequent iteration; and

     (d) The Class Members are entitled to an expedited, binding
Arbitration for claims seeking a vehicle repurchase or replacement
based in whole or in part on alleged defects in the Class Vehicles
related to stalling.

The Settlement is particularly beneficial and appropriate when
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the claims and
defenses asserted, and the risks of non-recovery or reduced
recovery, non-class certification, and potential recovery delays
associated with continued litigation of these claims.

There are approximately 725,817 Settlement Class Members. Judge
Ohta determines that the 88 requests for exclusion collectively
identified in the Supplemental Declaration of Jeremy Talavera dated
February 20, 2023, are invalid because they are late and/or
deficient. These requests for exclusion are rejected.

For these reasons, Judge Ohta certifies, for the purpose of this
Settlement, a Settlement Class consisting of the following: All
current residents of the United States (including territories of
the United States) who, prior to the Preliminary Approval Date,
purchased or leased new 2017-2021 Chrysler Pacifica vehicles
equipped with a 3.6-liter V6 engine and a 9-speed automatic
transmission that were originally sold in the United States
(including territories of the United States).

The Settlement Agreement submitted by the Parties is, in all
respects, finally approved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(e)
as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the
Settlement Class.

Excluded from the Settlement and Release, on the basis of their
timely and valid requests for exclusion, are the 194 Settlement
Class Members identified in the Declaration of Jeremy Talavera. All
other requests for exclusion are rejected.

The Parties are directed to perform all obligations under the
Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms.

The Parties and each person or entity within the Settlement Class
are bound in all respects by the terms and conditions of the
Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to the Released
Claims against all Released Parties contained therein, except for
those persons or entities who have duly and timely excluded
themselves from the Settlement.

The Action is dismissed, with prejudice and without costs.

The Final Approval Order has been entered without any admission by
any Party as to the merits of any allegation in the Action and will
not constitute a finding of either fact or law as to the merits of
any claim or defense that was or could have been asserted in the
Action.

The Released Claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, are
fully, finally, and forever deemed released, discharged, acquitted,
compromised, settled, and dismissed with prejudice against
Defendant and all Released Parties.

Judge Ohta, having conditionally appointed Plaintiffs Alfonso and
Arlene Moran as representatives of the Settlement Class in the
Preliminary Approval Order, grants final approval of, and appoints,
Alfonso and Arlene Moran as the Settlement Class Representatives.
She approves and awards $10,000 to each Plaintiff for their
services on behalf of the Class.

In addition, having conditionally appointed the Class Counsel for
the Settlement Class in the Preliminary Approval Order, Judge Ohta
grants final approval of, and appoints, the law firm of Capstone
Law APC as the Class Counsel.

Having conditionally approved CPT Group as the Settlement
Administrator, Judge Ohta further grants final approval of, and
appoints, CPT Group as the Settlement Administrator to effectuate
its duties and responsibilities set forth in the Settlement
Agreement. After the Effective Date, the Defendant may retain a
different Claims Administrator with the agreement of the Class
Counsel, or, absent agreement, with approval of the Court on a
showing of good cause.

Judge Ohta has carefully reviewed, and approves, the request for a
service award of $10,000 each to Plaintiffs Alfonso and Arlene
Moran as reasonable payments for their efforts as Settlement Class
Representatives on behalf of the Settlement Class, said service
award to be paid by the Defendant in the manner provided in the
Settlement Agreement.

In addition, Judge Ohta has carefully reviewed, and approves, the
Class Counsel's request for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses in the collective combined total amount of
$835,000, which amount will be paid by the Defendant within the
time, and in the manner, set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to
reasonably necessary extensions of time to carry out any of the
provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the Order, and any
obligations thereunder.

The Plaintiffs and each and every Settlement Class Member (other
than the 194 Settlement Class Members who submitted timely and
valid requests for exclusion, the), are permanently barred and
enjoined from commencing or prosecuting any action, suit,
proceeding, claim, or cause of action asserting the Released Claims
in any court or before any tribunal.

All Class Members who have not made their objections to the
Settlement in the manner provided in the Class Notice are deemed to
have waived any objections by appeal, collateral attack, or
otherwise.

Without affecting the finality of the Final Approval Order and
Final Judgment thereon in any away, the Court retains continuing
and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties, and will have
continuing jurisdiction over the construction, interpretation,
implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Ohta finds that no just reason exists for delay in entering
the Final Judgment. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to enter
Final Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Final Approval Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/yzc5kc68 from Leagle.com.


FEDERAL EXPRESS: U.S. Supreme Court Denies Petition for Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner of WTVB reports that the justices denied a petition
by FedEx security specialist Christa Fischer for review of a July
ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said because
her overtime pay lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania, only workers
from that state could join in the case-captioned Fischer v. Federal
Express Corp, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 22-396.

U.S. Supreme Court won't decide scope of wage-and-hour class
actions
The U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 2023 again declined to settle a
split among appeals courts over whether federal wage law allows
workers to bring nationwide class action-style lawsuits, turning
away a case involving FedEx Corp.

The justices denied a petition by FedEx security specialist Christa
Fischer for review of a July ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals that said because her overtime pay lawsuit was filed in
Pennsylvania, only workers from that state could join.

Companies and business groups have been pushing courts to limit
nationwide wage-and-hour lawsuits, citing a 2017 Supreme Court
ruling that said people who lived outside California could not join
a product liability case filed in state court against Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co.

The 3rd Circuit in the FedEx case joined the 6th and 8th Circuits,
which in 2021 had both said courts lack jurisdiction over residents
of other states.

But the 1st and 7th Circuits have gone the other way, saying the
wage law was designed to enable large-scale collective actions
against companies operating in multiple states. The Supreme Court
last year declined to take up appeals of those cases.

Tennessee-based FedEx did not immediately respond to a request for
comment. Nor did lawyers for Fischer.

Fischer in a 2019 lawsuit in Philadelphia federal court alleged
FedEx misclassified security specialists across the country as
independent contractors rather than its employees and deprived them
of overtime pay required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

Under the FLSA, workers can file "collective actions" that are
similar to class action lawsuits but have some key procedural
differences, including that other workers must opt in to be
included.

A federal judge in 2020 refused to allow FedEx employees from New
York and Maryland to join the case, citing the Bristol-Myers
ruling. The 3rd Circuit upheld that ruling last year, prompting
Fischer's Supreme Court petition.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the country's largest business lobby,
had urged the 3rd Circuit to rule for FedEx. In a 2021 amicus
brief, the group said allowing nationwide FLSA lawsuits would
subject employers to uncertainty and encourage workers to "forum
shop" by filing in plaintiff-friendly courts.

The case is Fischer v. Federal Express Corp, U.S. Supreme Court,
No. 22-396.

For Fischer: Adam Hansen of Apollo Law

For FedEx: David Salmons of Morgan Lewis & Bockius[GN]

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ein Newsdesk reports that if you wish to apply to be lead
plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida no later than May
5, 2023 in the case-captioned Palm Bay Police and Firefighters'
Pension Fund v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., No.
23-cv-252 (M.D. Fla.).
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
(the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida against Fidelity National Information
Services, Inc. ("Fidelity National" or the "Company") (NYSE: FIS)
and certain of its current and former executive officers
(collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased Fidelity National common stock between
February 9, 2021 and February 10, 2023, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action
filed by Saxena White is captioned: Palm Bay Police and
Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Fidelity National Information
Services, Inc., No. 23-cv-252 (M.D. Fla.).

Fidelity National provides global e-commerce and payment
technologies to financial institutions and businesses and, in
recent years, has become the largest processing and payments
company in the world. The Company's Merchant Solutions segment,
which accounted for approximately 30% of Fidelity National's total
revenue in 2021, serves merchants by enabling them to accept,
authorize, and settle electronic payment transactions.

On July 31, 2019, Fidelity National announced it had completed the
acquisition of payments company Worldpay, Inc. ("Worldpay") for $43
billion, which became part of the Fidelity National Merchant
Solutions business. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants assured
investors that the integration of Worldpay was "ahead of schedule,"
achieved "success in revenue synergies," and ultimately was
"successfully completed."

The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
misled investors and/or failed to disclose that (1) the integration
of Worldpay was not ahead of schedule; (2) the integration of
Worldpay was not successfully completed during the Class Period;
(3) the increases in revenue synergies were not driven by the
Worldpay integration; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's financial guidance, business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

The truth began to emerge on August 4, 2022, when Fidelity National
announced that its Chief Financial Officer James Woodall planned to
"step down." In response to this news, shares of Fidelity National
declined approximately 7%, from a closing price of $104.13 per
share on August 3, 2022, to a closing price of $96.57 per share on
August 4, 2022.

Then, on November 3, 2022, the Company announced disappointing
results for the third quarter of 2022, including that profit
margins in the Merchant Solutions business "saw continued pressure
in the quarter" resulting "in an overall adjusted EBITDA margin
contracting 150 points year-on-year." In response to this news,
shares of Fidelity National declined approximately 28%, from a
closing price of $79.47 per share on November 2, 2022, to a closing
price of $57.18 per share on November 3, 2022.

Finally, on February 13, 2023, Fidelity National announced that it
would be spinning off Worldpay and recording a goodwill impairment
charge of $17.6 billion related to its Merchants Solutions
business. In response to this news, shares of Fidelity National
declined approximately 12%, from a closing price of $75.43 per
share on the prior trading day of February 10, 2023, to a closing
price of $66.00 per share on February 13, 2023.

If you purchased Fidelity National common stock during the Class
Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class"
and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish
to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida no later than May 5, 2023. The lead plaintiff is a
court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You
do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any
Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and
there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery
as an absent Class member.

You may contact Lester Hooker (lhooker@saxenawhite.com), an
attorney and Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights
regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the
Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to
represent you in the Class Action.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com.

Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California,
and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting
securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of
injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, Saxena White has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Lester Hooker, Esq.
lhooker@saxenawhite.com
Saxena White P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Tel: (561) 206-6708
Fax: (561) 394-3382
www.saxenawhite.com [GN]

FIRE & ICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cooper Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
DEMITRUS COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRE & ICE TRUCKING, CORP.; CHERYL OWENS;
and PEDRO J. FORTUNATO, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01675
(E.D.N.Y., March 5, 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 Cooper was employed by the Defendant as driver.

FIRE & ICE TRUCKING, CORP. is a trucking company running freight
hauling business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 792-0046
          Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com


FRANCISCO URENA: Faces Terenzio Suit Over COVID-19-Related Deaths
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DELMA TERENZIO, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph
A. Terenzio, THOMAS SULLIVAN, as Personal Representative of the
Estate of John J. Sullivan, EDWARD POULIN, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Maurice C. Poulin, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. FRANCISCO URENA,
MARYLOU SUDDERS, CHERYL LUSSIER POPPE, JOHN DOE 1, JANE DOE 1, JOHN
DOE 2 and JANE DOE 2, Case No. 1:23-cv-10462-IT (D. Mass., Feb. 27,
2023) is a civil rights class action lawsuit arising out of:

   1) the COVID-19-related deaths of at least 31 military veterans
      who resided at the Soldiers’ Home in Chelsea (‘SHC”) in
2020;

   2) the injuries sustained by numerous veterans who contracted
      COVID-19 at the SHC in 2020; and

   3) the harm sustained by numerous veterans who lived at the SHC
      from March 1, 2020 to the present as a result of unsanitary,
      unfit, and unacceptable living conditions.

All of these veterans served their country with valor and
distinction. Many of these veterans were highly decorated and had
received awards, commendations and medals for their incredible
bravery, courage, heroism and accomplishments serving their country
during wartime.

In and after March of 2020, the defendants were obligated to
protect, supervise and provide appropriate services and living
conditions for the veterans who resided at the SHC. The defendants
were deliberately and/or recklessly indifferent to the needs and
constitutional rights of Mr. Terenzio, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Poulin and
their fellow veterans at the SHC.

The defendants' reckless indifference included the following
egregious and callous acts or omissions:

    a. Failing to properly consider and respond to the risks
       associated with the COVID-19 virus;

    b. Failing to adopt and/or implement appropriate protocols or
       procedures to address or mitigate the grave risks posed by
       the COVID-19 virus;

    c. Failing to properly educate employees and residents of the
       SHC concerning the risks associated with the COVID-19
virus;

    d. Failing to prevent or properly respond to an outbreak of
the
       COVID-19 virus at the SHC;

    e. Failing to take appropriate steps to prevent the spread of
       COVID-19 within the patient/resident population at the SHC;

    f. Failing to ensure that the employees or staff of the SHC
had
       appropriate PPE (including masks, gloves and gowns);

    g. Failing to ensure that sick, ill or contagious employees or
       staff at the SHC were quarantined or denied admission to
the
       SHC; and

    h. Allowing sick, ill or contagious employees or staff to
       continue to work at the SHC.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts, omissions and
deliberate indifference of the defendants, Mr. Terenzio, Mr.
Sullivan, Mr. Poulin and at least 28 of their fellow veterans died
premature and preventable deaths from COVID-19. Additionally,
numerous other veterans residing at the SHC were unnecessarily
exposed to COVID-19, developed complications and were compelled to
receive care and treatment for their conditions. Further, numerous
other veterans residing at the SHC since March 2020 have suffered
harm as a result of the unsanitary, unfit, and unacceptable living
conditions at the SHC and/or the less than minimally adequate
services at the SHC, the lawsuit contends.

Francisco Urena, is the former Secretary of the Massachusetts
Department of Veterans’ Services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony J. Antonellis, Esq.
          John A. Donovan III, Esq.
          Christopher M. Reilly, Esq.
          Sloane and Walsh, LLP
          201 Washington Street, Ste. 1600
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 523-6010
          E-mail: aantonellis@sloanewalsh.com
                  jdonovan@sloanewalsh.com
                  creilly@sloanewalsh.com

FRITANGA EL CHELE: Fails to Pay Regular & OT Wages, Soza Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CINTHYA Y. SOZA and other similarly-situated individuals v.
FRITANGA EL CHELE, INC, JORGE M. NAVAS, and GUADALUPE M. NAVAS,
Individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-20756 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 27, 2023)
seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as retaliatory damages,
liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees.

The Plaintiff worked her first two weeks seven days per week, a
total of 67.5 hours, and she was paid $280.00 per week. For the
following three weeks, the Plaintiff worked six days per week on
the same schedule with one day off during the week. Plaintiff was
paid $420.00 weekly. She also did not take bonafide lunchtime
hours.

On September 7, 2023, the Plaintiff complained to the owner of the
business Jorge M. Navas. She demanded to be paid for overtime hours
and at least minimum wages, and she was fired.

The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours, but she was not paid the
minimum wage rate and overtime hours as required by law. Therefore,
Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the
rate of time and a half her regular rate for every hour that she
worked in excess of 40, the lawsuit claims.

The Plaintiff was hired as a Kitchen helper and cleaning person.
She had multiple additional duties doing general restaurant work.

Fritanga El is a Nicaraguan restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FUNKO INC: Settlement in Ferreira Stockholder Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Funko Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 1, 2023, that the United States District Court
for the Central District of California granted final approval to
the Ferreira stockholder class suit settlement on November 7,
2022.

On March 10, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California against us and certain of
our officers, entitled Ferreira v. Funko, Inc. et al. The original
complaint alleged that we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") as
well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The lawsuit sought, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Two additional complaints making substantially similar allegations
were filed April 3, 2020 in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California and April 9, 2020 in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
respectively.

On June 11, 2020, the Central District of California actions were
consolidated for all purposes into one action under the Ferreira
caption, and lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act; shortly
thereafter, the Western District of Washington action was
voluntarily dismissed.

Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on July 31, 2020,
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, as
well as entities affiliated with ACON.

The consolidated complaint added Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims
based on our earnings announcement and Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2019, as well as claims under
Section 20A of the Exchange Act.

All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action and the
Court granted all defendants' motions to dismiss the Ferreira
action on February 25, 2021, allowing the lead plaintiffs leave to
amend the complaint.

Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 29, 2021 and
all defendants moved to dismiss.

On October 25, 2021, the Court issued an order granting defendants'
motion in part and denying the motion in part.

On May 3, 2022, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
litigation. The Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on July 17, 2022 and granted final approval on November
7, 2022.

The cost of settlement was paid through our director and officer
liability insurance.

Funko, Inc. is a toy manufacturer, with principal executive offices
located at 2802 Wetmore Avenue, Everett, Washington. [BN]



GNC HOLDINGS: Faces Mercado Suit Over Total Lean Bars' False Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER MERCADO and MONICA ESPAILLAT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. GNC HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01572 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
engaged in widespread false and deceptive advertising on its Total
Lean Lean Bars by claiming the Products are "lean."

Every package of the Products prominently features the words "Total
Lean." However, the Products do not comply with 21 C.F.R. 101.62(e)
and therefore do not meet such warranties. Accordingly, the
Products are not lean because they do not contain any less fat than
other traditional protein Products, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members relied to their detriment on
Defendant's representation that the Products are "lean" and
therefore would contain a low amount of fat. They would not have
paid to purchase Defendant's Products–or would not have paid as
much as they did to purchase them– had they known that they were
not, in fact, "lean" and contained significant amounts of fat.
Specifically, the Product contained 12 grams of fat per 100 grams
of Product, 2 grams over the statutory limit, says the suit.

In October 2022, Plaintiff Espaillat and Plaintiff Mercado
purchased Defendant's Total Lean Lean Bar in the Strawberry Yogurt
flavor for her personal use from GNC in Manhattan, New York.

GNC manufactures, sells, and/or distributes health and fitness
related products and operates thousands of retail locations in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com
                  bscott@bursor.com

                - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@milberg.com
                  gklinger@milberg.com

GOODRX HOLDINGS: Terenzini Class Suit Closed
---------------------------------------------
GoodRx Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2023, that the United
States District Court for the Central District of California closed
the Terenzini class suit on December 31, 2022.

On December 18, 2020, R. Brian Terenzini, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
(Case No. 2:20-cv-11444). On January 8, 2021, Bryan Kearney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, also
filed a class action lawsuit against us and certain of our
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (Case No. 2:21-cv-00175). The
plaintiffs sought compensatory damages as well as interest, fees
and costs. The complaints alleged violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange
Act”), and asserted that we failed to disclose to investors that
Amazon.com, Inc. was developing its own mobile and online
prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service that would
compete directly with us. According to the complaints, when Amazon
announced its competitor service, our stock price fell, causing
investor losses. On April 8, 2021, the court consolidated the two
lawsuits under the caption In re GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (Case No.
2:20-cv-11444) and appointed Betty Kalmanson, Lawrence Kalmanson,
Shawn Kalmanson, and Janice Kasbaum as Lead Plaintiffs. On June  9,
2022, the court dismissed the consolidated case with prejudice and
the consolidated case was closed as of December 31, 2022.

On April 29, 2021, May 5, 2021 and September 15, 2021, Neesha
Patel, Wayne Geist and Alan Pinyavat, respectively, each filed a
derivative lawsuit purportedly on behalf of us against certain of
our officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California (Case No. 2:21-cv-03671, Case
No. 2:21-cv-03829 and Case No. 1:21-cv-01309, respectively).

The plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
contribution under the Exchange Act.

Neesha Patel asserted additional claims for unjust enrichment and
corporate waste and Alan Pinyavat asserted additional claims for
unjust enrichment, abuse of control and gross mismanagement.

These claims were based on allegations substantially similar to
those in the class action lawsuit described above.

On August 12, 2022, Alan Pinyavat filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal and the case was closed as of December 31, 2022.

On August 24, 2022, the parties for the consolidated Patel and
Geist case filed a joint stipulation to dismiss the consolidated
case and the consolidated case was closed as of December 31, 2022.

GoodRx Holdings, Inc. operates a digital healthcare platform. The
Company develops tele-medicine platform and a free-to-use website.
GoodRx Holdings serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Santa Monica, California.


GREEN DOT: Seeks Dismissal of Koffsmon Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Green Dot Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 27, 2023, that the United States
District Court for the Central District of California heard the
motion filed by defendants to dismiss the first amended complaint
on December 12, 2022.

On December 18, 2019, an alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v.
Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, against the Company and two of its former officers. The
suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding its
business strategy.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were
misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details
regarding its customer acquisition strategy and its impact on its
financial performance.

The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of its
securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and seeks
compensatory damages, fees and costs. On October 6, 2021, the Court
appointed the New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of
New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and on April 1,
2022, plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint. Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on May 31, 2022,
and the motion was heard on December 12, 2022.

Green Dot Corporation (NYSE: GDOT) is a provider of reloadable
prepaid debit cards and cash reload processing services in the
United States. It is also a leader in mobile technology and mobile
banking with its GoBank mobile checking account. The company is
based in Austin, Texas.


HERMES B NY: Fails to Pay Minimum OT Wages, Ramirez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO PEREZ RAMIREZ, JILMAR RAMIREZ (AKA BRYAN GARCIA), JOSE
ESTUARDO PEREZ RAMIREZ, MARCOS ISRAEL PEREZ RAMIREZ (AKA VICTOR
PEREZ), OMAR EVERARDO CLEMENTE RAMIREZ, and YEISER LOPEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HERMES B
NY LLC (D/B/A EMPANADA MAMA EXPRESS), PGNV LLC (D/B/A EMPANADA
MAMA), and SOCRATES NANAS, Case No. 1:23-cv-01580 (SDNY, Feb. 24,
2023) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for violations of the N.Y.
Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of
the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R.
& REGS., including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked, the lawsuit
claims.

The Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping
of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Accordingly, the Defendants employed
the policy and practice of disguising the Plaintiffs' actual duties
in payroll records by designating them as delivery workers instead
of non-tipped employees. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying
the Plaintiffs at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay
them at the tip-credit rate, says the suit.

In addition the Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and
practice of unlawfully appropriating the Plaintiffs' and other
tipped employees' tips and made unlawful deductions from these
Plaintiffs' and other tipped employees' wages.

The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers and a dishwasher
at the restaurants located at 95 Allen Street, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

J.C. PENNEY: Faces Class Action Suit Over False Reference Pricing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisol C. Mork of the National Law Review reports that JC Penny
hit with class action suit over false reference pricing.

Competition in the world of online sales is intense, but companies
that used inflated original prices to lure customers face
consequences.

JC Penny, for example, has been hit with a class action lawsuit in
the Southern District of California over its alleged advertising
practice of using "false reference pricing." The three-count
complaint claims the nationwide retailer violated California's
Unfair Competition Laws, False Advertising Laws, and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act because of its supposed sale pricing practices. Do the
claims have merit?

The plaintiff, Maria Carranza, contends that JC Penny is engaging
in a scheme to fabricate false "original" (or "reference") prices
before offering products for sale at a supposed "discount."
Carranza claims that JC Penny falsely advertises its products on
its e-commerce website by listing a high reference price and the
corresponding sale price. The issue? The products, Carranza claims,
were never sold at the listed reference price as advertised.
Rather, as stated in the Complaint, the "original" prices are
"false or severely outdated reference prices, utilized only to
perpetuate Defendant's false discount scheme." JC Penny faced a
similar "price anchoring" class action suit in 2015. Part of that
proposed settlement provided for "improvements" to the retailer's
price comparison advertising policies and practices, including
"periodic monitoring and training programs" designed to ensure
compliance with California's advertising laws.

Carranza's new suit against JC Penny is likely to survive
dismissal.

The FTC Act provides that when a seller offers a discount from its
former original price, the original price is required to have been
a price at which the seller actually held that item out for sale
for a reasonably substantial period of time.

California law is even more specific, providing that a seller can
only offer a "sale" from an original price for three months. After
that, the seller must either (1) return the product to its full
original price or (2) sell the product at the discounted price, but
it must disclose the date on which the product was last offered for
sale at its former price.

Retailers should take careful note of the allegations in Carranza's
complaint. The pleading alleges Carranza's counsel "conducted a
thorough investigation, " "deploy[ing] a sophisticated software
program to track each item offered for sale on the jcpenney.com
website." "Plaintiff's counsel's investigation revealed that over
1,990 items on jcpenney.com were on sale for more than 100 days as
of, on or around, July 30, 2022." Interestingly, Carranza purchased
an air fryer from JC Penny on September 14, 2022.

Amid this period of inflation with consumers searching for deals,
retailers should be particularly mindful that their sales pricing
and advertising practices comport with federal and state law. Among
other consumer protection issues, the plaintiff's bar is focused on
sales pricing issues. And retailers should not be surprised to
learn that their websites are being systematically monitored for
potential pricing violations. [GN]

JET LENDING: Avina Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Commissions
---------------------------------------------------------
CHELSEA AVINA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees Plaintiff v. JET LENDING, LLC, DEBBIE GANT, and EDDIE
GANT, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00660 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 22, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum wage
and overtime of Plaintiff and class members as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act; for supplemental Texas State Law claims of
breach of contract for the unpaid fees and commissions; and for
claims of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit for the unpaid fees
and commissions.

Ms. Avina was hired by the Defendants on January 18, 2021 as an
independent loan officer. Within a couple of months, Jet Lending
modified Ms. Avina's title and duties to in-house loan officer
assistant. Ms. Avina signed another contract which replaced the
initial contract. The new contract modified Ms. Avina's commission
structure and increased the amount of fee to be paid for each loan
closed.

The complaint alleges that Defendants did not pay Plaintiff hourly
wages or salary, but instead paid her purely on commission basis.
The Defendants did not pay Ms. Avina or any other similarly
situated workers overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
The Defendants further breached that contract by failing to pay a
promised fee of $980 per every loan closed on which Ms. Avina
worked, the suit alleges.

Jet Lending, LLC provides asset-based loans for investors to buy
investment properties all over the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 10099
          Houston, TX 77206
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com
                  jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

JTH TAX LLC: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JTH Tax LLC. The case
is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. JTH Tax LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01755-JHR (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023).

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

JTH Tax, Inc., doing business as Liberty Tax Service --
https://www.libertytax.com/ -- offers professional income tax
preparation service and online tax filing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KEY STONE PLUMBING: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERICK UMANA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEY STONE PLUMBING & HEATING INC.
and SAMNARINE UDIT, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-01422 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023) seeks to recover damages
for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law arising from Plaintiff's employment
with the Defendants.

The Plaintiff was employed by Key Stone Plumbing as a plumbing
assistant and pipe cutter while performing related miscellaneous
duties for the Defendants from August 2021 until January 2023. He
alleges Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
wages for all hours worked, failure to provide wage statements, and
failure to furnish with a written wage notice.

Key Stone Plumbing & Heating Inc. is a freight shipping trucking
company based in Jamaica, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LAMON CONSTRUCTION: Josephson Employment Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAVID JOSEPHSON, as an individual on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. LAMON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a California corporation, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CVCS23-0000075,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Sutter, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California on Feb. 22, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:23-at-00148 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and all
"aggrieved employees," a single cause of action for violation of
the Private Attorneys General Act pursuant to Cal. Labor Code. The
Labor Code violations underlying the complaint are "founded
directly on rights created by collective bargaining agreements"
and/or are substantially dependent on an analysis and
interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement.

Lamon Construction Company provides construction of nonresidential
buildings and other construction services.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aaron B. Silva, Esq.
          Charles R. Hellstrom, Esq.
          MURPHY AUSTIN ADAMS SCHOENFELD LLP
          555 Capitol Mall, Suite 850
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 446-2300
          Facsimile: (916) 503-4000
          E-mail: asilva@murphyaustin.com
                  chellstrom@murphyaustin.com

LAS VEGAS ACES: Chapman Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Nev.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DELORES CHAPMAN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAS VEGAS ACES d/b/a and
a/k/a LAS VEGAS BASKETBALL L.P.; MVP EVENT PRODUCTIONS LLC d/b/a
and a/k/a MVP EVENT STAFFING; LAUREN GENTZLER; CARIN LEON; GLORIA
TREVI; DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
A-22-861578-C, was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court
for Clark County, Nevada, to the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada on Feb. 22, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-00278 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for
failure to pay earned minimum wages, failure to pay earned
overtime, injunctive relief, unjust enrichment, and conversion.

LAS VEGAS ACES, d/b/a and a/k/a LAS VEGAS BASKETBALL L.P., are an
American professional basketball team based in the Las Vegas
metropolitan area in Nevada.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dora V. Lane, Esq.
          Steven J.T. Washington, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89134
          Telephone: (702) 669-4600
          Facsimile: (702) 669-4650
          E-mail: DLane@hollandhart.com
                  SJWashington@hollandhart.com

LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Dark Chocolates Contain Lead, Cadmium, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA HOWARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. LINDT & SPRÜNGLI (USA), INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-00243-GMB (N.D. Ala., Feb. 28, 2023) contends that the
Defendant is marketing 85% Cocoa Dark Chocolate and Defendant's 70%
Cocoa Dark Chocolate with highly dangerous levels of lead and
cadmium.

Using the California's Maximum Allowable Dose Level for lead (0.5
Micrograms) and cadmium (4.1 mcg), Consumer Reports Magazine found
that Lindt's 70% Cocoa dark chocolate product had 48% lead and 116%
cadmium, while Lind's 85% Cocoa dark chocolate had 66% lead and 80%
cadmium. Lead is a highly toxic metal and a very strong poison.
Lead poisoning is a serious and sometimes fatal condition. It
occurs when lead builds up in the body. Cadmium is also a dangerous
and harmful chemical when consumed. Cadmium is also considered a
cancer-causing agent.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased the Products in
reliance on Defendant's representation that the Products contained
at a minimum reasonable dark chocolate ingredients and were safe
for consumption. Had the Defendant disclosed that the Products
contained high levels of lead and cadmium, Plaintiff would not have
been willing to purchase the Products. The Plaintiff purchased and
paid more for the Products than said Products were worth. The
Products that Plaintiff received were worth less than the Products
for which she paid. the Plaintiff was injured in fact and lost
money as a result of Defendant's improper, deceitful conduct, the
suit claims.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent the following Classes:

     Alabama Class:

     All persons in the State of Alabama who purchased Lindt 85%
     Cocoa Dark Chocolate and Lindt 70% Cocoa Dark Chocolate in the

     last six years.

     The National Class:

     All persons residing in the United States who purchased Lindt
     85% Cocoa Dark Chocolate and Lindt 70% Cocoa Dark Chocolate in

     the last six years.

Lindt & Sprungli manufactures and sells chocolates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Charles M. Thompson, Esq.
           101 Mohawk Drive
           Trussville, AL 35173
           Telephone: (205) 995-0068
           Facsimile: (866) 610-1650
           E-mail: cmtlaw@aol.com

LIVE AUCTIONEERS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Live Auctioneers LLC.
The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Live Auctioneers LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01693 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023).

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

Live Auctioneers -- https://www.liveauctioneers.com/ -- is the
leading online auction marketplace for one-of-a-kind items, rare
collectibles and coveted goods.[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


LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer of GlobeNewsWire reports that the deadline to ask
the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is May 2, 2023
in a class action lawsuit has been filed against Lumen
Technologies, Inc. ("Lumen" or the "Company") (NYSE: LUMN).
Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Lumen Technologies, Inc. ("Lumen" or the
"Company") (NYSE: LUMN). The lawsuit alleges Lumen made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding its business, operations, and
prospects, including: (i) various headwinds were impeding the
Company's ability to invest in and grow its Quantum Fiber brand;
(ii) Quantum Fiber was not progressing as was represented to the
investing public; (iii) Lumen's management was reassessing its
strategic priorities and had placed a hold on the plans to quickly
scale up the Quantum Fiber brand; and (iv) as a result of Lumen's
decision to delay expansion of Quantum Fiber, the Company's results
and metrics were negatively impacted and the scaling up of Quantum
Fiber would not occur until, at the earliest, the end of 2023.

If you bought shares of Lumen between September 14, 2020 and
February 7, 2023 and you suffered a significant loss on that
investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by
contacting Corey Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Joshua
Karr, Esq. at jkarr@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at
(888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at
https://holzerlaw.com/case/lumen/ to learn more.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of
shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including
shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its
founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical
roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website,  www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the
firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content. 

CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com[GN]

LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Voigt Suit Over Alleged Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE VOIGT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., JEFF K. STOREY, INDRANEEL
DEV, CHRISTOPHER STANSBURY, EDWARD MORCHE, MAXINE L. MOREAU, and
SHAUN C. ANDREWS, Case caption, Case No. 3:23-cv-00286  (W.D. La.,
Mar. 3, 2023) is a securities class action on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lumen common stock
between September 14, 2020 and February 7, 2023, inclusive seeking
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff's claims are asserted against Lumen and certain of
Lumen's executive officers and directors. At the outset of the
Class Period, Lumen announced it would redefine its business by
renaming itself from CenturyLink to Lumen and refining its
marketing approach, cutting off market segments and operations that
did not align with the Company's strategic objectives.
Specifically, Lumen announced to investors that it would leverage
its existing 400,000 route miles of fiber optic cable, which had
previously serviced enterprise and wholesale markets, to expand its
fiber services to small and medium business ("SMB") and residential
or consumer markets. Lumen represented to investors that expanding
its fiber services into the SMB and residential markets, branded as
Quantum Fiber, was a natural fit for the Company that represented a
strong opportunity for growth, says the suit.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants represented to
investors and the public that Lumen was, among other things,
"investing heavily in our consumer fiber business" and
"aggressively taking market share in our small business segment."
The Defendants also represented that "we continue expanding our
Quantum Fiber footprint and increasing our penetration" and "we're
not capital-constrained. So as we continue to improve our
penetration and performance, we'll continue to expand our
footprint, and we believe we've got a long runway for growth in --
within Lumen in Quantum Fiber." However, contrary to Defendants'
statements touting the rate of investment and progress in expanding
fiber services to SMB and residential markets, Lumen was
experiencing serious headwinds that were impeding its ability to
grow its newly-targeted fiber markets, the suit alleges.

Beginning on February 9, 2022, Defendants began to admit that
Lumen's expansion into SMB and residential fiber services was
occurring slower than previously represented. On this news, Lumen's
stock price declined $1.99, from a close of $12.82 per share on
February 9, 2022, to a close of $10.83 on February 10, 2022.

On November 2, 2022, Defendants continued to partially disclose the
truth when Lumen's Chief Executive Officer admitted, "let me be
clear, we are not yet at the pace of build we expect or want" with
respect to the Company's development of its Quantum Fiber brand. On
this  news, Lumen's stock price declined $1.25, from a close of
$7.05 per share on November 2, 2022, to a close of $5.80 on
November 3, 2022.

By February 7, 2023, Defendants would admit, contrary to what was
previously represented, that they had pressed "more of a stop
button than a pause button" on Lumen's investment into the Quantum
Fiber network and expansion into the SMB and residential markets
while the Company re-evaluated its strategic priorities. The price
of Lumen's common stock had been artificially inflated by
Defendants' misrepresentations about the Company's progress
expanding into SMB and residential markets. Upon the news that
Lumen's progress was slower than represented and that Lumen had
stopped investing in the expansion of its Quantum Fiber network,
the price of Lumen's common stock plummeted as the artificial
inflation was removed from the price. On this news, Lumen's stock
price declined $1.04, from a close of $4.99 per share on February
7, 2023, to a close of $3.95 on February 8, 2023, added the suit.

Plaintiff Diane Voigt purchased Lumen common stock during the Class
Period.

Lumen is a corporation, formerly known as CenturyLink, organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Louisiana. Its common
stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") and the Berlin
Stock Exchange and is traded under the symbols "LUMN" and "CYTH,"
respectively. Prior to September 18, 2020, when the Company
rebranded itself as Lumen, the Company's stock traded on the NYSE
under the ticker symbol CTL. The Individual Defendants are officers
of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          Gregory M. Potrepka, Esq.
          Morgan M. Embleton, Esq.
          Nicholas Lange, Esq.
          David C. Jaynes, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
          Stamford, Connecticut 06905
          Telephone: (203) 992-4523
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
                  gpotrepka@zlk.com
                  membleton@zlk.com
                  nlange@zlk.com
                  djaynes@zlk.com

MANDARICH LAW GROUP: Watson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mandarich Law Group,
LLP, et al. The case is styled as Alvin Watson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mandarich Law Group,
LLP, LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-20762-BB (S.D. Fla., Feb.
28, 2023).

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

Mandarich Law Group, LLP -- https://mandarichlaw.com/ -- is a
creditors' rights law firm with several locations throughout the
US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


MANDARICH LAW: Judgment in FDCPA Class Action Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------
Stefanie Jackman, Meagan Mihalko, Jonathan Floyd & Stephen Lozier
of Inside Arm report that Second Circuit affirms judgment in favor
of Law Firm in meaningful-attorney-involvement FDCPA class action.

On February 13, 2023, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of an Eastern District of New York court and found
that the defendant law firm, Mandarich Law Group, LLC (Mandarich),
had conducted a meaningful attorney review of the plaintiff
debtor's account prior to mailing her a debt collection letter on
the firm's letterhead. The three-judge panel set forth the decision
in a summary order, which does not have precedential effect.

The putative class action arose out of a debt collection letter
Mandarich mailed to the plaintiff in March 2019. The plaintiff
alleged the letter included language that overshadowed the
statutorily-mandated validation notice and falsely represented or
implied that an attorney had meaningfully reviewed the letter in
violation of multiple provisions of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).

As it relates to the meaningful-attorney-involvement claim, the
plaintiff alleged that the use of the firm's letterhead suggested
an attorney was involved in the collection of the debt when in fact
no attorney had reviewed the account prior to mailing the letter
and the letter did not disclose that no attorney was involved in a
review of the account.

Mandarich moved for summary judgment on all of the plaintiff's
claims, which included the submission of an affidavit from an
attorney at the firm that personally reviewed the plaintiff's
account using the firm's specialized computer platform and in
accordance with the firm’s "Attorney Meaningful Involvement
Procedure" prior to the mailing of the letter. Through the review
process, the attorney concluded that Mandarich's client owned the
plaintiff's account, that the plaintiff had incurred the debt, that
the account did not appear to be the subject of a bankruptcy
proceeding, and the debt did not arise out of fraud. The district
court granted summary judgment in favor of Mandarich in January
2022 and the plaintiff appealed shortly thereafter.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the Mandarich attorney that
reviewed her account did not "meaningfully" review it because most
of the review was either performed by non-attorneys or was
automated. The plaintiff further argued that the entire review
process could have taken less than one minute and that the
Mandarich attorney did not establish a specific plan to sue in the
event the plaintiff failed to pay the debt. The Second Circuit
summarily rejected these arguments.

Following its prior decision in Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson,
L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003), the court noted that it never
established a specific minimum period of time that is required to
constitute meaningful attorney involvement. Nor has the court
established a bright-line test to determine whether an attorney was
sufficiently involved in the review of an account. Rather, the
Second Circuit has directed courts to weigh various factors,
including what information was reviewed, the time spent reviewing
the file, and whether any legal judgment was involved in the
decision to send the collection letters. Under this criteria, the
appellate court agreed with the district court and found that the
Mandarich attorney had meaningfully reviewed the plaintiff's
account. [GN]

MARK HENRY CORP: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mark Henry Corp. The
case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Mark Henry Corp., Case No.
1:23-cv-01680 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023).

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

The Mark Henry Corporation -- https://www.markhenrycorporation.com/
-- is a family-run group which houses several fine jewelry
brands.[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


MASTER FLOW: Fails to Pay Helpers' OT Wages, Martinez Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge A. Martinez and Martin Alvarez, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. Master Flow Technologies (MFT),
LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-00227 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 24, 2023) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime that is required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant allegedly did not pay the Plaintiffs an overtime
premium for any of the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek.
Instead, the Defendant paid the Plaintiffs the same salary no
matter how many hours they worked in a workweek. Accordingly, the
Defendant has a business plan that includes hiring helpers and
misclassifying them as exempt employees even though they do not
perform the job duties of an exempt employee. MFT does this in
order to avoid paying overtime pay, saving the Defendant money and
allowing it to gain an unfair advantage over competitors who follow
the law in their employment practices, says the suit.

Martinez and Alvarez both worked for MFT as helpers from June of
2022 until November of 2022. Their duties included assisting
operators in performing oil and gas operations at wellsites.

Masterflow specializes in the Oil & Energy area.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          Houston, TX 77206
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

MCDERMOTT CUE: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McDermott Cue Mfg.,
LLC. The case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. McDermott Cue Mfg., LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01729 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023).

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

against McDermott Cue Mfg. -- http://www.mcdermottcue.com/-- is a
maker of handcrafted billiard cues that blends groundbreaking
technology with quality materials and exquisite artistry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2895: Bid to Certify Interlocutory Appeal in Sensipar MDL Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware denies the Defendants' motion for
certification of an interlocutory appeal in the multidistrict
litigation entitled In re: Sensipar (Cinacalcet Hydrochloride
Tablets) Antitrust Litigation. This Document Relates to: All Direct
Purchaser Actions All Indirect Purchaser Actions, Master Docket No.
19-md-2895-CFC, Civil Action No. 19-396-CFC, 19-1460-CFC,
19-369-CFC, 19-1461-CFC (D. Del.).

The consolidated multidistrict antitrust actions were originally
assigned to the Honorable Leonard P. Stark. In an order filed on
March 11, 2022 (the March Order), Judge Stark granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the second
amended consolidated class action complaints filed by the
Plaintiffs.

Pending before Judge Connolly is the Defendants' motion pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) for certification of an interlocutory
appeal of the March Order. The Plaintiffs do not oppose the
motion.

Judge Stark was elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit after issuing the March Order but before the
pending motions were fully briefed. The case was reassigned to
Judge Connolly upon Judge Stark's elevation to the Federal
Circuit.

Judge Connolly notes that a threshold question not addressed by the
parties is whether he has the power under Section 1292(b) to
certify an interlocutory appeal from the March Order.

The plain and unambiguous language of Section 1292(b) makes clear
that the statute authorizes only the judge, who made the order for
which an interlocutory appeal is sought, to certify that order for
interlocutory appeal, Judge Connolly opines.

Judge Connolly says he did not make the March Order; Judge Stark
did. Accordingly, Section 1292(b) does not authorize him to certify
an interlocutory appeal of the March Order. Judge Connolly,
therefore, denies the Defendants' motion.

Judge Connolly rules that Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc., and Amgen
Inc.'s Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal is
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated Feb. 16,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdh6zbnd from
Leagle.com.


MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Mandel v. Blackbaud
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mandel v. Blackbaud, Inc.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03534 (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Anderson,
Jr. entered a case management order as follows:

                      Event                  Deadline

-- Blackbaud's opposition to class        May 16, 2023
    certification:

-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class             May 16, 2023
    certification expert disclosure:

-- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on         May 16, 2023
    the Plaintiffs' class
    certification experts:

-- The Plaintiff's response in            June 13, 2023
    opposition to Blackbaud's
    Daubert motions on:

-- The Plaintiffs' class certification    July 11, 2023
    experts Blackbaud's reply in
    support of its Daubert motion
    on Plaintiffs' class certification
    experts:

-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support       July 11, 2023
    of their motion for class
    certification:

-- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions        July 11, 2023
    on Blackbaud's rebuttal class
    certification experts:

-- Blackbaud's response in                August 8, 2023
    opposition to Plaintiffs'
    Daubert motions on Blackbaud's
    rebuttal class certification
    experts:

-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support       September 5, 2023
    of their Daubert Motions on
    Blackbaud's rebuttal class
    certification experts:

-- Hearing on class certification         TBD
    and Daubert Motions:

The Mandel Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.

The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions
allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach
include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and
nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their
personal information to those entities have suffered damages,
including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard
and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients
affected by the data breach.

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

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IqyFCx at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2972: Case Management Order Entered in Martin v. Blackbaud
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin v. Blackbaud, Inc.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-02461-JFA (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F.
Anderson, Jr. entered a case management order as follows:

                      Event                  Deadline

-- Blackbaud's opposition to class        May 16, 2023
    certification:

-- Blackbaud's rebuttal class             May 16, 2023
    certification expert disclosure:

-- Blackbaud's Daubert motions on         May 16, 2023
    the Plaintiffs' class
    certification experts:

-- The Plaintiff's response in            June 13, 2023
    opposition to Blackbaud's
    Daubert motions on:

-- The Plaintiffs' class certification    July 11, 2023
    experts Blackbaud's reply in
    support of its Daubert motion
    on Plaintiffs' class certification
    experts:

-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support       July 11, 2023
    of their motion for class
    certification:

-- The Plaintiffs' Daubert motions        July 11, 2023
    on Blackbaud's rebuttal class
    certification experts:

-- Blackbaud's response in                August 8, 2023
    opposition to Plaintiffs'
    Daubert motions on Blackbaud's
    rebuttal class certification
    experts:

-- The Plaintiffs' reply in support       September 5, 2023
    of their Daubert Motions on
    Blackbaud's rebuttal class
    certification experts:

-- Hearing on class certification         TBD
    and Daubert Motions:

The Martin Case is consolidated in RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., CUSTOMER
DATA BREACH LITIGATION. The lead case is Case No. 3:20-mn-02972.

The actions in MDL No. 2972 are putative class actions concerning a
ransomware attack and data security breach into Blackbaud's systems
in early 2020 that allegedly compromised the personal information
of consumers doing business with entities served by Blackbaud's
cloud software and services. Plaintiffs in the centralized actions
allege that the Blackbaud clients impacted by the data breach
include numerous schools, universities, healthcare providers, and
nonprofit organizations, and that the consumers who provided their
personal information to those entities have suffered damages,
including the risk of identity theft and fraud. Defendants Harvard
and Allina Health System allegedly are two Blackbaud clients
affected by the data breach.

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

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XVtMGY  at no extra
charge.[CC]


MDL 3062: Bohrer Farms Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled BOHRER FARMS, INC., on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG;
SYNGENTA CORPORATION; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.;
BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION; BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP;
NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., and HELENA AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-2447, was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina on Feb. 22, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00166 to the proceeding.

The Bohrer Farms case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3062, IN RE:
CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS LOYALTY PROGRAM AGREEMENTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas D.
Schroeder.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of similarly situated direct
purchasers of certain crop protection products, which include
herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides, manufactured by the
Defendants, who were harmed by having to purchase CPPs at prices
that were inflated due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct.

Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason R. Burke, Esq.
          Sarah L. Fowler, Esq.
          BLACKWELL, BURKE & RAMSEY, P.C.
          101 W. Ohio Street, Suite 1700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 635-5005
          Facsimile: (317) 634-2501
          E-mail: jburke@bbrlawpc.com
                  sfowler@bbrlawpc.com

Defendant CORTEVA, INC. is represented by:

          John R. Maley, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP
          11 South Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 231-7464
          Facsimile: (317) 231-7433
          E-mail: jmaley@btlaw.com

MDL 3062: KM Farms Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KM FARMS, INC.; BLAKE TURNER; JOHN W. JENKINS; OTHO
TURNER; AND RHETT TURNER, Plaintiffs, vs. CORTEVA, INC.; SYNGENTA
CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORP.; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC;
CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; JOHN DOE DEFENDANT
WHOLESALERS 1- 5; AND JOHN DOE DEFENDANT RETAILERS 6-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02420, was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina on Feb. 22, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00164 to the proceeding.

The KM Farms case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3062, IN RE:
CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS LOYALTY PROGRAM AGREEMENTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas D.
Schroeder.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of similarly situated direct
purchasers of certain crop protection products, which include
herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides, manufactured by the
Defendants, who were harmed by having to purchase CPPs at prices
that were inflated due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct.

Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Radice, Esq.
          RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          475 Wall Street
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (646) 245-8502
          Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
          E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Colby Anne Kingsbury, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          320 South Canal Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 212-6573
          Facsimile: (312) 569-3000
          E-mail: colby.kingsbury@faegredrinker.com

               - and -

          Kathy Lynn Osborn, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 237-8261
          E-mail: kathy.osborn@faegredrinker.com

MDL 3062: Psencik Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WALTER PSENCIK and TRAVIS PSENCIK, on behalf of
themselves and a proposed Class of similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. CORTEVA, INC.; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORP.;
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS,
INC.; DOE DEFENDANT WHOLESALERS 1-5; AND DOE DEFENDANT RETAILERS
6-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02423, was transferred from the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina on Feb. 22, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00165 to the proceeding.

The Psencik case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3062, IN RE: CROP
PROTECTION PRODUCTS LOYALTY PROGRAM AGREEMENTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas D.
Schroeder.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of similarly situated direct
purchasers of certain crop protection products, which include
herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides, manufactured by the
Defendants, who were harmed by having to purchase CPPs at prices
that were inflated due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct.

CHS Inc. is a Fortune 500 secondary cooperative owned by United
States agricultural cooperatives, farmers, ranchers, and thousands
of preferred stock holders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David E. Kovel, Esq.
          Nicole A. Veno, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          Facsimile: (212) 699-1194
          E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com
                  nveno@kmllp.com   

Defendant CHS, INC. is represented by:

          Colby Anne Kingsbury, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          320 South Canal Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 212-6573
          Facsimile: (312) 569-3000
          E-mail: colby.kingsbury@faegredrinker.com

               - and -

          Kathy Lynn Osborn, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 237-8261
          E-mail: kathy.osborn@faegredrinker.com

MDL 3062: Sheller Farms Antirust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHELLER FARMS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated persons and entities, Plaintiff v.
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, AG, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC,
SYNGENTA CORP., CORTEVA, INC., BASF SE; BASF CORPORATION, BASF
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP, NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., HELENA
AGRI-ENTERPRISES, LLC, And DOE CO-CONSPIRATOR DISTRIBUTORS AND
RETAILERS 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00202, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana to the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina on Feb. 22, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00167 to the proceeding.

The Sheller Farms case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3062, IN
RE: CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS LOYALTY PROGRAM AGREEMENTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas D.
Schroeder.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of similarly situated direct
purchasers of certain crop protection products, which include
herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides, manufactured by the
Defendants, who were harmed by having to purchase CPPs at prices
that were inflated due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct.

Syngenta Crop Protection is an American agricultural chemical and
seed company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Russell B. Cate, Esq.
          RILEYCATE, LLC
          11 Municipal Drive, Suite 200
          Fishers, IN 46038
          Telephone: (317) 588-2866
          Facsimile: (317) 458-1785
          E-mail: rcate@rileycate.com

               - and -

          William N. Riley, Esq.
          PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, L.L.P.
          301 Massachusetts Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 633-8787
          Facsimile: (317) 633-8797

MDL 3062: Turner Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LESLIE TURNER, on behalf of himself and a proposed
Class of similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORTEVA, INC.; SYNGENTA
CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORP.; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC;
CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.; DOE DEFENDANT WHOLESALERS;
AND DOE DEFENDANT RETAILERS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-2411, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana to the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina on Feb. 22, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00163 to the proceeding.

The Turner case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3062, IN RE: CROP
PROTECTION PRODUCTS LOYALTY PROGRAM AGREEMENTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas D.
Schroeder.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of similarly situated direct
purchasers of certain crop protection products, which include
herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides, manufactured by the
Defendants, who were harmed by having to purchase CPPs at prices
that were inflated due to Defendants' anticompetitive conduct.

Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
          SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON
          7 World Trade Center, 46th Floor
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (917) 634-2244
          E-mail: mclerkin@spiroharrison.com

Defendant Corteva, Inc. is represented by:

          John R. Maley, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP
          11 South Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 231-7464
          Facsimile: (317) 231-7433
          E-mail: jmaley@btlaw.com

ME & RO INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Me & Ro, Inc. The
case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Me & Ro, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01687
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023).

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

Me&Ro -- https://www.meandrojewelry.com/ -- is a jewelry design
company created and produced in New York City.[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


MEMORIAL HEALTH: Stendal Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMY L. STENDAL, individually and on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEMORIAL
HEALTH SERVICES, a California Nonprofit Corporation; LONG BEACH
MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, a California Nonprofit Corporation; MILLER
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LONG BEACH AUXILIARY, INC. a California
Nonprofit Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 23STCV00566, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Feb. 23, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-01380 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings claims for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages;
(2) failure to pay overtime; (3) failure to provide meal periods;
(4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods; (5) failure to
timely pay wages during employment; (6) failure to timely pay wages
owed upon separation of employment; (7) failure to reimburse
necessary expenses; (8) knowing and intentional failure to comply
with itemized wage statement provisions; and (9) violation of the
Unfair Competition Law.

Memorial Health Services is a health services provider based in
California.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel J. McQueen, Esq.
          Melissa M. Smith, Esq.
          Alexander Rafuse, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
          E-mail: dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com
                  melissasmith@sheppardmullin.com
                  arafuse@sheppardmullin.com

MEMPHIS, TN: Motion for Class Certification Awaits Ruling on Mar 22
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Shrader Joslin of Tennessee Bar Association reports that
decision in Rape Kit Class Action with case-caption Janet Doe vs.
City of Memphis delayed 2 weeks.

Victims in a rape kit lawsuit must wait at least two more weeks for
a ruling on whether the case can move forward as a class action,
the Commercial Appeal reports. Three women, whose rape kits went
untested for years, are suing to certify their suit as a class
action. The judge in the case, Shelby County Circuit Court Judge
Gina Higgins, said last October that she would have rulings to
issue this month. But last-minute filings from plaintiffs'
attorneys, city attorneys and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
added another hearing to the docket. Higgins now is expected to
deliver a ruling on March 22, 2023. [GN]


METAL CREATIONS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metal Creations, Inc.
The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Metal Creations, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01728 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023).

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

Metal Creations, Inc. -- https://metalcreationsinc.com/ -- offer
customized fabrication for architectural, ornamental, and
structural metal products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Collins Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS G. COLLINS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Dennis G. Collins, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00129-RLW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.

Plaintiffs Dennis Collins, Suzanne Collins, David Butler, and Lucia
Bott bring this suit against the Defendant for the recovery of the
premiums they paid for inflation protection under their long-term
care ("LTC") insurance policies. They allege that MetLife made
fraudulent misrepresentations and concealed material facts about
the effects of the inflation rider on their premiums. The
Plaintiffs bring suit on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated. The Plaintiffs' complaint asserts four causes of action:
common law fraud (Count I), fraudulent concealment (Count II),
violation of state consumer unfair and deceptive practices
protection acts (Count III), and breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing (Count IV).

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

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

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

On Feb. 3, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Ronnie L. White. The
Court found that the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the
filed-rate doctrine. Judge Ronnie held that the doctrine applies to
the facts of the case under both Missouri and Illinois law.
Alternatively, the Plaintiffs' claims that are directed at policies
governed by Missouri law are dismissed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 379.348.

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

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted. All
claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company are dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to the filed-rate doctrine. In the
alternative, the Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendant that are
directed at policies governed by Missouri law were dismissed
without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

The appellate case is captioned Dennis Collins, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Case No. 23-1351, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on February
23, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appendix is due on April 4, 2023;

   -- Brief of Appellants Lucia Bott, David Butler, Dennis G.
Collins, and Suzanne Collins is due on April 4, 2023; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN]

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

            Robert Rogers Duncan, Esq.
            James Henry Podolny, Esq.
            DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC
            Suite 2550
            161 N. Clark Street
            Chicago, IL 60601
            Telephone: (312) 202-3283
                       (312) 202-3281

                   - and -

            Steven Mikuzis, Esq.
            MAG MILE LAW
            Suite 200
            535 N. Michigan Avenue
            Chicago, IL 60611
            Telephone: (773) 330-0021

Defendant-Appellee METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:

            Michael J. Duvall, Esq.
            DENTONS US, LLP
            Suite 2500
            601 S. Figueroa Street
            Los Angeles, CA 90017
            Telephone: (213) 623-9300

                   - and -

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

                   - and -

            Drew William Marrocco, Esq.
            DENTONS US, LLP
            1900 K Street, N.W.
            Washington, DC 20006
            Telephone: (202) 408-6387

                   - and -

            Stephen Jerome O'Brien, Esq.
            DENTONS US, LLP
            3000 One Metropolitan Square
            211 North Broadway
            Saint Louis, MO 63102
            Telephone: (314) 259-5904

MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Class Cert. Bid in Price Fixing Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Boudreau and Mirna Kaddis of Fasken report that in Hazan c.
Micron Technology Inc. et al. , the Quebec Court of Appeal has
confirmed the Superior Court's first instance judgment dismissing
the authorization of a class action alleging an international
conspiracy to fix the prices of dynamic random-access memory chips
("DRAM").

While Plaintiffs who file a price-fixing class actions normally
rely on some tangible evidence to demonstrate the existence of the
alleged conspiracy, such as a guilty plea, fine or indictment, the
Plaintiff in Hazan advanced no specific facts or evidence to
support his otherwise general and vague misconduct allegations.
This was fatal to his claim.

The Plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to fix the
prices of DRAM, referring to an investigation into a conspiracy to
fix the price of DRAM in China, but failing to elaborate on the
nature and results of that investigation.

Instead, the Plaintiff simply advanced that the DRAM industry was
"conducive" to conspiracy, and alleged the price variation of the
chips for the class period (i.e. 2016 to 2018). The Plaintiff did
not support any of his allegations with any tangible facts or
evidence of an alleged agreement between the parties to fix
prices.

The Superior Court ruled that the allegations of fault were
insufficient to meet even the low threshold for authorization. In a
biting passage, the first instance judge held that: "[z]ero times
zero equals zero." In other words, simply repeating that the
defendants conspired to fix the price of DRAM, without any evidence
in support thereof, does not constitute sufficient evidence to
create an arguable case.

The Court of Appeal reiterates the standard of review from a
decision dismissing the authorization of a class action, namely
that it will only intervene in cases where the motion judge erred
in law or if the judge's assessment with respect to the criteria of
art. 575 C.C.P. is clearly wrong.

The Court of Appeal agrees with the first instance judge's finding,
noting that the Plaintiff's allegations, even if taken as true, are
insufficient to demonstrate an arguable case. The Superior Court
judge correctly applied the teachings of the Supreme Court of
Canada in Infineon Technologies AG v. Option consommateurs, which
provide that even if the threshold to authorize a class action is a
relatively low bar, mere assertions are insufficient without some
form of factual underpinning.

No tangible evidence whatsoever was proffered by the Plaintiff and
the Court of Appeal thus dismissed the appeal with costs.

The Hazan case is a reminder that a skeletal application, based
only on general allegations and speculations, without "some
evidence" to support the existence of a conspiracy is insufficient
to meet even the low threshold for authorization in Quebec. Indeed,
where no public authorities anywhere have identified a conspiracy
justifying sanctions or further investigation, general allegations
of an international conspiracy to fix prices will not be enough to
authorize a competition class action.

The Plaintiff can still file an application for leave to the
Supreme Court of Canada. [GN]

MINNESOTA: District Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Jamison v. Ludeman
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Shawn M. Jamison, Plaintiff v. Cal R.
Ludeman, Dennis Benson, Laurie Severson, Kevin Moser, Terry Keisel,
Scott Benoit, Blake Carey, Tom Lundquist, Elizabeth Barbo, Ann
Zimmerman, Sara Kulas, Brian Ninnerman, Dr. Melissa Hagen, Tara
Osbourne, Katherine Klanchard, Jessica Tisbisera, Joe Mullens, and
Donna Cronin, each in their individual capacity and their official
capacity as employee of the Department of Human Services and the
Minnesota Sex Offender Treatment Program, Defendants, Case No.
11-2136 (PAM/DTS) (D. Minn.), Judge Paul A. Magnuson of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota issued a Memorandum
and Order:

   (1) granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; and

   (2) denying as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate.

Jamison is involuntarily committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender
Treatment Program ("MSOP"). More than a decade ago, a group
individuals committed to MSOP brought a class-action lawsuit,
alleging constitutional violations arising out of the conditions of
their civil detention (Karsjens v. Minn. Dep't of Hum. Servs., No.
11-cv-3659 (DWF/TNL)). Jamison does not dispute that he was a
member of the Karsjens class.

The Court stayed Jamison's case pending the outcome in Karsjens.
After final judgment was entered in Karsjens in February 2022, the
stay in this matter was lifted and all previously pending motions,
including a motion to dismiss, were denied. This renewed Motion to
Dismiss followed.

The Defendants' Motion argues that Jamison's claims were or could
have been fully litigated in the Karsjens action and are, thus,
barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, also known as claim
and issue preclusion. Jamison's opposition memorandum does not
meaningfully respond to this contention, instead arguing that class
counsel in Karsjens did not raise all claims that could have been
raised in that matter and was, therefore, ineffective.

But the quality of class counsel's representation in Karsjens is
not at issue here, Judge Magnuson says. Jamison has brought claims
in this matter against individuals, who were or are responsible for
the conditions of his continued detention. Those individuals cannot
afford him any relief for the ostensible deficiencies of class
counsel in Karsjens.

As the Defendants argue, many of Jamison's claims are the same as
those raised in Karsjens. The claims are undoubtedly barred from
relitigation in this matter, Judge Magnuson holds. The claims were
actually raised in Karsjens, the Karsjens court had jurisdiction
over the matter, the Defendants here either were defendants in
Karsjens or are in privity with the Karsjens defendants, and a
final judgment on the merits has been rendered on those claims.

Judge Magnuson holds that Jamison's claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 13, 14, and 15 are explicitly barred from further prosecution
and will be dismissed as such. Jamison's remaining claims are
arguably different than those raised in Karsjens, but they are
likewise barred.

The Defendants also argue that Jamison's claims fail to state a
claim on which relief can be granted. Although this argument is
likely correct, because the Court determines that all of Jamison's
claims are barred by claim and issue preclusion, a determination on
the merits of those claims is not necessary, Judge Magnuson states.
Similarly, the determination that Jamison's claims are precluded
renders moot his motion to consolidate his case with several other
MSOP detainees' cases.

Finally, the Court must comment on the tenor of Jamison's
memorandum in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. While it is
understandable that he is frustrated with the slow pace of the
Karsjens litigation and with the results in that litigation, thus
far, he repeatedly casts aspersions on the Assistant Attorney
General in this matter, going so far as to accuse the attorney of
violations of Rule 11.

Rule 11 is a serious matter, and litigants must avoid invoking that
Rule with no basis for doing so, Judge Magnuson opines. In this
case, the Assistant Attorney General has zealously represented his
clients. He has not committed any violations of his obligations to
the Court or to Jamison, Judge Magnuson holds.

Accordingly, Judge Magnuson rules that:

   1. the Motion to Dismiss is granted;

   2. the Motion to Consolidate is denied as moot; and

   3. this matter is dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 16,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdh6tjpu from
Leagle.com.


MUTUAL FUND: Garrison Point Wins Bid to Dismiss Claims in Koza Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Margaret A. Chan of the Supreme Court, New York County,
grants Defendant Garrison Point Capital, LLC's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint against it in the lawsuit entitled SUSAN
KOZA, Plaintiff v. MUTUAL FUND SERIES TRUST, ALPHACENTRIC ADVISORS
LLC, NORTHERN LIGHTS DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, JERRY SZILAGYI, BERT
PARISER, TOBIAS CALDWELL, TIBERIU WEISZ, ERIK NAVILOFF, GARRISON
POINT CAPITAL, LLC, FREDRICK SCHMIDT, Defendants, Index No.
655297/2020 (N.Y. Sup.).

In this putative class action alleging strict liability and
negligence claims against the Defendants for their alleged
violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 (the Securities Act), Defendant Garrison Point Capital, LLC
(Garrison Point) moves pursuant to New York Consolidated Laws,
Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211(a)(1), (7) and (8) for an
order dismissing the amended complaint against it. The Plaintiff
opposes the motion.

The action concerns the AlphaCentric Income Opportunities Fund (the
Fund) that lost about $2 billion in a fire sale to meet a large
amount of redemption requests during the coronavirus pandemic.
Plaintiff Susan Koza purchased shares of the Fund during the period
of Oct. 14, 2017, through March 22, 2020, inclusive (the Class
Period).

Defendant Mutual Fund Series Trust is the Fund's registrant and an
open-end management investment company, and the Fund is one of the
"series" of mutual funds within the Trust. Defendant AlphaCentric
Advisors LLC is the Fund's investment advisor and retained Garrison
Point to act as the Fund's sub-advisor. Other Defendants in this
action are Northern Lights Distributors LLC (Northern Lights), the
principal underwriter and distributor of the Fund, and individuals,
who are and/or were the Trust's trustees and officers (Individual
Defendants).

In the amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Fund's
offering materials were false and materially misleading in
violation of the Securities Act since the Fund, inter alia,
portrayed itself as devoted to "capital preservation" while it was
heavily invested in highly illiquid, risky and distressed assets,
such as legacy non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities.

In March 2020, the Fund experienced "a sudden, dramatic drop" in
the value of its shares as it had to meet the large increase in
redemption requests, losing over $1.8 billion of Fund value in
days. The Plaintiff alleges that the drop was not caused by general
economic decline but rather by the Defendants' failure to adhere to
the Fund's stated investment objectives and risky amassing of
illiquid securities.

The Plaintiff commenced the action on Oct. 14, 2020, by filing a
summons and complaint, and subsequently filed an amended complaint
on Feb. 26, 2021, adding Garrison Point as Defendant. The amended
complaint alleges three causes of action based on Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, respectively. The only
claim against Garrison Point is the second cause of action for
violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act.

Of relevance here, Garrison Point is registered with the SEC as an
investment advisor. While AlphaCentric was engaged by the Fund as
the Fund's advisor, Garrison Point is not directly in contract with
the Fund or the Trust. Rather, Garrison Point was retained to serve
as the investment sub-advisor to the Fund under an Investment
Sub-Advisory Agreement with AlphaCentric. Under the agreement,
Garrison Point is responsible for selecting the securities for
investment, and in return, receives a management fee that is
calculated as 50% of the net management fees that the Advisor
AlphaCentric receives from the Fund.

Garrison Point moves to dismiss the amended complaint against it
(1) for failure to establish that it was a statutory seller within
the meaning of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and (2) for
lack of personal jurisdiction. Specifically, Garrison Point argues
that in its capacity as the sub-advisor, it solely made decisions
regarding proxy voting for securities held by the Fund but did not
offer or sell securities to the Plaintiff or anyone in the class.

The Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that Garrison Point was a
statutory seller since it solicited purchases of the securities
from class members for its own financial gain by, for instance,
posting on its website's "invest with us" page a link to "Learn
about the AlphaCentric Income Opportunities mutual fund (IOFIX)
which has a 4%-8% target return and a 5-star Overall Morningstar
Rating," and promoting their work to build the Fund in an annual
report letter to its investors.

Since the Plaintiff does not allege that Garrison Point directly
sold the securities to her or other class members, Garrison Point
will be liable under Section 12(a)(2) only if it "solicited" the
sale, Judge Chan says, citing Commercial Union Assur. Co., PLC v
Milken, 17 F.3d 608, 616 [2d Cir 1994].

A claim of solicitation requires allegations that the Defendant
successfully solicited the Plaintiff to purchase the securities at
issue, and "motivated at least in part by a desire to serve his own
financial interests or those of the securities owner," Judge Chan
explains, citing Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 644 [1988]. Applying
the Pinter analysis, federal courts have consistently held that a
defendant can be deemed a "statutory seller" if he "directly" and
"actually" solicited the sale.

Under this standard, Judge Chan finds that the Plaintiff has not
sufficiently alleged that Garrison Point is a statutory seller
under Section 12(a)(2). Under the Investment Sub-Advisory
Agreement, Garrison Point is responsible for selecting the
securities and managing investment operations for the Fund. The
agreement is silent on any responsibilities as to sale, marketing,
or solicitation of investors. Also, the amended complaint contains
no specific allegations to support that Garrison Point solicited
any sale of the Fund's shares.

In opposing the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff raises new facts
about Garrison Point's website and a letter to its investors dated
March 31, 2019. Even taking the additional facts into
consideration, the Court still finds the allegations insufficient
to claim solicitation.

Given every favorable inference, these allegations are inadequate
to establish that Garrison Point directly and actively solicited
investors to purchase the Fund's shares, Judge Chan holds.
Moreover, the amended complaint does not allege that Garrison Point
stood to financially benefit from the increased sale.

As the Fund's sub-advisor, Garrison Point only received a
management fee for its services of selecting securities, Judge Chan
notes. The Plaintiff does not plead that Garrison Point received,
or was promised to receive, any compensation for soliciting sales
of the Fund's shares. Thus, Garrison Point is not a Section
12(a)(2) statutory seller.

Accordingly, Judge Chan holds, since the allegations in the amended
complaint, together with the additional facts raised in the
Plaintiff's opposition to this motion, do not give rise to an
inference that Garrison Point is a statutory seller, this claim
under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act is dismissed against
Garrison Point. In light of this dismissal, the Court need not
reach parties' other arguments regarding personal jurisdiction.

Judge Chan ordered that the motion by Defendant Garrison Point
Capital, LLC, to dismiss the claim against it for violation of
Section 12(a)(2) of Securities Act is granted. The Clerk is
directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Garrison Point
Capital, LLC, and dismissing the amended complaint against it.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated Feb. 16,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/45fpjhsa from
Leagle.com.


MY BAIT SHOP: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Bait Shop, LLC.
The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. My Bait Shop, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01714 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023).

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

MyBaitShop.com -- https://www.mybaitshop.com/ -- is the world's
largest online only new, used & vintage fishing tackle shop.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MYRIAD GENETICS: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Myriad Genetics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that discovery is ongoing for
the securities class suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah.

On September 27, 2019, a class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, against the Company,
its former President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark C. Capone,
and its Chief Financial Officer, R. Bryan Riggsbee (Defendants). On
February 21, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint, which added the Company's former Executive Vice
President of Clinical Development, Bryan M. Dechairo, as an
additional Defendant. This action, captioned In re Myriad Genetics,
Inc. Securities Litigation (No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB), is premised
upon allegations that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
acquisitions. The lead plaintiff seeks the payment of damages
allegedly sustained by it and the purported class by reason of the
allegations set forth in the amended complaint, plus interest, and
legal and other costs and fees.

On March 16, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
denied the Company's motion to dismiss.

On December 1, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The parties currently are engaged in discovery.

Myriad Genetics, Inc., a molecular diagnostic company, focuses on
developing and marketing novel predictive medicine, personalized
medicine, and prognostic medicine tests worldwide. Myriad
Genetics,
Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah.

NATIONAL GRID: Stearns Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Stearns, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL GRID PLC, NATIONAL GRID ELECTRIC
SERVICES LLC, USIC LLC, and RECONN HOLDINGS LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00276-GTS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay proper
overtime wages.

The Plaintiff contends that Defendants violated the FLSA, by
knowingly requiring, suffering, or permitting him to work more than
40 hours per week without properly paying them overtime wages. The
Defendant also violated the NYLL as a result of the Defendants'
failure to provide wage notices and wage statements as required by
the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, NYLL, and supporting
regulations; failure to pay prevailing wages, daily overtime,
holiday premiums, and supplemental benefits that they were entitled
to receive for work that they performed under contracts between
Defendants and New York State and/or municipalities; failure to pay
"spread of hours" premiums, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants who was employed
as a "Damage Prevention Adviser."

The Defendants are businesses that provide various utility services
at construction sites.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
          Nicholas Bittner, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC
          80 Broad Street, Suite 703
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 646-430-7930
          Email: cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com
                 nbittner@workingsolutionsnyc.com


NATIONWIDE COMPLIANT: Mitchell Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cherice Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONWIDE COMPLIANT, LLC, Case No.
6:23-cv-00157 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought to recover
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other applicable penalties
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Although the Plaintiff routinely worked (and continue to work) in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff were not paid
overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant
improperly classified the Plaintiff as exempt from overtime. The
decision by the Defendant not to pay overtime compensation to the
Plaintiff was neither reasonable nor in good faith. the Defendant
knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff
overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Nationwide as a Market Support
Specialist from February of 2022 through January of 2023.

Nationwide is a Lease Compliance Management software company that
provides "a streamlined and affordable way to manage Lease
Compliance."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin Anderson, Esq.
          Blayne Fisher, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Phone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com
                 blayne@a2xlaw.com


NEW YORK, NY: Muzumala Has 60 Days to File Second Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACOB MUZUMALA, Plaintiff v. CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW
YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES; PAMOJA HOUSE;
BRONXWORKS; PROJECT RENEWAL; DANIEL W. TEITZ (OFFICIAL CAPACITY);
GARY P. JENKINS (OFFICIAL CAPACITY); GAIL CRICK; EBONY WEBB; TAMARA
GAYLE; SUSAN BRADY; JANE DOE; JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No.
22-CV-8423 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Laura S. Taylor of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the
Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days
of the date of her Order.

The Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings the action under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the Defendants violated his
constitutional rights. By order dated Oct. 12, 2022, the Court
granted the Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP),
that is, without prepayment of fees.

The Plaintiff, who is of "African descent," came to the United
States in 2006. At an unspecified time, he applied to become a
legal permanent resident of the United States. Between 2019 and
October 2021, he Plaintiff lived in New Paltz, New York, Brooklyn,
New York, and New Orleans, Louisiana, after enrolling in advanced
academic programs in those places. In all three locations, federal
agents and their "proxies" stalked the Plaintiff and invaded his
privacy in an apparent attempt, he believes, to have him deported.
Although the Plaintiff's petition for permanent residency status
was approved on May 21, 2021, the immigration pursuit has persisted
anyway.

The Plaintiff alleges that, since he returned to New York City from
New Orleans in November 2021, his rights have been violated in
myriad ways in the New York City homeless shelter system. Named as
defendants in an amended complaint he filed on Jan. 23, 2023, are:
(1) the City of New York; (2) New York City Department of Homeless
Services (DHS); (3) Pamoja House; (4) Pamoja House Director Gail
Crick; (5) BronxWorks; (6) Project Renewal; (7) Daniel W. Teitz,
Commissioner, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability
Assistance; (8) Gary P. Jenkins, Commissioner, New York City Human
Resources Administration; (9) Ebony Webb, Program Director,
Help107; (10) Tamara Gayle, Program Director, JAMS; (11) Boulevard
Men's Residence (BRC) Doctor Susan Brady; (12) Jane Doe, JAMS
Resident Assistant; (13) John Doe, DHS peace officer at JAMS.

In November 2021, upon returning to New York City from New Orleans,
the Plaintiff sought temporary housing from the City of New York,
and he was housed in a number of shelters "under DHS," including
Pamoja House, BronxWorks, Project Renewal, Help107, BRC, and JAMS.
He asserts that his rights under state and federal law have been
violated at these facilities in myriad ways.

He Plaintiff alleges that: (1) the Defendants have been
"deliberately indifferent" to his health and the health of other
shelter residents by housing substance abusers with people who are
either are or are perceived to be mentally ill; (2) he has been
exposed to illegal drugs and secondhand smoke of various types; (3)
BRC doctor Susan Brady misdiagnosed the Plaintiff with
schizophrenia; (4) several roommates physically assaulted and
threatened the Plaintiff; (5) the Defendants denied the Plaintiff's
reasonable requests for transfers to other shelters, and retaliated
against him for requesting transfers; (6) the Defendants destroyed
his property; (7) the Defendants called the police to have him
removed from a shelter when he was simply exercising his right to
consider whether or not to accept the transfer; (8) Defendants
Teitz and Jenkins failed to properly train their staff; and (9) DHS
staff unlawfully videotaped the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class action of non-drug users
with real or perceived mental illnesses who have been housed with
substance abusers and exposed to illegal drugs and smoke, money
damages, litigation expenses under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, and to
have Brady's "misdiagnosis" rescinded. He also filed motions
seeking: (1) disclosure of the names of the Doe defendants under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26; and (2) service on the named
Defendants.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class action in connection with
his claims. Because pro se means to appear for one's self, a person
may not appear on another person's behalf in the other's cause. As
a non-attorney, Judge Taylor says the Plaintiff cannot bring claims
on behalf of others. She therefore construes the amended complaint
as asserting claims solely on behalf of the Plaintiff, the only
person who signed the amended complaint.

Judge Taylor now turns to the claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
As to the claims against the named Defendants, Judge Taylor holds
that the private defendants named in this amended complaint --
Pamoja House and its director, Crick; BronxWorks; Project Renewal;
Program Director for Help107 Ebony Webb; JAMS, its program director
Tamara Gayle, and its resident assistant Jane Doe; and BRC Dr.
Susan Brady -- are private actors who are not alleged to work for
any state or other governmental body. She says the Plaintiff's
allegations that these Defendants are homeless shelters, operate
"under DHS," work for agencies that operate homeless shelters, or
receive funds from the City of New York, are insufficient to
suggest that their actions are attributable to the state. The
Plaintiff therefore fails to state a Section 1983 claim against
these Defendants.

As to the claims against DHS and the City of New York, Judge Taylor
holds that they must be dismissed because an agency of the City of
New York is not an entity that can be sued. The Plaintiff asserts
claims regarding his housing and alleged retaliation, but, his
allegations do not amount to constitutional violations. Moreover,
even if the Plaintiff had provided facts suggesting a violation of
his constitutional rights, he has not alleged that the city has a
policy, custom, or practice that was the cause of his injury. None
of his allegations suggests that the City has a policy, practice,
or custom that violated his rights.

Regarding the claims against OTDA Commissioner Teitz, HRA
Commissioner Jenkins, and DHS Peace Officer John Doe, Judge Taylor
finds that the Plaintiff does not allege any facts showing how
Defendants Teitz, Jenkins, and John Doe were personally involved in
the events underlying his claims, or in violating his
constitutional rights. Any claims the Plaintiff is asserting, under
Section 1983, based on shelter conditions must be dismissed because
there is no federal constitutional right to housing, including a
shelter system. The shelter staff are also private actors, and the
Plaintiff has failed to allege facts suggesting they should be
considered state actors under Section 1983.

Regarding the state law claims, Judge Taylor determines that
because it is not clear whether the Plaintiff can state a federal
claim, she will determine at a later stage whether to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims the Plaintiff
asserts.

Because the Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts to
state a valid claim, Judge Taylor Court grants him 60 days' leave
to amend his complaint for a second time to detail his claims. The
Plaintiff is granted leave to submit a second amended complaint to
provide more facts about his claims.

In the "Statement of Claim" section of the second amended complaint
form, the Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the
relevant facts supporting each claim against each Defendant. If he
has an address for any named Defendant, he must provide it. The
Plaintiff should include all of the information in the second
amended complaint that he wants the Court to consider in deciding
whether the second amended complaint states a claim for relief.
Essentially, his second amended complaint should tell the Court:
who violated his federally protected rights and how; when and where
such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief.

Because the Plaintiff's second amended complaint will completely
replace, not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or
claims that he wants to include from the amended complaint must be
repeated in the second amended complaint.

The Plaintiff must submit the second amended complaint to the
Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days of the date of Judge
Taylor's Order, caption the document as an "Second Amended
Complaint," and label the document with docket number 22-CV-8423
(LTS). If the Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed,
and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the action
will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.

The outstanding motions (ECF 9, 10,) are denied without prejudice
to renewal once the Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint
and the Court has had the opportunity to evaluate its merit.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/59w5afd5 from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK: Andersen Files Appeal in Labor Suit to N.Y. Appelate Div.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff DANNY ANDERSEN filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered December 23, 2022, in the lawsuit entitled Danny Andersen,
on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all individuals similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Samuel D. Roberts, as Commissioner of the
New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, and
JOHN F. O'NEILL, as Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department
of Social Services, Defendants, Case No. 901412-17, in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Albany County.

The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff received public assistance
from the Suffolk County Department of Social Services from November
2010 through February 2013. As a condition of such, he gave SCDSS a
mortgage against his property in the amount of the assistance he
received. He also participated in the Suffolk Work Experience
Program, in which he worked approximately 1,773 hours over a
two-year period. Mr. Andersen has commenced this action, in which
he pleads three causes of action: (1) the refusal of defendants to
credit his Suffolk Work Experience Program work violated " Carver
v. State of New York"; (2) the taking of a lien including the
amount earned under Social Service Law Section 336-c (2)(b)
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act; and (3) the taking of a lien
unjustly enriched defendants.

The appellate case is captioned as DANNY ANDERSEN v. SAMUEL D
ROBERTS et al., Case No. CV-23-0334, in the New York Appellate
Division, Third Judicial Department, filed on Feb. 21, 2023.[BN]

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Sued Over Train Derailment, Chemical Spill
------------------------------------------------------------
JON LUKE AFFELTRANGER; and COMPETITION & LUXURY VEHICLE CLUB OF
DARLINGTON LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION; and NORFOLK
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00440 (N.D.
Ohio, March 3, 2023) is an action arising out of the catastrophic
derailment of a Norfolk train in East Palestine, Ohio, resulting in
the release of toxic and carcinogenic materials into the soil,
water, and air.

According to the complaint, on February 3, 2023, at approximately
8:54 p.m. local time, Norfolk general merchandise freight train 32N
was traveling eastbound and derailed in East Palestine, Ohio. The
derailment was the result of an overheated wheel bearing which was
253 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the ambient air temperature.

As a result of the derailment of Norfolk's freight train 32N, and
the subsequent release of an untold amount of harmful and toxic
chemicals into the surrounding areas, the Plaintiffs and members of
the Classes have been exposed to acute and chronic toxic materials
that pose a danger to human health; have suffered rashes,
headaches, and nausea; and have had their properties invaded and
contaminated by plumes of dangerous chemical smoke and other toxic
materials, says the suit.

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:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: gary@lcllp.com
                 kelly@lcllp.com
                 jamisen@lcllp.com
                 nickc@lcllp.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Dave Buchanan, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                 dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com

NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Bid to Decertify in Antitrust Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edmond E. Chang of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies the Defendant's
motions to decertify class and for summary judgment in the lawsuit
entitled IN RE NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTHSYSTEM ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 07 CV 04446 (N.D. Ill.).

In this antitrust class action, the parties are now on their fifth
set of certification-related briefings. Most recently, Defendant
NorthShore University HealthSystem filed a motion for
decertification, this time challenging, among other things, the
adequacy of the class representatives. Shortly after, but before
the class-certification issue was resolved, the parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment, along with motions challenging
expert evidence.

The Court provisionally granted NorthShore's decertification motion
on adequacy grounds, but allowed the class's counsel to find a new
class representative. Eventually, the class's counsel proposed a
new class representative, David Freedman. The Court then held that
Freedman is a proper and adequate representative. The Court now
considers the other Rule 23(b)(3) decertification arguments
presented by NorthShore, as well as the parties' renewed
cross-motions for summary judgment.

Back in early 2000, Northshore--then doing business as Evanston
Northwestern Healthcare Corp.--merged with Highland Park Hospital,
located in Highland Park, Illinois. Before the merger, Northshore
owned Evanston Hospital in Evanston, Illinois, as well as Glenbrook
Hospital in nearby Glenview, Illinois. Since then, NorthShore has
operated the three hospitals as a single, integrated entity.

Just before consummating the merger, NorthShore hired Bain & Co.,
Inc., an independent consulting firm to evaluate its commercial
payor contracts. In a draft memorandum of their findings, Bain
concluded that many of NorthShore's contracted rates at the time
should undergo a one-time corrective adjustment to make the rates
more profitable.

Later, the Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative
complaint against NorthShore, alleging that the merger
substantially lessened competition and enabled NorthShore to raise
its prices of inpatient services to private payers above the price
that the hospitals would have charged absent the merger. During the
FTC proceedings, NorthShore admitted that it raised its prices, but
argued that it did so because the pre-merger prices were below
market. An FTC Administrative Law Judge rejected this defense and
found that NorthShore's price increases were in violation of
Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 18.

On appeal, the FTC Commission issued a Final Order affirming the
ALJ's finding of liability and ordering Northshore to allow payors
and managed care organizations, MCOs, with pre-existing contracts
to "re-open and renegotiate their contracts." After that, at the
end of July 2008, NorthShore sent letters to MCOs and informed them
of the FTC's Final Order.

After the FTC issued its Final Order, the then-Plaintiffs (at the
time, there was more than one named Plaintiff) filed this case as a
proposed class action on behalf of all end payors, who purchased
inpatient or outpatient healthcare services directly from
NorthShore. The Plaintiffs alleged that NorthShore illegally
monopolized the healthcare services market and used its leverage to
artificially inflate prices paid by the Plaintiffs and the proposed
class in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of
the Clayton Act.

After discovery, an interlocutory appeal, more discovery,
certification of the class, still more discovery, and a dispute
over a change in class representative, the case has reached the
stage of cross-motions for summary judgment and a motion by
NorthShore to decertify the class. Both parties also filed Rule 702
motions against the other side's experts.

                   Motion for Decertification

On decertification, NorthShore argues that the Plaintiff has not
satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority
requirements. And as for summary judgment, NorthShore argues two
things: (1) that the Plaintiff has not properly defined the
relevant market, and (2) that the Plaintiff is barred from pursuing
any damages arising after the 2008 FTC-imposed remedy.

For the class, the Plaintiff argues that the class is entitled to
summary judgment on liability, and that NorthShore's affirmative
defense fails.

Judge Chang notes that continued certification of the class under
Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is proper if
the Plaintiff can show that two things remain intact: predominance
and superiority. NorthShore contends that the Plaintiff no longer
can show either element. To meet these class-certification
requirements the first time around, the Plaintiff relied on the
opinions and testimony of Dr. David Dranove. Eventually, however,
Dranove became unavailable to serve as an expert for the Plaintiff,
so now the Plaintiff primarily relies on Dr. William Vogt.

Dr. Vogt's proposed method to show antitrust impact is largely the
same as Dr. Dranove's, but with one exception: Vogt was only able
to use one of the MCO-level data sets, that of BCBS PPO, as opposed
to all of them (SEALED, Vogt Report). But otherwise, the
Plaintiff's proof remains almost the same. Like Dranove's analysis,
the primary aspect of Vogt's methodology is a
difference-in-differences analysis (which the parties have been
calling a "DID" analysis). The DID method consists of identifying a
control group of comparable hospitals and then running regressions
to see if prices increased at a faster rate at the subject hospital
(here, Northshore) than at a group of control hospitals.

Dr. Vogt used two data sets to conduct his analysis: one using
average price increases based on the Medicare Cost Report (MCR)
data, and the other using MCO-level data (the BCBS PPO data).

There is not enough reason to doubt the reliability of the MCR data
all the way to the point of excluding Dr. Vogt's opinions, Judge
Chang says. Dr. Vogt credibly explains how MCR data has been
commonly used by economists employing DID analyses to study the
effects of hospital mergers on prices.

In sum, Judge Chang holds, NorthShore's Rule 702 and Daubert motion
against Dr. Vogt's opinions, at least as to his opinions based on
MCR and BCBS PPO data, is denied.

On the issue of Rule 23(b)(3) predominance, Judge Chang finds that
the Plaintiff has demonstrated that the class can use common
evidence--the post-merger price increases NorthShore negotiated
with insurers--to show that all or most of the insurers and
individuals, who received coverage through those insurers suffered
antitrust injury as a result of the merger.

The remainder of NorthShore's arguments to the contrary are
unpersuasive, Judge Chang says. Whether the Plaintiff should have
been able to use the rest of the MCO data is missing the point: the
Plaintiff has shown that the class is at the very least capable of
proving antitrust impact employing a DID analysis on MCR and BCBS
data, Judge Chang points out.

NorthShore's only argument as to why the Plaintiff cannot establish
superiority is that the class cannot establish predominance. But as
discussed, the Plaintiff has satisfied the predominance
requirement. With NorthShore's arguments on decertification
rejected, Judge Chang holds that the motion to decertify is
denied.

                  Motions for Summary Judgment

In its summary judgment motions, NorthShore presents two main
arguments. First, NorthShore argues that the Plaintiff has not
established a proper relevant geographic market. In response, the
Plaintiff contends that not only has the class successfully
identified the market, no trier of fact could find for NorthShore
on the issue, so it is the class that is entitled to summary
judgment on this issue. Second, NorthShore argues that the class is
barred from pursuing damages after the issuance of the 2008 FTC
Final Order.

At this stage, though, Judge Chang holds that the Plaintiffs do not
have to actually establish the relevant market or exclude all other
possible geographic markets. Generally speaking, defining the
relevant market is a question for jury.

In sum, there is a genuine dispute over the relevant geographic
market, so neither party is entitled to summary judgment on the
issue, Judge Chang explains

Lastly, NorthShore argues that because the class failed to respond
to Northshore's letter (dated July 30, 2008) offering to reopen
negotiations, the class consequently waived any claim to damages
and failed to mitigate damages, so the class is estopped from
pursuing damages now.

The problem for NorthShore, though, is that even assuming
NorthShore's letter was received by the intended recipients,
NorthShore only sent the letter to MCOs, Judge Chang notes. But not
all class members are MCOs. So that means that some class members,
like Plaintiff Freedman, were never even aware of the remedy
proposed by the FTC's Final Order. So NorthShore's summary judgment
as to waiver and failure to mitigate fails most certainly must fail
as to the non-MCOs.

Judge Chang finds that a genuine dispute of material fact exists on
the mitigate defense, so NorthShore is not entitled to summary
judgment on it.

For its part, the class argues that it is entitled to summary
judgment because the evidence presented shows there is no dispute
over NorthShore's liability, and because NorthShore's
quality-of-care affirmative defense fails.

Judge Chang holds that the motion is denied as to liability and
granted on the affirmative defense. Judge Chang finds that there is
a genuine dispute over whether NorthShore exercised market power,
so the Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment on this
issue.

For one of NorthShore's affirmative defenses, NorthShore asserts
that the merger resulted in numerous efficiencies, including
significant improvements in quality of care. The class argues that
it is entitled to summary judgment on this affirmative defense for
two reasons: (1) the defense fails as a matter of law; and (2) even
if it were a viable defense as a legal issue, the opinions of
NorthShore's quality of care expert, Dr. Gregg Meyer, are
inadmissible. The Court agrees, at least on the latter argument.

Judge Chang finds that Meyer's opinion on the quality of care does
not answer a relevant question, and is, thus, inadmissible.

The remainder of the evidence that NorthShore relies on, namely the
Obstetrics & Gynecology Annual Report and the Evanston Northwestern
Healthcare Critical Care Dashboard, also does not stave off summary
judgment, Judge Chang opines. Neither document discusses--much less
establishes, even when viewed in NorthShore's favor--the requisite
causation. Summary judgment is entered against the affirmative
defense.

Therefore, Judge Chang denies NorthShore's motion to decertify the
class and motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff's summary
judgment motion is denied in large part and granted in part against
the quality-of-care affirmative defense.

In moving forward with the litigation, in light of this Opinion,
Judge Chang directs the parties to confer and file a status report
on (1) the restart of settlement negotiations; (2) the estimated
number of trial days (dividing the estimate into the number of
trial days for evidence versus the number of days for jury
selection, openings, closings, and deliberations); (3) a schedule
to disclose the defense's substitute expert disclosure, limited to
substantially similar opinions (the motion to do so is granted) and
to depose the expert; and (4) whether NorthShore plans on (or has
by the time of the filing of the status report) filing a petition
in the Seventh Circuit for permission to interlocutorily appeal
under Civil Rule 23(f). The status report is due on March 14,
2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order dated
Feb. 20, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5esk55dz from
Leagle.com.


NOW COURIER: Babayemi Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------
Oluwafemi Babayemi, Joseph Adeniyi, Damliare Ehinola, Abiola
Oladeji Kosile, Olawale Kehinde, Samantha Johnson and Oluwafemi
Adelanwa, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. NOW COURIER, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00353-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind.,
Feb. 28, 2023), is brought under the Indiana wage laws, and the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), challenging the unlawful
misclassification of Plaintiffs as independent contractors instead
of employees and seeking remedies for statutory violations
resulting from this misclassification.

The Defendant pays the Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers a flat
amount per route, per mile, or per delivery stop. All of these
rates are unilaterally determined by the Defendant. The Defendant
deducts various amounts from the delivery drivers' weekly pay for
business-related costs, including Cargo insurance, uniforms, and a
required mobile device app, all of which were required in order to
perform the job. By misclassifying delivery drivers as independent
contractors, the Defendant requires the drivers to bear the costs
of performing delivery services, including, but not limited to,
gasoline, tolls, vehicle maintenance and depreciation (as drivers
were required to use their own vehicles), and insurance. The
Defendant did not reimburse the Plaintiffs and other delivery
drivers for incurring necessary expenditures or losses within the
scope of their employment for the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers typically work more than
8 hours per day from the time they arrive at the Defendant's and/or
Defendant's clients' facilities until their route(s) servicing
Defendant's clients is complete. The Plaintiffs and other delivery
drivers work more than 40 hours per week because they routinely
work shifts of 8 hours or more per day, 5 to 7 days per week. The
Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers frequently are not paid for
all hours worked at an hourly rate at or in excess of the minimum
wage rates established by the FLSA and the laws of the various
states in which they worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs delivered pharmaceutical and medical products on
behalf of and at the direction of NOW in Indiana.

NOW performs "final mile" or "last mile" delivery services of
pharmaceuticals, medical products, financial documents, and other
products throughout the Midwestern United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anastasia Pavich, Esq.
          PAVICH LAW GROUP P.C.
          30 W. Monroe St. Suite 1310
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 690-8400
          Email: apavich@pavichlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          Matthew Thomson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: (617) 994-5800
          Fax (617) 993-5801
          Email: bmanewith@llrlaw.com
                 mthomson@llrlaw.com


OHIO: Supreme Court Orders Judge O'Donnell to Dismiss Parma Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled THE STATE EX REL. OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS'
COMPENSATION v. O'DONNELL, JUDGE, Case No. 2022-0108 (Ohio), the
Supreme Court of Ohio grants both of the Relator's requested
writs:

   (1) a writ of prohibition ordering respondent, Judge John P.
       O'Donnell of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, to
       stop exercising jurisdiction over Parma v. Ohio Bur. of
       Workers' Comp., Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-21-943131 ("the
       underlying case"); and

   (2) a writ of mandamus ordering Judge O'Donnell to dismiss the
       underlying case.

In 2013, the city of Cleveland and intervening respondent, the city
of Parma, sued the Bureau in separate actions in the Cuyahoga
County Common Pleas Court, alleging that the Bureau's former
premium-calculation method had resulted in excessive premium
charges for non-group-rated employers. Cleveland brought its action
individually; however, Parma filed a class action.

In February 2020, the Court held that the Court of Claims had
exclusive jurisdiction over Cleveland's action because Cleveland's
claim for relief--reimbursement of excessive premiums by way of
restitution--sounded in law, not equity (Cleveland v. Ohio Bur. of
Workers' Comp., 159 Ohio St.3d 459, 2020-Ohio-337, 152 N.E.3d 172,
Para. 1, 7-8, 11. In March 2020, Judge O'Donnell dismissed Parma's
action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
citing this Court's decision in Cleveland.

In January 2021, Parma filed the underlying case in the common
pleas court, which Parma characterized as a "refiling" of its 2013
case against the Bureau. Parma sought a declaratory judgment
determining the amount of the refund that it claimed it was owed by
the Bureau and an injunction prohibiting the Bureau from refusing
to pay the refund. Judge O'Donnell denied the Bureau's motion to
dismiss Parma's complaint, reasoning that this court's decision in
Cleveland did not control.

On the same day Parma filed the underlying case, it also filed an
action against the Bureau in the Court of Claims (Parma v. Ohio
Bur. of Workers' Comp., Ct. of Cl. No. 2021-00024JD (July 12,
2021)). In the Court of Claims, Parma asked for an award of damages
as compensation for the alleged overcharged premiums. The Court of
Claims dismissed Parma's complaint, in part because the statute of
limitations had passed.

In January 2022, the Bureau brought this action against Judge
O'Donnell, asserting that in the wake of this Court's decision in
Cleveland, 159 Ohio St.3d 459, 2020-Ohio-337, 152 N.E.3d 172, the
common pleas court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction
over the underlying case. The Supreme Court denied Judge
O'Donnell's motion to dismiss, denied Parma's first motion to
intervene, and granted an alternative writ. The Supreme Court later
granted Parma's second motion to intervene.

According to this Court's Opinion, the central question here is
whether the Court of Claims Act, R.C. 2743.01, et seq., patently
and unambiguously divests the common pleas court of jurisdiction in
the underlying case. To answer that question, the Supreme Court
must determine whether Parma brought a legal or equitable claim in
the underlying case.

The Bureau argues that Parma brought a legal claim that belongs in
the Court of Claims and that Parma has employed artful labels to
disguise its claim as equitable. Judge O'Donnell and Parma
disagree, stressing that the complaint in the underlying case
advances a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. The absence
of a legal claim requesting damages, they contend, means that Judge
O'Donnell has jurisdiction over the underlying case.

The Supreme Court agrees with the Bureau.

To be entitled to a writ of prohibition, the Bureau must establish
that (1) Judge O'Donnell has exercised judicial power, (2) the
exercise of that power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denying the
writ would result in injury for which no other adequate remedy
exists in the ordinary course of law. If the common pleas court
patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction, then the Bureau need
not establish the lack of an adequate legal remedy.

The Supreme Court holds that the Bureau is entitled to a writ of
prohibition because Judge O'Donnell patently and unambiguously
lacks jurisdiction over the underlying case.

To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the Bureau must show (1) a
clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty
on the part of Judge O'Donnell to provide it, and (3) the lack of
an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

In State ex rel. Sapp v. Franklin Cty. Court of Appeals, 118 Ohio
St.3d 368, 2008-Ohio-2637, 889 N.E.2d 500, Para. 15, the Supreme
Court concluded that because the court of appeals patently and
unambiguously lacked jurisdiction over an appeal, the Relator was
entitled to both a peremptory writ of prohibition preventing the
court from proceeding over the appeal and a peremptory writ of
mandamus compelling the court to dismiss the appeal.

Applying that logic here, the Supreme Court grants a writ of
mandamus ordering Judge O'Donnell to dismiss the underlying case.
Judge O'Donnell's contrary argument, that mandamus cannot lie
because the Bureau has an adequate remedy by way of appeal, is
foreclosed by Sapp.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court grants a writ of prohibition
ordering Judge O'Donnell to stop exercising jurisdiction over the
underlying case, and grants a writ of mandamus ordering Judge
O'Donnell to dismiss the underlying case for lack of jurisdiction.

Writs granted.

KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and
DETERS, JJ., concur.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Feb. 16, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/afukev6u from Leagle.com.

Dave Yost -- dave.yost@ohioattorneygeneral.gov -- Attorney General,
and Sandra Nimrick -- Sandra.Nimrick@ohioattorneygeneral.gov --
Assistant Attorney General; and Taft Stettinius & Hollister,
L.L.P., James D. Abrams -- jabrams@taftlaw.com -- David J. Butler
-- dbutler@taftlaw.com -- David C. Roper -- droper@taftlaw.com --
Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr. -- mzbiegien@taftlaw.com -- for the
Relator.

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jake
A. Elliott and Matthew T. Fitzsimmons IV, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorneys, for the Respondent.

Flowers & Grube, Paul W. Flowers -- pwf@pwfco.com -- Louis E. Grube
-- leg@pwfco.com -- Melissa A. Ghrist -- mag@pwfco.com -- Bashein &
Bashein Co., L.P.A., W. Craig Bashein -- cbashein@basheinlaw.com --
John P. Hurst -- jhurst@basheinlaw.com -- Plevin & Gallucci and
Frank Gallucci -- fgallucci@pglawyer.com -- and Weisman, Kennedy &
Berris Co., L.P.A., and Daniel P. Goetz, for the Intervening
Respondent.


PHYTAGE LABORATORIES: Baker Sues Over Unsolicited Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PHYTAGE LABORATORIES, Case No. 1:23-cv-10465-IT (D.
Mass., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought against the Defendant regarding
Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited
telemarketing messages to the telephones of Plaintiff and other
consumers without the prior express written consent of the call
recipients.

The Plaintiff's residential phone number has been registered with
the National Do-Not-Call Registry since November 4, 2004. Plaintiff
was the subscriber who registered his residential phone number on
the
National Do-Not-Call Registry. The Defendant and/or one of
Defendant's agents texted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone three
times between March 25, 2021, through March 27, 2021. The Defendant
and/or one of Defendant's agents placed this message without the
Plaintiff's prior consent. These messages were sent for the purpose
of marketing Defendant's vitamin supplement products.

On March 27, 2021, Plaintiff replied "STOP" to Defendant's
telemarketing messages. Immediately, another text message appeared
informing Plaintiff that he was unsubscribed from Defendant's
messaging list. The Plaintiff knows these texts were made by
Defendant and/or one of Defendant's agents because a link was
provided in each message directing Plaintiff back to Defendant's
website. Although Plaintiff had visited Defendant's website, he has
never purchased any items from Defendant and never provided consent
to receive telemarketing messages from Defendant, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff has resided in and has been a citizen of the State of
Vermont.

The Defendant is a manufacturer of vitamin supplements that
generates substantial profits from soliciting its products through
telemarketing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
          REARDON SCANLON LLP
          45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Phone: (860) 955-9455
          Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
          Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com

               - and -

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: ykopel@bursor.com


PINERY CLEANERS: Meija Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Meija, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. PINERY CLEANERS INC. (D/B/A ACE CLEANERS) and WON K.
CHO AKA JAMES CHO, Case No. 1:23-cv-01669 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28,
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"), including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the
Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a
timely basis. In this regard, the Defendants have failed to provide
timely wages to the Plaintiff. The Defendants maintained a policy
and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work
in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage
and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a manager at the laundry service.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a laundromat, located
in New York City under the name "Ace Cleaners."[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


POLOLO'S FRIED: Gonzalez Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROMAILIN GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POLOLO'S FRIED CHICKEN CORP. d/b/a Johnny's
Fried Chicken, a New York corporation, and GLADYS ARISTY, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01533 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23,
2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to pay an additional hour's pay for each
day of Plaintiff's spread of hours, failure to provide with a
written wage notice, and failure to furnish with wage statements.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from March 21, 2022 until
January 18, 2023 as a general restaurant worker and her job duties
included cleaning, selling food items, and other such general
tasks.

Pololo's Fried Chicken Corp. operates a restaurant known as
Johnny's Fried Chicken located in Bronx, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

POPULUS FINANCIAL: Court Issues Final Judgment in Barragan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California issued a Final Judgment in the
lawsuit entitled NUVIA BARRAGAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. POPULUS
FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-08021-SB-MRW
(C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the Court's order granting in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the class action settlement and
service awards and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's
fees and costs, and the parties' voluntary dismissal of this case,
Judge Blumenfeld issued a final judgment as follows.

Pursuant to the parties' settlement, Plaintiffs Nuvia Barragan,
Itzel Legorreta-Cruzalta, Javier Ramirez, and Damali Urbina-Fajardo
and all other class members (except for Karen Johnson) will have,
by operation of this Judgment, fully, finally, and forever
released, relinquished, and discharged Defendant Populus Financial
Group, Inc., and all of its past and present officers, directors,
shareholders, employees, agents, principals, heirs,
representatives, accountants, auditors, consultants, and their
respective successors and predecessors in interest, subsidiaries,
affiliates, parents and attorneys, from the claims defined in the
Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement (Stipulation).

Plaintiffs Nuvia Barragan, Itzel Legorreta-Cruzalta, Javier
Ramirez, and Damali Urbina-Fajardo and all other class members
(except for Karen Johnson) are enjoined from filing or prosecuting
any other cases, claims, suits, or administrative proceedings
involving their released claims.

The settlement fund is to be distributed to the class members
according to the terms of the Stipulation.

The funds for any check that remains uncashed after 180 days from
the date of mailing will be paid to the State Controller Unclaimed
Property Fund in the name of the class member who does not timely
negotiate his/her Individual Settlement Award check. In such event,
the class members whose checks remain uncashed after 180 days, will
nevertheless remain subject to the terms of the judgment.

Pursuant to the Court's order, Class Counsel will be paid $291,666
as their attorneys' fees and actual costs of $17,965 from the
settlement fund.

Plaintiffs Nuvia Barragan, Itzel Legorreta-Cruzalta, Javier
Ramirez, and Damali Urbina-Fajardo will each be paid a Service
Award in the amount of $7,500 (for a total of $30,000).

The Settlement Administrator, ILYM Group, Inc., will be paid
$22,450 from the settlement fund for the costs and expenses of
administering the settlement.

A payment of $37,500 from the settlement fund will be allocated to
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004,
California Labor Code Section 2698, et seq., and paid by the
Settlement Administrator directly to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency.

The Court enters judgment for Plaintiffs Nuvia Barragan, Itzel
Legorreta-Cruzalta, Javier Ramirez, and Damali Urbina-Fajardo and
the class members against Defendant Populus Financial Group, Inc.,
in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, and this order is
a final and appealable order.

The case is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. The Clerk is
directed to close this case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment dated Feb. 16, 2023,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/27v9yauk from Leagle.com.


PRESTIGE CAR: Faces Uribe Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR JULIAN CARDONA URIBE and FREDY SANTIAGO BONILLA LAGOS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PRESTIGE CAR CARE OF NY INC. and EDDIE GARCIA, as an individual,,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01853 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 3, 2023) seeks to recover
damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and
federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment by
Defendants located at 800 11th Avenue, Manhattan, New York.

As a result of the violations of Federal and New York State labor
laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated
damages. The Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs,
and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems
appropriate.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591
         Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

PRIME STYLE LLC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prime Style LLC. The
case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Prime Style LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01695 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023).

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

Primestyle -- https://primestyle.com/ -- offers you a new way of
shopping for the finest jewelry and diamonds that compliment your
lifestyle.[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


PSP GROUP LLC: Popa Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ashley Popa, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PSP Group LLC doing business as: Pet
Supplies Plus, Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-01357-NR was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington on Feb. 28, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00294-JLR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

PSP Group LLC doing business as Pet Supplies Plus --
https://www.petsuppliesplus.com/ -- is a privately held pet supply
retailing corporation with a major presence in the US.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Nicholas Colella, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: Gary@lcllp.com
                 NickC@lcllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James L. Rockney, Esq.
          REED SMITH (PA)
          225 Fifth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 288-3131
          Email: jrockney@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          John G. Papianou, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP
          1735 Market St, 21st Fl
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7505
          Phone: (215) 772-1500
          Email: jpapianou@mmwr.com


RANCHO MESQUITE: Faces Class Suit Over Massive Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Conneller of Casino.org reports that Nevada-based Rancho
Mesquite Casinos "failed to maintain adequate data security," which
led to the theft of the personal information of more than 200K
customers and employees. That's according to a class action lawsuit
filed last week in a US District Court for the District of Nevada.

A "massive" cyberattack hit the company's systems for several days
around Nov. 9, 2022. This resulted in hackers accessing personal
data, including full names, Social Security numbers, and driving
license numbers. Additional sensitive data may have been involved,
including financial account numbers and debit and credit card
numbers, the suit claims.

Rancho Mesquite owns the Rising Star Sports Ranch Resort in
Mesquite and The Brook in Seabrook, NH. It also operates the Eureka
casinos in Las Vegas and Mesquite, although these properties have
separate ownership, and their data structure wasn't affected by the
breach.

A Month Too Late
Not only were the company's data protection and cyber security
protocols inadequate, according to the lawsuit. But it also failed
to notify customers of the breach in a timely manner.

Impacted individuals were warned that their details had been
compromised on or about Dec. 9, 2022, a month after the incident
occurred. It's the kind of delay that can prove costly, according
to research by the US nonprofit consumer group Consumer Reports.

"One thing that does matter is hearing about a data breach quickly.
That alerts consumers to keep a tight watch on credit card bills
and suspicious emails," the group said. "It can prompt them to
change passwords and freeze credit reports . . . . If consumers
don't know about a breach because it wasn't reported, they can't
take action to protect themselves."

Potential Fraud
The plaintiffs claim the breach has exposed customers to potential
fraud now and in the future and nuisance spam phone calls, text
messages, and phishing emails.

"Simply put, plaintiff and class members now face [a] substantial
risk of out-of-pocket fraud losses such as loans opened in their
names, medical services billed in their names, tax return fraud,
utility bills opened in their names, credit card fraud, and similar
identity theft," asserted the lawsuit.

The complaint accuses the company of negligence and breach of
contract. It asks a jury to award class members monetary damages
and to order Rancho Mesquite to tighten its security measures.

The company hasn't responded to requests for comment. [GN]

REAL ESTATE: Faces Suit Over Realtors' Price-Fixing Commissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Consky of CTVNews.ca reports that real estate broker
weighs in on class-action lawsuit against realtor commissions. A
proposed class-action lawsuit alleges that some of Canada's largest
brokerages and real-estate associations are engaged in price-fixing
to inflate Realtor commissions.

Brokerages named in the lawsuit include ReMax, Century 21, and
IproRealtyLtd., as well as the Canadian Real Estate Association and
the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board.

The lawsuit claims that there is an agreement, among brokerages in
the Greater Toronto Area, which applies to any individual listing
on the Toronto Multiple Listing Service (MLS).

"When it comes to listing your home for sale, you typically sign an
agreement with a listing brokerage," broker and real estate
commentator David Fleming told CTV's Your Morning on Monday
Morning. "You pay a fee and then usually half or some of that fee
is offered as an inducement to a buyer agent. So this suit is
alleging that there is a fix of two and a half per cent, which is
what the suit said, that basically forces people to offer that."

Fleming explained that, on MLS, "you'll see a lot of two per cent
commissions, a lot of half a per cent to one per cent through
discount brokerages. There's a lot that offer one dollar, which is
effectively a for-sale-by-owner, where you as a buyer or agent have
to negotiate directly with the seller."

"So we'll see ultimately where the case goes and I think there's
more to this than what meets the eye."

Currently, a seller has to make an offer of commission to the
buyer's brokerage. The buyer's brokerage-commission-rule
essentially forces a seller to offer the industry standard
commission to the buyer brokerages. If they don't, then fewer
brokerages will show that home to interested buyers.

"If you go back, say, sixty or seventy or eighty years, if you as a
buyer wanted to purchase a property you would physically walk into
a brokerage and say, 'What do you have for sale?' If they had
something that you liked you would buy it through them – through
the seller's agent," Fleming said.

"That was multiple representation, it was a conflict of interest,
but that was the standard. Now, if you wanted, let's say, to have
representation and you hired an agent, they would still only show
you their listings under contract. So that's anti-competitive, as
we would know it today. Eventually someone had the bright idea to
say, 'why don't we co-operate? Why don't we offer a brokerage
commission, say half of our listing fee, to a buyer agent for
bringing us a buyer?' And that's the system that we have today
where everybody co-operates and you have the MLS system."

Fleming maintains that the system works in Canada. "People just
need to understand it," he added.

"I'll be honest, I don't think there's a lot of merit [to the case]
just from what I see," he said.

"There have been a lot of lawsuits at the industry level over the
years, but nothing has really been successful. But I'll be
interested to see what happens."

CTV's Your Morning reached out to both Toronto Regional Real Estate
Board and the Canadian Real Estate Association. Both of them
declined to comment as this issue is before the courts. [GN]

REGAL MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Suit Over Data Breach in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a class action
lawsuit claims the negligence of four major healthcare networks in
Southern California resulted in a "foreseeable" data breach that
compromised the personal information of over three million patients
in a case-captioned Downs et al. v. Regal Medical Group, Inc. et
al., Sections 2:23-CV-01507.

A proposed class action lawsuit claims the negligence of four major
healthcare networks in Southern California resulted in a
"foreseeable" data breach that compromised the personal information
of over three million patients.

Regal Medical Group, Inc.; Lakeside Medical Organization, A Medical
Group, Inc.; Affiliated Doctors of Orange County Medical Group,
Inc.; and Greater Covina Medical Group, Inc. are accused of failing
to protect patients' data from hackers who gained access to the
defendants' network on December 1, 2022, the 67-page lawsuit
alleges. According to the suit, though the healthcare groups’
employees reportedly began having trouble accessing some of the
servers on December 2, the defendants did not discover the data
breach until December 8.

The case relays that the sensitive personal information of around
3,300,638 current and former patients was compromised by the breach
and included patients' Social Security numbers, dates of birth,
full names, home addresses, telephone numbers, medical treatment
details, diagnoses, prescription data, laboratory test results,
radiology reports and health plan membership numbers.

As the complaint tells it, the cyberattack was a direct result of
the healthcare networks' failure to implement sufficient
cybersecurity measures to protect the private data stored in their
servers. The filing charges that if their security systems had been
adequately monitored, the defendants would have detected the
unauthorized access sooner.

The lawsuit also takes issue with the healthcare groups' delayed
notification of affected victims. Though the breach was discovered
in early December, notices were not sent out to those impacted
until approximately two months later, on February 1, 2023, the suit
says.

As the filing claims, current and former patients gave their
private data to the defendants with the expectation that the
medical groups would comply with their legal duties to safeguard it
from unauthorized disclosure. However, the two-month delay in
notification "virtually ensured" that the cybercriminals could
"monetize, misuse and/or disseminate" the stolen data before
victims could take action to secure their private information, the
case contends.

What's more, the notices themselves provided scant details to
victims and failed to mention how long the hackers had had access
to patients' data and what precise information was compromised, the
complaint relays.

The three plaintiffs, California residents, received notice of the
data breach in February 2023 and learned that their sensitive
medical information had been compromised, the lawsuit explains.
Between December 2022 and February of this year, one plaintiff
reports having received numerous alerts of fraudulent activity,
including an unauthorized attempt to register for a credit card in
her name and a notice that her Social Security number had been
breached.

Another plaintiff was notified in December of last year that an
unknown third party had tried to access her credit card, the suit
shares. In February of this year, the woman's bank canceled her
debit card and deactivated her account due to fraudulent activity,
the case adds.

Though the defendants have offered data breach victims one year of
complimentary credit monitoring, the complaint argues that the
gesture is wholly inadequate in the face of victims' "lifelong
risk" of identity theft, medical fraud, and other illegal
activity.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose
personal information was compromised in the December 2022 data
breach. [GN]

RITE AID: S.D. New York Dismisses Martelli Suit With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JAMIE MARTELLI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RITE AID CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 21-CV-10079 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Philip M.
Halpern of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss and the complaint is
dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff Jamie Martelli brings this putative class action against
Rite Aid Corporation alleging that the labeling on the Defendant's
"Toddler Beginnings" transition formula is deceptive and
misleading. The Plaintiff asserts a claim for relief for violations
of New York General Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350.

The Plaintiff initially also pressed claims for violation of state
consumer fraud acts, breach of warranty, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. However, at the
June 9, 2022 pre-motion conference regarding the filing of the
instant motion, the Plaintiff's counsel represented to the Court
that he intended to withdraw his request for injunctive relief, as
well as all claims for relief except for those brought under the
GBL. Accordingly, the Court directed the Plaintiff to prepare and
send to the Defendant for review a proposed order and stipulation
withdrawing from the complaint all claims except for those made
pursuant to NY GBL Sections 349 and 350, and any references to
injunctive relief. The Plaintiff withdrew all claims, except those
brought under the GBL, as well as the request for injunctive
relief.

Before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Defendant
moved to dismiss on July 15, 2022, in accordance with the briefing
schedule set by the Court.

The Defendant manufactures, labels, markets, and sells the "Toddler
Beginnings" transition formula under the "Tugaboos" brand. While
infant formulas are an alternative where breastfeeding is not an
option for children 0-12 months, transition formulas, such as
Toddler Beginnings, are marketed to be used to fill "nutrition
gaps," for children beyond 12 months. The Plaintiff alleges that
the Toddler Beginnings label misled her into believing that the
product is nutritionally adequate for children over a year.

The Plaintiff alleges that contrary to the representations on the
label, Toddler Beginnings is nutritionally inadequate for children
because: (i) it contains added sugars; and (ii) it contains less
protein, more carbohydrates, and more fat than cow's milk.

The Plaintiff alleges that she purchased the Product on one or more
occasions from the Defendant's stores, including the location at
709 Main Street, in Poughkeepsie, New York 12601. She alleges that
she read and relied "on the words and images" on the product label
and bought the product because she expected it was nutritionally
appropriate for children in the age range identified. Finally, the
Plaintiff alleges that she would not have purchased the Product if
she knew the representations and omissions were false and
misleading or would have paid less for it.

The Plaintiff's sole claim for relief alleges violations of GBL
Sections 349 and 350. The Defendant raises two arguments relevant
to the Plaintiff's GBL claims: (i) the Plaintiff has not suffered
an injury; and (ii) the Toddler Beginnings label is not materially
misleading.

Judge Halpern notes that the court in Gordon v. Target Corp., No.
20-CV-9589, 2022 WL 836773 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2022), addressed
virtually identical claims to those at issue here. The court in
Gordon held that the plaintiff failed to allege injury with respect
to her GBL claim because she only "vaguely" alleged that she relied
on the representations on the label and failed to identify a single
'specific advertisement or public pronouncement' on which she
relied in purchasing the Product.

The same is true here, Judge Halpern holds. The Plaintiff alleges
in a conclusory fashion that she relied on the words and images on
the Product, on the labeling and/or claims made by the Defendant in
digital and/or social media. However, as in Gordon, Judge Halpern
holds that the Plaintiff fails to state which specific
representations on the Toddler Beginnings labeling or advertising
she relied on when making her purchase.

Accordingly, Judge Halpern finds that the Plaintiff has failed to
sufficiently plead an injury in connection with her claim alleging
violations of GBL Sections 349 and 350. That claim, therefore,
fails and is dismissed.

Equally, even if the Plaintiff were able to show an injury--which
she is not--the Plaintiff's GBL claim would fail separately because
the label at issue is not materially misleading, Judge Halpern
holds.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Toddler Beginnings label was
deceptive for three reasons: (i) the label is confusingly similar
to the Defendant's infant formula label, thereby, giving consumers
the incorrect impression that the formula is nutritionally adequate
for children over a year; (ii) the label misleads consumers into
believing that the product has a nutritional value comparable to
cow's milk; and (ii) the label's "Non-GMO" representation is
misleading.

Judge Halpern opines that the Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim for
violations of GBL Sections 349 and 350 based on the alleged (i)
similarity between the labels of Toddler Beginnings and the
Defendant's infant formula product; (ii) misrepresentations
regarding the nutritional value of Toddler Beginnings; and (iii)
misrepresentations regarding the label's "Non-GMO" representation.

For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the motion sequence
pending at Doc. 30, and to close this case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Feb. 16,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mxc6vzw4 from
Leagle.com.


ROUTE 41: Pinkerton Seeks Drivers' Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Norman Pinkerton, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Route 41 Pizza, LLC; Dough Management Inc.; Susan Graves; Dave
Randall; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe 1-10, Case No.
0:23-cv-00459 (D. Minn., Feb. 24, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Wisconsin wage and hour laws, and appropriate monetary,
declaratory, and equitable relief.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent an FLSA collective class of the
delivery drivers who have worked at the Team Honey Badger stores
who choose to opt in to this action.

The Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the FLSA and
Wisconsin wage and hour laws 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, the Plaintiff contends. Accordingly,
when there are no deliveries to make, the Defendants' delivery
drivers are required to work inside the Team Honey Badger stores
folding boxes, doing dishes, stocking coolers, mopping and sweeping
the floor, taking the trash out, preparing food, and completing
other duties inside the restaurant as necessary, says the suit.

Because the Defendants paid their drivers a gross hourly wage at
precisely, or at least very close to, the applicable minimum wage,
and because the delivery drivers incurred unreimbursed automobile
expenses, the delivery drivers "kicked back" to Defendants an
amount sufficient to cause minimum wage violations, the Plaintiff
adds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corey W. Kobbervig, Esq.
          KOBBERVIG LAW LLC
          1624 Harmon Pl Ste 300G
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (651) 357-0111
          E-mail: corey@kobberviglaw.com
                  www.KobbervigLaw.com

                - and -

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Emily A. Hubbard, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 715-8711
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  ehubbard@billerkimble.com
                  www.billerkimble.com

RTR FINANCIAL: Jacobowitz Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Debt
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Jacobowitz, individually, and on behalf of other similarly
situated consumers v. RTR FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No.
506364/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought
arising from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA") by disclosing debt to
third-party vendor.

On a date better known to Defendant, Plaintiff Jacobowitz allegedly
incurred a medical bill. The medical bill was then transmitted to
RTR for collections. In an attempt to collect the debt, Defendant
6. Sent Plaintiff a collection letter dated June 7th, 2022. The
letter was not sent from Defendant itself; Defendant utilized a
third-party vendor to send the letter. In doing so, Defendant
disclosed Plaintiff's personal information to a third party in
violation of the FDCPA, including the fact that Plaintiff owed a
medical debt, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and is a "consumer."

RTR Financial Services, Inc. is a corporation that regularly
conducts business in New York and is a "debt collector."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          660 Broadway
          Paterson, NJ 07514
          Phone: 862)227-3106
          Fax: (973) 282-8603
          Email: dz@zemellawllc.com


RYDER INTEGRATED: Keefer Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Salnave Keefer filed an appeal from a District Court's
Order and Judgment dated February 1, 2023, entered in the lawsuit
entitled SALNAVE KEEFER, Plaintiff v. RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-07503-HSG, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The lawsuit was initially filed in the Superior Court in the State
of California, Alameda County before it was transferred to the
Northern District of California on September 27, 2021.

According to the complaint, Mr. Keefer applied to work for the
Defendants and as part of the application process, Ryder provided
Mr. Keefer with a disclosure and authorization form to perform a
background investigation. Neither party disputed that Ryder
provided Mr. Keefer with two disclosures: 1) a Background
Investigation Disclosure (which Mr. Keefer received twice), and 2)
a Reports Disclosure. The Reports Disclosure indicated that it was
signed by Mr. Keefer on April 13, 2020. Mr. Keefer brings this
putative class action complaint against Ryder for failure to make
proper disclosure under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr., of the Northern District of California, entered an Order on
Feb. 1, 2023 granting the Defendants' March 7, 2022 motion for
summary judgment. The Clerk of the Court also entered judgment in
favor of the Defendants and closed the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Salnave Keefer v. Ryder
Integrated Logistics, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-15225, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Feb.
21, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Salnave Keefer Mediation Questionnaire was due on
Feb. 28, 2023;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by March 20, 2023;

   -- Transcript is due on April 18, 2023;

   -- Appellant Salnave Keefer opening brief is due on May 30,
2023;

   -- Appellees Hadco Metal Trading Co., LLC and Ryder Integrated
Logistics, Inc. answering brief is due on June 27, 2023; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SALNAVE KEEFER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          William Matthew Pao, Esq.
          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771

Defendants-Appellees RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and HADCO METAL TRADING CO., LLC, a Delaware
corporation, are represented by:

          Kimberly F. Seten, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
          1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2350
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 472-6400

SEAWORLD PARKS: Lomeli Sues Over Unlawful Automatic Renewal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Lomeli and Daniel Blanco, individually, and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals v. SEAWORLD PARKS AND
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware corporation, SEA WORLD, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-5, inclusive, Case
No. 37-2023-00008529-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.,
Feb. 28, 2023), is brought on behalf of consumers who purchased
Annual Passes to the SeaWorld San Diego Park and who incurred
auto-renewal fees after the expiration of 12 months which violates
the California's Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL"), California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), and California's False Advertising Law
("FAL").

The Defendants sell, promote, and advertise Annual Passes to the
SeaWorld San Diego Park to consumers directly through the SeaWorld
San Diego website and software application. The Defendants had, and
continue to have, a uniform policy and practice of automatically
renewing SeaWorld San Diego Annual Passes at the end of 12 months
without providing the automatic renewal offer terms in a clear and
conspicuous manner prior to the consumer's purchase, without
obtaining affirmative consent to the automatic renewal offer terms
prior to the consumer's purchase, and without providing consumers
with a reminder notice 15 to 45 days prior to the cancellation
deadline or renewal date that informs the consumer that their pass
will automatically renew unless they cancel. And Defendants'
cancellation mechanism obstructs or delays consumers from
terminating their Annual Passes, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased Annual Passes to the SeaWorld San Diego
Park through SeaWorld's website.

SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc. and Sea World LLC d/b/a Sea
World San own and operate various amusement parks and water parks
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Grace E. Parasmo, Esq.
          Yitzchak H. Lieberman, Esq.
          PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
          7119 W. Sunset Blvd., #808
          Los Angeles, CA 90046
          Phone: (646) 509-3913
          Email: gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com
                 ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com

               - and -

          Zack Broslavsky, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Weinman, Esq.
          BROSLAVSKY & WEINMAN, LLP
          1500 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 500
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Phone: (310) 575-2550


SERVICE WEST: De Leon Class Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO DE LEON, as an individual on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SERVICE WEST, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
23CV028511 (Cal. Super., Feb. 28, 2023) alleges that the Defendants
failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours
worked, resulting in the underpayment of minimum and overtime
wages, in violation of California's minimum and overtime wage law.

The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Class Members
for all hours worked by virtue of, Defendants' automatic deduction
and time rounding policies, and failure to relieve employees of all
duties/employer control during unpaid meal periods or otherwise 16
11 unlawful practices for missed or improper meal periods, the
Plaintiff contends.

The Class Members were consistently unable to take timely, off
duty, thirty-minute, uninterrupted meal periods, often being forced
to take late meal periods, interrupted meal periods, and/or work
through part or all their meal periods due to understaffing, the
nature and constraints of their job duties and/or commentary from
supervisors pressuring them to take non-compliant meal periods or
skip meal periods completely. The Defendants issued wage statements
to the Plaintiff and Class Members that also failed to indicate the
earned gross and net wages earned during the pay period, the
correct applicable rates of pay for all hours worked, and the total
hours worked by the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Plaintiff
adds.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an installer, modular
installer, modular carpenter and/or similar title(s).

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee, from March 2018 through the separation of his employment
in April 2019, and subsequently employed by the Defendants as a
non-exempt employee from November 2021 through the present.

Service West is an independent contract furniture installation
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
          Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, PC
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 496-5818
          Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
          E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
                  zach@crosnerlegal.com
                  jamie@crosnerlegal.com

SERVICE WEST: De Leon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio De Leon, as an individual on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SERVICE WEST, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
23CV028511 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Feb. 28, 2023), is
brought pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure to seek
unpaid minimum and overtime wages.

The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Class Members
for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of minimum and
overtime wages. the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff
and Class Members for all hours worked by virtue of, the
Defendants' automatic deduction and time rounding policies, and
failure to relieve employees of all duties/employer control during
unpaid meal periods or otherwise unlawful practices for missed or
improper meal periods, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is currently employed by the Defendants in the State
of California as a non-exempt employee.

The Defendants own, operate, or otherwise manage a commercial
furniture installation, warehousing and logistics business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
          Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, PC
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (310) 496-5818
          Fax: (310) 510-6429
          Email: mike@crosnerlegal.com
                 zach@crosnerlegal.com
                 jamie@crosnerlegal.com


SIAM MARINA: Long Seeks Bartenders' Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LONG, on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v.
SIAM MARINA OF TINLEY PARK, INC., an Illinois Corporation, and
TAMMY PHAM, individually, and SAPION CHUNG, individually, Case No.
1:23-cv-01231 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 28, 2023) sues the Defendant for
failing to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated persons under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and other hospitality workers worked in excess of 40
hours per week but the Defendants failed to pay them overtime wages
at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. The
Plaintiff and others similarly situated demand liquidated damages
for the untimely payment of wages after the scheduled pay date;
payment of unpaid minimum wages for every hour worked during
applicable pay periods, together with reasonable attorney's fees
and costs, the suit says.

The Plaintiff worked as a bartender taking orders over the phone
from customers and from third-party online vendors.

Siam Marina creates Asian Fusion cuisine featuring traditional
Thai, Vietnamese, and French cuisine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
          Franklin Jara, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 568-3056
          Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
          E-mail: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
                  fjara@sulaimanlaw.com

SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Continues to Defend Sherman Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Sherman Antitrust Act-related
consolidated class suit in Illinois.

Twenty-two putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company following published reports of the DOJ investigation into
the exchange of pacing data within the industry.

On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the
Northern District of Illinois. The consolidated action alleges that
the Company and thirteen other broadcasters conspired to fix prices
for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations
throughout the United States and engaged in unlawful information
sharing, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The consolidated action seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or
plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs
have alleged.

The Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss on November 6,
2020.

Since then, the Plaintiffs have served the Defendants with written
discovery requests and have begun taking depositions of the
employees of the defendants and certain third parties.

The Court has set a pretrial schedule which currently requires
discovery to be completed by April 15, 2023 and briefing on class
certification to be completed by September 1, 2023.

The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against all such claims.

Headquartered in Hunt Valley, Cockeysville, Maryland, Sinclair
Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting
company.

SOCCER WEARHOUSE: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soccer Wearhouse,
Inc. The case is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Soccer Wearhouse, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01717 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023).

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

Soccer Wearhouse, Inc. -- https://soccerwearhouse.com/ -- offers
the latest soccer gear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTHERN SPECIALIZED: Castillo Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Maykel A. Castillo, Pilar Vazquez, and other similarly situated
individuals v. Southern Specialized Security LLC, Julio Sanchez
Cordero, and Damaris Hernandez, individually, Case No.
1:23-cv-20792-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought to
recover monetary damages for regular unpaid wages and retaliation
under United States laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on
May 2021, (the "material time") without being adequately
compensated. The Plaintiffs were not paid timely on the designated
payment day. The Plaintiffs did not clock in and out, but they
signed timesheets, and the Defendants were in absolute control of
the Plaintiffs' schedule and activities. The Defendants knew the
number of hours that the Plaintiffs were working. Therefore, the
Defendants willfully and intentionally failed to pay the Plaintiffs
minimum wages in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs performed as security guards.

The Defendant provides security services and, through its business
activity, affects interstate commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Trahan Sues Over Consultants' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN TRAHAN, individually and for others similarly situated v.
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY CORPORATION,, Case No. 4:23-cv-00734 (S.D.
Tex., Feb. 27, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages from Southwestern Energy under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Trahan typically worked 84-140 hours a week, well in excess of the
40-hour threshold for overtime compensation. Trahan's work schedule
is typical of the Day Rate Workers. Although Trahan and the Day
Rate Workers typically work 12-20 hours a day, for 7 days a week,
they do not receive any overtime compensation for the hours they
work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Instead of paying Trahan
and the Day Rate Workers overtime, SWN classified these workers as
independent contractors and paid them a flat amount for each day
worked (a "day rate") with no overtime pay for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the FLSA.
Accordingly, Trahan and the Day Rate Workers are entitled to
overtime wages under the FLSA in an amount equal to 1.5 times their
regular hourly rates of pay, plus an equal amount as liquidated
damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs, the lawsuit
contends.

Trahan worked for SWN as a Drilling Consultant from December 2021
until July 2022.

SWN bills itself as "among the largest natural gas and natural gas
liquid producers in the United States . .. primarily engaged in the
production and development of natural gas, natural gas liquids, and
crude oil within the nation's most prolific shale gas basins."[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
          E-mail: 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
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

STATE FARM: Toms' Bid to Extend Sealing of Docs Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, grants in part the
Plaintiff's motion to extend the sealing of unredacted documents in
the lawsuit titled DAVID TOMS, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-736-KKM-JSS (M.D.
Fla.).

The Plaintiff asks the Court to extend the sealing of unredacted
documents filed in support of his Motion for Class Certification
for one year. The Defendant does not oppose the Motion.

On Jan. 27, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion to file under seal unredacted versions of his life insurance
policies, policy applications, and annual policy statements. In its
order, the Court directed that the documents will remain under seal
for 90 days after the case is closed and all appeals are exhausted
in accordance with Middle District of Florida Local Rule 1.11(f),
but permitted the Plaintiff to seek additional and further relief
regarding the expiration of the seal in accordance with Local Rule
1.11.

On Nov. 22, 2022, the parties filed a notice of settlement and
joint motion for a continued stay pending the approval of a
nationwide class action settlement in the Western District of
Missouri, which would encompass the claims filed in this Court.
Based on the parties' representations, the Court dismissed this
matter without prejudice on Nov. 28, 202, and closed the case.

The Court further directed the parties to submit a stipulated
judgment or move to reopen the action no later than May 1, 2023,
and after that date, dismissal will be with prejudice. In light of
the Court's order closing the case, the seal granted by the Court
expired on Feb. 26, 2023. In the Motion, the Plaintiff seeks an
order extending the court-ordered seal for one year.

Upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion, the Court continues
to find good cause to seal the requested documents as explained in
its prior order. However, the Court does not find good cause to
extend the seal for one year.

Here, the court has ordered dismissal of the action to be with
prejudice, absent a motion by the parties, after May 1, 2023. Thus,
the unredacted documents will remain under seal for 90 days after
this action has been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the
Court's Nov. 28, 2022 order or another order of the Court. At that
time, the Plaintiff may move the court to release the documents so
that further sealing will not be required.

Accordingly, Judge Sneed rules that the Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion to Continue Seal is granted in part.

The unredacted documents identified in the Plaintiff's Motion and
filed under seal pursuant to the Court's prior order will remain
under seal for 90 days after this action has been dismissed with
prejudice by order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 16, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/22m469jf from Leagle.com.


STEWART SURFBOARDS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stewart Surfboards,
Inc. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Stewart Surfboards, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-01724 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2023).

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

Stewart Surfboards -- https://stewartsurfboards.com/ -- designs and
builds boards.[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


SYNGENTA CORP: H & R Sues for Monopoly of Crop Protection Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
H & R FARMS II, on its own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CORPORATION, SYNGENTA
CROP PROTECTION, LLC, SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG, CORTEVA, INC.,
BASF SE, BASF CORP., and BASF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS GROUP,
Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-00249 (W.D. La., Feb. 23, 2023) seeks
to recover damages in the form of overcharges that Plaintiff and
the Class members incurred due to Defendants' alleged violations of
antitrust laws in the markets for certain pesticides, as well as
for violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in conspiracies
with distributors to illegally extend and maintain their respective
monopolies with respect to certain crop protection products by
entering into loyalty programs to delay generic competition. As a
result of Defendants' and the distributors' conduct, Defendants
have restrained competition, maintained unlawful monopolies, and
harmed America's farmers, reducing choices for these farmers and
costing them millions of dollars in overcharges, says the suit.

Plaintiff H & R Farms II is a farm partnership headquartered in
Gueydan, Louisiana.

Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          Kyle Oxford, Esq.
          Quinn M. Burns, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (469) 904-5002
          E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
                  koxford@burnscharest.com
                  qburns@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Korey Nelson, Esq.
          Amanda Klevorn, Esq.
          Hannah Quicksell, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          365 Canal St. #1170
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 779-2845
          E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com
                  aklevorn@burnscharest.com
                  hquicksell@burnscharest.com

TASTE OF ITALY: Faces Capir Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA TECUN CAPIR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TASTE OF ITALY PIZZERIA INC. d/b/a
LA PEQUENA TASTE OF ITALY PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT and SEGUNDO CARLOS
BERMEJO, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01420
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The complaint alleges Defendants' violations of the federal and
state laws by failing to provide proper overtime and minimum wage
pay, failing to pay wages for all hours worked, and failing to
furnish accurate wage statements and written notices.

Plaintiff Capir was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer
and cook while performing related miscellaneous duties for the
Defendants, from January 2019 until March 2020 and from March 2021
until January 2023.

Taste of Italy Pizzeria Inc., d/b/a La Pequena Taste of Italy
Pizzeria & Restaurant, is a pizza restaurant based in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TELADOC HEALTH: Thomas Class Suit Settlement Wins Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the District Court
for the District of Massachusetts gave its final approval to the
Thomas class suit settlement on October 27, 2022.

On May 14, 2018, a purported class action complaint (Thomas v. Best
Doctors, Inc.) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, Best Doctors, Inc. The complaint alleges that on or
about May 16, 2017, Best Doctors violated the U.S. Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") by sending unsolicited
facsimiles to plaintiff and certain other recipients without the
recipients' prior express invitation or permission.

The lawsuit seeks statutory damages for each violation, subject to
trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief.

On May 27, 2022, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving
the terms of a tentative settlement reached by the parties and
conditionally certified the settlement class.

On October 27, 2022, the Court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement.

Teladoc Health, Inc. is a healthcare company based in New York.







TIKTOK INC: Faces Federal Class Suit Over Data, National Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey's Fifth District reports that on
March 6, 2023, at the Bergen County Justice Center, U.S.
Congressman Josh Gottheimer joined with New Jersey's cybersecurity
agency to sound the alarm on the threats TikTok and the Chinese
Communist Party pose to the safety of our children, our data, and
our national security.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made it abundantly clear that
it is willing to leverage technology to breach United States
institutions, steal our intellectual property, collect data on our
children and all U.S. citizens, and access the systems that control
our critical infrastructure. TikTok has more than 100 million
monthly active users, collects far-reaching and sophisticated data
from its users, including usernames, passwords, personally
identifiable information, pictures, and videos of millions of
Americans.

The U.S. military, federal government, and many state governments,
including New Jersey, have banned TikTok on government-issued
devices.

TikTok and the Chinese government are a threat to America's
national security and children:

-- China-based employees of TikTok have repeatedly accessed
non-public data about American TikTok users.
-- In 2019, the FTC fined TikTok for knowingly collecting the
names, email addresses, pictures, and locations of children under
the age of 13 without parental consent.
-- In 2022, TikTok agreed to a class-action settlement for
harvesting U.S. personal data from users without their consent.
-- In 2022, TikTok confirmed that China-based employees could gain
remote access to Americans' data, including public videos and
comments.
-- Chinese law obligates TikTok's parent company to "support,
assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work."

-- TikTok's extreme prevalence in America has given the Chinese
government unfettered access and information to our children and
Americans.
-- Studies show that TikTok's addictive qualities may have a
negative impact on children's mental health. The algorithm is
designed to keep users engaged longer, and studies show the more
kids and teens spend on social media, the more likely they will be
depressed.
-- A Fifth District 13-year-old girl recently had her TikTok
account hacked, and changed from private to public -- exposing her
identity, pictures, and videos. The hacker changed her password and
she was completely locked out of the account. Gottheimer's team was
able to contact TikTok to get the account deleted.

-- China is America's biggest global threat and it has made clear
its willingness to use cyberwarfare and surveillance tactics to
breach U.S. institutions.
-- A Chinese state-sponsored hacking group successfully compromised
the computer networks of at least six U.S. state governments
between May 2021 and February this year.
Gottheimer's actions to combat the threat of Chinese-owned TikTok:

-- Gottheimer is pushing for legislation that would grant the
President the power to ban TikTok in the United States, or force
the sale of its U.S. operations to an American company -- if the
President believes there is continued data collection and a clear
threat to our national security.
-- Gottheimer is writing to TikTok, once again demanding that they
immediately cease all data collection of personally identifiable
information on American citizens, beginning with our children.

Last year, Gottheimer and his Problem Solvers Caucus Co-Chair
Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick wrote a letter to the CEO of TikTok
questioning their child data privacy policies and data uses. In
response, TikTok made no commitment to protect our country and our
children.

"It's time we gave the President the tools to fight back against
TikTok's information invasion against America's families. In the
wrong hands, this data is an enormous asset to the Chinese
Communist Party -- a known adversary -- and their malign
activities. In fact, Chinese law obligates TikTok's parent company
to, and I quote, 'support, assist, and cooperate with state
intelligence work.' So TikTok is basically bought and paid for by
the Chinese government." said Congressman Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5), a
member of the House Intelligence Committee. "I'm taking two
concrete steps to battle TikTok's assault on our children's
privacy. Last July, I wrote a letter to the CEO of TikTok
questioning their child data privacy policies. Their response was
stunning, inadequate, unproductive, and frankly insulting, to say
the least. They made no commitment to protect both our country and
our children. They admitted that they collect data on children,
including IP addresses and other device information."

"I do want to thank the Congressman for his leadership on
addressing the security issues that TikTok and other national
security threats involving technology bring to us here in New
Jersey and the United States as a whole," said Director of the New
Jersey Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Cell & New
Jersey's Chief Information Security Officer Michael Geraghty. "We
see this as an ongoing threat that the Congressman is addressing
here."

Gottheimer was joined in Hackensack by the Director of the New
Jersey Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Cell & New
Jersey's Chief Information Security Officer Michael Geraghty and
Bergen County Sheriff Anthony Cureton.
Good morning. We're here at the Bergen County Justice Center to
sound the alarm and take action against the threats TikTok and its
overlord, the Chinese Communist Party, pose to the safety of our
children and to America's national security.

The lack of transparency and accountability from TikTok and its
parent company, ByteDance, is leading to grave consequences for our
families and this country. As a member of the House Intelligence
Committee, I believe it's time we put an end to their endless and
shameless privacy violations and data collection on our children
and families.

Listen, I get it. Plenty of teenagers, like my own daughter, love
watching and making TikTok videos with their friends -- and so do
lots of parents. And the Chinese government loves that they do.
They are building lengthy data files on millions of kids across our
country, learning and capitalizing on their every move online. They
are playing the short-and-long game, and will have this data on
them for decades to come -- their habits, their likes, where they
shop, and what they read, and, potentially, what's on their
devices. Even what they do on their other apps and social media. My
friend and Co-Chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus,
Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick and I wrote TikTok months ago, asking
them questions about what they are doing with all of this data.
Their response, which I'll get to, was shocking -- and telling.

The Chinese Communist Party -- the CCP -- has made it abundantly
clear that it is willing to leverage technology to breach United
States institutions, steal our intellectual property, collect data
on our children and all U.S. citizens, and access the systems that
control our critical infrastructure.

Just look at the Chinese spy balloon that we shot down last month.
This was a completely unacceptable, aggressive, and provocative
move by the Chinese government, and -- as a member of the House
Intelligence Committee -- I believe that we need to take concrete
action to curb China's push to influence, infiltrate, and undermine
our country.

TikTok is clearly being used as yet another tool in the Chinese
government's arsenal against America, and it's high time we address
its serious impacts on our children and our national security. It's
time we gave the President the tools to fight back against TikTok's
information invasion against America's families.

First, we know that the popular Chinese social media company,
TikTok, has access to our kids' and to Americans' data -- posing a
serious threat to our safety, privacy, and security.

According to leaked audio from more than eighty internal TikTok
meetings, China-based employees of the company have repeatedly
accessed non-public data about American TikTok users. Just last
year, TikTok agreed to a class-action settlement for harvesting
U.S. personal data from users without their consent.

Plus, back in 2019, the FTC fined TikTok for knowingly collecting
the names, email addresses, pictures, and locations of children
under the age of 13 without parental consent.

This past November, TikTok confirmed that China-based employees
could gain remote access to Americans' data, including public
videos and comments. TikTok has more than 100 million monthly
active users, collects far-reaching and sophisticated data from its
users, including usernames, passwords, personally identifiable
information, pictures, and videos of millions of Americans. In the
wrong hands, this data is an enormous asset to the Chinese
Communist Party -- a known adversary -- and their malign
activities. In fact, Chinese law obligates TikTok's parent company
to, and I quote, "support, assist, and cooperate with state
intelligence work."

So TikTok is basically bought and paid for by the Chinese
government.

Based on the Chinese Communist Party's dismal track record on data
privacy and widespread use of government-sponsored surveillance on
companies and citizens, it's no stretch to assume that American
data from TikTok has made its way to the Chinese government.

Even the U.S. military, federal government, and many state
governments, including here in New Jersey, have banned TikTok on
government-issued devices.

This data can be shared, sold, and stored forever, which raises
serious concerns for the safety of American users, of our children,
their IP addresses, and other personal information. This data could
easily yield sensitive information about users' relationships,
behaviors, preferences, and vulnerabilities. It lets the Chinese
government build a full profile on all of our citizens,
specifically with our children. Plus, it strategically influences
what videos and content users are shown.

Second, in addition to data privacy risks, TikTok's extreme
prevalence in America has given the Chinese government unfettered
access to our children. Think about that -- with this one app,
China has the ability to control what a generation of kids sees and
consumes every single day. I know that for many young people,
TikTok is their most used app and a main source of news.

That means that through TikTok, China has the ability to slowly and
methodically undermine our country by feeding our children CCP
propaganda, using the app as a weapon against America.

And, China plays the long game. They are willing to wait decades.
They have said that the best way to beat America isn't militarily,
but from within -- for us to turn on one another and beat
ourselves. Based on what's been declassified, the Chinese
government sees us like a frog in boiling water -- swimming around,
slowly cooking ourselves, as we become more divided and unable to
act.

Third, I continue to hear concerns from families regarding TikTok's
misuse of data.

For example, I recently heard from a father in my district whose
13-year-old daughter's TikTok account had been hacked. Her account
was changed from private to public -- exposing her identity,
pictures, and videos to the entire world. The hacker changed her
password, and his daughter was completely locked out of the
account.

After multiple attempts to contact TikTok for help, they were never
able to speak with a representative. The family reached out to me,
and my team, and we were able to get ahold of TikTok and get the
account completely deleted. But it was no picnic.

If it was this easy for a hacker to gain access to this young
girl's sensitive information from TikTok, imagine how easy it is
for the Chinese government to steal data from every single American
who uses the app.

Not to mention, we know from studies that social media use is
having serious mental health effects on our children, and other
risks, like how easy it is to buy drugs through apps, and I have
spoken out strongly to encourage immediate reforms.

Increased social media use among kids has been linked to
development of eating disorders, depression, and other mental
health challenges. Our children are worse off because of these
apps' addictive qualities, as we saw in a recently released study.
It showed that sites like TikTok may have a negative impact on
children's mental health. The algorithm is designed to keep users
engaged longer, and studies show the more kids and teens spend on
social media, the more likely they'll be depressed.

TikTok claims that they have a "Kids Mode," but it does little to
restrict the content our children see and does even less to protect
minors' data.

Our children's exposure to explicit, violent, or otherwise
dangerous content on TikTok remains unchecked, and without adequate
guardrails, our kids will continue to be plagued by serious mental
health challenges -- in addition to their massive data theft.

I'm taking two concrete steps to battle TikTok's assault on our
children's privacy. Last July, I wrote a letter to the CEO of
TikTok questioning their child data privacy policies. Their
response was stunning, inadequate, unproductive, and frankly
insulting, to say the least. They made no commitment to protect
both our country and our children. They admitted that they collect
data on children, including "IP addresses and other device
information."

They also admitted that they have a right to collect "information
on users they obtain from other sources," including Facebook or
Google. Yes, you heard me right. TikTok -- an arm of the Communist
Party of China -- admitted that they are stealing and collecting
our children's personal and private information.

Last week, in what appeared to be an altruistic move, TikTok
introduced a new children protection policy for parents, adding to
their Family Pairing feature, supposedly limiting the default
screen time for those under eighteen to 60 minutes a day -- or
seven hours a week. Yes, seven hours.

Interestingly, somehow, TikTok left out their greatest profit
making and privacy-busting provisions in their new policy. Their
big PR move was to limit time -- not to stop stealing our personal
and private information. Why won't they commit to stop stealing
information about our children? I'll tell you why I think -- this
whole thing, TikTok, is part of a grand plan to suck as much
personal information and data from our citizens, including a
generation of America's children.

So, this week, I am writing a follow-up letter to the pablum I
received from TikTok this past year, and, again, will demand that
TikTok immediately cease all data collection of personally
identifiable information on American citizens, beginning with our
children.

And let me be clear: Unless TikTok immediately stops stealing our
children's and citizens' data, I will fight to ban the use of this
rogue Chinese Communist government-controlled application that has
the potential to damage the lives of so many.

I also strongly support legislation that would grant the President
the power to ban TikTok in the United States, or force the sale of
its U.S. operations to an American company, if the President
believes there is continued data collection and a clear threat to
our national security.

I am working with other members on that legislation right now.

Unless I'm missing something, it seems clear to me that the Chinese
Communist government is using TikTok to steal data from our
children and families. They are using it as a means to infiltrate
our citizens, their data, and information that could put our safety
and national security at risk. We must give the President the power
to take action.

Keep in mind, it's not just our children who are at risk.

China is our biggest global threat and they have made it clear it
is willing to use cyberwarfare tactics to breach United States
institutions, and TikTok is a clear and obvious threat to our
national security.

In fact, a Chinese state-sponsored hacking group successfully
compromised the computer networks of at least six U.S. state
governments between May 2021 and February this year.

To recap, we know that the Chinese government views America as an
enemy, we know that they are actively trying to spy on us, we know
that TikTok gives the CCP access to millions of Americans' data,
and we know that Chinese state-sponsored cyber-crime groups have
successfully hacked American state governments.

We are running out of time -- and I'm proposing more concrete
action.

We must take swift, concrete action to protect our national
security, safeguard our families, infrastructure, and economy,
fight back against foreign aggression, and better the lives of our
children. This is about protecting our national security from an
adversary who wants to do harm to America's standing as the leader
of the free world.

It will take every level of government working together to
eliminate threats to our national security and private data from
TikTok and the Chinese Communist Party. Remember, the Chinese
government is the enemy, not each other. Here in the greatest
country in the world, if we remember to put our country first, and
come together, I know that our best days will always be ahead of
us.

Thank you, God bless you, God bless our troops, and God bless the
United States of America. [GN]

TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cherisha Lovejoy, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00380-AJB-MDD (S.D. Cal.,
Feb. 28, 2023), is brought to redress the harms suffered as a
result of the Defendants: failure to pay all regular, minimum and
overtime wages in violation of Labor Code; failure pay split-shift
premiums in violation the applicable IWC Order; failure to provide
legally sufficient meal periods in violation of Labor Code; failure
to authorize and permit legally sufficient rest breaks in violation
of Labor Code; failure to provide accurate wage statements in
violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay wages when due at
termination in violation of Labor Code; violation of the Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") pursuant to Business & Professions Code;
and Conversion of wages.

The Defendants systematically violated the rights of Plaintiff and
the putative class members rights under the California Labor Code.
The Defendants did so by failing to pay actual hours worked, but
instead paid hours based on estimates of what hours Defendants
estimated its employees should work to drive the routes assigned to
the respective bus driver. This policy and practice resulted in bus
drivers consistently working off of the clock before, during and
after shifts. Additionally, Defendants did not build in the ability
for bus drivers to take legally adequate meal and rest breaks into
the routes they assigned to Plaintiff and putative class members,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a well-established bus operator and was a
dedicated non-exempt employee of Transdev Services Inc.

TRANSDEV is a transportation company doing business with municipal
transportation systems across the nation, and in San Diego Metro
Area through contractual relationships with the Metropolitan
Transit System.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Hewgill, Esq.
          Efaon Cobb, Esq.
          HEWGILL COBB & LOCKARD, APC
          1620 Fifth Avenue, Suite 325
          San Diego, Ca 92101
          Phone: 619-432-2520
          Fax: 619-377-6026
          Email: Contact@hcl-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
          Joshua A. Fields, Esq.
          Aya Dardari, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 800
          San Diego, Ca 92101
          Phone: (619) 400-4990
          Fax: (310) 399-7040
          Email: hzeldes@sshhzlaw.com
                 jfields@sshhzlaw.com
                 adardari@sshhzlaw.com


TRUSTEDID INC: Dismissal of O'Leary's Claim Under FIFITPA Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRADY O'LEARY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TRUSTEDID, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-2144 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacates the district court's
dismissal of O'Leary's claim against TrustedID under South
Carolina's Financial Identity Fraud and Identity Theft Protection
Act, S.C. Code Ann. Section 37-20-180 and remands with
instructions.

O'Leary's First Amended Class Action Complaint alleges that
nonparty Equifax was subject to a data breach. Equifax then engaged
its subsidiary, TrustedID, to use TrustedID's website to inform
customers whether they were impacted by the data breach.

O'Leary had no other way to learn whether his data had been
compromised, so he went to TrustedID's website. The website
prompted O'Leary to enter six digits of his social security number
("SSN"). In exchange for this information, the website informed
O'Leary that he was "not impacted" by Equifax's data breach.
TrustedID didn't use any other security precautions, such as a
password, unique personal identification number, or another
authentication device. O'Leary alleges that TrustedID shared the
six digits of his SSN with Equifax.

O'Leary sued TrustedID in state court, alleging that TrustedID's
practice of requiring six digits of consumers' SSNs violated the
Act and South Carolina's common-law right to privacy.

TrustedID removed the case to federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA"). O'Leary then filed an Amended Complaint in
the federal district court, reasserting the same claims and adding
one for negligence. TrustedID moved to dismiss under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

While TrustedID's motion was pending, O'Leary filed a Motion to
Determine Subject Matter Jurisdiction Or, in the Alternative, to
Remand. O'Leary agreed that the case satisfied CAFA. But he asked
the district court to "inquire before reaching the merits into
whether it has subject matter jurisdiction" under Article III given
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), which had been
recently decided. O'Leary took "no position" on whether he'd
suffered an Article III injury.

TrustedID opposed O'Leary's "puzzling" motion and argued that he
had sufficiently alleged standing. The district court held a
hearing. It denied O'Leary's motion, holding that he had alleged
Article III standing. The court noted the unique posture of a
plaintiff questioning his own standing, rather than a defendant
raising the issue under Rule 12(b)(1). But it decided that
O'Leary's harm allegations, while perhaps scarce, certainly suggest
that the Plaintiff is claiming to have suffered some damage as a
result of the Defendant's actions. Nonetheless, the district court
granted TrustedID's motion to dismiss on the merits, holding that
O'Leary had not plausibly stated a claim under the Act or under
common-law principles of privacy or negligence.

On appeal, O'Leary again notes his concerns as to whether the
statutory violation constitutes a concrete injury in fact for
Article III standing, but he asks the Fourth Circuit to affirm the
district court's holding on standing anyway. He challenges only the
district court's dismissal of his claim under the Act, not the
dismissal of his common-law privacy and negligence claims.

The Fourth Circuit holds that O'Leary has alleged only a bare
statutory violation and no Article III injury. So it does not --
and cannot -- reach the question whether he's pleaded facts that
state a claim under the Act, though he may presumably pursue that
claim in state court.

The Fourth Circuit holds that O'Leary hasn't alleged an Article III
injury in fact. It's true that general factual allegations of
injury resulting from the defendant's conduct can suffice at the
pleading stage. But even given that low bar and taking all
plausible factual inferences in O'Leary's favor, his complaint
doesn't allege an injury that suffices under Article III.

The Fourth Circuit opines that O'Leary can't connect the alleged
statutory violation to an increased risk of identity theft without
a Rube Goldberg-type chain reaction. His position that it would've
been fine for TrustedID to require five digits of his SSN -- but
not six -- is telling. He's failed to explain how entering six
digits increased his risk of identity theft (or otherwise
concretely injured him) in a way that five digits wouldn't. This
omission betrays the fact that O'Leary relies entirely on a mere
procedural violation of a statute, which Article III rejects

Nor has O'Leary alleged an injury with a "close relationship" to a
traditional or common-law analog. Since O'Leary hasn't pleaded a
nonspeculative connection between the alleged statutory violation
and identity theft, he appears to rely on some abstract privacy
interest in his SSN itself. But such an injury bears no close
relationship to a traditional or common-law analog. At bottom,
O'Leary hasn't adequately pled that he was injured by the alleged
statutory violation at all—much less in a way that closely
relates to a traditional analog for a federal lawsuit.

It's certainly odd that TrustedID failed to comply with the
five-digit SSN cutoff, which doesn't appear to be unique to South
Carolina's Act. But federal courts can't entertain a case without a
concrete injury in fact. The Fourth Circuit therefore vacates the
district court's judgment and remands with instructions to remand
the case to state court, where it originated. It offers no opinion
about whether the alleged facts state a claim under the Act. Absent
Article III jurisdiction, that's a question for O'Leary to take up
in state court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 21, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3uzhjw2a from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: David Andrew Maxfield -- dave@consumerlawsc.com -- DAVE
MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for the
Appellant.

Ashley Charles Parrish -- aparrish@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING
LLP, Washington, D.C., for the Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Justin T. Holcombe, SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP, Woodstock,
Georgia, for the Appellant.

Gabriel Krimm , Washington, D.C., Zachary A. McEntyre --
zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- Robert D. Griest -- rgriest@kslaw.com --
KING & SPALDING LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for the Appellee.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of Cert. Bid in Breach Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kara L. Smyth (Toronto) , Dana M Peebles (Toronto) and Cassidy
Bishop (Calgary) McCarthy Tétrault LLP of Mondaq report that
Alberta Court Of Appeal Upholds Dismissal Of Certification
Application In Proposed Data Breach Class Action in the
case-captioned Setoguchi v Uber.

A recent decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal in a data breach
class action may have positive repercussions for companies across
Canada facing the threat of class actions following a data breach.

In a unanimous decision in Setoguchi v Uber, the Court upheld the
dismissal of the certification application by the Honourable
Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke (the "Certification Judge"). In
doing so, the Court affirmed that the test under s. 5(1)(a) (valid
cause of action) is not a perfunctory exercise, and carefully
scrutinized the Appellant's pleadings to determine whether her
novel theory of harm should be recognized in law. Further, the
Court affirmed it was open to the Certification Judge to determine
that, in the absence of any opportunity for compensable class-wide
harm, a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

In the reasoning and result, this decision reflects the recent
emphasis, in Canadian Courts, on the "gatekeeper" role of
certification judges in ensuring that the certification hearing is
a meaningful screening device.

In late 2016, Uber was attacked by outside actors who accessed the
names, telephone numbers and email addresses of a number of users
globally (including several hundred thousand customers in Canada).
Uber made a payment in exchange for assurances that the accessed
data would be destroyed.

In the 4 years between the breach and the certification
application, and the 2 years between the certification application
and the appeal, neither the Plaintiff nor any member of the
proposed Class had come forward with proof of economic loss or
psychological harm arising out of the data incident.

In 2021, the Certification Judge denied certification. After
concluding that "not only is there no evidence of harm or loss,
there is evidence that there is no harm or loss", the Certification
Judge found that in such circumstances, it would not be
"preferable" to litigate the claims of all Class Members together,
emphasizing the new culture of proportionality, and the systemic
value of weeding out unmeritorious and de minimis claims. You can
read our analysis of the lower court decision, here.

By the time the matter reached appeal, the Plaintiff had narrowed
her case to two class-wide allegations: (1) breach of contract, for
which class-wide nominal damages were available; and (2) negligence
for failing to protect personal information. In the absence of any
evidence of economic harm or loss, the Plaintiff argued that
because personal information has inherent value the theft of any
personal information is itself a class-wide compensable harm, for
which "baseline damages" could be awarded.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on two bases. First, the
Court found the Appellant's pleading failed to disclose a cause of
action in negligence. Second, with only the breach of contract
claim to be pursued at a common issues trial, the Court found no
appealable error in the Certification Judge's conclusion that a
class proceeding was not the preferable procedure in the
circumstances.

No claim in negligence
Although the Court of Appeal was not prepared to import the
requirement for "some basis in fact" or evidence of harm into the
test under s. 5(1)(a), it noted that the Appellant's pleading did
not automatically survive the s. 5(1)(a) analysis. While the cause
of action in breach of contract was fully pleaded, the Court
concluded the Appellant's cause of action in negligence was not.
Noting that damages are an essential element of a claim in
negligence, the Court found that the Appellant failed to plead any
specific injury that is compensable at law.

First, the Court considered the wording of the Statement of Claim,
which stated that members of the class had "suffered significant
loss and damages including harm and injury to their interests".
This loss was stated to include "the unauthorized release,
disclosure and use of their personal information." The Court of
Appeal found this was not sufficient:

A fundamental purpose of pleadings is to outline the case a
defendant must meet. When a cause of action includes damage as one
of its requirements, a plaintiff is required to plead facts
sufficient to amount at law to damage. Pleadings alleging
negligence, for instance, "must be supported by facts capable of
sustaining a determination that a duty was owed, that an act or
omission occurred breaching that duty, and that damages resulted" .
. . This means that a negligence claim can be struck where the
plaintiff fails to plead an injury that is recognized as being
compensable at law . . . It is no more sufficient for a plaintiff
to plead "damages" or "injury" than it is to plead the existence of
a "duty of care"; both are bare legal conclusions that require
sufficient facts to sustain them. In this regard, the Amended
Statement of Claim is deficient; it fails to particularize the harm
or damages suffered as a result of the hack, how such loss or
damage was caused by Uber, and the remedies sought for each cause
of action. This is essential information for the determination of
whether particular causes of action can survive scrutiny under s
5(1)(a). [citations omitted]

Next, the Court considered the Appellant's argument that theft of
personal information was compensable harm per se and could be
assumed on a class-wide basis—even if the personal information is
not private information. As this theory of harm (and liability) was
novel, the Appellant argued that her theory of harm ought to be
considered at a common issues trial.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. Relying on recent precedent from the
Supreme Court of Canada and other appellate courts, the Court
emphasized that novel claims should not be permitted to proceed
just because they are novel. Rather, the Court stated:

[46] Aside from creating or perpetuating legal uncertainty, failing
to determine a question of law at the pleadings stage, when
appropriate to do so, is antithetical to the call in Hryniak v
Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 for affordable, timely and just resolution of
disputes. In the boundless landscape of scarce judicial resources,
there is nothing to be gained by certifying suspect novel claims,
the validity of which will only be determined at a merits trial
that may never occur. As noted by Stratas JA in Coote v Lawyers'
Professional Indemnity Company, 2013 FCA 143 at para 13: "
[d]evoting resources to one case for no good reason deprives the
others for no good reason" . . .

The Court found that the loss of personal information in this case,
standing alone, could not amount to compensable harm at law.

The Court also considered the Appellant's argument that harm arose
because information in the hands of criminals may make class
members more susceptible to fraud such as phishing scams. After
noting the creation of risk or prospect of future harm is generally
not actionable, the Court concluded that even if class members are
marginally "worse off" for having their personal information
exposed, "damage in tort law must be 'real' as opposed to merely
'negligible' or 'trivial' in order to be actionable."

Lastly, the Court noted that while the Appellant did plead some
pecuniary losses that are "potentially compensable at law in
negligence", such as, for example, out-of-pocket expenses for
credit monitoring, the Appellant did not pursue this harm on a
class-wide basis. Thus, the negligence claim was not capable of
being certified on the basis of this type of harm.

As a result, the Court found the Appellant's claim in negligence
did not survive s. 5(1)(a) as she failed to plead a legally
compensable harm on a class-wide basis, which is a required element
for a cause of action in negligence.

A class proceeding not the preferable procedure
That left only the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, seeking
nominal damages, for the proposed common issues trial. The Court
agreed with the Certification Judge that in the circumstances of
this case, a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure to
resolve that claim:

Certification of claims for nominal damages in breach of contract
are usually made in the context of other causes of action also
being certified. When the entirety of the class action is for
nominal damages, the court can properly ask what purpose the action
serves in the context of the objectives of class proceedings:
Flesch at para 89.

The Court of Appeal found it was open to the Certification Judge to
conclude on the facts of this case that access to justice concerns
did not prevail, as the damages sought were nominal only, and the
considerable judicial resources required for a class proceeding
were not justified due to the nature of the claim and its impact on
class members. Further, the Court agreed that the extensive
regulatory penalties already imposed on Uber, along with negative
press coverage, were sufficient to achieve the goal of behaviour
modification.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Certification Judge did
not engage in an assessment of "the merits of the action", but
rather took "a critical look at the entirety of the action and what
it hopes to achieve". With deference to the Certification Judge's
discretionary conclusion on preferable procedure, the Court
dismissed the appeal. [GN]

UNILEVER UNITED: Court Stays Anderson Proceeding for 90 Days
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anderson v. Unilever
United States, Inc., Case No. 7:21-cv-03117-KMK-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered an order staying proceeding for
90-days.

  -- The Court further ordered that the parties will provide a
     letter to the Court within 21 days, updating the Court on
     the status of scheduling the mediation; and

  -- The parties will report to the Court within seven days
     following the mediation whether it was successful, whether
     an additional session is scheduled, or, if unsuccessful,
     propose a revised schedule for completion of discovery and
     class certification.

The Parties jointly request the Court stay the present schedule for
90-days to give the parties additional room to attempt to resolve
the matter.

Pursuant to the current Scheduling Order, the parties have until
April 23, 2023, to complete fact discovery, May 27, 2023, to
complete Plaintiffs expert discovery and move for class
certification, as well as additional deadlines following thereon.

Unilever manufactures personal care products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mm7wch at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles D. Moore, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: www.reesellp.com

UNITED COLLECTION: Adler Sues Over Misleading Collection of Debt
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Adler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Case No. 704369/2023
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as a result of the Defendants
deceptive and misleading collection of debt.

On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff allegedly incurred an obligation(s)
to non-party Citibank, N.A. The obligation(s) arose out of
transactions incurred primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes, specifically a personal credit card. The alleged Citi
obligation(s) is a "debt." Citi is a "creditor." Citi contracted
with the Defendant UCB to collect the alleged debt.

On January 24, 2023, Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection
letter ("Letter") in an attempt to collect the subject debt. The
Letter sets forth that as of January 20, 2023, Plaintiff owed
$20040.57. The Letter also sets forth that the "total amount of the
debt now" is $20040.57. The Letter also states a "Minimum Payment
Due" of $2602.93.

However, the Letter does not clearly explain which amount is
actually due, when it is due, and/or what impact a minimum payment
would have on the collection. Accordingly, the Letter is
nonsensical. Additionally, the Letter is misleading and deceptive.
Specifically, the Letter is open to more than one reasonable
interpretation of the current status of the debt, at least one of
which is inaccurate. The Letter leaves the Plaintiff with only one
option which is to call the Defendant to get even the most basic
information about this debt.

The Plaintiff was fearful to call and be pressured to take an
action he may not have wanted to take. The conflicting nature of
the Letter left the Plaintiff concerned that the Letter was
fraudulent and/or a scam. Defendant's omissions and 38. deceptions
cast a negative shadow over its debt collection practice in
general. As a result of the Defendant's multiple FDCPA violations,
Plaintiff was unable to evaluate his options of how to handle this
debt, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of
Queens.

Defendant is a "debt collector."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED PARCEL: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 1
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephen Thistlewaite et al
v. United Parcel Service, Inc., et al., Case No.
8:22-cv-01753-PSG-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez entered an order declining to bifurcate class
certification and merits discovery and setting the following
dates:

  Last Day to Add Parties & Amend
  Pleadings (Doe defendants are
  dismissed as of cut-off to add parties)      Mar. 24, 2023

  Motion for Class Certification by:           Sep. 1, 2023

  Opposition to Motion for Class
  Certification by:                            Sep. 29, 2023

  Reply to Motion for Class
  Certification by:                            Oct. 13, 2023

  Hearing on Motion for Class
  Certification (1:30 p.m.):                   Nov. 17, 2023

  Last Day to File Motion:                     Feb. 29, 2024

United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and
supply chain management company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KXjNy6 at no extra charge.[CC]


UNITED POOL: Austin Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Premium
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Austin, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. UNITED POOL MAINTENANCE, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-00883-ELR (N.D. Ga., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought arising
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") to address the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff an FLSA overtime premium
for all work in excess of forty hours a week.

The Defendant maintained and followed a policy and practice of
paying its hourly employees an overtime premium if and only if such
employee worked more than 88 hours in a semi-monthly pay period.
The FLSA requires that the Defendant compensate its employees at a
rate of one and one–half times their regular rate for all time
worked in excess of 40 hours in a seven-day work week. The
Defendant failed to pay Austin at one and half times of his regular
rate for time worked in excess of forty hours in a work week. The
Defendant willfully failed to pay Austin at one and half times of
his regular rate for time worked in excess of forty hours in a
week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a pool technician at
the Roswell, Georgia location from July 19, 2022 through November
18, 2022.

United operates a pool maintenance and repair business in Roswell,
Georgia and the surrounding area and at other locations throughout
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq.
          Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
          DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK& BENJAMIN, LLC
          101 Marietta Street, NW. Suite 2650
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Phone: (404) 979-3150
          Fax: (404) 979-3170
          Email: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com
                 charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com


UNITED STATES: Court Junks Bid to Review Mag. Judge Early Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WILLIAMS, and all
those similarly situated, v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, CDCR Secretary, et
al., Case No. 5:22-cv-02277-CJC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Cormac J. Carney entered an order denying the plaintiff's
motion for review of Magistrate Judge Early's order denying motion
for appointment of counsel and order on motion to certify class
action.

In this case, the Plaintiff David Williams, proceeding pro se,
asserts civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. section 1983
against several officers or employees of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), alleging that COVID-19
spread excessively in CDCR facilities because of Defendants'
policies regarding health, safety, and hygiene.

The Plaintiff appears to seek to represent a class of numerous
prisoners in bringing these claims. On January 6, 2023, the
Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion
for class certification. On January 11, 2023, Magistrate Judge John
D. Early denied those motions.

As to appointment of counsel, Magistrate Judge Early found, "after
an evaluation of both 'the likelihood of success on the merits' and
Plaintiff's ability 'to articulate his claims pro se in light of
the complexity of the legal issues involved.'

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

UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Deadline on Class Cert Bid Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TINA A. NEVILLE, et al.,
v. CHARLOTTE A. BURROWS, Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, Case No. 1:22-cv-03246-RC (D.D.C.), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order staying its deadline to respond to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Counsel for the Parties conferred pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m)
and the Plaintiffs graciously consent to the requested relief.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on February
13, 2023. Under the local rules, Defendant would have to respond to
the motion by February 27, 2023.

Subsequent to Plaintiff's Motion, Defendant moved to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

Accordingly, the Court would conserve judicial resources by
deferring any briefing and ruling on class certification until
after it has resolved the preliminary issue of whether subject
matter jurisdiction exists here. Moreover, both the Defendant and
Plaintiffs will conserve resources by waiting to brief the issue of
class certification until after the Court has ruled on the motion
to dismiss that, if granted, will obviate the need to complete the
briefing altogether.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a federal
agency that was established via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to
administer and enforce civil rights laws against workplace
discrimination.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZyPO3M at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew M. Graves, Esq.
          Brian P. Hudak, Esq.
          Stephen DeGenaro, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          601 D St., N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20530
          Telephone: (202) 252-7229
          E-mail: Stephen.DeGenaro@usdoj.gov

VALENTINO USA: Benitez Bid for Class Status Denied w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benitez, et al., v.
Valentino, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-11463-MKV-RWL (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order denying without
prejudice Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification, which
all parties agree need not be resolved before the contemplated
summary judgment motions have been resolved.

  -- The denial is without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' right to
     move anew for class certification following summary
     judgment.

  -- The parties submit this joint letter to respond to the
     Court's February 14, 2023 endorsed order pertaining to the
     parties' proposed briefing schedule for their respective
     motions for summary judgment.

At a minimum, Defendant's anticipated motions for summary judgment
on Plaintiff Choi, Brereton, Crawford and Benitez's Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law claims, and counterclaims
against Plaintiff Learmont, would narrow the scope of the class
certification motion or render it moot in the event that none of
Plaintiffs' wage and hour claims survive.

Indeed, the Second Circuit has held that holding class
certification in abeyance is appropriate where resolution of the
dispositive issue will "necessarily inform and perhaps moot" class
certification issues and where the party opposing abeyance would
not be prejudiced.

Valentino operates men's and boy's clothing stores.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SO1bCJ at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
          110 E 59th St Suite 3200,
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 227-5700

The Defendant is represented by:

          Fred H. Perkins, Esq.
          MORRISON COHEN LLP
          909 3rd Ave,
          New York, NY 10022,
          Telephone: (212) 735-8600

VALLEY BROOK, OK: Bid to Extend Case Deadlines OK'd
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMIESHA HILL, et al. v.
TOWN OF VALLEY BROOK, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-00097-SLP (W.D.
Okla), the Hon. Judge Scott L. Palk entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend case deadlines.

   -- The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification
      on or before May 31, 2023. Any response(s) to that motion
      shall be filed on or before July 17, 2023.

   -- The filing of any reply in support of the class
      certification motion shall be governed by the Local Civil
      Rules of this Court. Further deadlines may be established
      in a Phase II Specialized Scheduling Order after the
      Court's ruling on the motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs seek a 90-day extension to all deadlines set forth
in the First Amended Phase I Scheduling Order.,

Valley Brook is a town in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, United States,
and is part of the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area. The population
was 765 at the 2010 census.

A copy of the Court's orderdated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SEi96q at no extra charge.[CC]

VEE PAK INC: Court Grants Class Cert. in Discrimination Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Jaquins of Cook County Record reports that the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted Feb. 23 by
U.S. District Judge John Tharp in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in Chicago in the case-captioned Joe
Eagle, Michael Keys, James Zollicoffer, and Evan Franklin on behalf
of themselves and other similarly situated individuals vs. Vee Pak,
Inc., Vee Pak, LLC d/b/a Voyant Beauty, and Staffing Network
Holdings, LLC, Case Number 12-CV-09672.

A class action lawsuit alleging a suburban beauty supply
distributor and staffing agencies enforced discriminatory practices
against Black workers is moving forward.

Named plaintiffs Joe Eagle, Michael Keys, James Zollicoffer and
Evan Franklin filed suit alleging that Vee Pak, located in
Countryside and Hodgkins, had a policy that favored hiring Latino
workers over Black applicants, and instructed several staffing
agencies to implement that policy when filling temporary positions
in its warehouse. The manufacturing facilities had workers fill and
cap bottles and tubes for personal-care and drug companies.

The legal action dates back to 2012, when Eagle, Keys, Zollicoffer
and Franklin, who are Black, first brought the putative class
action individually and on behalf of other Black temp workers
allegedly similarly denied work, against Vee Pak and three staffing
agencies, Alternative Staffing, Personnel Staffing Group and
Staffing Network, that allegedly implemented Vee Pak's alleged
discriminatory policy. Alternative Staffing and Personnel Staffing
Group, which does business as Most Valuable Personnel, or MVP, have
settled the claims against them; Vee Pak and the third staffing
agency, Staffing Network, remain in the case.

Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of Black workers who sought,
but were denied, work assignments at the three staffing agencies
from which they could have been referred to Vee Pak between 2011
and 2015.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted Feb. 23
by U.S. District Judge John Tharp in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. Eagle and Keys were
appointed as staffing network subclass representatives, Zollicoffer
as MVP subclass representative, and Franklin as ASI subclass
representative.

The court appointed attorneys Joseph M. Sellers and Harini
Srinivasan, of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, of Washington, D.C.;
Christopher J. Williams, of National Legal Advocacy Network, of
Chicago; and Christopher J. Wilmes and Caryn C. Lederer, of Hughes
Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, of Chicago, as class counsel.

According to court documents, Eagle first sought work at Staffing
Network in March 2011. During his first visit, he allegedly
completed an application and was told to return the next morning.
This began an alleged pattern of Eagle arriving early in the
morning, signing in, and waiting for hours, allegedly to no avail.
While waiting, Eagle allegedly often observed that Staffing Network
assigned Latino workers, who arrived at Staffing Network in vans
the staffing agency provided, to Vee Pak. Eagle did not, however,
allegedly observe any Black workers on a van destined for Vee Pak.

Keys allegedly sought work from Staffing Network around the same
time as Eagle, in September 2011. Even though Staffing Network told
Keys it only accepted new applications two days a week, Keys
allegedly observed new Latino workers obtain work on other days of
the week. Keys said he was consistently among the first workers to
sign in, but the agency did not give him an assignment for two
weeks.

Keys also testified that Staffing Network assigned him to a few of
its clients but allegedly never to Vee Pak.

Zollicoffer testified that he experienced similar treatment to
Eagle and Keys at Staffing Network, although outside of the class
period in 2009 and 2010. After Zollicoffer moved to Chicago in
summer 2009, he allegedly sought work at MVP's Cicero office. The
first time he signed in and was told to come back the next day.
Although Zollicoffer allegedly returned early the next morning,
Staffing Network did not assign him work. Zollicoffer asserted that
on multiple occasions in 2009, he would travel to MVP's Cicero
office during the early morning hours on foot, seeking assignment
for temporary work. He further claimed that he observed MVP assign
Latino workers to clients on days when he was waiting for work for
multiple hours.

Franklin testified to similar alleged treatment from ASI, seeking
placements at ASI’s Cicero office in September 2014. Franklin
continued to seek assignments from ASI on numerous occasions,
indicating she was available and had no work limitations. Franklin
received sporadic work placements over a period of several months,
but never at Vee Pak. She also allegedly observed ASI assigned
Latino workers, but not Black workers, to jobs when she visited the
ASI offices in person.

Employees at the three staffing agencies purportedly testified to
the defendants' discriminatory practices, which included first-hand
accounts of alleged discriminatory conduct at all levels of
management, including that Vee Pak allegedly told staffing agency
managers not to refer Black workers, that staffing agency employees
allegedly perpetuated these policies, that staffing agencies
allegedly used derogatory code words to refer to Black workers, and
that the few Black workers who did manage to bypass staffing
agencies allegedly were turned away at Vee Pak's door.

The court found testimony about specific mechanisms of
discrimination, from the upper echelons of staffing-agency
management to the staffing-agency dispatchers to the employees
facing the effects of discrimination, spoke to the existence of an
alleged discriminatory policy among the defendants.

Vee Pak and Staffing Network moved to bar the testimony of  Marc
Bendick Jr., a labor economist on whose proffered opinions the
plaintiffs rely in their class-certification motion. Bendick
performed a statistical analysis of the relevant labor market that
purports to find a shortfall of staffing-agency placements of Black
workers at Vee Pak. He compared his expected representation of
Black applicants eligible to work at Vee Pak to Vee Pak's actual
hiring practices.

The defendants' motion to bar Bendick's testimony was denied. The
court said Bendick considered Black workers' potential interest in
the job, drew his relevant labor market based upon real data, and
applied a regression methodology that courts have repeatedly
endorsed. Although his results are not bulletproof, the court found
any deficiencies could be addressed on cross examination.

Vee Pak has been represented in the case by attorneys Joseph K.
Mulherin, of McDermott Will and Emery, of Chicago; and Donald S.
Rothschild and Brian M. Dougherty, of Goldstine, Skrodzki, Russian,
Nemec and Hoff, of Burr Ridge.

Staffing Network is represented by attorneys Carter A. Korey,
Elliot S. Richardson and Michele Denise Dougherty, of the firm of
Korey Richardson, of Chicago. [GN]

VERTEX ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 2
------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer of GlobeNewsWire reports that the deadline to ask
the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is May 2, 2023
in a class action lawsuit has been filed against Vertex Energy,
Inc. ("Vertex Energy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VTNR).
Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Vertex Energy, Inc. ("Vertex Energy" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: VTNR). The lawsuit alleges Vertex Energy
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material adverse facts, including: prior to the
acquisition of its Mobile, Alabama refinery, defendants entered
into, or were a party to, a series of transactions that
significantly capped the new plant's profitability and would result
in substantial losses. Moreover, Defendants overstated the
purported profit margins that could be achieved at the refinery.

If you bought shares of Vertex Energy between April 1, 2022 and
August 8, 2022 and you suffered a significant loss on that
investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by
contacting Corey Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Joshua
Karr, Esq. at jkarr@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at
(888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at
https://holzerlaw.com/case/vertex-energy/ to learn more.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of
shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including
shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its
founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical
roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website,  www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the
firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content. 

CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com[GN]

VERTEX ENERGY: Faces Duffy Suit Over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------
DARYL P. DUFFY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VERTEX ENERGY, INC.; BENJAMIN P. COWART; and
CHRIS CARLSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00076 (S.D. Ala., March
3, 2023) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Vertex securities
between April 1, 2022 and August 8, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), against Vertex and certain of its officers and directors
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' filings
and submissions with the SEC, and their representations about the
Mobile refinery, were each false and misleading when made or
omitted information necessary to make the statements not
misleading. The Defendants acted with scienter in that defendants
knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the public documents and
statements they issued and disseminated to the investing public in
the name of the Company, or in their own name, during the Class
Period were materially false and misleading.

The price of Vertex common stock collapsed by $6.18 per share, or
44%, on August 9, 2022, on abnormally high trading volume of more
than 27 million shares traded. The share price continued to fall in
subsequent days as the market digested the news, reaching a low of
just $7.05 per share on August 11, 2022, roughly 50% below the
closing price on August 8, 2022, and over 60% lower than the Class
Period high of $18.10 per share in June 2022.

As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
declines in the market value of Vertex securities, plaintiff and
other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages,
the suit alleges.

Vertex Energy Inc. is a middle market consolidator, refiner and
re-refiner of distressed petroleum streams, such as used oil,
transmix, fuel oils and off-specification commercial chemical
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sidney W. Jackson III, Esq.
          JACKSON & FOSTER, LLC
          75 St. Michael Street
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-6699

               - and -

          Roger H. Bedford, Jr., Esq.
          ROGER BEDFORD, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
          P.O. Box 1149
          Russellville, AL 35653
          Telephone: (256) 332-6966

               - and -

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

W. T. BYLER CO: Cardoso Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Felix Cardoso, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. W. T. Byler Co.-GP, Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00748 (S.D.
Tex., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought against Defendant to recover
unpaid overtime that is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

The Defendant required the Plaintiff to be present for a safety
meeting before each workday but did not pay them for their
attendance at such meeting. The Plaintiff worked over 40 hours in
many workweeks that they worked for the Defendant, and their
attendance at the safety meeting should generally have been paid as
overtime hours. During the weeks that the Plaintiff did not work 40
hours, they should have been paid for time spent at the mandatory
meetings at their regular hourly rate, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a construction worker
operating machinery from September of 2017 until September of
2022.

The Defendants operates commercial construction sites.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 10099
          Houston, TX 77206
          Phone 713-868-3388
          Facsimile: 713-683-9940
          Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


WESTCO CHEMICALS: Draney Bid for Class Cert. Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL DRANEY et al., v.
WESTCO CHEMICALS, INC. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01405-ODW-AGR (C.D.
Cal.),  the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order granting
motion for summary judgment, denying as moot motion to
certify class, and dismissing first amended complaint.

  -- The Court dismisses the first amended complaint

     (1) with prejudice as to Draney's and Ibarra's individual
         claims and

     (2) without prejudice as to the class claims.

  -- The Plaintiffs' Motion to certify class is denied as moot.

  -- All dates and deadlines in this matter are vacated and
     taken off calendar. The Court will issue Judgment.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which is fully
briefed and under submission. In the Motion to Certify Class,
Draney and Ibarra propose themselves as Lead Plaintiffs.

However, Draney's and Ibarra's claims are time-barred, such that
dismissal of their individual claims with prejudice is appropriate.
"When a defendant has obtained summary judgment against putative
class plaintiffs, a motion for class certification becomes moot."

The Plaintiffs Daniel Draney and Lorenzo Ibarra bring suit pursuant
to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")
against their employer, Westco and its principals, Ezekiel
Zwillinger and Steven Zwillinger, for mismanaging an employee
defined-contribution pension plan.

As employees of Westco, Draney and Ibarra participated in Westco's
401(k) Plan, a defined-contribution, individual account pension
plan subject to ERISA.

On February 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their initial Complaint,
asserting individual and class claims arising from two Westco
retirement plans: the 401(k) Plan and a separate Defined Benefit
Pension Plan.

The Plaintiffs brought claims against Defendants for

   (1) breach of duty of prudence, 29 U.S.C. 3 section 1104(a)
       (1)(B);

   (2) breach of duty of loyalty, 29 U.S.C. section 1104(a)(1)
       (A); and

   (3) failing to administer the 401(k) Plan in accordance with
       its terms, 29 U.S.C. section 1103.

In ruling on Defendants' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule")
12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss, the Court found that the FAC lacked
allegations showing that the beneficiaries of the Defined Benefit
Pension Plan suffered any injury-in-fact.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed Claims One and Two to the extent
they were premised on mismanagement of the Defined Benefit Pension
Plan.

Westco is a supply and distribution company.

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

WESTMINSTER MANAGEMENT: Tenants' Class Action Revives in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Maryland appeals court revives
tenants' class action in a case-captioned Tenae Smith et al. v.
Westminster Management, LLC, et al., No. 2508, September Term 2019.


The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed a court order that granted
judgment to a property management firm on a class action brought by
tenants alleging violations of debt collection and consumer
protection laws. The company's decision to charge tenants a 5% fee
for late rental payments violates state law, and its decision to
overcharge for certain fees related to ejectment actions begun in
anticipation of default on rent may be challenged by the class.
[GN]

WHOLE FOODS: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MOLOCK, et al., v.
WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-02483-APM (D.D.C.), the
Hon. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
consent motion to extend by one week the class- certification
briefing schedule, and the Defendant having consented to the relief
requested.

The parties shall submit their class-certification briefs on the
following schedule:

   -- Plaintiffs' Motion:                March 3, 2023

   -- Defendant's Response:              May 1, 2023

   -- Plaintiffs' Reply:                 May 22, 2023

Whole Foods owns and operates a chain of natural and organic foods
supermarket.

Whole Foods, a subsidiary of Amazon, is an American multinational
supermarket chain headquartered in Austin, Texas, which sells
products free from hydrogenated fats and artificial colors,
flavors, and preservatives.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 22, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EOPYvN at no extra charge.[CC]

WONDER MONDAY: Donet Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Maricela Donet, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WONDER MONDAY, LLC, Case No. 151918/2023 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., New York Cty., Feb. 28, 2023), is brought challenging the
Defendant's discriminatory business practices with regards to the
Defendant's Website which contained access barriers that prevented
the Plaintiff and other visually impaired and/or legally blind
individuals from purchasing products thereon.

The Defendant is an online retail company, who owns and/or operates
wondermonday.com ("Website" or "Defendant's Website"). Through the
Website, Defendant sells products, such as cheesecake snacks. The
Defendant and its and its Website--which is not equally accessible
to blind and/or visually impaired consumers--violate the following:
the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff
brings this action in both an individual capacity and on the behalf
of other similarly situated blind and/or visually impaired people
who sought to purchase the goods and products that Defendant sells.
The Plaintiff and the Class seek, inter alia, a preliminary and
permanent injunction, other declaratory relief, statutory damages,
actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post judgment
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expense, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually impaired, handicapped person.

The Defendant owns and/or operates the Website: wondermonday.com
which is a place of public accommodation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: 212/595-6200
          Fax: 212/595-9700
          Email: wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

WORKHORSE GROUP: Weiss Class Suit to Start March 19, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------
Workhorse Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the Weiss securities
class suit will begin on March 19, 2024.

The Company, Duane Hughes, Steve Schrader, Robert Willison and
Gregory Ackerson are defendants in a putative class action (the
"Securities Class Action") brought in the Central District of
California (Case No.2:21-cv-02072) on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities from March 10, 2020 through May 10, 2021.

The amended complaint in this action, filed by lead plaintiff,
Timothy M. Weis, on July 16, 2021, alleges the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by intentionally or recklessly making
material misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the
Company's participation in the bidding process to manufacture the
new fleet of USPS next generation delivery vehicles, the prospect
of the USPS awarding the contract to Workhorse given alleged
deficiencies in Workhorse's proposal, the Company's manufacturing
abilities generally and the Company's nonbinding "backlog" in its
vehicles.

Lead plaintiff seeks certification of a class and monetary damages
in an indeterminate amount. The Court denied the Company's motion
to dismiss in substantial part, and the Securities Class Action is
currently scheduled to begin trial on March 19, 2024.

Workhorse Group Inc. is a technology company focused on providing
sustainable and cost-effective solutions to the commercial
transportation sector. As an American manufacturer, the company
create all-electric delivery trucks and drone systems, including
the technology that optimizes the way these mechanisms operate. The
company is based in Loveland, Ohio.



ZIFF DAVIS: Dismissal of Garcia Securities Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Ziff Davis Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 1, 2023, that the lead plaintiff in
the Garcia securities class suit has filed a notice of appeal on
the class suit's dismissal.

On July 8, 2020, Jeffrey Garcia filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company in the Central District of California
(20-cv-06096), alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff. The Company moved to dismiss
the consolidated class action complaint.

The court granted the motion to dismiss and the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint.

The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On August 8, 2022, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint without leave to amend.

The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal.

Ziff Davis, Inc. is a digital media and internet company based in
New York.


                            *********

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 ***