---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, March 16, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 55

                            Headlines

AAC HOLDINGS: Bid to Certify Class in IPRS Suit Granted in Part
ADASTRA HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Securities Violations
ADASTRA LABS: Lawsuit for Shareholders Affected by Cocaine Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Breaches of Competition Law and GSCOP
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration

ANCIENT ORGANICS: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Effinger Suit
ARTSANA USA: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Chicco KidFit Booster
ARTSANA USA: KidFit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set on October 12
BALL STATE: Justices Consider Suit Over COVID-Related Closures
BEN & JERRY'S: Faces Class Action Over Migrant Child Labor

BEN & JERRY: Products Not Ethically Sourced as Advertised
BRAXIA SCIENTIFIC: Securities Class Action Settlement Gets Approval
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Must Face Class Action Over Grizzly Bear Hunting
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Two Schools Granted Class Cert. in Abuse Suit
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Did Not Pay Athletes Expenses, Choh Alleges

BROWN UNIVERSITY: Student Athletes Sue Over Price-Fixing Agreement
BUMBLE BEE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Sustainability Claims
BUMBLE BEE: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Sustainability Claims
CANADA: $2.8-B Deal in Indian Residential Schools' Suit Gets OK
CANADA: Sued Over RCMP Policies, Tactics in Logging Protests

CHICK-FIL-A INC: Suit Alleges Data Breach Affecting 71,000 Users
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Agrees to Settle Robocall Class Action for $2.75-M
CLASSY CLOSETS: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due April 23
COINBASE: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Violations
COLONIAL PENN: Kelley Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action

COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Theft System
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by April 5
DIVERSEY HOLDINGS: M&A Firm Continues Solenis Merger Investigation
DOMO INC: Court of Appeals Dismissed Securities Class Action Suit
DONOTPAY INC: Practices Law Without License, Class Suit Says

EVOQUA WATER: M&A Firm Continues Xylem Merger Investigation
EXPRESS LIEN: March 29 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
FOX REHABILITATION: Court Finds for Conner on TCPA Claims Only
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert Reply Brief Deadline Extended
GENERAL MOTORS: Hampton Seeks to Certify Class of Chevy Owners

GSX TECHEDU: New Jersey Court Dismisses Wu's Amended Complaint
HAIN CELESTIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline Extended to July 7
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Oct. 16
HONEY POT: Feminine Care Foaming Washes "Unsafe," Suit Claims
IMPERIAL METALS: Securities Class Suit Settlement Hearing on May 11

KELLI WILLARD: Schlemm Suit Seeks Initial Injunction Pending Trial
KEN PAXTON: Court Dismisses Fund Texas Suit
KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL: M&A Firm Probes Proposed HNI Merger
LE BAOBAB-GOUYGUI: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LEDO PIZZA SYSTEM: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

LITIGATION PRACTICE: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by March 24
LIVE NATION: Antirust Suit of Taylor Swift Fans Sent to Arbitration
LOVEVERY INC: Haymond Files Suit in E.D. California
MARATHON VENTURES: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MATCH GROUP LLC: Kahl Suit Removed to N.D. California

MATERNAL & FAMILY: Izquierdo Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI
MDL 2818: Marshall Testimony Excluded from GM AC Mktg. & Sales Suit
MELRIC SYSTEMS: Mullen Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
MERCK & CO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme
MERCK SHARP: Baltimore Sues Over Anticompetitive Vaccine Bundling

MISHKA SOHO: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MODERE USA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Walli Suit Claims
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Quilez Balks at Mislabeled Xylitol Content in Gums
MONTEREY BAY: Sawyer Sues Over Misleading Press Statements
MYA SARAY LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

NANCY JOHNSTON: Rud Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW DIRECTION TRUST: Theriault Files Suit in D. Kansas
NEW YORK, NY:  Court Junks Y.M. Class Action
NEW YORK: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Abusive Police in Protest

NY COMMUNITY BANK: US Realty Sues Over Unlawful Multiple Fees
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 3
OMNI HEALTH: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
ONETOUCHPOINT INC: Murray Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unfair Vaccine Mandates

PARTYMAKERS FLOWERS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PAYPAL INC: Pillard Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
PISA GROUP: Class Certification Bid in Williams TCPA Suit Granted
POST MAPLE: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
REP FITNESS LLC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

RICOH USA: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages
SALESFORCE.COM INC: Miguel Wins Class Status Bid
SENTINEL ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Jackson Alleges
SHADE STORE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chande Suit Alleges
SLATER VECCHIO: Artificially Inflated Securities Prices, Suit Says

SUMMIT UTILITIES: TRO Filed to Allow Customers to Stop Payments
TORCH ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Gray-Market Machines
TORCH ELECTRONICS: Illegal Gambling Suit Seeks Class-Action Status
TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Adkins Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Over COVID Mask Mandate to Arbitration

UNITED STATES: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended
UNITED STATES: Neville Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
VERTEX ENERGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Hedging Contracts
WALMART INC: Milton City Joins Opioid-Related Class Suit Settlement
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Doherty Class Suit Over Pump Stations Dismissed

WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Reeves Files Class Suit Over Forfeiture Policies
WELLS FARGO: Deposition Request in Sticht Suit Granted in Part
[*] Hardware Corporation Faces FCRA Class Action in Florida

                            *********

AAC HOLDINGS: Bid to Certify Class in IPRS Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, INDIANA PUBLIC REQUIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AAC HOLDINGS,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00407 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Eli
Richardson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, grants in part and denies in part
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The proposed class in this purported class action consists of
investors who purchased common stock of AAC between March 8, 2017,
and Nov. 5, 2018.

AAC is a healthcare company primarily operating in the field of
addiction treatment, providing addiction treatment centers and
sober living services. As explained in part in the Court's opinion
denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
the Plaintiff brings a Restatement Claim and a Marketing Claim
against Defendants under Section 10(b) of the Securities and
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Plaintiff's Restatement Claim asserts that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements about AAC's accounts receivable,
leading to false financial statements that were ultimately revealed
to investors through AAC's Restatement of its financial results for
fiscal years 2016 and 2017 and the first three quarters of 2018.
Its Marketing Claim alleges that the Defendants engaged in a
fraudulent and deceptive sales and marketing scheme and made false
and misleading statements related to AAC's sales and marketing
practices that were revealed to investors as the industry and
Congress began to investigate and cast light upon such deceptive
practices.

The Plaintiff also brings Scheme Claims against the Defendants
pursuant to Section 10(b). Specifically, it alleges that the
Defendants participated in a scheme and wrongful course of conduct
that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of AAC common
stock. Its Scheme Claims are predicated on the same conduct
underlying the Plaintiff's Restatement and Marketing Claims.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The Defendants filed a response and the Plaintiff
filed a reply. The Defendants requested permission to file a
sur-reply on the grounds that the Plaintiff raised issues in its
reply for the first time. The Court granted the Defendants' request
and the Defendants filed a sur-reply.

Judge Richardson explains that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a) provides in pertinent part that a plaintiff (or multiple
plaintiffs) may sue in a representative capacity on behalf of
members of a class only if: (1) the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of
law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class; and (4) the representative plaintiff(s) will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

In addition, the Plaintiff relies on Rule 23(b)(3), which allows
for certification of a Rule 23(a)-compliant class if the court
finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Judge Richardson engages in an independent analysis of the
requirements and finds them satisfied. He finds that (i) based on
the stock's average weekly trading volume, many thousands of
individual investors owned AAC common stock during the Class
Period; (ii) the class members all suffered the same injury -- that
they purchased AAC common stock during the class period at an
inflated price and have as a result suffered a loss; (iii) the
putative class have suffered from losses from the same course of
conduct and share identical interests in holding Defendants
accountable and maximizing the recovery of the Class; and (iv)
Indiana Public Retirement System ("INPRS") has common interests
with the unnamed members of the class.

Judge Richardson further finds that the Plaintiff has established
predominance as to its Restatement Claim, and its Scheme Claim to
the extent that based on the Defendants' alleged deceptive conduct
in connection with the Restatement. As to the Plaintiff's Marketing
Claim, he finds that the Plaintiff has failed to provide a damages
model that comports with the materialization-of-the-risk theory of
loss causation and therefore cannot establish predominance as to
this claim. He also finds that the Plaintiff cannot proceed on its
Scheme Claim to the extent that it is based on the Defendants'
allegedly deceptive marketing practices, for the same reasons that
it cannot proceed on its Marketing Claim -- the Plaintiff cannot
establish predominance.

However, Judge Richardson finds that the superiority requirement is
fulfilled. The Defendants' alleged securities fraud caused economic
injury to a large number of geographically dispersed investors,
making the cost of pursuing individual claims impracticable and
inefficient. The alternatives to a class action are not superior.
He, therefore, finds (without objection from the Defendants) that
the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements under Rule 23(b)(3).

Lastly, Judge Richardson finds that Robbins Geller has done
significant work in identifying and investigating the potential
claims. It has extensive experience and knowledge with securities
class actions, to say the least. Judge Richardson has no reason to
believe that Robbins Geller will be unable to commit the resources
necessary to represent the class. Therefore, because he finds
Robbins Geller clearly satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(g), he
appoints Robbins Geller as the Class Counsel.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Richardson grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B), he certifies,
respectively, the following class and claims:

     All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of AAC Holdings, Inc. (AAC or the Company) between March 8,
2017 and Nov. 5, 2018, inclusive (the Class Period).

     The Plaintiff's Restatement Claim, and its Scheme Claim based
on the Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct connected to its
overstatement of its accounts receivable as described.

However, consistent with his specification of the claims as to
which certification has been granted, Judge Richardson denies the
motion =to the extent that the Plaintiff seeks certification as to
its Marketing Claim and Scheme Claim predicated on the Defendants'
deceptive marketing practices.

Also, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B), Judge Richardson
appoints IPRS as the class representative and Robbins Geller as the
class counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4b5a9vs2 from
Leagle.com.


ADASTRA HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Slater Vecchio LLP filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit
on March 9, 2023, against Adastra Holdings Ltd. (CSE: XTRX),
Adastra Labs Inc., and their Chief Executive Officer Michael
Forbes.

The lawsuit, which contains allegations that are not proven in
court, contends that the Defendants are liable for secondary market
misrepresentation under British Columbia's Securities Act because
of inaccurate public representations they made on February 22,
2023, about the company's ability to sell cocaine, which in turn
artificially inflated the company's stock price. Investors who
purchased Adastra stock after the alleged public misrepresentations
experienced losses when the stock dropped significantly after
Adastra publicly corrected its own misrepresentations on March 3,
2023.

Saro Turner, partner at Slater Vecchio LLP, said "When companies
make misrepresentations like this, it's usually the investors who
trusted them that get hurt the most. Our job is to stand up for
them, and to help them get the compensation they deserve."

The proposed class action is brought on behalf of all persons and
entities who acquired common shares of Adastra Holdings Ltd.
between and inclusive of February 22, 2023, and March 3, 2023.

If you purchased common shares of Adastra Holdings Ltd., Slater
Vecchio LLP would like to hear from you. Please submit your
information on our website at
www.slatervecchio.com/class-action/adastra-holdings-securities-class-action/
[GN]


ADASTRA LABS: Lawsuit for Shareholders Affected by Cocaine Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a Vancouver-based law firm says it
has filed a proposed securities class-action lawsuit on behalf of
anyone who acquired shares in a B.C. company that recently
announced plans to commercialize cocaine.

Adastra Labs CEO Michael Forbes released a statement on Feb. 22
saying the company would "evaluate how the commercialization of
(cocaine) fits" with the firm's business model.

The company revised the statement on March 3 after both Premier
David Eby and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressed astonishment
about those plans, which stemmed from Adastra's mid-February
licence amendment to produce, sell and distribute cocaine.

Health Canada confirmed the amendment allows Adastra to produce no
more than 250 grams of cocaine in 2023, and none can be sold to the
general public.

The lawsuit, which contains allegations that have not been proven
in court, contends Adastra and Forbes violated the B.C. Securities
Act by making "inaccurate public representations" that artificially
boosted the company's stock price.

Adastra shares, valued at 75 cents on Feb. 22, peaked at $1.33 on
March 3 before tumbling to a low of 42 cents on March 8 and the
proposed class action is on behalf of those who acquired Adastra
common shares between Feb. 22 and March 3.

Saro Turner, a partner at Slater Vecchio LLP, the firm behind the
proposed class action, says investors deserve compensation.

"When companies make misrepresentations like this, it's usually the
investors who trusted them that get hurt the most," Turner says in
the statement.

On the same day Adastra retracted its commercialization statement,
Eby said he had spoken to the federal government and was "further
disturbed" to hear from Health Canada that Adastra may have
"significantly misrepresented the nature of the licence" in an
irresponsible manner.

Health Canada said it had contacted the company to "reiterate the
very narrow parameters of their licence," and warned it could take
action, including revoking the licence, if strict federal
requirements were not followed.[GN]

AMAZON.COM INC: Sued Over Breaches of Competition Law and GSCOP
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Quinn of The Grocer reports that A powerful new coalition of
lawyers are lining up possible class action lawsuits against online
giant Amazon, which could include evidence of alleged breaches of
competition law and GSCOP.

Lawyers who have founded the new Responsible Online Commerce
Coalition (ROCC) said they hoped to garner support from small and
large businesses among the 250,000 companies selling on the Amazon
platform, with the focus of its evidence based on markets in the
UK, US and Europe.

Speaking exclusively to The Grocer this week, one of the lawyers
spearheading the body, Tom Smith, a partner at Geradin Partners in
London and formerly legal director of the Competition & Markets
Authority, said it regarded the Groceries Supply Code of Practice
(GSCOP) as "part of its arsenal" to use against Amazon.

The ROCC has listed a raft of areas of concern over the actions of
the online behemoth, including sellers not having equal access to
the platform, lacking a fair dispute resolution process and the
freedom to set prices and offer discounts, as well as not having
equal access to data from the platform.

Its move is timed to take advantage of legislation launching in the
UK in April via a new Digital Markets Unit within the CMA, which
will set out new rules for competition and fairness in online
markets, with Amazon one of the big guns set to come under greater
scrutiny.

Amazon is already under the jurisdiction of the Groceries Code
Adjudicator, which has shone a spotlight on several of its
practices in dealing with suppliers, including the controversial
algorithm-based delisting process known as CRAP (cannot realise a
profit).

Amazon has since announced a series of changes to its practices, in
January committing to provide "reasonable written notice" when
products are red flagged by its system.

However, it has continued to attract complaints from suppliers that
it is allowed to operate in ways that traditional retailers
cannot.

The ROCC is offering anonymised monthly memberships to Amazon
sellers on a sliding scale. Those with revenues of less than
GBP850,000 will pay between GBP8 and GBP45, while companies with
revenues above GBP850,000 will pay more.

Its recruitment page states: "We understand that businesses that
rely on Amazon or other large platforms may have serious concerns
about the possibility of economic retaliation and, therefore,
desire to remain anonymous."

"We promise to keep members' identities confidential if they choose
to join anonymously unless disclosure is required by law."

Smith, who led the legal team on the UK's Digital Markets
Taskforce, which was set up to advise the CMA on how a Digital
Markets Unit could oversee companies such as Amazon, Google, Apple
and Meta, said. "We don't see ourselves as attack dogs. We don't
see ourselves as an attack on Amazon. We are an evidence-based
group of lawyers with vast experience of competition laws. "

"We are looking to attract companies of all sizes, from smaller
suppliers to large companies, who may have concerns about the way
it operates. "

"We're confident the new Digital Markets Unit will be given the
teeth that is needed to tackle these issues and a class action is
an area we are definitely looking at. "

Similar moves to provide tougher rules for online giants have also
been taking place in the EU and Europe, while the ROCC this week
gave evidence to the US senate.

Amazon has been approached for comment. [GN]

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angelika Munger, writing for TCPAWorld, reports that American
Express was recently granted a motion to compel arbitration based
on the clause from the cardmember agreement governing the credit
card at issue in Audish v. American Express Company out of the New
York district court. And it seems to be an arbitration agreement
the cardholder never even reviewed or committed to or did she? So
just how did we get here?

Plaintiff Audish was seeking a class action to stop American
Express from the practice of placing pre-recorded debt collection
calls. Like so many, the Plaintiff was issued the luxury of a
company card. While it was a corporate card, it was issued to and
in the name of the actual cardholder, Audish. However, after
departing the company and returning her corporate card in 2016, she
started to receive prerecorded collection calls from American
Express beginning in 2019 and continued into 2021 even after Audish
informed American Express that she no longer held the card or was
employed by the company.

American Express moved to compel arbitration arguing that Audish's
claim must be arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration provision in
its cardmember agreement. Plaintiff argued the cardmember agreement
that contained the arbitration terms were never agreed to by her
personally and that the terms were only entered into by her former
company.

American Express however had a whole different opinion on who
agreed to the terms of use for the card in question. American
Express argued that Audish's use of the card which included the
following disclaimer on the back of the card, "USE OF THIS CARD IS
SUBJECT TO THE CARDMEMBER AGREEMENT", was an acceptance of the
terms of the card and therefore an agreement to the arbitration
provision.

What exactly did those arbitration terms look like:

"Initiation of Arbitration

Any claim shall be resolved, upon the election by you or us, by
arbitration pursuant to this Arbitration provision and the code of
procedures of the arbitration organization to which the claim is
referred in effect at the time the claim is filed (code), except to
the extent the code conflicts with this Agreement.

Significance of Arbitration

IF ARBITRATION IS CHOSEN BY ANY PARTY WITH RESPECT TO A CLAIM,
NEITHER YOU NOR WE WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO LITIGATE THAT CLAIM IN
COURT OR HAVE A JURY TRIAL ON THAT CLAIM. FURTHER, YOU AND WE WILL
NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY OR
AS A MEMBER OF ANY CLASS OF CLAIMANTS PERTAINING TO ANY CLAIM
SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION. EXCEPT AS SET FORTH BELOW, THE ARBITRATOR'S
DECISION WILL BE FINAL AND BINDING. NOTE THAT OTHER RIGHTS THAT YOU
OR WE WOULD HAVE IF YOU WENT TO COURT ALSO MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE IN
ARBITRATION.

Restrictions on Arbitration

IF EITHER PARTY ELECTS TO RESOLVE A CLAIM BY ARBITRATION, THAT
CLAIM SHALL BE ARBITRATED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. THERE SHALL BE NO
RIGHT OR AUTHORITY FOR ANY CLAIMS TO BE ARBITRATED ON A CLASS
ACTION BASIS OR ON BASES INVOLVING CLAIMS BROUGHT IN A PURPORTED
REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, OTHER
CARDMEMBERS OR OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED."

In deciding whether the action should be arbitrated, the court
first looked at whether the parties agreed to arbitrate and second
the scope of the agreement.

First, the court found that there was an existence of a valid
arbitration agreement between Plaintiff and American Express
because the use of the credit card established assent to the
cardmember agreement, whether or not Plaintiff signed the
agreement. Additionally, Plaintiff conceded that she used the
credit card at issue and did dispute that the credit card at issue
stated "USE OF THIS CARD IS SUBJECT TO THE CARDMEMBER AGREEMENT."
Therefore the Court found that Plaintiff's arguments that she did
not sign or read the agreement were unavailing.

Next, the court found Plaintiff's claims were within the scope of
the arbitration agreement. Because Plaintiff did not argue her
claim fell outside the arbitration provision and because the
cardmember agreement clearly stated "claim" as any "claim, dispute
or controversy between you and us arising from or relating to your
Account, this Agreement, the Electronic Funds Transfer Services
Agreement, . . . or the relationships resulting from any of [these]
agreements," including "claims based upon contract, tort, fraud and
other intentional torts, statutes, regulations, common law and
equity" as well as "claims by or against any third party using or
providing any product, service or benefit in connection with any
account . . .."  Plaintiff's TCPA claim fell within the arbitration
provision.

This ruling is an important reminder for companies seeking to
enforce arbitration agreements and class action waivers - having an
extensive arbitration provision in your agreements may help you
avoid being caught in the class action litigation crosshair in the
future! [GN]

ANCIENT ORGANICS: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Effinger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLY EFFINGER, et al., Plaintiffs v. ANCIENT ORGANICS
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-03596-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard
Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion
to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative food mislabeling class action
against the Defendant, a California corporation that makes and
sells ghee, a clarified butter product. The operative First Amended
Class Action Complaint ("FACAC") avers violations of California
consumer protection law on the theory that the Defendant's label
led consumers to believe the ghee was healthy when, in fact, it
contains dangerously high levels of saturated fats.

The case involves ghee, a type of clarified butter commonly used in
South Asian cooking. Ancient Organics, based in Berkeley,
California, manufactures, markets, and distributes a ghee product
throughout the United States. The Product's simple label contains
the words "Eat Good Fat" in all-caps, and it describes the Product
as providing vitamins and "sustained energy levels," as well as
being "the very best fat one can eat." he label further invites
consumers to "use this superfood to nourish your mind, body and
soul."

Plaintiffs Kelly Effinger and Keefe Stevernu purchased the Product
at grocery stores in Northern California. They allege that, based
on the Product's label, they perceived the Product to be "healthy,
healthful, better for them, and a healthier alternative to the
competition." Yet the label is misleading, they argue, because the
Product contains dangerously high levels of saturated fats, which
have been shown to increase the risk of coronary heart disease,
stroke, and other morbidity. Had it not been for these
misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs would not have paid such a
premium for the Product.

The Plaintiffs filed suit in June 2022. The operative FACAC raises
claims for relief on behalf of three putative classes. On behalf of
a "California Class" (i.e., consumers in California), the
Plaintiffs bring a claim under the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE Section 1750 et seq.
For a "Multi-State Consumer Class" (i.e., consumers in California
and ten other states), the Plaintiffs aver violations of various
state consumer protection laws similar to California's that
"prohibit the use of unfair or deceptive business practices in the
conduct of trade or commerce." Finally, on behalf of a "Nationwide
Class" (i.e., all consumers in the United States), the Plaintiffs
raise claims under the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE Section 17200 et seq.; the California False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE Section 17500 et
seq.; and unjust enrichment.

The Defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Its motion presents a smorgasbord
of arguments, some of which are substantive and some of which are
jurisdictional. First, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs'
claims must be dismissed because (1) they are preempted by federal
law, (2) no reasonable consumer would be misled by the Product's
label, and (3) the label statements are nonactionable puffery. It
also moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing the Plaintiffs
do not have standing to bring claims on behalf of out-of-state
class members, nor do they have standing to challenge products they
did not personally purchase. Finally, the Defendant moves to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim.

As to federal preemption and the Plaintiffs' mislabeling claims,
Judge Seeborg finds that (i) the Plaintiffs are incorrect that the
label statements include implied nutrient content claim; (ii) none
of the challenged statements are nutrient content claims, and thus,
federal preemption does not apply; (iii) the FACAC plausibly states
that the challenged statements would mislead consumers into
believing the Product is healthy for them (or healthier than
competing products), but the risks attendant to the high levels of
saturated fat render it unhealthy or dangerous; and (iv) the
Defendant fails to persuade that no reasonable consumer would be so
misled.

As to standing issues, Judge Seeborg finds that the FACAC does not
precisely state which size container of the Product the Plaintiffs
purchased, though it does include a clear depiction of the 32-ounce
container. Even if the labels on all the various sizes of the
Product are the same or substantially similar, it would be improper
to assume that each of these subtly different Products is like all
the others. Thus, while the motion is denied in this respect, the
claims may proceed only on the basis that the label on the 32-ounce
size of the Product is at issue.

In addition, Judge Seeborg finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
establish standing to assert claims on behalf of the Multi-State
Consumer Class members under the laws of these other jurisdictions.
The Plaintiffs may proceed, however, with their claims on behalf of
the putative Nationwide Class. They adequately pleaded that the
Defendant's wrongful conduct occurred in California, and the
Defendant has failed to show (or even argue) that another forum's
law should apply. Thus, the Nationwide class claims may proceed,
and the motion to dismiss is denied in this regard.

Finally, the Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for
unjust enrichment, both on the grounds that California law does not
recognize a standalone claim for unjust enrichment and because the
Plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficiently their other claims for
relief.

Given that the Defendant does not make any argument about the
substance of the unjust enrichment claim itself, Judge Seeborg says
the claim may proceed at this stage, subject to being folded into
other substantive claims upon being further refined. The motion is
thus denied in this respect.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Seeborg grants in part and denies in
part the motion to dismiss. He grants the motion to dismiss with
respect to Count V, with leave to amend in order to add additional
out-of-state named plaintiffs. He denies the motion with respect to
Counts I, II, III, and IV, but these claims may not proceed on the
theory that (1) the Product label includes illegal implicit
nutrient content claims, (2) it fails to include mandatory
disclosure statements, or (3) the statement that the Product is a
"superfood" that can be used "to nourish your body, mind and soul"
is false or misleading. In addition, surviving claims may proceed
only on the basis that the label on the 32-ounce size of the
Product is at issue, subject to any amendment including more
specific details as to any other labels Plaintiffs seek to
challenge. Any amended pleadings must be filed within 28 days of
the entry of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mupc69bc from Leagle.com.


ARTSANA USA: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Chicco KidFit Booster
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Angeion Group of Businesswire reports that a settlement has been
reached with Artsana USA, Inc. ("Artsana") in a class action
lawsuit about Artsana's Chicco-branded "KidFit" booster seats. The
lawsuit alleges that Artsana misrepresented the minimum weight
requirement for and side-impact collision protection provided by
its Chicco "KidFit" booster seats. Artsana denies these
allegations. The Court did not rule in favor of Plaintiffs or
Defendant. Instead, the parties agreed to a settlement to avoid the
expense and risks of continuing the lawsuit. The settlement is not
an admission of wrongdoing by Artsana.

Am I a Class Member? You are a Class Member if you purchased a
Chicco "KidFit" branded booster seat, which includes the KidFit,
KidFit Zip, KidFit Zip Air, KidFit Luxe, KidFit Plus, and KidFit
Air Plus models, between April 22, 2015 and December 31, 2021 (the
"Eligible Product(s)").

What Benefit Can I Get from the Settlement? Class Members who
submit a timely and valid Claim Form will receive a cash benefit as
set forth below. Class Members who submit a valid Claim Form and
either (1) purchased an Eligible Product directly from
www.chiccousa.com, (2) registered an Eligible Product with Artsana
or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), or
(3) provide other proof of purchase will receive a cash payment of
$50. Class Members who submit a valid Claim Form without proof of
purchase will receive a cash payment of $25. Visit
www.ArtsanaBoosterSeatSettlement.com for more information about the
cash benefits.

What are My Options?

You Can Accept the Settlement. If you wish to receive the benefits
under the Settlement, you must complete and submit a Claim Form by
60 days after Final Approval, which could be as early as December
11, 2023. Claim Forms may be submitted online at
www.ArtsanaBoosterSeatSettlement.com or printed from the Settlement
Website and mailed to the Settlement Administrator received no
later than 60 days after Final Approval, which could be as early as
December 11, 2023. You can obtain a Claim Form: (1) on the Internet
at www.ArtsanaBoosterSeatSettlement.com or (2) by calling the
Settlement Administrator at 1-844-491-1414; or (3) by mailing a
written request for a Claim Form, including your name and mailing
address, by regular mail to: Chicco Booster Seat Settlement, c/o
Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. If you fail to timely submit a Claim Form
and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, then you will be
bound by the Settlement but will not receive any benefits of the
Settlement.

You Can Ask to be Excluded from the Class. If you do not wish to
participate in this Settlement, you must provide written notice so
indicating. Such notice must include your name, address, and
signature. The written request to be excluded must be received no
later than September 7, 2023, or you will not be able to sue, or
continue to sue, Artsana about the claims and allegations in this
case. Refer to the Settlement Website and the Long Form Notice for
information and instructions on how to exclude yourself.

You Can Object to the Settlement. If you want to stay in the
Settlement Class, but don't like any part of it, you can object to
the Settlement. To object, you must file a written objection with
the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and send copies to the attorneys
representing the Class and Artsana to be received no later than
September 7, 2023. Refer to the Settlement Website and the Long
Form Notice (available at www.ArtsanaBoosterSeatSettlement.com) for
information and instructions on how to object.

The Court's Fairness Hearing. The Court will hold a "Fairness
Hearing" to decide whether to approve the Settlement on October 12,
2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 620, located at The Hon. Charles L.
Brieant Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 300
Quarropas St., White Plains, NY 10601-4150. At this hearing, the
Court will decide whether it will finally approve all terms of the
settlement, including attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and
service awards for Plaintiffs. The motion for attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses will be posted on the
www.ArtsanaBoosterSeatSettlement.com after they are filed. The
Court will also review any objections to the Settlement at the
hearing.
You may appear at the Fairness Hearing at your own expense but
aren't required to do so. The date of the hearing may change
without further notice so please visit
www.ArtsanaBoosterSeatSettlement.com for updated information.

To File a Claim or to Get More Information, please visit the
Settlement Website at www.ArtsanaBoosterSeatSettlement.com or call
toll free 1-844-491-1414. You may also contact Class Counsel by
emailing: info@bursor.com , or by writing to: Chicco KidFit Booster
Class Action Settlement, c/o Angeion Group, 1650 Arch St #2210,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. In addition, you can access the Court
docket in this case, for a fee, through the Court's PACER site at
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov. Please do not contact the Court or
Clerk for information.

By order of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York

Contacts
Angeion Group
Gabriella Ward
Director, Marketing
(215) 563-4116 [GN]

ARTSANA USA: KidFit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set on October 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Settlement has been reached with Artsana USA, Inc. ("Artsana") in
a class action lawsuit about Artsana's Chicco-branded "KidFit"
booster seats. The lawsuit alleges that Artsana misrepresented the
minimum weight requirement for and side-impact collision protection
provided by its Chicco "KidFit" booster seats. Artsana denies these
allegations. The Court did not rule in favor of Plaintiffs or
Defendant. Instead, the parties agreed to a settlement to avoid the
expense and risks of continuing the lawsuit. The settlement is not
an admission of wrongdoing by Artsana.

Am I a Class Member? You are a Class Member if you purchased a
Chicco "KidFit" branded booster seat, which includes the KidFit,
KidFit Zip, KidFit Zip Air, KidFit Luxe, KidFit Plus, and KidFit
Air Plus models, between April 22, 2015 and December 31, 2021 (the
"Eligible Product(s)").

What Benefit Can I Get from the Settlement? Class Members who
submit a timely and valid Claim Form will receive a cash benefit as
set forth below. Class Members who submit a valid Claim Form and
either (1) purchased an Eligible Product directly from
www.chiccousa.com, (2) registered an Eligible Product with Artsana
or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), or
(3) provide other proof of purchase will receive a cash payment of
$50. Class Members who submit a valid Claim Form without proof of
purchase will receive a cash payment of $25. Visit
www.ArtsanaBoosterSeatSettlement.com for more information about the
cash benefits.

What are My Options?

   -- You Can Accept the Settlement. If you wish to receive the
benefits under the Settlement, you must complete and submit a Claim
Form by 60 days after Final Approval, which could be as early as
December 11, 2023. Claim Forms may be submitted online at
www.ArtsanaBoosterSeatSettlement.com or printed from the Settlement
Website and mailed to the Settlement Administrator received no
later than 60 days after Final Approval, which could be as early as
December 11, 2023. You can obtain a Claim Form: (1) on the Internet
at www.ArtsanaBoosterSeatSettlement.com or (2) by calling the
Settlement Administrator at 1-844-491-1414; or (3) by mailing a
written request for a Claim Form, including your name and mailing
address, by regular mail to: Chicco Booster Seat Settlement, c/o
Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. If you fail to timely submit a Claim Form
and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, then you will be
bound by the Settlement but will not receive any benefits of the
Settlement.

   -- You Can Ask to be Excluded from the Class. If you do not wish
to participate in this Settlement, you must provide written notice
so indicating. Such notice must include your name, address, and
signature. The written request to be excluded must be received no
later than September 7, 2023, or you will not be able to sue, or
continue to sue, Artsana about the claims and allegations in this
case. Refer to the Settlement Website and the Long Form Notice for
information and instructions on how to exclude yourself.

   -- You Can Object to the Settlement. If you want to stay in the
Settlement Class, but don't like any part of it, you can object to
the Settlement. To object, you must file a written objection with
the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and send copies to the attorneys
representing the Class and Artsana to be received no later
thanSeptember 7, 2023. Refer to the Settlement Website and the Long
Form Notice (available at www.ArtsanaBoosterSeatSettlement.com) for
information and instructions on how to object.

The Court's Fairness Hearing. The Court will hold a "Fairness
Hearing" to decide whether to approve the Settlement on October 12,
2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 620, located at The Hon. Charles L.
Brieant Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 300
Quarropas St., White Plains, NY 10601-4150. At this hearing, the
Court will decide whether it will finally approve all terms of the
settlement, including attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and
service awards for Plaintiffs. The motion for attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses will be posted on the
www.ArtsanaBoosterSeatSettlement.com after they are filed. The
Court will also review any objections to the Settlement at the
hearing. You may appear at the Fairness Hearing at your own expense
but aren't required to do so. The date of the hearing may change
without further notice so please visit
www.ArtsanaBoosterSeatSettlement.com for updated information.

To File a Claim or to Get More Information, please visit the
Settlement Website at www.ArtsanaBoosterSeatSettlement.com or call
toll free 1-844-491-1414. You may also contact Class Counsel by
emailing: info@bursor.com , or by writing to: Chicco KidFit Booster
Class Action Settlement, c/o Angeion Group, 1650 Arch St #2210,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. In addition, you can access the Court
docket in this case, for a fee, through the Court's PACER site at
https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov. Please do not contact the Court or
Clerk for information.

By order of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York

CONTACT:

Angeion Group
Gabriella Ward
Director, Marketing
(215) 563-4116 [GN]

BALL STATE: Justices Consider Suit Over COVID-Related Closures
--------------------------------------------------------------
theindianalawyer.com reports that Indiana Supreme Court justices
have agreed to consider a case involving a student who filed a
class action lawsuit against Ball State University for
COVID-related closures.

The dispute in Keller J. Mellowitz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Ball State University and Board of
Trustees of Ball State University and State of Indiana, 23S-PL-60,
is one of three the justices granted transfer to for the week
ending March 3.

The others are Performance Services, Inc. v. Randolph Eastern
School Corporation, 23S-CP-59, and Charlie D. Leshore, Jr. v. State
of Indiana, 23S-CR-51.

In Keller, college student Keller Mellowitz filed a putative class
action complaint in 2021 against Ball State University and its
board of trustees in response to closures and remote instruction
prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, Mellowitz asserted
claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment based on Ball
State's retention of tuition and fees after it canceled in-person
classes and closed campus facilities.

After the complaint was filed, however, the Indiana General
Assembly enacted Public Law 166-2021, part of which was later
codified as Indiana Code Chapter 34-12-5. Among the changes was
Indiana Code § 34-12-5-7, known as Section 7, which bars class
actions against postsecondary educational institutions for claims
of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from COVID-19.

When Ball State filed a motion for relief based on Section 7, the
Marion Superior Court ordered Mellowitz to file an amended
complaint eliminating his class allegations.

Mellowitz appealed, arguing that Section 7 is a procedural statute
that impermissibly conflicts with Indiana Trial Rule 23, which
governs class-action procedures. As such, he argued that Section 7
is a nullity.

The Court of Appeals of Indiana agreed, reversing the trial court's
decision.

In Performance Services, a construction company sued Randolph
Eastern School Corporation after it failed to pay $1.5 million in
damages for its access to a wind turbine.

In 2009, the Randolph Eastern School Corporation entered into a
contract with Performance Services Inc. for the construction and
operation of a wind turbine in Union City. Under the parties'
contract, the school corporation was given physical access to the
wind turbine.

In exchange for access to the turbine, the school corporation
agreed to pay $154,000 per year to Performance. However, they
didn't pay, so Performance sued in 2021, seeking $1.5 million in
damages on the unpaid fees.

The school corporation responded with a lawsuit, filing for
declaratory judgment and seeking to have the contract declared
void.

The Randolph Circuit Court ultimately entered summary judgment for
the school corporation, concluding that the contract reflected an
illegal investment by a political subdivision under state law.

But in a split reversal, an appellate majority concluded the
parties' contract did not reflect an investment by the school
corporation. Rather, it found the school corporation agreed to make
semiannual payments to Performance of $77,000 each in exchange for
certain access to the wind turbine and its data, but simply never
paid or sought to exercise its purchasing options.

Finally, in LeShore, justices handed down an opinion that granted
transfer and reversed the trial court.

Charlie Leshore had pleaded guilty to burglary, a Class B felony;
two counts of robbery as Class B felonies; rape, a Class A felony;
and two counts of criminal confinement as Class B felonies.

The trial court accepted Leshore's guilty plea and sentenced him to
70 years in the Indiana Department of Correction. Neither the trial
court nor his public defender advised him that he could appeal his
sentence.

In 2001, Leshore petitioned for post-conviction relief under Rule
1, arguing his sentence was inappropriate due to the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender.

The Public Defender's Office reviewed Leshore's petition and
concluded the trial court advised Leshore of all necessary rights.
In light of those findings, the office withdrew its representation,
and Leshore abandoned his efforts in 2005.

In a divided memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court, however, reversed the trial court.

Justice Christopher Goff dissented with a separate opinion, which
Justice Geoffrey Slaughter joined.

In the separate opinion, Goff wrote Leshore "has not demonstrated
diligence in pursuing an appeal."

The justices denied transfer to 19 other cases.

They concurred on all denials except for Indiana Department of
Natural Resources v. Marvin Houin, et al., 21A-CC-1178. Justice
Slaughter and Justice Derek Molter voted to grant transfer.

In that case, a family of farmers in Marshall County who claimed
their fields flooded because of the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources' negligent operation of a nearby dam had their trial
court victory reversed when the Court of Appeals ruled that a state
statute grants the agency immunity from negligence claims.[GN]

BEN & JERRY'S: Faces Class Action Over Migrant Child Labor
----------------------------------------------------------
Kate Hirzel, writing for Daily Caller, reports that Ben & Jerry's
is facing a class action lawsuit over its supply chain that
allegedly employs migrant child labor.

The plaintiff, Dovid Tyrnauer, alleges he would not have purchased
or would have paid less for Ben & Jerry's products if he had known
migrant child labor was used. The ice cream brand aligns itself
with ethically-sourced products, which the plaintiff claims is a
"breach of consumer trust" that amounts to "pompous
virtue-signaling."

The lawsuit was filed after The New York Times reported on major
U.S. companies exploiting child labor. The report said migrant
child labor is used to process milk in Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

"If migrant children needed to work full time, it was preferable
for them to have jobs at a well-monitored workplace," said Ben &
Jerry's head of values-led sourcing, Cheryl Pinto.

"We are deeply concerned by the claims made in this story, and do
not tolerate any suppliers who are not adhering to the law. Let us
be extremely clear: Ben & Jerry's stands in strong opposition to
child labor. We have a long history of standing for justice and
equity, and using our business to improve the lives and livelihoods
of those we serve and work with. These beliefs do not stop at our
company's supply chain," Ben & Jerry's said a statement following
the report.

The class action lawsuit also claims Ben & Jerry's uses social
justice issues as part of its marketing. The ice cream seemingly
promotes politicians such as Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie
Sanders and former President Barack Obama. They also make limited
ice creams for social justice issues such as "Change Is Brewing"
for police reform in 2021, "Pecan Resist" against former President
Donald Trump in 2019 and "Empower Mint" for alleged voter
suppression in 2016. The most recent ice cream in 2023 promotes the
"mission to end modern slavery in cocoa farming".

Republicans are blaming the use of migrant child labor on President
Joe Biden's open-border immigration policies.

The Biden administration responded by announcing a new task force
to address the problem of the illegal exploitation of child labor.

Ben & Jerry's told the Daily Caller they could not comment on
matters of litigation. [GN]

BEN & JERRY: Products Not Ethically Sourced as Advertised
---------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher at topclassactions.com reports that Ben & Jerry's
Homemade Inc. misrepresents to consumers that the dairy products
used in their ice cream is ethically sourced, a class action
lawsuit alleges.

"Ben & Jerry's is 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," the Ben & Jerry's class action lawsuit says.

"Unfortunately, this is not the case," according to plaintiff Dovid
Tyrnauer, who alleges Ben & Jerry's supply chains utilize migrant
child labor.

Tyrnauer says he would not have purchased Ben & Jerry's ice cream,
or would not have paid as much for it, had he known that child
labor is used in the ice cream maker's supply chain.

Ben & Jerry's ethic sets it apart from other ice cream makers,
plaintiff says
Ben & Jerry's sets itself apart from its competitors by claiming
its ice cream products are driven by values and ethics instead of
being strictly driven by profit, the class action alleges.

The ice cream company regularly speaks out on social issues and
creates ice cream flavors with names to raise awareness for certain
initiatives, such as its "EmpowerMINT" flavor, according to the
complaint.

The company's website touts its company values as including
thoughtful ingredient sourcing, animal welfare, and environmentally
conscious farming, the Ben & Jerry's class action lawsuit notes.
The company has reportedly also been certified as a B Corporation
since 2012, meaning it has satisfied certain standards to verify
social and environmental performance, public transparency, and
legal accountability.

However, Ben & Jerry's was reportedly one of the U.S. companies
recently exposed by The New York Times on Feb. 25 as allegedly
exploiting migrant children.

According to The New York Times, migrant child laborers were
discovered to be working in Ben & Jerry's supply chain milk
processing facilities.

Tyrnauer says that Ben & Jerry's use of migrant child labor in its
supply chain "is in sharp contrast" with the stated Ben & Jerry's
ethic of high standards and values.

The Ben & Jerry's class action lawsuit asserts claims for breach of
express warranty and violations of New York business law. Tyrnauer
seeks an injunction against Ben & Jerry's allegedly unlawful and
deceptive business practices.

Ben & Jerry's has faced other class action lawsuits challenging
their representations about the quality of their dairy products. In
2020, the ice cream maker sought to dismiss a Ben & Jerry's class
action lawsuit challenging its claims that its dairy products come
from "happy cows."

Tyrnauer is represented by Israel David, Blake Hunter Yagman, and
Madeline Sheffield of Israel David LLC.

The Ben & Jerry's ethic class action lawsuit is Dovid Tyrnauer v.
Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01877, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, White Plains
Division.[GN]

BRAXIA SCIENTIFIC: Securities Class Action Settlement Gets Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KND Complex Litigation of NewsWire reports that the Supreme Court
of British Columbia has approved a settlement between Braxia
Scientific Corp. (formerly known as Champignon Brands Inc.),
William Gareth Birdsall, Lucas Birdsall, Roger McIntyre, Stephen
Brohman, Canaccord Genuity Corp., Eight Capital and Gravitas
Securities Inc. and the Plaintiff in a class action.

Your legal rights are affected even if you do nothing. Please read
this notice carefully.

The class action was commenced on behalf of all persons and
entities who acquired securities of Braxia Scientific Corp.
("Braxia") either:

(1)  in Braxia's private placement which closed on June 11, 2020;
or

(2)  on a stock exchange between May 12, 2020 and March 11, 2021
and held all or some of those securities until the open of trading
on February 17, 2021 and/or until the close of trading on March 11,
2021, and who:

i.  are residents of Canada or were residents of Canada at the time
of such acquisitions, regardless of the location of the exchange on
which they acquired Braxia's securities, provided that they opted
out of the parallel U.S. class action if they bought their Braxia
securities on the over-the-counter market in the United States; or

ii.  acquired Braxia's securities on a stock exchange in Canada or
another exchange located outside of the United States, regardless
of where they reside or are domiciled.

Under the settlement, the Defendants will pay or cause to be paid
CAD $1,900,000. The Defendants do not admit any wrongdoing or
liability on their part and the Court has not made any findings of
wrongdoing or liability in respect of the Defendants.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:

You have two options:

Submit a Claim Form:
Fill out a Claim Form online and submit it with supporting
documentation by the deadline to apply for compensation. The
deadline for Claim Form submission is 11:59 p.m. PT on July 7,
2023.

Do Nothing:
Give up any right to compensation.

To make a claim for compensation, you must complete a Claim Form
online and submit it with documentation confirming your acquisition
of Braxia's securities. The Claim Form is available at
https://knd.law/class-actions/braxia-scientific-corp/. You must
submit your Claim Form and documentation using this website by
11:59 p.m. PT on July 7, 2023 to be able to receive compensation.

Further information can be found in the Settlement Agreement,
Court-approved Plan of Allocation, and other relevant documents,
which are available at
https://knd.law/class-actions/braxia-scientific-corp/. You can send
your questions by email to braxia@knd.law or by fax to (416)
352-7638.

The lawyers for the Plaintiff and the Class in this class action
are KND Complex Litigation.

SOURCE KND Complex Litigation

For further information: Braxia Class Action Counsel, KND Complex
Litigation c/o Hadi Davarinia, Email: braxia@knd.law, Fax: (416)
352-7638 [GN]

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Must Face Class Action Over Grizzly Bear Hunting
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Godfrey, writing for BIV, reports that businesses who
provided guide services for grizzly bear hunting have been
certified as a class action against the B.C. government over its
2017 decision to ban the practice.

Ronald Gordon Fleming and Love Bros. & Lee Ltd. are the named
plaintiffs in a claim naming the B.C. government - specifically the
Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural
Development - and the former MLA in charge of the ministry at the
time of the ban.

In a recent decision, the B.C. Supreme Court certified class status
to the defendants and others who "are guide outfitters who, prior
to the ban, had the ability to guide people in hunting grizzly
bears."

The plaintiffs claim they relied on the provincial system that
placed quotas on how many bears the plaintiffs could kill in
certain areas during certain times to offer non-resident hunters
the ability to hunt grizzly bears and that the businesses made more
money on tours when clients killed a grizzly bear.

Fleming held a 25-year licence from the province granting him
"exclusive control over guiding privileges" in part of the
province, as well as a five-year licence granting him the ability
to kill a certain number of animals classified as big game species
- including grizzly bears and mountain goats - in the Skeena and
Omineca regions between 2017 and 2021, McDonald noted.

The other named plaintiff, a company run by Fleming known as Love
Bros., currently holds a certificate for guiding hunts but didn't
at the time the ban was ordered in 2017.

The plaintiffs claim the grizzly hunts were a "lucrative component"
of their guide business and the ban has caused them to suffer
economically.

"The plaintiffs are careful to point out that the claim is not an
attempt to reinstate the grizzly bear hunt. The claim does not
allege that a class action arises just because of the plaintiffs'
disagreement with a change government policy or a political
decision," Justice Elizabeth McDonald wrote in her March 1 decision
to grant class status.

"The plaintiffs submit the action is not really about hunting at
all, rather, it is a claim for compensation for the loss of the
grizzly bear hunt for guide outfitters who relied on the province's
representations that the province would protect their interests.
The plaintiffs say that the province failed to protect the
interests of guide outfitters and the province's wrongful conduct
is actionable."

However, the plaintiffs do claim the minister who implemented the
ban, former MLA Doug Donaldson, acted beyond his authority because
the ban was not about conservation but about public opinion around
grizzly bear hunting.

They also argue he knew he was acting beyond the scope of the
Wildlife Act by bypassing the requirement for a wildlife management
reason before implementing the ban.

But McDonald determined this was not done in bad faith and that a
"response to public pressure is not, without more [evidence],
evidence of bad faith or conduct inconsistent with the obligations
of office."

She further found that, even if the plaintiffs proved Donaldson
acted beyond his powers, they hadn't shown he did so intentionally,
and as such, claims of misfeasance by Donaldson were "doomed to
fail."

Among the affidavits filed by the plaintiffs is that of Tim
Sheldan, the former deputy minister of forests, lands, natural
resource development and rural development under Donaldson.

Sheldan stated in his affidavit that he would be able to testify in
trial on information "relevant to the allegations in the claim" but
that some of it may be considered privileged information.

McDonald found that the plaintiffs argued well enough that the
proposed class members were united in claims the province made
misrepresentations to them regarding commercial grizzly hunting
activities. However, she found they were overly vague in tying
economic losses to those misrepresentations, noting that "not all
economic loss is necessarily compensable."

She further found that the plaintiffs didn't adequately argue that
damages could be awarded on a class-wide basis.

While McDonald granted class status to sue the B.C. government, she
denied the plaintiffs class status to sue Doug Donaldson, the
minister of forests, lands, natural resource development and rural
development. [GN]

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Two Schools Granted Class Cert. in Abuse Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
cbc.ca reports that a lawsuit alleging nearly four decades of
systemic abuse at two Catholic schools in B.C. has been certified
by the courts as a class action, a move lawyers say could clear the
way for as many as 65 potential survivors to seek compensation
against the Catholic order accused of shuffling the abusers into
their schools.

The original claim said the Christian Brothers of Ireland knowingly
transferred abusive teachers from a notorious orphanage in
Newfoundland to Vancouver College and St. Thomas More Collegiate,
where they went on to sexually and physically abuse more children
from 1976 to 2013.

In a decision, a B.C. Supreme Court justice found a class action
would be the best way to move the case forward -- rather than
having each alleged victim file their own independent lawsuit.

"The decision creates a single lawsuit that can litigate the common
issues between all of those people," said lawyer Reidar Mogerman,
who represents the alleged victims.

"This is a really important step."

What happened at the Mount Cashel Orphanage?
The lawsuit links back to the Mount Cashel Orphanage in St. John's,
where hundreds of vulnerable children were abused for decades by
"cruel and sadistic" men charged with their care. Multiple criminal
investigations led to a number of convictions.

A public inquiry found senior public servants, church officials,
police brass and politicians helped cover up the crimes --
cementing the case as one of the largest sex abuse scandals in
Canadian history.

Who are the Christian Brothers?
The Christian Brothers of Ireland is a religious community
headquartered in Rome. The organization expanded into Canada in the
early 1800s.

The order ran hundreds of schools around the world, including the
Mount Cashel orphanage before its closure in 1990.

It founded Vancouver College, and St. Thomas More Collegiate in
neighbouring Burnaby.

Which abuses are alleged to have happened in B.C.?
The B.C.-based claim said the Christian Brothers sent six members
from Mount Cashel to the Vancouver-area schools between 1976 and
1983.

All six were later convicted of sexually or physically abusing
orphans at the Newfoundland facility, with two of them having
admitted abuse before they were sent west.

A judge in 2004 found the Catholic order struck a deal with
investigators in 1975: the members in question wouldn't face
criminal charges for their actions at Mount Cashel in exchange for
them leaving the province and seeking treatment.

The lead plaintiff in B.C., Darren Liptrot, claims one of the
brothers, Edward English, sexually abused him from 1981 to 1983
while he was a student at Vancouver College in grades 9 and 10.

He said he tried to report the abuse to his vice-principal but was
ignored.

None of the allegations has been proven in court and no statements
of defence have been filed.

Why was the class-action certified in B.C.?
Since Liptrot filed his claim, his lawyers told the court more than
65 men have come forward claiming they were abused at the
Vancouver-area schools by the men sent from Mount Cashel.

Liptrot's lawyer argued a class-action makes it easier for
potential victims to seek justice. They said it should be open to
those who claim they were abused at any period between 1976 and
2013, when the last of the six men retired.

"There's really significant barriers to victims coming forward and
so a class action like this breaks those barriers down," said
Mogerman, the plaintiffs' lawyer.

The defence argued individual trials would be preferred but the
judge said lawyers "provided no useful, concrete examples of their
alternative model as preferable for systemic abuse cases like this
one."

Defence lawyers also argued the class period of 1976 to 2013 would
be too long, but the judge disagreed.

The six men sent to B.C. and later convicted of physical or sexual
abuse were Joseph Burke, David Burton, Edward English, Edward
French, Douglas Kenny and Kevin Short.

The lawsuit says the former students have suffered significant
damage including pain and suffering, psychological injuries,
addiction issues, the inability to have normal and healthy sexual
development and spiritual trauma including loss of faith.

The lawsuit says the plaintiffs want a declaration that they were
abused and the defendants are liable for that abuse; an award for
damages for negligence; past and future costs of health care; and
punitive and aggravated damages.[GN]

BROWN UNIVERSITY: Did Not Pay Athletes Expenses, Choh Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
TAMENANG CHOH; and GRACE KIRK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BROWN UNIVERSITY; THE
TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK; CORNELL
UNIVERSITY; TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE; HARVARD UNIVERSITY; THE
TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; PRINCETON UNI VERSITY;
YALE UNIVERSITY; and THE IVY LEAGUE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00305 (D. Conn., March 7, 2023)
alleges Defendants' alleged violations of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in an ongoing price-fixing agreement (the "Ivy League
Agreement"), in violation of the Sherman Act, not to provide
athletic scholarships to their Division I athletes ("Ivy League
Athletes") and not to pay Ivy League Athletes any compensation, or
reimbursement of education-related expenses, for the athletic
services they provide to the University Defendants.

BROWN UNIVERSITY provides educational services. The University
offers degrees in media and music, business, culture and society
education, science, and engineering. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen M. Kindseth, Esq.
          James M. Moriarty, Esq.
          John L. Cesaroni, Esq.
          ZEISLER & ZEISLER, P.C.
          10 Middle Street, 15th Floor
          Bridgeport, CT 06605
          Telephone: (203) 368-4234
          Facsimile: (203) 368-5485
          Email: skindseth@zeislaw.com
                 jmoriarty@zeislaw.com
                 jcesaroni@zeislaw.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
          Alan K. Cotler, Esq.
          Najah Jacobs, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Email: ecramer@bm.net
                 pmadden@bm.net
                 alancotler@gmail.com
                 njacobs@bm.net

               - and -

          Robert E. Litan, Esq.
          Dan Walker, Esq.
          Hope Brinn, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 559-9745
          Facsimile: rlitan@bm.net
                     dwalker@bm.net
                     hbrinn@bm.net

               - and -

          Velvel (Devin) Freedman, Esq.
          Edward Normand, Esq.
          Stephen Lagos, Esq.
          FREEDMAN NORMAND
          FRIEDLAND LLP
          90 Park Avenue Suite 1910
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 970-7513
          Facsimile: vfreedman@fnf.law
                     tnormand@fnf.law
                     slagos@fnf.law

BROWN UNIVERSITY: Student Athletes Sue Over Price-Fixing Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Eaton-Robb at insurancejournal.com reports that a pair of
basketball players from Brown University allege in a federal
lawsuit that the Ivy League's policy of not offering athletic
scholarships amounts to a price-fixing agreement that denies
athletes proper financial aid and payment for their services.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut by
attorneys representing Grace Kirk, a member of Brown's women's
team, and Tamenang Choh, who played for the men's team from 2017
through 2022. They are seeking class-action status to represent all
current and former athletes at the eight Ivy League schools dating
back to those recruited since March 2019.

The suit argues Ivy League schools illegally conspired to limit
financial aid and not compensate athletes for their services.

"In either case, regardless of whether considered as a restraint on
the price of education, the value of financial aid, the price of
athletic services, or the level of compensation to Ivy League
athletes, the Ivy League Agreement is per se illegal," the lawsuit
states.

Harvard, Yale, Brown, Princeton, Dartmouth, Cornell, Columbia and
Penn don't offer merit scholarships of any kind, including athletic
scholarships. The policy, which dates back to 1954, makes the Ivy
League the only Division I athletic conference that prohibits
member schools from offering any athletic scholarships

Ivy League Executive Director Robin Harris defended the policy in a
statement responding to the legal action, noting there are a wide
variety of options when it comes to opportunities available to
college-level athletes.

"The Ivy League athletics model is built upon the foundational
principle that student-athletes should be representative of the
wider student body, including the opportunity to receive need-based
financial aid," she said. "In turn, choosing and embracing that
principle then provides each Ivy League student-athlete a journey
that balances a world-class academic experience with the
opportunity to compete in Division I athletics and ultimately paves
a path for lifelong success."

But attorneys for the Brown athletes point out that other elite
academic schools, such as Stanford and Duke, do offer athletic
scholarships.

"These schools are not part of the Ivy League, but they demonstrate
they can maintain stellar academic standards while competing for
excellent athletes, and without agreed upon limits on price," the
lawsuit said.

The suit also argues that Ivy League schools have a major influence
over the path that a small pool of people who are both elite
students and elite athletes can take, so by not offering athletic
scholarships, the league is artificially suppressing the market for
those students.

"The natural, foreseeable, and intended result of the Ivy League
Agreement is that Ivy League athletes have paid more for their
education and earned less in compensation or reimbursement than
they would have in the absence of the agreement," the lawsuit said.
[GN]

BUMBLE BEE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Sustainability Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff White, writing for SeafoodSource, reports that class-action
lawsuits have been filed against Bumble Bee Foods and Conagra
Brands over sustainability claims they made for their seafood
products. The separate complaints, filed in federal district courts
in the U.S. states of Illinois and California, each ask for at
least USD 5 million (EUR 4.7 million) in damages.

The complaints also heavily criticize the Marine Stewardship
Council, alleging it "blatantly violates its own standards and puts
the very ecosystem MSC feigns to protect in serious danger."

Plaintiffs Abdallah Nasser and John Bohen contend the
"Sustainability Promise" found on each of Bumble Bee's product
labels -- including canned pouched Wild Caught Pink Salmon and
Sockeye Salmon and pouched Wild Caught Applewood Smoke Tuna --
"deceives and misleads reasonable consumers into believing the
products are sourced from sustainable fishing practices."

"Bumble Bee turns a blind eye to the unsustainable fishing
practices used in sourcing its products and boldly uses the
Sustainability Promise with the [MSC] Blue Tick as proof of
sustainable fishing methods," the plaintiffs said.

Bumble Bee knew or should have known that "MSC hands out this
certification to those who use industrial fishing methods that
injure marine life as well as ocean habitats with destructive
fishing. MSC also allows its members to obtain their certification
with a paid membership, creating a potential conflict of interest,"
the plaintiffs said.

Despite the MSC certification, Bumble Bee sources its products
using fishing practices that indiscriminately harm ocean
ecosystems, the complaint alleges.

The lawsuit alleges San Diego, California, U.S.A.-based Bumble Bee,
which is owned by Kaohsiung, Taiwan-based FCF Co., engages in "the
suffocation and crushing of dolphins caught in fishing nets that
are then hauled onto fishing boats while severely injured or dead;
the torturously slow death of endangered sea turtles after getting
caught on large hooks meant for tuna; the trapping of whales by
fishing gear, causing deep wounds and intense suffering; and the
extortion of migrants working on fishing boats, who are forced to
labor relentlessly for long hours with little food and minimal
sleep, under the threat of being beaten or thrown overboard."

In the complaint against Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.-based Conagra,
the maker of Van de Kamp's and Mrs. Paul's seafood products,
plaintiffs also allege that MSC-certified fisheries "do not provide
these promised protections and, instead, engage in the following
conduct, which indisputably defies its promise of sustainability:
the suffocation and crushing of sea lions, sharks, and whales
caught in fishing nets that are then hauled onto fishing boats
while severely injured or dead; the excessive capturing or harming
of non-targeted prohibited species, such as snow crabs, and
contributing to the failure of the populations."

Some of Conagra's products are harvested in the Bering Sea by
Russian fisheries that use pelagic midwater trawls, the plaintiffs
contend.

"Russian pollock fisheries do not have an effective measure in
place to protect endangered species, such as Steller sea lions and
albatross," the plaintiffs said. Pollock trawl fisheries in the
Bering Sea also frequently catch snow crab as bycatch, which they
ultimately discard, according to the plaintiffs.

"Due to the use of pelagic trawls, these discarded crabs are
estimated to have an 80 percent mortality rate," Nassar and Bohen
said. "No reasonable consumer would believe the products to be
'sustainable' if they knew of these fishing practices utilized in
sourcing the products." [GN]

BUMBLE BEE: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Sustainability Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenpeace reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed
against Bumble Bee Foods and Conagra Brands over sustainability
claims the companies have made regarding their seafood products.
Two complaints, filed in the federal district courts, in the U.S.
states of Illinois and California, each seek at least $5 million
dollars in damages. The complaint cited Greenpeace East Asia's
research into Bumble Bee's practices, which found that
environmental harm and human rights violations were present in the
company's supply chain.

Marilu Cristina Flores, Senior Oceans Campaigner at Greenpeace USA,
said: "Consumers deserve transparency when purchasing what they
believe to be sustainable and ethical seafood. We hope this lawsuit
leads to urgent and comprehensive reform in an industry notorious
for its harmful environmental practices, human rights violations,
and lack of transparency. Bumble Bee, as one of the leading
companies in the canned tuna market, has the power to impact the
health of our oceans and the lives of fishers at sea. But for
years, they have failed to take the full measure of their
responsibility. It is time to hold them accountable."

The report "Fake My Catch - the unreliable traceability in our tuna
cans" sheds light on illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing
(IUU), its environmental destruction, and how forced labor is
reinforced through its practice. Published in 2022 it found that
over 10% (13) of the 119 sampled Taiwanese-flagged/owned vessels
that supplied Bumble Bee had previously violated Taiwan Fishery
Agency regulations and were on their Illegal, Unreported, and
Unregulated (IUU) list. The report presents interviews revealing
that some vessels supplying Bumble Bee reportedly engaged in shark
finning and illegal fishing. It includes statements by several
fishers who worked aboard vessels supplying Bumble Bee of excessive
overtime hours while having their wages withheld. Particularly
alarming was the discovery of a canned Bumble Bee product at a
Harris Teeter grocery store in Arlington, Virginia, which contained
fish sourced from the Da Wang -- a vessel that was confirmed by US
Customs & Border Protection to have employed forced labor,
prompting questions about whether tainted products are on US
supermarket shelves. Greenpeace USA, through its tuna retailer
scorecard, continues to encourage grocery stores not to stock
Bumble Bee tuna.  But many, including Kroger (which owns Harris
Teeter), still do.

Mallika Talwar, Senior Oceans Campaigner at Greenpeace USA who
participated in an action calling out the company at Petco Park
Stadium in San Diego near the company's headquarters, said: "Bumble
Bee positions itself as dedicated to "sustainable fishing" and
advocates for fishers, and says their products are "Good For You."
But given the suspected environmental harm and human rights
violations in their supply chain, we must ask, "Good for who?" That
isn't good for anyone -- not the vulnerable fishers who face harm
or death, nor Americans who expect companies like Bumble Bee to
ensure their products were not made with forced labor, and
certainly not for our oceans and our planet. We call on Bumble Bee
to put our planet and people before their profits and clean up
their supply chains."

High-seas fisheries was a highly debated area of the negotiations
for the historic global ocean treaty which countries agreed to on
March 4, after almost 10 years of negotiations. The Treaty, hailed
as the biggest conservation agreement in the history of the world,
provides a pathway to establish a network of marine sanctuaries
across the globe -- areas where fragile ecosystems and depleted
populations of marine life can recover and thrive. The treaty must
be ratified by 60 countries to take effect. Greenpeace USA has
called on the Biden Administration to lead the way by ratifying
this treaty quickly and working to implement real protections at
sea. [GN]

CANADA: $2.8-B Deal in Indian Residential Schools' Suit Gets OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press of CBC reports that A Federal Court judge has
approved a $2.8-billion settlement agreement between the Canadian
government and plaintiffs representing 325 First Nations whose
members went to residential schools.

Justice Ann Marie McDonald said in her ruling issued March 9, 2023
that the settlement is intended to help take steps to reverse the
losses of language, culture and heritage through an Indigenous-led
not-for-profit body.

"This settlement is historic both in terms of the quantum of the
settlement and its unique structure,'' McDonald said.

"As Canada remarked, the $2.8-billion settlement is not intended to
put a value on the losses suffered by the Band Class members, as
that is an impossible task."
She called the agreement "transformational," adding the settlement
does not release the federal government from future lawsuits
related to children who died or disappeared at residential
schools.

"I am satisfied that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the
best interests of Band Class members. The Settlement Agreement is
therefore approved," McDonald said.

The agreement was announced in January to settle the legal action
for plaintiffs representing 325 nations seeking to address the
harms done to their members by the residential school program.

As part of the agreement, the First Nations plaintiffs agreed to
"fully, finally and forever" release the Crown from claims that
could conceivably arise from the collective harms residential
schools inflicted on First Nations, as alleged in a previous court
filing.

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

The settlement now goes into an appeal period, after which the
money will be transferred to a not-for-profit fund managed by a
board of Indigenous leaders.

Residential schools, day schools, day scholars: what you need to
know
Affected Indigenous communities will each get to decide what to do
with their settlement funds, based on the "four pillars" principles
outlined in the agreement: the revival and protection of Indigenous
language; the revival and protection of Indigenous culture; the
protection and promotion of heritage; and the wellness of
Indigenous communities and their members.

McDonald's decision also said that the funds and their proceeds
cannot be used to fund individuals or commercial ventures, be used
as collateral to secure loans or as a guarantee.

Agreement 'means everything': plaintiff
The suit was launched more than a decade ago by former Tk'emlups te
Secwepemc chief Shane Gottfriedson and former shishalh Nation chief
Garry Feschuk to seek justice and reparations for day scholars
abused while attending residential schools.

Like residential schools, day schools aimed to assimilate
Indigenous children while eradicating Indigenous languages and
cultures and often had religious affiliations. There was also
widespread abuse.

Day scholars were children who attended residential schools during
the day but were able to go home at night and were left out of the
2006 residential schools settlement.

The suit initially consisted of the combined band reparations claim
(known as the band class) and the residential school day scholars
claim.

The Trudeau government reached an out-of-court settlement with day
scholars in June 2021, agreeing to pay cash compensation to
survivors and their descendants, settling part of the Gottfriedson
case.

But Canada initially refused to negotiate with the remaining
band-reparations plaintiffs. Their case was heading for trial until
it was abruptly adjourned to pursue negotiations last fall, with
the agreement announced in January pending court approval.

In February, Gottfriedsson told a Federal Court judge in Vancouver
that reaching the settlement with the federal government "means
everything" to him.

Gottfriedson said it was "about time Canada steps aside" and lets
First Nations themselves decide how to mitigate the harms done by
residential schools.

More details for how funds will be disbursed are expected in the
months to come. Under the agreement, there will be an initial
payment of $200,000 to all 325 First Nations, which will allow them
all to create a 10-year plan for how they want to revitalize their
language and culture.

A national Indian Residential School Crisis Line is available to
provide support for survivors and those affected. People can access
emotional and crisis referral services by calling the 24-hour
service at 1-866-925-4419.

Mental health counselling and crisis support is also available 24
hours a day, seven days a week through the Hope for Wellness
hotline at 1-855-242-3310 or by online chat
This story originally reported that a class-action settlement
agreement was reached between Canada and plaintiffs representing
325 First Nations members who went to residential day schools. In
fact, it applies to all eligible residential school students.[GN]

CANADA: Sued Over RCMP Policies, Tactics in Logging Protests
------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Dickson at timescolonist.com reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit has been filed by two people who attempted to
document the protests against the logging of old growth forests at
Fairy Creek near Port Renfrew in 2021.

Arvin Singh Dang, a professional photographer and teacher, and
Kristy Morgan, owner of a media production company, are suing the
Attorney General of Canada, alleging that RCMP policies and tactics
in enforcing an injunction order at the Fairy Creek logging protest
camp violated the charter rights of members of the public, media
and protesters.

"This action is brought to uphold the charter rights and
fundamental freedoms of the public and to hold the RCMP accountable
for its unlawful and egregious conduct in relation to its
enforcement activities in Fairy Creek," says the civil notice of
claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court.

The RCMP made 1,100 arrests from May 2021 to February 2022 after
logging company Teal Jones obtained an injunction against
protesters trying to block roads and prevent the cutting of
old-growth trees at Fairy Creek. Only 425 of the arrests were
prosecuted, primarily for criminal contempt charges.

The statement of claim alleges the RCMP "herded" individuals into
exclusion zones and blocked access to forest service roads in the
injunction area.

Protesters and media were subjected to arbitrary searches and their
belongings and equipment were destroyed. Members of the media were
blocked or prevented from reporting on events, says the claim.

RCMP officers detained and arrested people without due process and
assaulted, pushed, dragged and pepper-sprayed protesters, sometimes
­removing their COVID masks to do so, says the claim.

Officers placed people in police vans at the side of the road and
in holding cells for hours, without due process, says the claim.
They transported the arrested individuals to jails hours away from
Fairy Creek, then released people without any explanation or
charges.

David Wu, a lawyer at Arvay Finlay LLP, predicts the class action
will affect hundreds of people. "We're seeking redress for people
who were impacted by those exclusion zones. They should be
rightfully compensated for having their constitutional freedoms
infringed on," said Wu.

RCMP officers also used their powers of arrest as a form of crowd
control, not because they believed someone was committing a crime
or in breach of the injunction, said Wu. "We say those policies
resulted in many people's rights being infringed."

The proposed class action may also include those who weren't
formally arrested, but who were detained or blocked from entering
the injunction area, had their bags searched or were restricted
from photographing or viewing what was happening, he said.

"We've heard stories of lawyers trying to get in who couldn't or
who were cordoned off or put in an area. That would be in addition
to those who were arrested and not charged. We think the size of
the class is quite large — at least in the ­hundreds," said Wu.

The class action will have to be certified and will take some time,
he said. "Certification is the first step and it's hard to estimate
when that's going to happen. It depends on the schedules of
everyone and how busy the courts are. I'd say we're hoping within a
year or so to have the certification step out of the way, but you
never really know. It's going to be a multi-year long process for
sure."

Dang, who was filming for the CBC, BBC and Outside magazine, was
subject to the exclusion zone policy on many occasions, says the
claim. Sometimes, he would not be allowed into the area. Sometimes,
he would be allowed in but without his car, requiring him to hike
kilometres with his equipment. He was not allowed to film the
extraction of the tree-sitters.

According to the claim, Dang was arrested on May 22, 2021 and told
he was being charged with civil contempt and obstruction. He was
put in a jail cell at the Lake Cowichan detachment and told if he
signed an agreement not to return to Fairy Creek, he would be
released without charges. He was released later that evening
without explanation or charges.

The RCMP say they are not commenting at this time. [GN]

CHICK-FIL-A INC: Suit Alleges Data Breach Affecting 71,000 Users
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Chick-fil-A faces
a class action lawsuit that claims its "reckless" and "negligent"
cybersecurity practices are to blame for a data breach announced by
the fast-food company in March 2023 in a case-captioned Stephens et
al. v. Chick-fil-A, Inc., Sections 1:23-CV-00964-LMM.

The 66-page lawsuit says that though Chick-fil-A purportedly first
learned of suspicious activity on its networks in early January of
this year, it was later revealed that hackers had mounted a
"sustained attack" on the company's website and mobile app between
December 18, 2022 and February 12 of this year. The cyberattack
targeted customers' Chick-fil-A One accounts—a rewards program
whereby consumers can earn redeemable points with every order—and
reportedly compromised the personal information stored in 71,473 of
these accounts, the suit relays.

The case explains that the private data exposed in the breach
included customers' names, email addresses, Chick-fil-A One account
passwords, membership numbers, mobile pay numbers, QR codes, credit
or debit card information, billing details and the amount of
Chick-fil-A credit stored in each account. The complaint adds that
the compromised data may also include customers' dates of birth,
phone numbers and physical addresses, if this information was saved
in a Chick-fil-A One account.

As the filing claims, the cyberattack was a direct result of the
company's "utter failure" to implement basic cybersecurity policies
to protect customers' personal information. The highly confidential
data was allegedly stored "unencrypted" and "unredacted" in the
defendant's systems and therefore left vulnerable to unauthorized
access by cybercriminals, the lawsuit charges.

After discovering the fraudulent activity in January of this year,
Chick-fil-A's "confusing and botched series of announcements" only
served to make matters worse, the suit argues. A statement the
company posted on Twitter on January 4 "explicitly assured
customers" that reports of suspicious activity on Chick-fil-A One
accounts were "not the result of a compromise of Defendant's
internal systems," the case explains.

It took another two months for Chick-fil-A to "contradict its
initial public statement and admit to the Data Breach," finally
notifying victims by posting a notice letter on March 2, the
complaint states.

However, the notice provided little detail as to how the breach
occurred, why the company delayed notifying victims and what steps
it is taking to safeguard their personal information in the future,
the filing shares.

One plaintiff, a Missouri resident and member of the Chick-fil-A
One rewards program, noticed on February 4 of this year that his
account had been accessed by an unknown third party and charged
$50, the lawsuit says. When the plaintiff called customer service,
an agent "read off a canned script" and explained that, though
several reports had been made by customers of "suspicious" account
activity, "there was no data breach," the suit states.

The other plaintiff in the case, a Georgia resident and Chick-fil-A
One accountholder since 2021, experienced similar fraudulent
activity on February 2 when she noticed two unauthorized $50
charges in her account, the case relays. The plaintiff emailed
Chick-fil-A to report the activity and received two "canned"
responses whereby the defendant "continued in its failure to admit
the Data Breach, despite having knowledge of numerous customer
complaints," the filing contends.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose
personal information was accessed and/or obtained by an
unauthorized party between December 18, 2022 and February 12, 2023
as a result of the data breach. [GN]

CITRIX SYSTEMS: Agrees to Settle Robocall Class Action for $2.75-M
------------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Citrix agreed to a $2.75 million
lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by contacting consumers
with robocalls without first getting consent.

The settlement benefits individuals who received one or more phone
calls from Citrix, two or more calls while the recipient's number
was on the National Do Not Call Registry and/or one or more calls
after asking Citrix to stop calling

Plaintiffs in the telemarketing class action lawsuit claim that
Citrix contacted customers with robocalls to advertise its
services. According to the class action lawsuit, Citrix failed to
get express written consent before placing robocalls in violation
of the TCPA.

Citrix is a remote workspace platform that partners with employers
and universities.

Citrix hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.75 million
class action settlement to resolve the TCPA class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive an
equal share of the settlement fund.

According to the settlement website, each class member is estimated
to receive between $30 and $60. Exact payments will vary depending
on the number of claimants who participate in the settlement.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 3, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May
10, 2023.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by May 3, 2023.

Who's Eligible
Individuals who received one or more phone calls from Citrix, two
or more calls while the recipient's number was on the National Do
Not Call Registry and/or one or more calls after asking Citrix to
stop calling

Potential Award
$30 to $60 (estimated)


Proof of Purchase
N/A

Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
05/03/2023

Case Name
Boger, et al. v. Citrix Systems Inc., Case No. 8:19-cv-01234-LKG,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Final Hearing
05/10/2023

Settlement Website
CitrixTCPASettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Citrix TCPA Settlement
c/o A.B. Data Ltd.
P.O. Box 173024
Milwaukee, WI 53217
info@CitrixTCPASettlement.com
1-877-388-1760 [GN]

CLASSY CLOSETS: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due April 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ivol Stever, v. Classy
Closets, Etc. Incorporated, Case No. 2:22-cv-01337-SPL (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order granting the
parties joint motion to extend case deadlines as follows.

   1. Class Certification Discovery          March 26, 2023
      shall be completed by:

   2. Class Certification Motions            April 23, 2023
      shall be due by:

   3. Responses to Class Certification       May 7, 2023
      Motions shall be due by:

   4. Replies to Class Certification         May 14, 2023
      Motions shall be due by:

Classy Closets designs and installs cabinetry and shelving
solutions for home organization.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ybF8wn at no extra charge.[CC]

COINBASE: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Eleanor Terrett  and Charlie Gasparino of FOXBusiness report that
Crypto's latest headache could be a big class action lawsuit filed
on behalf of retail investors against top U.S. crypto exchanges.  

Long time securities lawyer Tom Grady, known as one of the nation's
leading investment fraud attorneys, is preparing for potential
litigation against the nation's biggest crypto exchanges Coinbase,
Robinhood, Kraken and others, according to a press release reviewed
by FOX Business.

In the release, Grady said he launched an investigation into the
exchanges' operations and their potential violations of state and
federal securities laws by transacting digital coins, the vast
majority of which are regarded by the Securities and Exchange
Commission as unregistered securities and thus operate in violation
of federal law. Grady says the exchanges may have misled investors
by not providing them with improper disclosures about the risk in
trading and owning unregistered crypto.

"We believe Coinbase, Robinhood, and other exchanges have violated
the law, and investors who lost money purchasing cryptocurrencies
on their platforms may be entitled to recover those losses," Grady
stated in the press release.

THE SEC'S RULEMAKING AGENDA HAS GOTTEN SO OUT OF CONTROL IT'S
BRINGING DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS TOGETHER
Coinbase, Robinhood did not immediately respond to a request for
comment and Kraken declined comment, but in the past these exchange
have argued that they operate legally, and they don't facilitate
trades of coins that have been deemed unregistered securities by
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The press release says Grady, through his Tampa, Florida-based law
firm, is also seeking out clients of Coinbase, Robinhood, and other
exchanges who suffered losses purchasing cryptocurrencies on their
platforms to share information about their investments.

The debate over how digital assets are classified has roiled the
crypto industry since the SEC started bringing enforcement actions
against various crypto companies for offering unregistered
securities in 2017. The SEC believes the vast majority of digital
coins are used for pure speculation or to conduct illegal
activities such as drug sales and money laundering, and they're
divorced from the underlying blockchain technology—a method of
transacting business still in its developmental stages that is
designed to provide a cheaper, safer and more efficient payment
system for consumers.

To determine if a crypto is really an unregistered security, the
SEC imposes something known as the "Howey Test," named after a 1946
Supreme Court case that determines whether investment contracts
must be registered with the SEC. In 2020, the SEC filed charges
against executives of Ripple, a digital cross-border payment
company, for the sale of the token XRP to help build out its
platform. Last month, the SEC sued crypto exchanges Gemini and
Kraken for offering unregistered securities products to customers.

Like XRP, nearly all digital coins are unregistered, opening the
industry to a sweeping regulatory crackdown if the SEC prevails in
its case against Ripple. For instance, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler
has said he believes the majority of crypto tokens classify as
securities, with the possible exception of Bitcoin, which he thinks
could be classified as a commodity because there's no centralized
entity controlling the asset and the asset is created through
independent so-called miners.

Ripple, for its part, contends the sale of XRP did not violate
securities laws, and is fighting the SEC in federal court. A ruling
is expected in the coming weeks.

Any class action suit will certainly heighten scrutiny on the $1
trillion crypto industry that has seen a significant decline is
value and has been rocked by scandal. The so-called crypto winter,
caused by several high profile crypto companies filing for
bankruptcy, has seen the price of Bitcoin, the most valuable
cryptocurrency fall more than 50% from its all-time high. March 8,
2023's announcement by troubled crypto bank Silvergate that it's
liquidating assets and closing its operations is pressuring
cryptocurrency prices even further.

In one of the biggest blows to the nascent industry, the US
Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York recently
indicted one-time crypto superstar Sam Bankman-Fried, for allegedly
running a Ponzi-like scheme through his crypto exchange FTX, before
its recent implosion and bankruptcy.

Unlike FTX, which was a private company and operated in the
Bahamas, both Coinbase, the U.S. crypto exchange, and Robinhood, a
discount brokerage that also trades crypto, are both US-based
companies and are publicly traded, thus are forced to meet SEC
disclosure requirements.

Grady contends, however, that by facilitating transactions in
digital coins that are essentially unregistered securities, the
exchanges are in fact key players in violating securities laws.

Grady, has been practicing securities law for four decades, making
a name for himself by representing retail investors who have been
exploited by Wall Street firms. He is currently the Chairman of the
Florida State Board of Education and previously served as
Commissioner of the Florida Office of Financial Regulation.

Crypto has not been the subject of many class action lawsuits
because most retail investors believe digital assets do not
constitute securities, but rather currencies like the dollar.
However, Grady's potential litigation could open the door for more
lawsuits against crypto firms while the debate over classification
continues to play out in Washington.

Grady, like Gensler, believes the vast majority of crypto tokens
are unregistered securities so, by offering them as investments to
clients, the exchanges are violating both state and federal
securities laws.

"This is another example of excessive litigation being created and
encouraged by a lack of regulatory clarity in the United States
regarding digital assets," says lawyer John Deaton who's acting as
amicus curiae in the SEC vs. Ripple lawsuit. "When you have
regulatory uncertainty coupled with an anti-crypto campaign by
regulators it creates a litigation hotbed. Whether it be white shoe
defense firms representing companies being attacked by the SEC's
regulation by enforcement policy, or bankruptcy lawyers, or, in
this case, class action plaintiff's lawyers, we will continue to
see litigation chaos in the United States, further driving
innovation abroad." [GN]

COLONIAL PENN: Kelley Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THURMA J. KELLEY,
Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. COLONIAL PENN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-03348-FLA-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

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

      The Class

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

      The Elder Abuse Sub-Class

      "All members of the Class defined above who were also 65
      years or older at the time the policy lapsed or
      terminated."

   2. appointing Plaintiff Thurma J. Kelley as the Class
      Representative; and

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

In this action, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to
comply with California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and
10113.72.

Colonial Penn is an American life insurance company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 24,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ym8Au7
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

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

COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Theft System
------------------------------------------------------------
Sander Gusinow of Oregon Business reports that Plaintiffs say
CommonSpirit, which owns hospitals in Roseburg and Pendleton,
withheld worker's wages after an October ransomware attack.

Members of the Oregon Nurses Association have filed a class action
lawsuit against CommonSpirit Health, alleging the company illegally
withheld wages for workers at its hospitals in Roseburg and
Pendleton.

In October of 2022, CommonSpirit was the target of a cyberattack,
which compromised 623,700 patients' personal health information and
shut down hospital IT systems, including the electronic timekeeping
systems which register employees' time spent on the job.

The lawsuit alleges that in the pay periods following the outage,
the health care company significantly underpaid many nurses and
other health workers, all while claiming it had been overpaying
certain workers. According to the plaintiffs, CommonSpirit provided
no proof of its alleged overpayments, and withheld workers'
earnings from future paychecks.

As a result, nurses took home less pay than they earned in that
period, according to a press release from the Oregon Nurses
Association announcing the legal action. One Mercy Medical Center
nurse was paid $0 after working 67 hours in a pay period, according
to the announcement. The ONA also claims CommonSpirit told multiple
nurses they owe the company more than $2,000 each, but did not
provide any documentation or evidence.

Kevin Mealy, communications manager for the ONA, tells Oregon
Business over email that the union has been asking CommonSpirit to
address the payment discrepancy since October 2022. Mealy says the
health care company has repeatedly cancelled meetings and refused
to negotiate solutions to its paycheck problems. He says it has
issued some pay corrections, but that the corrections are often
wrong -- creating more problems and confusion.

"CommonSpirit recently agreed to send worksheets showing how it
calculates nurses' hours and pay. It sent worksheets for only two
of the 400+ nurses affected. Both were wrong," writes Mealy. "After
five months of CommonSpirit's failures and inaccurate pay, nurses
have no choice but to pursue legal action to ensure nurses and
health care workers are paid what they're owed."

Mealy says members of his organization have had to take second jobs
because they can't count on CommonSpirit to pay them correctly. He
adds other workers have sold their cars, canceled family events,
and missed mortgage payments.

"I clock in with the expectation that I'm going to get paid for my
work, my experience, my education," Mercy Medical Center nurse
LaRae Ernst told Roseburg's News-Review in December 2022. Ernst
says CommonSpirit initially overpaid her in October 2022, but
overcorrected by withholding thousands of dollars from her
paychecks before asking her to pay back twice the amount of the
original overpayment, or risk being sent to collections. She says
the hospital's actions caused her to cancel her daughter's birthday
party.

"It broke my heart to look my daughter in the eye and tell her she
wasn't going to get her party. That's when I decided I wasn't going
to be quiet any more about this," Ernst.

The suit seeks to recover unpaid wages and damages owed to all
workers at CommonSpirit facilities in Oregon.

This is the second class action lawsuit against CommonSpirit filed
this year. The first was also related to the cyberattack: in
January patients filed a class action suit alleging the company did
not take sufficient measures to protect their data from attack.

In December, more than 370 ONA nurses and health care workers at
Mercy Medical Center and St. Anthony Hospital delivered a signed
petition to hospital management demanding CommonSpirit provide
documentation of alleged overpayments. Workers also met with
hospital management to ask for an independent audit but the company
declined, according to ONA.

CommonSpirit did not respond to a request for comment. The company
is the country's third largest hospital and health care system,
owning 140 hospitals and over 1,500 other health care sites in 21
states. ONA represents over 500 registered nurses and allied health
care workers at CommonSpirit-owned Mercy Medical Center in Roseburg
and St. Anthony Hospital in Pendleton. [GN]

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by April 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALEB PADILLA,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., WAYNE T. SMITH, LARRY CASH, and
THOMAS J. AARON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00461 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara D. Holmes entered a third modified case management
order as follows:

  a. The Plaintiffs must file their         April 5, 2023
     motion for class certification by
     no later than:

  b. The Defendants' response to the        June 5, 2023
     motion must be filed by no later
     than:

  c. The Plaintiffs may file an optional    July 20, 2023
     reply by no later than:

Community Health owns, leases, and operates hospitals.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kKBPt0 at no extra charge.[CC]

DIVERSEY HOLDINGS: M&A Firm Continues Solenis Merger Investigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Diversey Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ: DSEY), relating to its proposed
sale to Solenis. Under the terms of the agreement DSEY shareholders
are expected to receive $8.40 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/diversey-holdings-ltd. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

               About Monteverde & Associates

Monteverde & Associates PC are a national class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors
and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates
lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super
Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and
2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a
particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell
as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes
include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the
standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in
the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this
victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years
the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.[GN]

DOMO INC: Court of Appeals Dismissed Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
wsgr.com reports that on March 9, 2023, the Utah Court of Appeals
affirmed an April 2021 ruling by the Fourth Judicial District Court
of the State of Utah, which dismissed a securities class action
filed against Domo, its CEO, its CFO, certain members of its board
of directors, and underwriters involved in its IPO.  Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati represented the Domo defendants. ​

The Utah complaint alleged that the Domo defendants misled
investors by making false and misleading statements in Domo's
registration statement and prospectus in connection with its IPO in
violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act.
Domo's bylaws required any Securities Act claims by shareholders to
be pursued in federal court, rather than state court.

The district court dismissed the complaint for improper venue,
ruling that Domo's federal forum provision bylaw, as upheld by the
Delaware Supreme Court, required the plaintiff to pursue Securities
Act claims in federal court. The court of appeals agreed and ruled
in favor of Domo and the other defendants on all six arguments
brought by the plaintiff.

The victory follows the firm's recent appellate wins on this issue
in Sciabacucchi in Delaware and Dropbox in California.  The firm
has now won cases on this issue in the Delaware Supreme Court, the
California Court of Appeal, and the Utah Court of Appeals.

The Wilson Sonsini team that represented the Domo defendants
included partners Ignacio Salceda, Greg Watts (who argued the
case), and Steffen Johnson; Of Counsel Stephanie Jensen; and
associates Shanna Lehrman and Tyre Tindall, as well as paralegals
Diana Lopez and Naomi Pierce and legal secretaries Rosanna Carter
and Yu-Shan Sheard. [GN]

DONOTPAY INC: Practices Law Without License, Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Merken of Reuters reports that DoNotPay Inc, which says it
uses artificial intelligence to help consumers and bills itself as
"the world's first robot lawyer," is facing a new lawsuit from a
prominent plaintiffs' law firm that says the company is practicing
law without a license.

DoNotPay "is not actually a robot, a lawyer, nor a law firm,"
Chicago-based law firm Edelson said in a proposed class action in
San Francisco state court dated March 3 and posted to the court's
public website March 9, 2023.

Edelson filed the case on behalf of California resident Jonathan
Faridian, who said he used San Francisco-based DoNotPay to draft
demand letters, a small claims court filing and LLC operating
agreements and got "substandard and poorly done" results.

DoNotPay CEO Joshua Browder fired back on March 9,2023 on Twitter,
saying the claims have "no merit" and that Faridian has "had dozens
of successful consumer rights cases with DoNotPay."

Browder said Edelson founder Jay Edelson "inspired me to start
DoNotPay," claiming Edelson and lawyers like him enrich themselves
through class actions with little benefit to consumers.

Edelson responded in an email that Browder and DoNotPay are trying
to "distract from their misconduct in any way possible" and that
"the problem for them is that DoNotPay has scammed so many
people."

Browder founded DoNotPay in 2015 with a focus on tasks such as
fighting parking tickets, and it has expanded to include some legal
services, the lawsuit said.

The promise of generative artificial intelligence tools for
applications such as legal work has gained steam with the rise of
OpenAI's ChatGPT and other AI "chatbots" in recent months. DoNotPay
generated buzz earlier this year when Browder said on Twitter the
company had plans to use an AI chatbot to advise a defendant in
traffic court.

Browder also said his company would pay $1 million to anyone
willing to wear headphones and use its robot lawyer for an argument
before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Following criticism, he later said on Twitter that he had received
"threats from State Bar prosecutors" and DoNotPay would postpone
its traffic court case.

He also said in the January tweet that DoNotPay would immediately
remove "non-consumer legal rights products." According to the
lawsuit, those products are still available on its website.

The lawsuit said DoNotPay violated California's unfair competition
law by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. It seeks a
court order declaring the company's conduct unlawful and
unspecified damages.

The case is Faridian v. DoNotPay Inc, Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Francisco, No. CGC-23-604987.
[GN]

EVOQUA WATER: M&A Firm Continues Xylem Merger Investigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. (NYSE: AQUA), relating to its
proposed acquisition by Xylem Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, AQUA shareholders are expected to receive 0.480 shares
of Xylem per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/evoqua-water-technologies-corp.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

                 About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super
Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and
2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a
particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell
as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes
include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the
standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in
the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this
victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years
the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.[GN]

EXPRESS LIEN: March 29 Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRACE L. WILLIAMS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. EXPRESS
LIEN, INC. dba Levelset, Case No. 1:21-cv-04611-TWT-LTW (N.D. Ga.),
the Parties jointly request that the deadline for the filing of the
motion for class certification or other appropriate motion
(including a motion to remand) shall be extended for a period of 30
days through and including March 29, 2023.

On November 29, 2022, the Court entered an Order directing the
Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification within 90
days. That deadline is set to expire on February 27, 2023.

The parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve this class
action at mediation, and since that time, the parties have been
diligently working on the settlement agreement and are very close
to finalizing an agreement specific as to all terms. However, the
parties are still working diligently to resolve and secure
approvals of some specifics as to the class settlement agreement.
The parties are in agreement that they need more time to come to a
full agreement as to the few remaining terms of the settlement
agreement.

The current draft settlement agreement envisions that the parties
will file a joint motion for remand to the State Court of Cobb
County, and that the class settlement would be subject to the
approval and administration in that Court.

Express Lien is a company that develops a construction payment
platform.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JeUw17 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kris Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE , LLP
          133 Mirramont Lake Drive
          Woodstock, GA 30189
          Telephone: (770) 427-5600
          Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
          E-mail: kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David J. Forestner, Esq.
          JONES WALKER LLP
          1360 Peachtree Street NE Suite 1030
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: 404-870-7500
          E-mail: dforestner@joneswalker.com

FOX REHABILITATION: Court Finds for Conner on TCPA Claims Only
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN A. CONNER DPM, P.C., Plaintiff v. FOX
REHABILITATION SERVICES, P.C., Defendant, Civil Action No.
2:21-cv-1580-MMB (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania finds for
the Plaintiff only on claims under the Telecommunications and
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Dr. Conner filed the lawsuit as a class action on April 2, 2021;
Fox filed its answer on July 10, 2021. On May 11, 2022, Conner
filed a motion to certify a class. Fox followed by filing a motion
for summary judgment on July 6, 2022.

On Sept. 6, 2022, the Court denied class certification and Fox's
motion for summary judgment.

Regarding class certification, the Court found that Conner could
not sufficiently establish ascertainability because OpenFax's fax
transmission lists "do not reliably capture fax transmission
information," resulting in the class' failure to be currently
ascertainable. It also found that Conner's class lacked
predominance because it was an open question as to whether members
of the putative class had consented to receiving faxes from Fox,
which would serve as a complete defense to TCPA liability. As for
Fox's summary judgment motion, the Court denied the motion because
the language within the four corners of the faxes could lead a
reasonable factfinder to conclude they were promotional.

Conner sought an interlocutory appeal on the Court's decision
regarding certification, which was denied by the Third Circuit.

On Oct. 19, 2022, the Court set a non-jury trial date for Jan. 23,
2023. On Nov. 29, 2022, Conner filed its own motion for summary
judgment. On Jan. 18, 2023, the Court held a telephonic final
pretrial conference with the parties during which the Court denied
Conner's summary judgment motion without a memorandum decision
given the clear existence of genuine disputes of material fact.

A three-day non-jury trial was held before the Court in January
2023 on claims brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant. At
issue was whether eight faxes that Dr. Conner's practice received
from Fox during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020
were illegal junk faxes under the TCPA.

Over the course of the trial, the Court heard testimony from
several fact witnesses including the Plaintiff, three
representatives of the Defendant, and two office managers unrelated
to the Plaintiff who testified to having also received the faxes
and who were putative class members before the Court denied class
certification in September 2022. Because Fox had stipulated to
having sent the eight faxes, the primary issue at trial was whether
Fox's faxes constituted "unsolicited advertisements," a necessary
requirement for liability under the statute.

Pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Baylson makes the findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The Court must decide -- for each of the eight faxes that Fox has
stipulated to having sent to Dr. Conner and which Dr. Conner
credibly testified he received on his fax machine at his practice
-- whether the fax advertises the commercial availability or
quality of any property, goods, or services. If the fax fits this
definition, which is the TCPA's definition of an advertisement
subject to liability, the Court must then decide whether a
statutory exception applies, such as the established business
relationship exception, or a rule of reason exception.

The Court must also decide whether the First Amendment protects Fox
from liability. If no exception or protection applies, he must then
decide whether Fox "willfully or knowingly" sent unsolicited
advertisements to Dr. Conner, which would give the Court discretion
to award treble damages. Finally, it must dispose of Dr. Conner's
state law claims for common law conversion.

Judge Baylson examines the main question at hand: are Fox's faxes
in fact advertisements? Fox argues that its faxes all contain
information, not advertisements, based on the need to "get the word
out" to providers that, during a time where the national healthcare
as all knew it was cast into disarray, Fox was open for business
and had adapted its services to the challenges of the pandemic.
However, it is clear that all eight faxes are promoting Fox's
services in a way that suggests more so Fox is trying to secure
referrals from providers. The faxes tout a specific "model" of care
used by Fox and which Fox describes as high quality and unique.
While the faxes certainly describe capabilities of Fox's services
as they pertain to dealing with the challenges of COVID, that is
still a promotion of quality and not solely and informational
exercise.

Fax #1 comes closest to the "informational" fax that Fox argues
for. It is a long, letter-style message recognizing the pandemic
and its effects on the healthcare industry, while seeking to assure
recipients that Fox is still open for business and committed to its
patients.

Judge Baylson holds that there is an embedded profit motive to gain
referrals from past providers, because the more referrals Fox
receives the more revenue they are hoping to receive from the
patients' insurance. Therefore, Fax #1 is an advertisement.

Fax #2, and the other seven after it, are much more easily
identified as advertisements. While the pandemic is the subject of
the fax given the header, the substance of the fax promotes the
proprietary "Fox Model" for treatment of patients and several other
qualities of service. Fox's phone number and website are also
provided. For these reasons, Fax #2 is an advertisement under the
TCPA.

As the fax before it, Judge Baylson says Fax #3 describes the level
of quality of Fox's proprietary services. By stating that Fox's
"Geriatric House Calls(TM)" model, the fax makes an important
distinction between its services and other comparable services
while highlighting the quality of its own. Because the fax promotes
the quality of Fox's services near the top of the fax, Fax #3 is an
advertisement.

Fax #4 contains nearly identical substance to Fax #3, except that
where Fax #3 contains a section on medication compliancy, Fax #4
contains a section on coping with anxiety due to the pandemic. For
the same reasons, however, Fax #4 is an advertisement.

Fax #5 follows the same format as Faxes #3 and #4 but contains a
section on occupational therapy and safety. It also contains an
option to unsubscribe from "future communications like this," as do
the following three Fox faxes. For the same reasons, Fax #5 is an
advertisement.

For the same reasons, Judge Baylson finds Fax #6 an advertisement.
He notes that the middle section of Fax #6, which addresses
"Cognition and Safety At Home," contains educational material and
recites an anecdote without mentioning Fox's proprietary services.
This section does not promote commercial quality or availability.
If the fax merely consisted of that section alone, it would not be
an advertisement.

For the same reasons, Fax #7 and Fax #8 are advertisements.

Next, Judge Baylson examines whether the faxes fall under any
exceptions to liability if they violated the TCPA. Fox appeared to
suggest through its questioning of Dr. Conner at trial that a
pre-existing business relationship existed between Fox and Conner
prior to the sending of the faxes. It argues that the TCPA is
unconstitutional under the First Amendment because its prohibition
is "overly broad" and sweeps in non-commercial speech. Judge
Baylson Judge Baylson rejects Fox's First Amendment argument and
finds that the TCPA's junk fax prohibitions are constitutional.

Judge Baylson then turns to whether Conner is entitled to treble
damages if the faxes violated the TCPA. On the facts as elicited at
trial, he finds that Conner has not established that Fox acted
willfully or knowingly, and that Fox's witnesses were credible when
they testified that their intent was to inform their past referral
providers of their additional COVID capabilities, not to gain
referrals in spite of TCPA restrictions.

As to whether Conner entitled to damages on his conversion claim,
Judge Baylson holds that although the facts show that Fox sent junk
faxes to Dr. Conner's fax machine, he cannot find that this was
"serious" interference and thus rules for Fox on the conversion
claims.

Based on the findings of facts and reasoning, Judge Baylson finds
for the Plaintiff on its TCPA claims only. An appropriate order
follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2023 Memorandum of
Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/ys5yc7m3 from
Leagle.com.


GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert Reply Brief Deadline Extended
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTATE OF WILLIAM D.
PILGRIM, et al. individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-10562-TGB-DRG
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Terrence G. Berg entered an order
extending certain deadlines for expert disclosures and class
certification briefing deadlines and hearing date:

  -- General Motors' Deadline to serve Rule 26(A)(2) Expert
     Disclosures is continued from the current date of February
     24, 2023 to the new date of March 17, 2023.

  -- General Motors' Deadline to file its Response to
     Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is continued
     from the current date of February 24, 2023 to the new date
     of March 17, 2023.

  -- The Plaintiffs' Deadline to file any Reply Brief in Support
     of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is continued
     from the current date of March 24, 2023 to the new date of
     April 14, 2023.

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EZa7j2 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          April N. Ross, Esq.
          Andrew Holmer, Esq.
          Mohamed Awan, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 624-2500
          Facsimile: (202) 628-5116
          E-mail: aross@crowell.com
                  aholmer@crowell.com

                - and -

          Michael P. Cooney, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          400 Renaissance Center
          Detroit, MI 28243
          Telephone: (313) 568-6800
          Facsimile: (855) 256-1478
          E-mail: mcooney@dykema.com

                - and -

          Krista L. Lenart, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          2723 South State Street, Suite 400
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 214-7660
          Facsimile: (855) 270-4597
          E-mail: klenart@dykema.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          André E. Jardini, Esq.
          K.L. Myles, Esq.
          Michael D. Carr, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
                  klm@kpclegal.com
                  mdc@kpclegal.com

                - and -

          David M. Honigman, Esq.
          Douglas L. Toering, Esq.
          Kenneth Chadwell, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          Facsimile: (248) 457-9201
          E-mail: dhonigman@manteselaw.com
                  dtoering@manteselaw.com
                  Kchadwell@manteselaw.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Hampton Seeks to Certify Class of Chevy Owners
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DURWIN HAMPTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-00250-RAW (E.D. Okla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class
defined as:

   "All current owners or lessees of a 2011-2014 Chevrolet
   Avalanche, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Silverado, 2011-2014 Chevrolet
   Suburban, 2011-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2011-2014 GMC Sierra,
   2011-2014 GMC Yukon, and 2011-2014 GMC Yukon XL manufactured
   on or after February 10, 2011 that was equipped with a
   Generation IV 5.3-liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engine that was
   purchased or leased in the State of Oklahoma.

For Plaintiff's express warranty claim, the Plaintiff moves for
certification of a class defined as:

   "All current owners or lessees of a 2012-2014 Chevrolet
   Avalanche, 2012-2014 Chevrolet Silverado, 2012-2014 Chevrolet
   Suburban, 2012-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2012-2014 GMC Sierra,
   2012-2014 GMC Yukon, and 2012-2014 GMC Yukon XL manufactured
   on or after February 10, 2011 that was equipped with a
   Generation IV 5.3-liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engine that was
   purchased or leased in the State of Oklahoma."

The Plaintiff further moves the Court for appointment as Class
Representative.

The Plaintiff also moves, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, for the appointment of Levinson, Smith &
Huffman, PC, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.,
and DiCello Levitt LLC as Class Counsel.

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IS93yD at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan M. McLemore, Esq.
          LEVINSON, SMITH & HUFFMAN, PC
          1743 East 71st Street
          Tulsa, OK 74136
          Telephone: (918) 492-4433
          E-mail: evan.mclemore@lsh-law-firm.com

                - and -

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III, Esq.
          H. Clay Barnett III, Esq.
          J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
          PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          272 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
                  clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com
                  mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com

                - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                  jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
                  dferri@dicellolevitt.com


GSX TECHEDU: New Jersey Court Dismisses Wu's Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WU, et al., Plaintiffs v. GSX TECHEDU INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-4457 (ES) (JRA) (D.N.J.), Judge
Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey grants the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section
78j(b), implemented by SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5
and 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), respectively, against Defendants GSX
Techedu Inc., Shannon "Nan" Shen, and Larry Xiangdong Chen.

The putative securities class action is brought by investors who
purchased stock in GSX between June 6, 2019, and Oct. 20, 2020. The
Lead Plaintiffs are investors Yang Renbin, Robert Angeline, Corey
Hays, and Alexandre Tazi. GSX is a Chinese education company that
specializes in online coursework and tutoring for students in
grades K-12. Chen is the founder and CEO of GSX and Shen has been
the CFO of GSX since December 2018.

Generally, the Plaintiffs allege that GSX fabricated most of its
enrollment figures and, thus, committed fraud by inflating its
revenue and misstating other financial information throughout the
Class Period. Their case rests on the assertion that at least 70%
of GSX's students are "bots," that is, fake internet personalities
used to boost GSX's enrollment figures. The Plaintiffs allege that
the use of bots and "brushing" to falsify student enrollment
figures is pervasive throughout GSX—including by GSX's
instructors and tutors, GSX's employees, third-party companies, and
GSX's subsidiaries.

The Plaintiffs further allege that because enrollment figures
accounted for over 80% of GSX's revenue, at least 50% of GSX's
revenue during the Class Period was also falsified. And according
to them, GSX's upper management either knew that their Company was
mostly fake, or were so astoundingly reckless in not knowing that
their recklessness amounts to scienter. The Plaintiffs' allegations
are drawn from a number of sources, including an expert they
retained, interviews with confidential witnesses, reports issued by
short-sellers -- including Grizzly Research LLC, Citron Research,
and Muddy Waters Capital LLC (collectively, the "short-seller
reports") -- and the Defendants' denials of the short-seller
reports.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants made a series of
statements that were false or misleading based on the fraudulent
scheme outlined above. Specifically, they allege that GSX
repeatedly overstated the size of the growth in its student
enrollment figures and its revenues and profits. They additionally
allege that the Defendants misstated GSX's teachers'
qualifications, its process for hiring instructors and tutors, its
related-party transactions, and the reasons for differences in its
filings with the United States' Securities Exchange Commission
("SEC") and China's State Administration for Industry and Commerce
("SAIC"), and that the Defendants falsely denied the allegations of
the short-seller reports.

The Plaintiffs cite to 19 different sources containing alleged
misstatements, including the Defendants' SEC forms as well as
statements made by the Individual Defendants on teleconference
calls and on the internet during the Class Period to support their
securities claims. These statements correspond to eleven categories
of alleged misrepresentations.

According to the Plaintiffs, based on its known or reckless
misrepresentations about its student enrollment, revenue and profit
figures, GSX exploded in market capitalization from around $6
billion to over $30 billion in only 2.5 months. However, as the
truth about GSX's fraud emerged over a series of disclosures, GSX's
share price has fallen dramatically, resulting in losses to the
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs initiated the action on April 17, 2020. On Nov. 2,
2020, they filed their Amended Complaint, bringing claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. On Feb. 7, 2022, the Defendants filed the instant
motion to dismiss, which was fully briefed. On Dec. 16, 2022, the
Court held oral argument on the motion.

The Plaintiffs identify 11 categories of alleged misrepresentations
or omissions -- or reasons why the Defendants' statements were
false or misleading:

     a. Categories (i) to (ii): Hiring Process and Salary for
Instructors and Tutors.

     b. Category (iii): GSX's Contracts with Subsidiaries.

     c. Category (iv): GSX's Filings with the SAIC and the SEC.

     d. Category (v): GSX's Denial of the Grizzly Report.

     e. Categories (vi) to (xi): GSX's Revenues and Profits.

Judge Salas finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately
plead the material misrepresentation or omission element of their
Section 10(b) claims as to categories (i) through (v) of alleged
material misrepresentations. The Amended Complaint is devoid of any
additional facts about the alleged misstatements by GSX, including
the context in which the statement was made, who specifically made
the statement, or where the statement was published. And the
parties do not specifically address the alleged misstatements.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim predicated on
category (v) of alleged misrepresentations is dismissed.

Judge Salas further finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
adequately plead the scienter element as to categories (vi) through
(xi) of alleged material misrepresentations. Assessing the
allegations of the Amended Complaint holistically, he finds that
the inference that the Individual Defendants acted with scienter
when making the statements alleged to be misleading for the reasons
outlined in categories (vi) through (xi) of alleged
misrepresentations is not at least as cogent or compelling than the
inference of non-fraudulent intent.

Because the Plaintiffs have not proffered sufficient particularized
allegations to support the inference that the Defendants knew or
should have known that their statements regarding GSX's revenue,
success, and other financial metrics or their denials of the
short-seller reports were false or misleading, the Plaintiffs'
Section 10(b) claims predicated on categories (vi) through (xi) of
alleged misrepresentations are dismissed.

As such, the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claims are dismissed.

Because he has dismissed all of the categories of alleged
misrepresentations, Judge Salas need not address whether the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled loss causation. In the interest
of streamlining the process for any future amended complaint, he
notes that he is not convinced (i) that the Plaintiffs have
identified at least one corrective disclosure that revealed to the
market each of the eleven categories of alleged misrepresentations
or (ii) that all 12 alleged corrective disclosures are sufficiently
pled as such.

Lastly, the Plaintiffs bring a Section 20(a) claim against Chen and
Shen. Because the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims are derivative
of their Section 10(b) claims and because Judge Salas dismisses the
Section 10(b) claims, the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims against
these Defendants cannot survive. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
Section 20(a) claims against Chen and Shen are dismissed.

In sum, Judge Salas opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to
adequately plead a material misrepresentation or omission as to
categories (i) through (v) of alleged misrepresentations, and the
Plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead scienter as to
categories (vi) through (xi) of alleged misrepresentations. For the
foregoing reasons, he grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss and
dismisses the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint without prejudice. The
Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 60 days of the
decision. An appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/cz7kdjkf from Leagle.com.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline Extended to July 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY HOWARD, ADINA
RINGLER, and TRECEE ARTIS on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-00527-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered
an order granting stipulation to extend briefing schedule for the
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class:

         Event                      Current         Proposed  
                                    Deadline        Deadline

  Motion for Class               Apr. 6, 2023     Jul. 7, 2023
  Certification & Plaintiff's
  Disclosure of Class
  Certification Experts

  Opposition to Motion for       May 26, 2023     Aug. 18, 2023
  Class Certification and
  Defendant's Disclosure of
  Class Certification Experts
  and Rebuttal Experts

  Reply in Support of Motion    Jun. 29, 2023     Sep. 29, 2023
  for Class Certification
  and Plaintiff's Rebuttal
  Experts on Certification

  Hearing on Motion for         Jul. 13, 2023     Oct. 19, 2023
  Class Certification

Hain Celestial is an American food company whose main focus is
natural foods and botanically-based personal care products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SQeBOw at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
          Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  marie@gutridesafier.com
                  hayley@gutridesafier.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexander M. Smith, Esq.
          Dean N. Panos, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-2262
          Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
          E-mail: asmith@jenner.com
                  dpanos@jenner.com

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Filing of Class Status Bid Due Oct. 16
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX STORY, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00724-TJC-JBT
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Corrigan entered a third
amended phase one case management and scheduling order as follows:

-- Deadline for disclosing expert
    reports:

                           Plaintiff:        May 4, 2023

                           Defendant:        July 13, 2023

                           Rebuttal:         August 10, 2023

-- Deadline for all other discovery,        May 17, 2023
    including the filing of motions to
    compel, as previously set:

-- Deadline to complete expert              Sept. 27, 2023
    depositions.

-- Deadline for moving for class            Oct. 16, 2023
    certification.

-- Deadline for Defendant to respond        Nov. 20, 2023
    to motion for class certification:

Heartland is a U.S.-based payment processing and technology
provider.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ygoBai at no extra charge.[CC]

HONEY POT: Feminine Care Foaming Washes "Unsafe," Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi at classaction.org reports that a proposed class
action alleges the Honey Pot Company's feminine care foaming washes
are unsafe for their advertised intended use.

In particular, the 31-page lawsuit says Honey Pot's foaming washes
are not suitable to use on the vulva in light of the medical
community's "adamant" stance that "women should only use water" for
cleaning, and that "feminine care washes are harmful to women's
health."

Accordingly, Honey Pot's Normal Wash, Sensitive Wash, Cucumber Aloe
Wash and Bergamot Rose Foaming Wash, which the company affirms
should be part of a consumer's cleaning "routine," are falsely and
misleadingly advertised and labeled given that they're "not safe
for vulvar use, let alone on a daily basis," the complaint
contends.

Broader, the complaint summarizes that although the feminine
hygiene market "preys on the notion that women need a product to
make their vaginas and vulvas 'clean' or smell a certain way,"
medical experts stress that such products are not only
"unnecessary" but can release harmful, disruptive chemicals.

"Despite Defendant's claim that the Products 'support[] a balanced
pH range,' gynecologists urge women not to use any feminine care
washes because they can 'alter[] the normal eco-system [(i.e., pH
balance)] and can allow growth of [bad] bacteria and yeast.'"

Per the case, Honey Pot's feminine care foaming washes are touted
as able to "boost moisture and soothe while gently cleansing [a
woman's] most delicate parts." Reasonable consumers who view the
products' labels would believe that the items are "suitable for
vulvar cleansing," the filing says.

According to the suit, the vagina is a "delicate environment" that
is "constantly working to stay lubricated, maintain its pH balance,
and keep good versus bad bacteria in check." The female anatomy is
essentially "self-cleaning" via discharge from the uterus, cervix
and vagina, which has its own natural microbiome that "helps
regulate the vaginal pH and ward off health problems," the filing
says.

The lawsuit stresses that because female sex organs self-clean,
"gynecologists, health agencies, medical schools, and medical
associations all advise women to only use plain warm water to clean
the vagina and vulva."

"Not only is soap unnecessary to maintain a clean vulva and vagina,
but introducing chemicals (e.g., through soap) to such a delicate
system is hazardous. The vagina and portions of the vulva are
mucous membranes and thus are capable of secreting and absorbing
fluids at a higher rate than regular skin. Researchers have even
explored the possibility of delivering drugs vaginally because of
the organ's ability to rapidly absorb chemicals without
metabolizing them. However, although rapid absorption may be
helpful when administering medication, it poses serious issues when
a woman's vagina and vulva are exposed to harmful chemicals."

Simply put, the case stresses, the medical community warns that
using soap can cause irritation or other health issues, including
vaginitis, bacterial infections, yeast infections or other
diseases.

According to the case, the plaintiff and proposed class members,
"[a]t best," would not have paid as much for Honey Pot's foaming
feminine care washes in the absence of the company's
misrepresentations concerning the items' suitability for vulvar
use.

"At worst," the lawsuit says, "Plaintiff and other Class Members
would not have purchased the Products at all but for Defendant's
misrepresentations and omissions because the Products are not only
dangerous, they are unnecessary and therefore worthless."

The case looks to cover all persons in the United States who bought
Honey Pot's feminine care foaming washes within the applicable
statute of limitations period. [GN]

IMPERIAL METALS: Securities Class Suit Settlement Hearing on May 11
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Garett Hunter of MarketScreener reports that the Court will be
asked to approve the proposed settlement and the lawyers' fees,
disbursements, expenses and taxes at a hearing to be held on May
11, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. at the courthouse located at 330 University
Avenue, Toronto. The lawyers for the Class will ask the Court to
approve legal fees of 25% percent of $6 million which is $1.5
million, plus disbursements and taxes.

On August 7, 2014, a proposed class action was commenced in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Action"). The Plaintiff
alleges that Imperial Metals Corporation's continuous disclosure
documents contained misrepresentations at law and within the
meaning of Part XXIIII.1 of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5
and, if necessary, the other provincial and territorial securities
legislation from August 15, 2011 through to August 4, 2014,
inclusive, by failing to disclose the adverse conditions at
Imperial Metals Corporation's tailings storage facility at the
Mount Polley mine.

The parties have reached a proposed settlement of the Action,
without an admission of liability by the Defendants, subject to the
approval by the Court. This notice provides a summary of the
proposed settlement.

On February 7, 2023, the action was certified on consent for
settlement purposes. The certified class includes persons, other
than Excluded Persons, who acquired Imperial Metals Corporation's
securities from August 15, 2011 through to August 4, 2014,
inclusive, and continued to hold some or all of those securities as
of August 5, 2014.

The persons included in the class are entitled to participate in
the settlement.

THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

The Imperial Defendants will pay $6 million, in full and final
settlement of all claims against the Defendants. The $6 million,
less the lawyers' fees, disbursements and taxes, honorarium, and
the costs of administration of the settlement will be distributed
to the Class in accordance with a plan of allocation. The
Settlement Agreement may be viewed at
www.imperialmetalsclassaction.com and
https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/imperial-metals-corporation/.

THE APPROVAL HEARING

The Court will be asked to approve the proposed settlement and the
lawyers' fees, disbursements, expenses and taxes at a hearing to be
held on May 11, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. at the courthouse located at 330
University Avenue, Toronto. The lawyers for the Class will ask the
Court to approve legal fees of 25% percent of $6 million which is
$1.5 million, plus disbursements and taxes.

OBJECTIONS

Class Members who do not oppose the proposed settlement are not
required to appear at the hearing or take any other action at this
time to indicate their desire to participate in the proposed
settlement. Class Members who consider it desirable or necessary to
seek the advice and guidance of their own lawyers may do so at
their own expense.

At the approval hearing, the Court will consider an objection to
the proposed settlement by a Class Member if the objection is
submitted in writing, by prepaid mail or e-mail to the
Administrator: Imperial Metals Class Action, c/o RicePoint
Administration Inc., P.O. Box 3355, London, ON N6A 4K3, Email:
imperialmetals@ricepoint.com. Class Members who wish to object must
do so before April 21, 2023.

A written objection can be submitted in English or French and must
include the following information:

(a) the objector's full name, current mailing address, telephone
number, fax number and email address (as may be available);

(b) a statement that the Class Member acquired Imperial Metals
Corporation's common shares, notes or other such securities from
August 15, 2011 through to August 4, 2014, inclusive, and continued
to hold some or all of those securities as of August 5, 2014;

(c) a brief statement of the nature of and reasons for the
objection; and

(d) the objector intends to appear at the Approval Hearing in
person or by counsel, and, if by counsel, the name, address,
telephone number, fax number and email address of counsel.

OPTING OUT FROM THE CLASS ACTION

If you are a Class Member, you will be bound by the outcome of the
Action, including the terms of the proposed settlement, if
approved, unless you opt out of the Action. Class Members who do
not opt out will (i) be entitled to participate in the settlement;
(ii) be bound by the terms of the settlement; and (iii) not be
permitted to bring other legal proceedings in relation to the
matters alleged in the Action against the Defendants, or any person
released by the approved settlement. Conversely, if you are a Class
Member who opts out of the Action (an "Opt Out Party"), you will
not be able to make a claim to receive compensation from the
proposed settlement but will maintain the right to pursue your own
claim against the Defendants relating to the matters alleged in the
Action.

If you are a Class Member and wish to opt out, you must submit a
written election ("Opt Out Election"), to the Administrator are the
mail or email address set out in the preceding section. Your Opt
Out Election must be postmarked or be sent via email by no later
than 11:59pm Toronto (Eastern) time on April 21, 2023 ("Opt Out
Deadline") to be valid.

To be valid, the Opt Out Election: (a) must contain a statement of
intention to opt out of the action by the Class Member or person
authorized to bind the Class Member; (b) a listing of all
transactions in Imperial Securities from and including August 15,
2011 to and including August 4, 2014 (the Class Period) showing,
for each transaction, the type of transaction (purchase or sale),
the number of Imperial securities purchased or sold and the date of
the transaction, and state the number of securities held at the
close of trading on the TSX on August 4, 2014; (c) the transactions
must be supported by documents to evidence such transactions, in
the form of trade confirmations, brokerage statements or other
transaction records allowing the Administrator to verify the
transactions; (d) must contain the name, address, telephone number
and email address of the Class Member; and (e) may, at the option
of the Class Member, contain a statement of the Class Member's
reason for opting out.

An Opt Out Election that does not contain all of the required
information or is postmarked or emailed after the Opt Out Deadline
will not be valid, which means that you will be bound by the
outcome of the Action, including the proposed settlement, if it is
approved.

You may revoke an Opt Out Election by delivering to the
Administrator by mail or courier a written statement that you wish
to revoke the Opt Out Election, which must be postmarked on or
before 11:59pm Toronto (Eastern) time on April 26, 2023.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances.

Mr Garett Hunter
Siskinds LLP
275 Dundas Street
Unit 1
London
Ontario N6B 3L1
CANADA
Tel: 519672 2121
Fax: 519672 6065
E-mail: paula.lombardi@siskinds.com
URL: www.siskinds.com/ [GN]

KELLI WILLARD: Schlemm Suit Seeks Initial Injunction Pending Trial
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID A. SCHLEMM, WILLIAM
E. WESO et al., v. KELLI WILLARD WEST, Case No. 3:21-cv-00745-wmc
(W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs' move the Court for a preliminary
injunction pending trial on the merits in the event the Court does
not grant summary judgment on all of their claims, and in the event
the Court does not grant summary judgment in all their claims, for
a permanent injunction pursuant to that judgment.

The Plaintiffs seek the following injunctive relief:

   a. Prohibiting the Defendant, and her agent from ever
      confiscating and seizing any material which belong to the
      Plaintiffs or forcing the Plaintiffs to dispose of such
      material that may fall into the category or definitions
      exhibited by the Newly Enacted DAY 309.61.02 complained of
      in the Plaintiffs' complaint; and

   b. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, for the appointment of a
class representing all prisoners in the Wisconsin Prison System
except those who expressly wish to "opt out."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IUoOVt at no extra
charge.[CC]



KEN PAXTON: Court Dismisses Fund Texas Suit
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FUND TEXAS CHOICE, et al.,
v. KEN PAXTON, in his official capacity of Attorney General, et
al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00859-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Robert
Pitman entered an order:

   1. granting Paxton's motion to dismiss;

   2. dismissing without prejudice Plaintiffs' claims against
      Paxton;

   3. dismissing without prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims under
      S.B. 8 and H.B. 1280 against the District and County
      Attorney; and

   4. partly granting the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
      injunction.

This case concerns several non-profit Texas abortion funds and one
physician who are suing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and a
proposed class of district and county attorneys, in their official
capacity, for alleged violations of their constitutional rights.

The Plaintiffs contend that statements made by Paxton and threats
from local prosecutors chill their First Amendment rights to speak
about and fund abortions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JpAYaJ at no extra charge.[CC]


KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL: M&A Firm Probes Proposed HNI Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Kimball International, Inc. (NASDAQ: KBAL), relating to its
proposed sale to HNI Corp. Under the terms of the agreement KBAL
shareholders are expected to receive $9.00 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/kimball-international-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

             About Monteverde & Associates PC

Monteverde & Associates PC are a national class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors
and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates
lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super
Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and
2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a
particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell
as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes
include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the
standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in
the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this
victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years
the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.[GN]

LE BAOBAB-GOUYGUI: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Le Baobab-Gouygui
Restaurant Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nana Queenie
Lawrence, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Le
Baobab-Gouygui Restaurant Inc., Baobab Gouygi II, Inc., 1235 Fulton
Street, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01608 (E.D.N.Y., March 1, 2023).

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

Le Baobab Gouygui is a warm, comfy locale restaurant presenting a
variety of classic African dishes, including lamb & fish
stews.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEDO PIZZA SYSTEM: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ledo Pizza System,
Inc. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Ledo Pizza System, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01605-EK-JRC (E.D.N.Y., March 1, 2023).

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

Ledo Pizza System, Inc. -- https://ledopizza.com/ -- offers a
family pizza tradition since 1955 and original maryland style pizza
and jumbo wings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LITIGATION PRACTICE: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by March 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beech v. Litigation
Practice Group, PC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00057 (S.D. Miss.), the Hon.
Judge Halil S. Ozerden entered an order granting unopposed
Litigation Practice's motion for extension of time to file response
to the Plaintiff Carolyn Beech's motion for class certification.

  -- The Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion is now
     due on or before March 24, 2023.

The nature of suit states other statutes -- other statutory
actions.[CC]


LIVE NATION: Antirust Suit of Taylor Swift Fans Sent to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Rubin, Esq., of MoginRubin, in an article for The National
Law Review, reports that live music fans have been dealt another
setback in their war on ticket prices. The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court
of Appeals has upheld a mandatory arbitration provision between
fans of pop icon Taylor Swift and Live Nation Entertainment and its
subsidiary, Ticketmaster, LLC, dismissing their proposed class
action. Swifties, as her fans are known, had filed suit against the
concert giant for allegedly using its market power to charge
supra-competitive fees for tickets to the artist's concerts
(Oberstein v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., 9th Cir., No.
21-56200, C.D. Calif., No. 2:20-cv-03888-GW-GJS).

The court affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California which granted Live Nation's motion
to enforce an arbitration provision and class action waiver
contained in the terms of use posted on the ticketing website. The
ticket purchasers appealed claiming the arbitration provision was
invalid because the companies failed to identify themselves and the
arbitration provision was unenforceable because it failed to
provide adequate notice of the agreement under California and
Massachusetts law (which the court found to be effectively
similar).

The Federal Arbitration Act requires disputes to be arbitrated if a
valid arbitration agreement exists. The act limits a court's review
to whether a valid agreement exists and, if so, whether the
agreement encompasses the dispute at issue. In other words, the act
precludes a court from ruling on substantive matters.

[Note: The Oberstein case is separate from a new suit we recently
discussed - Sterioff v. Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster
(No. 2:22-cv-9230, C.D. Calif., Western Div.) - brought on behalf
of 11.6 million Swift fans who were denied tickets to the
performer's 2023 "The Eras Tour." Undaunted by the companies'
string of court victories, the fans sued them for violating
antitrust laws. The Oberstein opinion was handed down on Feb. 13.
Eleven days later, the companies moved to dismiss or stay the
Sterioff case on the same grounds. No ruling yet.]

Failure to Identify
For a contract to be binding in California, the parties must be
identifiable. The ticket purchasers argued that Live Nation and
Ticketmaster failed to do so, but the Ninth Circuit summarily
rejected this argument because the terms of use refer to the
companies' common trade names -- "Live Nation" and "Ticketmaster"
-- 16 times. The ticket purchasers cited case law that the court
distinguished. In the cases cited, the agreements were invalid
because the defendant-companies consistently used generic and
undefined terms and failed to include identifiable information.
Live Nation and Ticketmaster, the Ninth Circuit concluded,
adequately identified themselves.

The ticket buyers also claimed the fact that a subsidiary, Live
Nation Worldwide, Inc., owned and operated the "livenation.com"
domain supported a finding of inadequate identification. Once
again, the court was unpersuaded. The court affirmed the district
court's finding that the terms of use adequately identified the
companies as parties to the agreement.

Failure to Provide Adequate Notice
The ticket purchasers also claimed they were not adequately
notified of the agreement. Under both California and Massachusetts
law, actual or constructive notice of the agreement is required for
contract formation, and the parties must "manifest mutual assent."
In other words, the parties' conduct must indicate their informed
desire to be bound by the agreement. This is another instance where
technological advances have forced courts to apply traditional
contract principles to new types of agreements formed online.

Clickwrap versus Browsewrap - On one end of the spectrum of online
contracts are "clickwrap" agreements, those that present website
users with contract terms on a pop-up screen with checkboxes used
to signal agreement. At the other end of the spectrum are
"browsewrap" agreements, where a website offers terms that are
disclosed through a hyperlink. In a browsewrap agreement, a user
agrees to the terms simply by continuing to use the website.

Clickwrap agreements represent "the clearest manifestations of
assent." Where they are not used, courts consider surrounding
circumstances. Often, as with Live Nation, online agreements fall
in between the extremes, so courts examine mutual assent under an
"objective-reasonableness" standard, the court explained.

The ticket purchasers argued the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court's Ajeman v. Yahoo! opinion announced the appropriate test to
determine whether an online contract has been formed. The Ninth
Circuit was unpersuaded once again, noting that decision was not
controlling. Rather, the Ninth Circuit found Massachusetts and
California apply substantially similar rules, rendering a detailed
choice of law analysis unnecessary.

To determine mutual assent when online agreements fall between
clickwrap and browsewrap, courts must ask two questions: Did the
website provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the contract
terms? Did the consumer take some action, such as clicking a button
or checking a box, that unambiguously indicated their desire to be
bound by such terms?

Reasonably Conspicuous Notice - To satisfy the conspicuous notice
requirement, notice must be displayed in a font size and format
that a reasonable Internet user would see. The conspicuousness and
placement of the "terms of use" hyperlink, additional notices given
to users of the terms of use, and the website's general designed
are all considered.

The Ninth Circuit found Live Nation and Ticketmaster provided
adequate notice at three independent stages - creation of an
account, signing into an account, and completing a purchase.
Webpage visitors are presented with a confirmation button at each
stage with the corresponding text, "you agree to our Terms of Use."
The "Terms of Use" hyperlink stands out from surrounding text,
appearing in bright blue font.

Attempting to rebut the adequacy of the notice, the consumer class
cited case law in which the terms of use were severely less
conspicuous, which only strengthened the reasonableness and
conspicuous nature of Live Nation and Ticketmaster's terms of use.
The court wrote the cases cited by the purchasers only supported
the district court's finding that the ticket websites contained
features sufficient to provide reasonably conspicuous notice.

Taking Action - To satisfy the affirmative assent requirement, the
user must take some action that unambiguously manifested their
assent to the agreement. This requirement is straightforward as
applied to the ticket purchasers, the court wrote. It is
uncontested that Live Nation and Ticketmaster's notices explicitly
alert the user that by creating an account, signing in, or
purchasing a ticket, then proceeding to the next page, the user
agrees to the terms. The Ninth Circuit found such notices
indisputably satisfied the action requirement.

Accordingly, the court determined the terms, including the
arbitration provision, were valid and binding, a decision that the
consumer class has come to know, in the words of Ms. Swift, "All
Too Well."

As a Matter of Law
In a final attempt to invalidate the agreement, the ticket buyers
argued the lower court erred in deciding constructive notice was
established as a matter of law. The plaintiffs claimed the court
relied on incomplete excerpts of the webpage and failed to consider
expert and deposition testimony.

The court rejected this argument saying the webpages were
sufficient because they contained all the features courts consider
when determining constructive notice. The expert and deposition
testimony, assuming it was as damning as the plaintiffs claimed,
could not mitigate the uncontested existence of the features
themselves.

The merger between Live Nation and Ticketmaster was permitted in
2010. Due to concerns over anticompetitive practices, the deal was
subjected to extensive Department of Justice review, concluding in
a 10-year consent decree prohibiting the companies from retaliating
against venues for using competing ticketing services. Due to
various violations of the decree, the DOJ was forced to strengthen
it in early 2020 and extended it for another 5-1/2 years. Live
Nation and Ticketmaster have since faced public scrutiny, a
multitude of suits, and increased prohibitions from the DOJ. Yet,
despite significant pushback from artists themselves, including
concert powerhouse Bruce Springsteen, the late, great Tom Petty,
and Taylor Swift herself, the entertainment conglomerates have
successfully fought off antitrust litigation.

[Note: The Ninth Circuit's ruling on arbitration clauses differs
from the court's June 28, 2019, opinion - discussed on the
MoginRubin Blog - in which it found that litigation seeking
injunctive relief could continue. The federal judges cited McGill
v. Citibank (N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945, 216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 627, 393 P.3d
85 (Cal. 2017)), in which the California Supreme Court held that a
contract, under which companies using these agreements claim
consumers waive their rights to seek public injunctive relief in
any forum, is unenforceable under California law. The Ninth Circuit
agreed with the district court that the Federal Arbitration Act
does not preempt California's McGill rule, which states that a
party can bind itself to arbitrate claims for damages, but it
cannot be bound to arbitrate injunctions, which may serve the
public interest. The 2019 Ninth Circuit opinion was entered in
Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. (2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19476), which it
then applied to McArdle v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2019 U.S. App. LEXIS
19495) and Tillage v. Comcast Corp. (2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19496).]
[GN]

LOVEVERY INC: Haymond Files Suit in E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lovevery, Inc. The
case is styled as Kelly Haymond, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lovevery, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00334-ADA-CDB (E.D. Cal., March 3, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Lovevery -- https://lovevery.eu/ -- is an American company
producing play-kit subscription boxes for children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frederick J. Klorczyk, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: fklorczyk@bursor.com

               - and -

          Julia Kathryn Venditti, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3745
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Fax: (925) 407-2700
          Email: jvenditti@bursor.com
                 ndeckant@bursor.com


MARATHON VENTURES: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marathon Ventures,
Inc. The case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marathon Ventures, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01871 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023).

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

Marathon Ventures -- https://www.marathonventuresinc.com/ -- is a
full-service processing, manufacturing, packaging and marketing
company for foods and beverages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MATCH GROUP LLC: Kahl Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Krista Kahl, Carolyn Clem, Lenell Timberlake,
Michael Voss, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Match Group, LLC, Case No. 23-CIV-00500 was removed
from the San Mateo Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on March 3, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00985-AGT to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Match Group -- https://mtch.com/ -- is an American internet and
technology company headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Donald Richard Brown, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS, LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Ste. 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 312-4318
          Fax: (310) 312-4224
          Email: dbrown@manatt.com


MATERNAL & FAMILY: Izquierdo Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Izquierdo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MATERNAL & FAMILY HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Case No.
3:23-cv-00388-MEM (M.D. Pa., March 3, 2023), is brought against
MFHS for MFHS's failure to properly secure and safeguard protected
health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), medical information, and other
personally identifiable information, including without limitation
names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical record and
patient account numbers, health insurance information, diagnoses,
medication information, treatment providers, types of treatment,
and treatment locations (collectively, "PHI"), for failing to
comply with industry standards to protect information systems that
contain that PHI, and for failing to provide timely, accurate, and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their PHI
had been compromised.

On April 4, 2022, MFHS announced a security incident that occurred
between August 2021 and April 2022, involving PHI (the "Data
Breach"). The Data Breach was wide-reaching and compromised the PHI
of at least 461,000 individuals, according to the submission MFHS
made to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services at the
Office for Civil Rights ("OCR"). MFHS began notifying, via U.S.
Mail, potentially affected individuals including certain current
and former employees, patients and vendors on January 3, 2023.

This case involves a breach by an unknown third party, resulting in
the unauthorized disclosure of the PHI of Plaintiff and Class
Members by MFHS to unknown third parties. As a result of MFHS's
failure to implement and follow basic security procedures,
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI is now in the hands of
criminals. Plaintiff and Class Members now and will forever face a
substantial increased risk of identity theft. Consequently,
Plaintiff and Class Members have had to spend, and will continue to
spend, significant time and money in the future to protect
themselves due to MFHS's failures.

Additionally, as a result of MFHS's failure to follow contractually
agreed upon, federally prescribed, industry standard security
procedures, Plaintiff and Class Members received only a diminished
value of the services MFHS was to provide. MFHS expressly
represented that it would maintain the confidentiality of the
Plaintiff and Class Members' PHI obtained throughout the course of
treatment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, alleges claims for
negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, and breach of confidence, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a patient of MFHS.

MFHS is a leading healthcare provider in Pennsylvania for women,
children and families.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francesca Kester Burne, Esq.
          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          Email: fkester@forthepeople.com
                 jeanmartin@forthepeople.com


MDL 2818: Marshall Testimony Excluded from GM AC Mktg. & Sales Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS CORP. AIR CONDITIONING MARKETING
AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, ALL CASES, Case No. 18-md-02818
(E.D. Mich.), Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division:

   a. denies GM's Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of
      Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. S.A. Sherif;

   b. denies GM's Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of
      Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Garrett Glasgow;

   c. grants in part and denies in part GM's Motion to Exclude
      Opinions and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Peter J.
Sullivan; and

   d. grants GM's Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of
      Plaintiffs' Expert L. Scott Marshall.

In this putative consolidated class action, the Plaintiffs allege
that the air conditioning systems of vehicles manufactured by GM
are defective. GM is one of the world's leading automakers. The
Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased various GM vehicles under
the Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac brands (the "Class Vehicles"). The
Plaintiffs claim that the air conditioning systems in the Class
Vehicles are defective and that GM's efforts to repair the defects
have failed.

In particular, the Plaintiffs alleged in their Third Amended
Complaint that the Class Vehicles have a defect that causes the air
conditioning systems to (a) crack and leak refrigerant; (b) lose
pressure within the air conditioning system; and (c) fail to
properly function to provide cooled air into the vehicle's
passenger cabin. And the Plaintiffs have since specified that the
designs of two particular components in the air conditioning
systems of the Class Vehicles were defective: the combi-cooler,
which transfers heat into cool air, and the air conditioner
discharge line, which connects units within the air conditioner
systems.

The Plaintiffs bring claims for breach of the Class Vehicles'
express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, fraud, and
violations of the consumer protection laws of various states.

On March 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. In that motion, they seek to certify three
categories of classes. In support of their motion, the Plaintiffs
included several supplemental exhibits, including the expert
reports identified.

First, the Plaintiffs seek to certify 10 separate "state fraud
classes" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). These
classes include "all persons who purchased or leased a Class
Vehicle" in Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, New
York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington.

Second, the Plaintiffs seek class certification for two "state
warranty classes" under Rule 23(b)(3). They define these classes as
"all persons and entities that purchased or leased a class vehicle"
in California or Michigan and "who received warranty service for
the AC Defect within the term limits of GM's warranty."

Finally, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a single,
nationwide "Declaratory Judgment Class" under Rule 23(b)(2). They
define this class as "all persons or entities that purchased or
leased a Class Vehicle in the United States."

On April 26, 2022, GM filed motions to exclude certain expert
opinion testimony from all four of the Plaintiffs' experts. The
Plaintiffs responded to each of the four motions on May 31, 2022.
The Court held a video hearing on the motions on Oct. 28, 2022.

GM primarily argues that the Court should exclude the expert
opinion testimony at issue because the testimony does not satisfy
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. It also moves to exclude
much of the Plaintiffs' expert opinion testimony under Rule 403 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Judge Leitman begins with GM's motion to exclude certain opinions
advanced by Dr. Sherif, a Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering at the University of Florida. It has moved to exclude
Dr. Sherif's conclusions that the designs of the combi-coolers and
discharge lines in the Class Vehicles were inherently defective.
The Plaintiffs retained Dr. Sherif to investigate the root causes
of failure and refrigerant leak in the air conditioning systems of
the Class Vehicles.

In relevant part, Dr. Sherif concluded that: (1) the design of the
combi-coolers in all of the Class Vehicles was inherently defective
because it was susceptible to "severe thermal cycling" that
"renders the vehicles' air conditioning systems unfit for their
ordinary and intended purpose"; and (2) the design of the air
conditioning compressor discharge lines in all of the Class
Vehicles built before December 2014 was inherently defective and
"susceptible to sustained resonant frequency exposure," which
causes cracking and "subsequent failure of the air conditioning
system.

Among other things, Judge Leitman finds that (1) Dr. Sherif and the
Plaintiffs have adequately demonstrated that Dr. Sherif's broad and
substantial experience with the study and design of air
conditioning systems provided a solid and reliable foundation for
his opinions about the air conditioning systems at issue; (2) Dr.
Sherif did not test the vehicles or components goes to the weight
of his testimony not to its admissibility; (3) Dr. Sherif's
opinions and analysis will assist the jury in understanding the
issues and key documents; they will not invade the jury's province;
and (4) Dr. Sherif's testimony is admissible under under Rule 702,
and it will not be excluded under Rule 403. GM's motion to exclude
Dr. Sherif's opinions is therefore denied.

Judge Leitman next turns to GM's motion to exclude the opinions and
testimony of Dr. Glasgow, an Associate Director of NERA Economic
Consulting, Inc. It urges the Court to exclude Dr. Glasgow's
opinions under Rule 702 on several grounds. The Plaintiffs retained
Dr. Glasgow to opine as to, among other things, whether damages can
be calculated on a class-wide basis.

GM's arguments do not persuade Judge Leitman that he should exclude
Dr. Glasgow's current opinions. He declines to exclude the opinions
of Dr. Glasgow. Most of GM's arguments go to the weight of Dr.
Glasgow's opinions rather than their admissibility (explaining that
several similar arguments seeking exclusion of an opinion similar
to Dr. Glasgow's went to weight rather than admissibility), and the
remaining arguments have not persuaded the Court that the opinions
rest upon either an unreliable methodology or foundation. On the
contrary, Judge Leitman says the Plaintiffs have persuaded the
Court that the foundation and methodology are sufficiently reliable
so as to allow admission of Dr. Glasgow's opinions. Accordingly,
GM's motion to exclude Dr. Glasgow's opinions is denied.

Judge Leitman next turns to GM's motion to exclude certain opinions
advanced by Mr. Sullivan, a consultant who has worked in various
roles over 39 years in the automotive industry. GM has moved to
exclude both Sullivan's Health and Safety Risk Opinion and his
Validation Testing Opinion, and Mr. Sullivan's Validation Testing
Opinion. The Plaintiffs retained Mr. Sullivan to evaluate
information relating to the nature and sufficiency of GM's
pre-release validation testing in light of both GM's internal
validation testing protocols and automotive industry standards.

Judge Leitman agrees that Mr. Sullivan is not qualified to testify
about the Cognitive Function Risk and/or the Heat Stroke Risk, but
he finds that his testimony about the Visibility Risk is
admissible. He finds that Mr. Sullivan is not qualified to testify
about the Cognitive Function Risk because he has no education,
experience, or expertise that equips him to reliably opine about
the impact of temperature on cognitive functioning. Mr. Sullivan is
precluded from offering that testimony. On the other hand, Mr.
Sullivan is qualified to offer expert testimony about the
Visibility Risk -- i.e., his opinion that the alleged defects pose
a driver safety risk because they impair the ability of the Class
Vehicles to de-fog their windshields and windows. Mr. Sullivan's
testimony about the Visibility Risk is admissible.

GM next argues that the Court should exclude Mr. Sullivan's
Validation Testing Opinion because he has never designed or
conducted vehicle or component level development or validation
testing, nor does he provide any reliable basis for speculating
that different testing would have led GM to learn of the alleged
defects. Judge Leitman disagrees. He finds that Mr. Sullivan has
relevant professional experience with validation testing, and that
experience both qualified Mr. Sullivan to offer the Validation
Testing Opinion and provided a sufficiently reliable foundation for
that opinion. He thus concludes that Mr. Sullivan's Validation
Testing Opinion is admissible under Rule 702.

As it does in its other three motions, GM also asserts a separate
argument that Mr. Sullivan's opinions should be excluded under Rule
403 because his testimony would "unfairly prejudice" GM. In this
argument, GM reasserts the same grounds for exclusion that it put
forth under Rule 702. But Judge Leitman has concluded that Mr.
Sullivan's testimony satisfies the requirements for admission under
Rule 702, and thus he will not exclude the testimony under Rule
403.

Finally, Judge Leitman turns to GM's motion to exclude certain
opinions advanced by Mr. Marshall, a licensed professional engineer
who specializes in metallurgical engineering and corrosion
engineering. The Plaintiffs retained Mr. Marshall to perform a
materials engineering investigation of air conditioning system
components from several General Motors pickup and sport utility
vehicles. Mr. Marshall concluded that both the air conditioner
Discharge Line and the combi-cooler "fail prematurely due to
cracking" (the "Premature Cracking Opinions").

GM has moved to exclude the Premature Cracking Opinions on the
ground that they lack foundation and are not the product of
reliable scientific methodology.

Judge Leitman agrees that the Premature Cracking Opinions should be
excluded for those reasons. Mr. Marshall has no basis to conclude
that the parts at issue failed prematurely because he has no
knowledge of their intended lifespan. His deductions from the
maintenance manuals do not warrant admission of his testimony
because the Plaintiffs have not shown that those deductions rested
in any way upon Marshall's training, experience, or expertise. Then
Plaintiffs are free to argue to the jury that the parts at issue
failed prematurely because, under a straightforward interpretation
of maintenance manuals, the parts should never have failed, but
they may not offer Mr. Marshall's testimony that the parts failed
too early. Therefore, the Premature Cracking Opinions are
excluded.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdcknb99 from Leagle.com.


MELRIC SYSTEMS: Mullen Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Mullen and Paul Herman, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated v. MELRIC SYSTEMS CORP. and FRANK
MORISCO, Case No. 2:23-cv-01669 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023), is
brought against Defendants for Defendants' violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, as amended (the "FLSA"), the New York Labor
Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
regulations (collectively, "NYLL"), to recover from Defendants:
unpaid wages for work performed for which they received no
compensation at all; unpaid wages for overtime work for which they
did not receive overtime premium pay, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.

During their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs regularly
worked more than 40 hours per week. However, Defendants failed to
pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked, and failed to pay Plaintiffs
overtime at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates
of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. As
Defendants did not accurately calculate Plaintiffs' wages and total
hours worked, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with accurate
statements each pay period indicating the number of overtime hours
worked, overtime rates of pay and other information required by the
NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a water proofer.

The Defendants operate a corporation that provides
commercial-building waterproofing installation and maintenance
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Phone: (631) 257-5588
          Email: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com


MERCK & CO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Anticompetitive Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
aboutlawsuits.com reports that Merck & Co. faces a class action
lawsuit over its rotavirus vaccine, which claims the pharmaceutical
company has engaged in an illegal and anticompetitive scheme to
maintain its monopoly power over the pediatric vaccine market in
the United States, causing purchasers of the rotavirus vaccines to
pay unfair prices.
The complaint was filed on March 3 by the Mayor and City Council on
Baltimore in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, seeking class action status to pursue damages on
behalf of all similarly situated purchasers of the rotavirus
vaccine.

According to the lawsuit, Merck, which makes RotaTeq, has engaged
in an anticompetitive vaccine bundling scheme that leverages the
drug maker's monopoly power in multiple vaccines administered to
children, resulting in "supracompetative" prices for the rotavirus
vaccine, which does have a viable competing alternative sold by
GlaxoSmithKline, under the trade name Rotarix.

The City of Baltimore claims that Merck has used this tactic on a
variety of vaccines for children, allowing the company to charge
whatever it wants. This includes the rotavirus vaccine, as well as
the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR), and the Gardasil
human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine.

The rotavirus vaccine is used to prevent against infections of the
same name, which can cause severe diarrhea among young children.
Estimates indicate the vaccine successfully protects about 90% of
its recipients.

Merck Punished "Disloyal" Rotavirus Vaccine Buyers, Lawsuit Claims
According to the lawsuit, Merck was the only seller of the vaccine
from about 2006 to 2008, when GlaxoSmithKline introduced Rotarix.
However, then Merck launched a scheme to financially punish those
who bought Rotarix, the lawsuit claims.

"In preparation for GSK's introduction of a competing rotavirus
vaccine, Merck added a condition to its contracts that required
customers to buy all or nearly all of their pediatric rotavirus
vaccines from Merck or face substantial price penalties on not only
RotaTeq but also on all other bundled Merck vaccines," the lawsuit
explains. "This new bundle meant that any Merck customer who also
wanted to buy significant amounts of Rotarix from GSK would be
faced with paying substantial penalties on any RotaTeq the customer
continued to buy from Merck, plus substantial price penalties on
all other Merck vaccines in the Merck Bundle (including those for
which there is no other supplier)."

This has allowed Merck to not only control the market, but it has
also allowed GlaxoSmithKline to charge high prices to those who
Merck considered "disloyal" customers, as long as they were
substantially cheaper than the heavy fines Merck would levy against
them for buying the rotavirus vaccine from somewhere else, the
lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit accuses Merck of violation of antitrust laws and
violation of state consumer protection laws.

Merck Gardasil HPV Vaccine Lawsuits
One of the other products mentioned in the Merck vaccine lawsuit
brought by the City of Baltimore is Gardasil, which has also
resulted in a number of lawsuits against the drug maker for failing
to warn about severe side effects that may result among children
and young adults after receiving the HPV vaccine.

Merck introduced Gardasil in 2006, and sells the only available
products for vaccination against the HPV infections, which can be
sexually transmitted and lead to the later development of cervical
cancer. A prior product was sold by GlaxoSmithKline, under the
brand name Cervarix, which was voluntarily taken off of the market
in the 2016.

Amid aggressive marketing of Gardasil by Merck, the vaccine has
been commonly administered to both girls and boys before
adolescence and potential sexual activity, and it is often bundled
with a group of pediatric vaccines.

Although it has been promoted as safe, teens and young adults have
reported experiencing a variety of problems caused by HPV vaccine
Gardasil, including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome
(POTS), premature ovarian failure, premature menopause, seizures
and other autoimmune disorders, which emerged shortly after
receiving the injection.

In recent months, Merck has faced a growing number of Gardasil
lawsuits brought in the federal court system, each involving
similar allegations that the drug maker placed it's desire for
profits before the health and safety of consumers, by failing to
disclose known risk information to parents or the medical
community. [GN]

MERCK SHARP: Baltimore Sues Over Anticompetitive Vaccine Bundling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Case No.
2:23-cv-00828 (E.D. Pa., March 3, 2023), is brought challenging
Merck's anticompetitive vaccine bundling scheme whereby Merck
leverages its monopoly power in multiple pediatric vaccine markets
to maintain its monopoly power in the Rotavirus Vaccine Market and,
consequently, to charge supracompetitive prices to purchasers of
its rotavirus vaccines.

The Defendant the sole United States manufacturer in the markets
for multiple pediatric vaccines, including MMR (measles, mumps, and
rubella), varicella, and human papilloma virus ("HPV"), holding
100% of United States sales for those vaccines. Merck is by far the
dominant seller in the Rotavirus Vaccine Market, marketing its
vaccine under the trade name RotaTeq; its only competitor in the
Rotavirus Vaccine Market is GlaxoSmithKline plc ("GSK"), which
markets its rotavirus vaccine under the trade name Rotarix.

Merck was the only seller of rotavirus vaccine in the United States
from 2006 until 2008, when GSK received approval to market Rotarix.
Even before the threat of competition from GSK, Merck had contracts
that offered "bundled" price penalties that would condition non
penalty prices on buyer "loyalty" to an entire bundle of different
Merck vaccines. In preparation for GSK's introduction of a
competing rotavirus vaccine, Merck added a condition to its
contracts that required customers to buy all or nearly all of their
pediatric rotavirus vaccines from Merck or face substantial price
penalties on not only RotaTeq but also on all other bundled Merck
vaccines (the "RotaTeq Bundled Loyalty Condition" or the "Merck
Bundle"). This new bundle meant that any Merck customer who also
wanted to buy significant amounts of Rotarix from GSK (a "Merck
Disloyal Buyer" or "Disloyal Buyer") would be faced with paying
substantial penalties on any RotaTeq the customer continued to buy
from Merck, plus substantial price penalties on all other Merck
vaccines in the Merck Bundle (including those for which there is no
other supplier).

Discovery will show that the Merck Bundle forecloses competition in
greater than 40% of the Rotavirus Vaccine Market. The Merck Bundle
substantially forecloses competition by limiting GSK's ability to
profitably win sales to foreclosed buyers with price cuts, thereby
allowing Merck to maintain its monopoly share of the Rotavirus
Vaccine Market despite continuing to charge foreclosed buyers
monopoly prices. Because the Merck Bundle penalizes Merck Disloyal
Buyers with high penalty prices, GSK can maximize its profits by
selling to such Disloyal Buyers at high prices just below the
penalty prices charged by Merck.

In other words, the Merck Bundle bifurcated the market between
Merck Loyal and Disloyal Buyers, reducing the ability of GSK to
compete on price for the Loyal Buyers, and the incentive to compete
on price for the Disloyal Buyers. As a result, the Merck Bundle
incentivizes GSK to maintain high prices instead of competing
aggressively with Merck on the price of rotavirus vaccines. And as
a result of the softened competition caused by the Merck Bundle,
there is less competitive pressure on Merck to reduce pricing of
RotaTeq.

Due to the Merck Bundle, instead of significantly decreasing the
price of RotaTeq when GSK entered the market, as would normally be
expected to result from competitive entry into a monopoly market,
Merck has maintained the price of RotaTeq at supracompetitive
levels, actually increasing its list price despite facing
competition from GSK. Those supracompetitive prices are passed on
by healthcare providers to patients and third-party payors such as
Plaintiff and members of the class. As a result, Plaintiff and the
class paid, and continue to pay, artificially inflated prices for
rotavirus vaccines, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for
some or all of the purchase price of rotavirus vaccines.

Merck is one of the world's largest vaccines manufacturers and a
leading manufacturer of vaccines in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel H. Silverman, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          769 Centre Street, Suite 207
          Boston, MA 02130
          Phone: (617) 858-1990
          Fax: (202) 408-4699
          Email: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Leonardo Chingcuanco, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          Fax: (202) 408-4699
          Email: lchingcuanco@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Sharon K. Robertson, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine St. 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 838-7797
          Fax: (212) 838-7745
          Email: srobertson@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Ebony Thompson, Esq.
          Jane Lewis, Esq.
          CITY OF BALTIMORE DEPARTMENT OF LAW
          City Hall, Room 109
          100 N. Holiday Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: (443) 388-2190

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          David Langer, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-3000
          Fax: (215) 875-4604
          Email: ecramer@bm.net
                 rpaul@bm.net
                 dlanger@bm.net

               - and -

          Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          2001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 559-9740
          Email: dwalker@bm.net


MISHKA SOHO: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Cuauhtemoc Moreno Garcia, Maria Leocadis Contreras Luciano, and
Lucero Cantu Dircio, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MISHKA SOHO INC. (D/B/A MISHKA SOHO RESTAURANT), MARINA
GENEL, and ALEX FELICIANO BRAVO, Case No. 1:23-cv-01823 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 2, 2023), is brought for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations
of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and
overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (herein
the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

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

In this regard, the Defendants have failed to provide timely wages
to the Plaintiffs the Defendants' conduct extended beyond
Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated employees. The
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the overtime compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed as either kitchen assistants or
dishwashers at the restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant, located in
New York City under the name "Mishka Soho Restaurant."[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


MODERE USA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Walli Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY WALLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MODERE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
23-001074-CI (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., March 7, 2023) seeks to
stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls pursuant
to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

MODERE USA INC. manufactures and distributes nutritional and
personal care products. The Company provides skin, hair, body,
mouth, men care, anti-aging, active health, weight management,
laundry, kitchen, cleaning, health, wellness, and household care
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (202) 709-5744
          Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
          Email: shawn@sjlawcollective.com
                 josh@sjlawcollective.com

MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Quilez Balks at Mislabeled Xylitol Content in Gums
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a class action
lawsuit claims Mondelez Global, LLC has misled consumers by
implying on product labels that its Trident sugar-free gum is
sweetened primarily with xylitol, an effective plaque reducer in a
case-captioned Quilez v. Mondelez Global LLC, Sections
1:23-CV-01889.

A proposed class action lawsuit claims Mondelez Global, LLC has
misled consumers by implying on product labels that its Trident
sugar-free gum is sweetened primarily with xylitol, an effective
plaque reducer.

The 13-page lawsuit says that despite the product's prominent
front-label description as a "Sugar Free Gum With Xylitol," its
principal sweetener is actually sorbitol, a cheaper and less
powerful agent against tooth decay compared to xylitol.

According to the suit, the sugar-free gum contains roughly twice as
much sorbitol, which appears first in the product's ingredients
list, as it does xylitol. At that ratio, the filing says, the
latter's "superior relative benefits to oral health are practically
extinguished."

As the case explains, gum that contains only xylitol is proven to
be more effective against plaque than products with both xylitol
and sorbitol. In fact, xylitol has been shown to actively reduce
oral plaque, while sorbitol is recognized only as a general
deterrent against tooth decay, the complaint relays.

The filing charges that the defendant's greater reliance on
sorbitol comes down to higher profit margins, as xylitol is more
expensive than its less-potent counterpart.

The plaintiff, a New York resident, purchased the Trident
sugar-free gum in the past few years based on the representations
that its sweetening component was primarily xylitol, or at least
that xylitol was present at a significant level, the suit says. The
woman expected the amount of xylitol to be substantial enough to
"provide the superior effects on oral health" for which it is
known, the case states.

Like other consumers, the plaintiff would not have paid as much, or
purchased the gum at all, had she known that sorbitol was actually
its principal ingredient, the complaint claims.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone residing in New York,
Arkansas, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho or Alaska who purchased
Trident "Sugar Free Gum With Xylitol" during the applicable
statutes of limitations. [GN]

MONTEREY BAY: Sawyer Sues Over Misleading Press Statements
----------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Sawyer; Jarrett Drake; Eric Meschino; and Bill Souza, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. MONTEREY BAY
AQUARIUM and MARINE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL, Case No.
2:23-cv-00796-GGG-KWR (E.D. La., March 2, 2023), is brought on
behalf of all Massachusetts-based lobstermen who experienced a drop
in income reasonably attributable to the actions of Monterey Bay
Aquarium and Seafood Watch of misleading press statements.

While most lobstermen, including Plaintiffs, are small business
owners, lobstering has become a multimillion-dollar business, and
lobsters caught by Massachusetts lobstermen are sold worldwide.
Many individual lobstermen, including Plaintiffs, rely exclusively
on the income they receive from lobstering to support themselves
and their families.

Despite the commercial success of lobstering, and the corresponding
economic benefit to the American economy and American workers,
environmental groups and activists have actively antagonized the
lobster industry and its participants, including the lobstermen
themselves. These activists argue, despite a complete lack of
evidence in support of their position, that lobster fishing is
contributing to the deaths of whales, particularly the endangered
North Atlantic right whale. Specifically, the activists claim that
whales become caught in the weak ropes that connect traps to their
buoys and drown. There is minimal evidence that these activists'
claims are accurate, yet the activists continue to espouse them as
if they were uncontroverted fact.

Willfully disregarding this lack of evidence, on September 5, 2022,
the Monterey Bay Aquarium, an aquarium located in California,
issued a press release asserting that, due to the perceived danger
to North Atlantic right whales, lobstering in the Gulf of Maine is
unsustainable. Shortly thereafter, the Marine Stewardship Council,
an international firm that brands seafood products with identifiers
if the products meet its qualifications for sustainability, also
dropped the American Lobster from its list of sustainable foods,
citing the same perceived danger to the right whales.

In direct response to Monterey Bay Aquarium's press statement and
the Marine Stewardship Council's delisting, Whole Foods, Hello
Fresh, and Blue Apron all pulled Gulf of Maine lobsters from their
product lines. This discontinuation of sales, attributable directly
to the statements issued by Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Marine
Stewardship Council, has caused and continues to cause substantial
monetary harm to Plaintiffs, as well as other similarly situated
Massachusetts lobstermen. Plaintiffs thus seek damages from
Defendants, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are a group of lifelong Massachusetts lobsterman.

Monterey Bay Aquarium ("MBA") operates an internet publication
named "Seafood Watch," through which MBA promulgates its opinions
on the sustainability of various seafoods and provides resources to
businesses and individuals in order to influence and drive the
seafood market towards what it perceives as more sustainable.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kristin K. Robbins, Esq.
          ECKLAND & BLANDO, LLP
          Energy Centre Building
          1100 Poydras Street Suite 2900
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Phone: (504) 662-1594
          Facsimile: (612) 236-0719
          Email: krobbins@ecklandblando.com

               - and -

          Samuel P. Blatchley, Esq.
          ECKLAND & BLANDO LLP
          22 Boston Wharf Road, 7th Floor
          Boston, MA 02210
          Phone: (612)-236-0160
          Email: sblatchley@ecklandblando.com

MYA SARAY LLC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mya Saray, LLC. The
case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Mya Saray, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01865
(S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023).

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

MYA Saray, LLC -- https://myasaray.com/ -- is a manufacturing and
wholesale company creating decor. The Company provides giftware
products which includes candelabras, crystal, hookahs, porcelain,
interior design, silver, crystal chandelier, cutting-edge designs,
and custom 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


NANCY JOHNSTON: Rud Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as James John Rud, Brian Keith Hausfeld, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Nancy Johnston,
Executive Director, Minnesota Sex Offender Program, in official
capacity; Jodi Harpstead, Department of Human Services
Commissioner, in official capacity; Case No. 62-cv-23-928 was
removed from the Ramsey County District Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota on March 1, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-00486 to the
proceeding.

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

Nancy Johnston is the new executive director of the Minnesota Sex
Offender Program.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

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


NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Neiman Marcus
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Neiman Marcus
Group, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01864 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023).

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

Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. -- https://www.neimanmarcusgroup.com/ --
is an American integrated luxury retailer headquartered in Dallas,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW DIRECTION TRUST: Theriault Files Suit in D. Kansas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Direction Trust
Company, et al. The case is styled as Joseph Gilbert Theriault,
individually, and on behalf of those affected New Direction Trust
Company self-directed IRA accountholders whose precious metals were
to be on deposit with First State Depository, and all others
similarly situated v. New Direction Trust Company, First State
Depository, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02091-DDC-RES (D. Kan., March 3,
2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

New Direction Trust Company -- https://ndtco.com/ -- is the
industry leader in self-directed IRAs for alternative investments
like private equity and precious metals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Boyd Byers, Esq.
          Jeff P. DeGraffenreid, Esq.
          FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP - WICHITA
          1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
          Wichita, KS 67206-4466
          Phone: (316) 291-9716
          Fax: (316) 771-6011
          Email: bbyers@foulston.com
                 jdegraffenreid@foulston.com

               - and -

          Maria Drouhard, Esq.
          Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq.
          FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP - OP
          7500 College Blvd., Suite 1400
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Phone: (920) 445-1212
          Fax: (913) 498-2101
          Email: mdrouhard@foulston.com
                 snehrbass@foulston.com


NEW YORK, NY:  Court Junks Y.M. Class Action
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Y.M., by her father and
natural guardian Gary Moskowitz, and GARY MOSKOWITZ, individually
and on his own behalf, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-06861-AMD-CLP (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ann M. Donnelly
entered an order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss class
action.

However, because a liberal reading of the amended complaint
indicates that the plaintiffs could plausibly allege that the
exhaustion requirement may have been futile for the 2018-2019,
2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years, depending on the
specifics of the IEPs, the plaintiffs are granted leave to file a
second amended complaint, to the extent they can adequately allege
that exhaustion of their administrative remedies would have been
futile or was otherwise excused.

The plaintiffs are given thirty 30 leave to file an amended
complaint. If the plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint
within that time, judgment dismissing this action will enter.

The plaintiff brought this action individually and on behalf of his
minor child alleging violations of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (the "IDEA"), the Rehabilitation Act,
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").

Accordingly, plaintiffs have not exhausted their claims, nor have
they established that an exception applies. For these reasons, the
Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to decide the
plaintiffs' IDEA, ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, and they are
dismissed.

The plaintiffs do not address the RICO claim, or the defendants'
arguments about the claim. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have
abandoned their RICO claim and it is dismissed.

The plaintiffs also brought state law claims pursuant to the New
York State Executive Law, the Administrative Code of the City of
New York, and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Because I
have dismissed the plaintiffs' federal claims, I decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law claims,
Judge Donnelly says.

The Defendants include MEISHA PORTER, Chancellor of the New York
City Department of Education, in her individual capacity; VICTOR
CALISE, Commissioner of the Mayor's Office for People with
Disabilities, in his individual capacity; ERIC ADAMS, Mayor of New
York City, in his individual capacity; DR. BETTY A. ROSA,
Commissioner of Education, in her individual capacity; KERRI E.
NEIFELD, Commissioner of the Office for People with Developmental
Disabilities, in her individual capacity; KATHY HOCHUL, Governor of
New York State, in her individual capacity; and LETITIA JAMES,
Attorney General of New York State, in her individual capacity

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



NEW YORK: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Abusive Police in Protest
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tandy Lau of The Philadelphia Tribune reports that the City of New
York recently agreed to pony up millions to Black Lives Matter
demonstrators over abusive police crowd-control tactics, concurrent
with the NYPD's absence March 1, at a City Council hearing about
one of the units responsible.

Rob Rickner, one of the protesters' lawyers, said the class action
settlement largely stems from the department's Strategic Response
Group (SRG) "kettling" participants in a George Floyd protest in
the South Bronx neighborhood of Mott Haven on June 4, 2020.

There are more than 300 plaintiffs. Most of the plaintiffs will
receive $21,500 each. Some will receive an extra $2,500. Their
lawyers say this is probably the most money ever awarded per person
for a mass arrest lawsuit in New York City.

The settlement, agreed upon on Feb. 28, landed just a day before a
previously scheduled oversight hearing on the SRG by the City
Council's Public Safety Committee. Subsequent news broke about the
payout shortly before the proceedings started. A Civilian Complaint
Review Board (CCRB) spokesperson told the Amsterdam News that
present members from the police watchdog agency only found out
about the settlement minutes before the hearing started.

But nobody from the NYPD showed up, despite an invitation to
testify. The department submitted a written statement instead, much
to the displeasure of many present. Council Member Tiffany Caban
called the NYPD's absence "bull" and later alleged in her
newsletter that the no-show stemmed directly from the Mott Haven
settlement.

"The real reason they didn't show up?" she asked. "As The New York
Times revealed, during the hearing, the NYPD had been ordered by a
judge to compensate hundreds of protesters it brutalized in the
summer of 2020 to the tune of $21,500 each. Of course, it is the
people of New York City -- already hurting from sky-high rent,
ConEd, and food prices -- who will have to foot the bill. The
department simply didn't want to face the music."

Yet the SRG is, ironically, designed for confrontation. Officers
are armored with riot gear and equipped with military-grade sound
cannons. Originally founded in 2015 for counter-terrorism purposes,
the SRG quickly developed a reputation for protest-busting among
local activists despite then-Chief of Department James O'Neill's
explicit insistence that the special operations unit would not be
deployed to demonstrations. Since inception, the SRG's ranks have
doubled from around 350 to 700 officers and its budget has swelled
from $13 million to $90 million.

Sisters Amali and Samira Sierra -- two of the five named plaintiffs
in the Mott Haven class action lawsuit -- told the Amsterdam News
that NYPD officers blocked the protesters from entering Manhattan,
funneling them back to the Bronx. From there, they said, cops with
shields and batons created a wall around them.

Other officers zoomed down the street on bicycles, making it even
more difficult to leave. Protesters were encircled, trapped, and
squashed together by police in the practice best known as kettling.
A bullhorn blared warnings that the demonstration was in violation
of an 8 p.m. curfew set by then-Mayor Bill de Blasio's Emergency
Executive Order No. 119.

The Sierra sisters said the officers involved were in the SRG. They
also recalled that the officers began encircling them before 8
p.m.

They were soon connected to attorneys by National Lawyers Guild
members and decided to spearhead the lawsuit.

"Members of this class action did not take any legal action after
they were violated," Samira Sierra said. "It's not a coincidence
that after they were extremely violated and terrorized on June 4,
they did not take legal action. The majority of the people were
Black and brown folks; the majority of these people are Bronx
natives. And the majority of people live in the community, which is
the poorest congressional district in the United States."

A Department of Investigations (DOI) report corroborated the Sierra
sisters' recollection of the Mott Haven demonstrations, adding that
mass arrests were made by the NYPD and enforced by "physical force
against protesters, including striking them with batons." The
findings also allege the NYPD detained non-protesters such as legal
observers, medical workers, and journalists at the rally, some of
whom were zip-tied and shoved onto the street.

So far, direct complaints against only three SRG officers involved
in the Mott Haven protests have been substantiated by the CCRB. But
this is by design, according to Public Advocate Jumaane Williams.
In his testimony, he alleged officers made concentrated efforts to
impede the watchdog's probe by concealing their identities during
the protests and delaying body-worn camera footage. He also said he
has personally witnessed and experienced abusive practices by NYPD
officers at protests, including from members of the unit.

"Deploying the SRG to police protests has demonstrably resulted in
unnecessary abuse and violence, and their presence should no longer
be allowed at protests," said Williams in his statement. "It is
unsurprising that the SRG frequently uses excessive force, as they
are a specialized unit trained to respond to terrorism and violent
crime; over time, the NYPD has conflated terrorism and protest,
leading to the deployment of officers and militarized gear to
largely nonviolent demonstrations."

An NYPD spokesperson responded with a statement calling the
protests "a challenging moment" for the department and said lessons
were learned from the handling of demonstrators.

"Two-and-a-half years after the protests of 2020, much of the
NYPD's policies and training for policing large-scale
demonstrations have been re-envisioned based on the findings of the
department's own, self-initiated analyses and on the
recommendations from three outside agencies (that) carefully
investigated that period," said the police spokesperson.

Advocates from the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) -- a
long-time critic of the SRG -- are not convinced.

"The NYPD has taken no substantial steps to even take
accountability and acknowledge the harm that has been done," said
NYCLU Organizer Isabelle Leyva. "We've had many conversations with
protesters -- hundreds of people have met with us to talk, even
when we were thinking about what this campaign could be to disband
this unit. The overwhelming feedback that we got is that there is
no going back with the SRG and there is no moving forward with the
SRG."

"I don't think we've seen anything from the NYPD thus far to say
that there is a new approach or real reforms that have been made,"
said NYCLU Assistant Policy Director Michael Sisitzky. "If
anything, that doubled down on their defense of the SRG and its
tactics, rather than acknowledge that there was a fundamental flaw
in the very creation and implementation of this unit."

NYCLU representatives added that the recent class action lawsuit is
just one of the first legal dominos to fall. Other cases stemming
from the NYPD's handling of George Floyd demonstrations are still
ongoing, including those seeking injunctive relief that would
mandate the department drop certain policing practices.

"The biggest benefit to trying to achieve change through litigation
is that if you get to the settlement table, you are -- for the most
part -- directly talking to higher-up officials in the NYPD or in
the mayor's office," said NYCLU Senior Staff Attorney Daniel
Lambright. "And you are negotiating back and forth as to how those
individuals will be making changes. In some sense, you cut through
the City Council process where you try to subpoena the SRG to come
-- and they don't come. It's a more directed process."

But those pending court battles reportedly served as an excuse note
for the NYPD's absence last March 8, 2023. The NYPD's claims of a
legal gag order stemming from those cases and preventing its
participation at the hearing were reportedly disputed and refuted
by Hell Gate NYC. Lambright confirmed with the Amsterdam News that
no gag order exists for the NYPD in the NYCLU's current lawsuit.
Two previous attempts for a City Council oversight hearing about
the SRG were also rebuffed by the department and subsequently
delayed. As March 8, 2023 showed, the third time was not the charm.
[GN]

NY COMMUNITY BANK: US Realty Sues Over Unlawful Multiple Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
US Realty Group LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANK, Case No. 2:23-cv-01609-KAM-SIL
(E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2023), is brought concerning the Defendant's
unlawful business practices of assessing multiple $36 fees on an
item.

Besides being deceptive, upon information and belief, this practice
breaches promises made in Defendant's adhesion contract with its
customers. The Plaintiff and other customers of Defendant have been
injured by Defendant's improper fee maximization practice. The
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class of individuals
preliminarily, brings claims for the Defendant's breach of
contract, including the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and/or
unjust enrichment, and violation of New York General Business Law,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff maintained a checking account with the Defendant.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 558-5500
          Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: (202) 350-4783
          Email: sgold@kalielgold.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: (202) 280-4783
          Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com

O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 3
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA R. BARRETT, et al.,
v. O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al., Case No. 6:22-CV-03111-BCW
(W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Brian C. Wimes entered an order granting
the parties' joint motion to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to
file their motion for class certification.

  1. The Plaintiffs shall file their        November 3, 2023
     motion for Class Certification by:

  2. The Defendants shall file their        December 4, 2023.
     opposition to the Motion for
     Class Certification by:

  3. The Plaintiffs' reply in support       January 5, 2024
     of their Motion for Class
     Certification is due by:

O'Reilly is an American auto parts retailer that provides
automotive aftermarket parts, tools, supplies, equipment, and
accessories to professional service providers and do-it-yourself
customers.

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

OMNI HEALTH: Lopez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eugenio Moreno Lopez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. OMNI HEALTH INC. (D/B/A OMNI HEALTH INC.) and
JOSEPH C.  MASTEY A.K.A. JOE, Case No. 1:23-cv-01602 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 1, 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 the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that he 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. 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 delivery worker, a stocker, a
cashier, a juice maker, a food preparer, a cook, and a juice bar
cleaner at the Juice Bar.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a juice bar, located in
Brooklyn, New York, under the name "Omni Health Inc."[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


ONETOUCHPOINT INC: Murray Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Liam Murray, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. OneTouchPoint, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00301
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin on March 1, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00281-BHL to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

OneTouchPoint -- https://1touchpoint.com/ -- provides managed
services and technology-enabled execution support that help
companies amplify their customer engagements, with
beautifully-crafted marketing assets and communications produced
and distributed at scale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
          768 Plandome Rd
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 426-6870

               - and -

          Richard Haggerty, Esq.
          MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
          426 W Lancaster Ave-Ste 200
          Devon, PA 19333
          Phone: (267) 930-1594


ONTARIO: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unfair Vaccine Mandates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Clarke of Sunbury reports that a former City of Greater
Sudbury employee is part of a $126M class-action lawsuit against
dozens of Ontario municipalities that imposed vaccine mandates.

Confident they were right to deploy a vaccine mandate earlier in
the pandemic, City of Greater Sudbury staff are prepared to join
others by defending themselves in a class-action lawsuit.

"We've got this obligation to take every precaution reasonable in
the circumstances to protect a worker," city Corporate Services
general manager Kevin Fowke told Sudbury.com of the city's mandate,
which dictates all city staff members must be fully vaccinated
against COVID-19.

"That's a general Occupational Health and Safety tenet."

A class-action lawsuit filed against 72 Ontario municipalities,
school boards and municipal organizations, claims that vaccine
mandates resulting in the unvaccinated losing their jobs were
"unconstitutional."

"All the plaintiffs possess a conscientious and/or physical/medical
reason for refusing to take the COVID-19 'vaccines,'" according to
the statement of claim filed by the Rocco Galati Law Firm.

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

The statement of claim includes various points of misinformation
regarding the pandemic, including a claim that COVID-19 was not a
pandemic, "beyond and/or exceeding the consequences of the fallout
of the pre-COVID annual flu or influenza."

It also claims that more people have died as a result of COVID-19
measures than the virus itself. The alleged deaths that came as a
result of COVID-related measures are not quantified.

As of second week of March 2023, there have been 4.6 million
confirmed COVID-19 cases in Canada since the pandemic began, and
51,447 deaths.

In the 2018-19 influenza season, Health Canada recorded 613
flu-related intensive care unit admissions and 224 deaths.

Former City of Greater Sudbury employee Tracy Peura is part of the
class-action lawsuit, which resulted in the city's inclusion.
Sudbury.com reached out to Peura by phone and Facebook messenger
but have not received a response.

The lawsuit seeks $550,000 in compensation for each of its
plaintiffs, which would total $126 million.

The City of Greater Sudbury announced its vaccine mandate in
September 2021, at which time they noted all staff members must be
fully vaccinated by Nov. 14 of that year. Exemptions would be made
for those with valid Human Rights Code-based medical or religious
reasons.

With most city staff members proving compliant as the city eased
toward enforcing the policy, with leave initially granted for the
unvaccinated until such time as they received the required shots,
51 employees ended up losing their jobs.

One person received an exemption on human rights-related religious
grounds. The city followed legal advice in their decisions to deny
or grant exemptions, Fowke said.

Employees were from across various departments, and 21 were
volunteer firefighters.

The city's executive leadership team looked at the vaccine mandate
again in February 2023, and decided it'd be best to keep it in
place due to the COVID-19 virus still being out there.

"We have not seen the class action other than in the newspaper, so
there has been nothing officially served to the city," Fowke said,
adding that they'll go through a similar process as they do with
any employment-related grievance filed against the city, of which
there have already been some among the 51 people who lost their
jobs.

"We'll be defending the reasonableness of the policy," Fowke said.
"There are quite a few cases now starting to pile up around the
province in terms of how these cases are being handled."

Everything the city did in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic was
done under the guidance of Public Health Sudbury and Districts, he
added, alongside the best advice from provincial and federal health
officials.

"We continue to follow the guidance.".

As of March 8, Public Health Sudbury and Districts reports that
84.6 per cent of people six months of age and older have received
at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 81.5 per cent have
received at least two doses. They counted 11 active COVID-19
outbreaks. [GN]

PARTYMAKERS FLOWERS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Partymakers Flowers
and Balloons, Inc. The case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Partymakers Flowers
and Balloons, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01782 (S.D.N.Y., March 1,
2023).

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

Party Makers -- https://www.partymakersgreenville.com/ -- has all
the best party supplies Greenville NC has to offer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAYPAL INC: Pillard Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Pillard and Destiny Rucker, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. PAYPAL, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00936
(N.D. Cal., March 2, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other
similarly situated PayPal customers' names, addresses, Social
Security numbers, individual tax identification numbers, dates of
birth, (collectively the "Private Information") and additional
personally identifiable information ("PII") from hackers.

On January 18, 2023, PayPal filed official notice of a hacking
incident with the Office of the Maine Attorney General. Under state
law, organizations must report breaches involving personal
information, including Social Security number, driver's license or
state ID number, account number or credit or debit card number,
account passwords, among other things. Also, on January 18, 2023,
PayPal sent out data breach letters to individuals whose
information was compromised as a result of the recent data security
incident. Based on the Notice filed by the company, on December 20,
2022, PayPal detected unusual activity on some of its computer
systems. In response, the company conducted an investigation.
PayPal's investigation revealed that an unauthorized party had
access to certain company files between December 6, 2022 and
December 8, 2022 (the "Data Breach").

The Plaintiffs and Class Members were, and continue to be, at
significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of
personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for
their respective lifetimes. Plaintiffs and Class Members have
suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the
benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the attack.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit to address PayPal's
inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that
it collected and maintained. The potential for improper disclosure
of the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information was a
known risk to PayPal, and thus PayPal was on notice that failing to
take necessary steps to secure the Private Information left that
Private Information vulnerable to an attack, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were customers of PayPal.

PayPal is an online payment platform that serves more than 400
million customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle McLean, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 376-3739
          Fax: (646) 417-5967
          Email: kmclean@sirillp.com

               - and -

          Mason Barney, Esq.
          Steven D. Cohen, Esq.
          745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: 212-532-1091
          Facsimile: 646-417-5967
          Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
                 scohen@sirillp.com


PISA GROUP: Class Certification Bid in Williams TCPA Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANINE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE PISA GROUP, INC., Civil Action No.
18-4752 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gerald Austin McHugh of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the
Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class Certification.

In 1991, Congress reacted to consumers' outrage over the
proliferation of intrusive, nuisance telemarketing calls to their
homes by enacting the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The
TCPA provides a private right of action for violations of the Act
or the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) implementing
regulations. One such FCC regulation -- the basis for the present
suit --prohibits telemarketing calls to a residential telephone
subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the
national do-not-call registry (DNC) of persons who do not wish to
receive telephone solicitations.

Defendant Pisa Group (PGI) is a nationwide call center company that
solicits newspaper subscriptions via phone calls. It enters into
contracts with newspapers -- including the Philadelphia Inquirer --
through which PGI obtains consumers' phone numbers and other
contact information for telemarketing.

Williams is a Philadelphia resident. She registered her cellular
phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry on June 28, 2013,
where it continues to be registered. PGI called Williams' cellular
phone at least 12 times without her consent between April 29, 2015
and Oct. 26, 2015 -- more than 18 months after her Philadelphia
Inquirer subscription ended.

Williams contends that PGI violated the TCPA by calling her and
numerous others at their residential phones despite their phone
numbers being registered on the DNC and despite their not having an
established business relationship (EBR) with PGI. PGI admits to
calling Williams and seven other individuals in error 37 times, and
the Plaintiff has submitted an expert report suggesting that PGI
may have improperly called as many as 30,373 residential telephone
numbers that fall within the definition of her proposed class.

The Plaintiff now moves to certify the following class: "All
natural persons in the United States who, within four years
preceding the filing of this case, received more than one telephone
solicitation call from PGI within a 12-month period telemarketing
newspaper subscriptions more than 31 days after registering their
telephone number with the National Do-Not-Call Registry."

To determine whether to certify Williams' proposed class, Judge
McHugh must be satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the
prerequisites of Rule 23 are met. To prevail, Williams must prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that the prerequisites of both
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are met.

Under Rule 23(a), Williams must prove there are in fact
sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact,
typicality of claims or defenses, and adequacy of representation.
And under Rule 23(b)(3), Williams must prove that questions of law
or fact common to class members predominate over individualized
questions and that the class action device is superior to other
methods for resolving the claims.

After reviewing the Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class
Certification and the record before him, Judge McHugh is satisfied
that Williams has identified issues appropriate for resolution on a
class-wide basis and has met the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.

Judge McHugh finds that (i) the proposed class is sufficiently
numerous; (ii) Williams has shown that there is a strong similarity
of legal theories between all members of the proposed class and
that the class's claims arise from the same practice or course of
conduct on the part of PGI; (iii) Williams is a member of the
proposed class, has no divergent interests from the rest of the
class, and has suffered the same alleged injury as the rest of the
class; (iv) the Plaintiff has proven that the proposed class is
readily ascertainable; (v) proceeding as a class action is superior
to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating
the controversy; and (vi) common questions of law and fact
predominate over individual ones because the resolution of the
issues will turn on interpretations of the same data: the National
DNC, PGI's Call Records, and PGI's CRM data.

Thus, Judge McHugh grants the Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class
Certification. He certifies the class. An appropriate Order
follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2023 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yn72ve3t from Leagle.com.


POST MAPLE: Hernandez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. POST MAPLE RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a MONROE'S
RESTAURANT, HOSSAM FAHMY and ANTHONY VITUCCI, as individuals, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01651 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023), is brought to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages and damages for Defendants'
egregious violations of the Federal and New York State labor laws.

Although Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 56 to 66 hours or
more hours each week from November 2020 until July 20, 2022 and
from August 15, 2022 until December 2022, the Defendants did not
pay the Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours
regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation
of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The
Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and
overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location
of their employment as required by both the NYLL and the FLSA, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a cook, food
preparer, and kitchen worker while performing related miscellaneous
duties for the Defendants.

POST MAPLE RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a MONROE'S RESTAURANT, is a New York
domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the
State of 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
          Phone: 718-263-9591


REP FITNESS LLC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rep Fitness, LLC. The
case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Rep Fitness, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01866 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2023).

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

REP Fitness -- https://repfitness.com/ -- is a home and commercial
equipment supplier that specializes in strength and conditioning
equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RICOH USA: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leticia Lopez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. RICOH USA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV04651 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 2, 2023), is brought seeking
unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay wages for all
hours worked at minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the
overtime rate of pay; failure to authorize or permit all legally
required and/or compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium
wages; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and/or
compliant rest periods or pay rest period premium wages; statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements;
statutory waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages
for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation
of employment; injunctive relief and other equitable relief;
reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly non-exempt employees
worked more minutes per shift than Defendants credited them with
having worked. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all wages at the
applicable minimum wage for all hours worked due to Defendants'
policies, practices, and/or procedures including, but not limited
to: Requiring Plaintiff to line up to wait to undergo off-the-clock
COVID-19 screenings including temperature checks and medical
questionnaires, prior to being permitted to clock in for the start
of their shift and off-the-clock COVID-19 screenings while
off-the-clock during meal breaks; Requiring Plaintiff to go through
off-the clock security checks prior to clocking-in for the start of
their start shift, after clocking out for their meal breaks, and
prior to clocking back in from their meal breaks; and Requiring
Plaintiff to go through an off-the-clock boot up procedure in order
to clock-in for their shift.

The Plaintiff was not paid for this time resulting in the
Defendants'  failure to pay minimum wage for all the hours
Plaintiff worked. Therefore, the Defendants suffered, permitted,
and required their hourly non-exempt employees to be subject to
Defendants' control without paying wages for that time. This
resulted in the Plaintiff working time for which they were not
compensated any wages, in violation of Labor Code. Further, to the
extent the employees had already worked 8 hours in the day and on
workweeks they had already worked 40 hours in a workweek, the
employees should have been paid overtime for this unpaid time. This
resulted in hourly non-exempt employees working time which should
have been paid at the legal overtime rate but was not paid any
wages in violation of Labor Code. The Defendants' foregoing policy,
practice, and/or procedure resulted in Defendants failing to pay
Plaintiff at their overtime rate of pay for all overtime hours
worked, in violation of Labor Code, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly
non-exempt employee from May 2016, until June 7, 2022.

RICOH USA, INC. is authorized to do business within the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Danielle E. Montero, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                 vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                 dmontero@lelawfirm.com
                 WHT2@lelawfirm.com


SALESFORCE.COM INC: Miguel Wins Class Status Bid
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGOR MIGUEL, et al., v.
SALESFORCE.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01753-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine M. Chesney entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Defendants have filed opposition, to which plaintiffs have
replied. The matter came on regularly for hearing on February 17,
2023. Mark Gyandoh of Capozzi Adler, P.C. 16 on behalf of
plaintiff. Eric Serron of Steptoe & Johnson, LLP appeared on behalf
of defendants.

During the hearing, the Court indicated its likely ruling was to
grant the motion, and set forth, on the record, its reasoning in
support thereof. In light of arguments made on behalf of
defendants, however, the Court also indicated it would go back and
review some of the cases on which it relied in arriving at its
likely ruling.

While the Court agrees with defendants that, as compared with the
instant case, Boley v. Universal Health Services, Inc., 36 F.4 th
124 (3rd Cir. 2022) concerned a 24 narrower fact situation, see id.
at 136, the Court finds the allegations in Spano v. The Boeing
Company, 633 26 F.3d 574 (7 th Cir. 2011) are, for two reasons,
readily distinguishable from those here, in that the class in Spano
"covered all past and future participants" in the plan "even though
the allegations only concerned four specific funds," and the
challenges to those funds were "murky."

Although Boley did acknowledge a "potential for intra-class
conflict" may exist in ERISA cases "depending on the type of claim
and contours of the class," the Court finds neither the nature of
the claims alleged nor the contours of the class
proposed here precludes certification, and, in that regard, finds
persuasive the reasoning set forth in Shanehchian v. Macy's, Inc.,
2011 WL 883659 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2011) and Sims v. BB & T Corp.,
2017 WL 3730552 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 28, 2017).

Salesforce.com is a provider of enterprise cloud computing
solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Zm3lvW at no extra charge.[CC]

SENTINEL ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Jackson Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. SENTINEL ELECTRIC, INC.; and WILLIAM P.
HANNON, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00986-TWT (N.D. Ga., March 7,
2023) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Jackson was employed by the Defendant as a wireman.

SENTINEL ELECTRIC, INC. is an electrical testing company based in
Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon Van Remmen, Esq.
          Christopher B. Hall
          HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
          300 Galleria Parkway Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 876-8100
          Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
          Email: chall@hallandlampros.com
                 gordon@hallandlampros.com

SHADE STORE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chande Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN CHANDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC; and DOES 1 through
100, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV05050 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 7, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Chande was employed by the Defendants as installer.

THE SHADE STORE, LLC is a home decoration products provider. The
Company offers custom shades, blinds, and drapery, as well as
provides design assistance, trial swatches, measure, and
installation services. Shade Store serves customers in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Brown, Esq.
          Ethan C. Surls, Esq.
          TANSBURY BROWN LAW, PC
          2610 1/2 Abbot Kinney Blvd.
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (323) 204-3124
          Email:  dbrown@stansburybrownlaw.com
                  esurls@stansburybrownlaw.com

SLATER VECCHIO: Artificially Inflated Securities Prices, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Little at Global News reports that a B.C. law firm is
proposing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of investors against a
Langley company over claims it made last month that it was
authorized to sell cocaine.

Slater Vecchio LLP said it had filed a proposed securities class
action naming the company and its CEO Michael Forbes on behalf of
investors.

The suit claims the company artificially inflated its stock price
in breach of B.C.'s Securities Act through "inaccurate public
representations" it made about its ability to sell cocaine.

It claims investors suffered losses when the stock dropped after
the company walked back some of its claims.

"When companies make misrepresentations like this, it's usually the
investors who trusted them that get hurt the most," Slater Vecchio
LLP partner Saro Turner said in a media release.

"Our job is to stand up for them, and to help them get the
compensation they deserve."

Adastra Labs, B.C.-based cannabis company, issued a media release
on Feb. 22 saying it had been given a Health Canada exemption to
"include cocaine as a substance that the Company can legally
possess, produce, sell and distribute."

Health Canada subsequently clarified that the company could not
sell cocaine to the public, and that its exemption only allowed
sale to other other licence holders who have cocaine listed on
their licence, such as pharmacists, practitioners, hospitals, or
groups with a special research exemption.

In the wake of political and media attention, the company issued
its own clarification and retraction of claims made in the Feb. 22
media release on March 3.

"Such statements should not be relied upon," it said.

"The Dealer's Licence issued to Adastra Labs does not permit
Adastra Labs to sell coca leaf, psilocybin or cocaine to the
general public. For cocaine, and under the Dealer's Licence,
Adastra Labs is only permitted to sell to other licensed dealers"
outlined by Health Canada, it added.

Global News has requested comment from Adastra in response to the
suit and its allegations.

The class-action suit has not been certified, and none of the
claims have been proven in court. [GN]

SUMMIT UTILITIES: TRO Filed to Allow Customers to Stop Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Glisovic at katv.com reports that a Temporary Restraining
Order has been filed in the class action lawsuit against Summit
Utilities.

On March 10 attorneys with the Poynter Law Group filed the TRO
asking a Pulaski County judge to grant the following:

Allow customers to refuse or not make payments on their Summit
monthly gas bills and order Summit not to disconnect any Arkansas
customer until both parties go before the judge to introduce
evidence and argue whether the TRO should continue.

According to the court filing, Summit is accused of price gouging,
poor customer service and poor accounting of payments.

Attorney Scott Poynter told Seven on Your Side, "By filing our
motion for a TRO, we are moving as quickly as possible to help all
Arkansas customers of Summit Utilities. We hope our motion will be
addressed by the court."

Seven On Your Side has reported on high gas prices and billing
issues multiple times, including in one of its latest report that
aired on March 1 that included Summit's CEO, Kurt Adams,
apologizing for the latest mishap involving auto-draft payments.
Earlier, we spoke with Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin who
discussed the auto-draft payment issue.[GN]

TORCH ELECTRONICS: Faces Class Suit Over Gray-Market Machines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Saxon of USBets reports that Attorneys in Missouri this week
filed a class-action lawsuit accusing a manufacturer of gray-market
gambling machines of corruption and racketeering. The suit, filed
on behalf of seven state residents who claim to have been harmed
"through their use of one or more of the thousands of illegal slot
machines," also goes after the owners of the convenience stores
that house the machines.

The case no doubt will be watched closely by casino operators, who
have complained for years that the gray-market machines are illegal
and aren't subject to the same rules as casino slots in terms of
hold rates, regulatory compliance, and other state supervision. The
machines, often called video lottery terminals (VLTs), have
proliferated in recent years in the Show Me State and elsewhere.

Torch Electronics is among the defendants in the case, along with
Warrenton Oil Co., which operates gas and convenience stores
throughout the state. Also named as defendants are a company called
Mally Inc. and its past president, Mohammad Almuttan, as well as
three other individuals the suit ties to the machines, including
Torch's founding owner, Steven Miltenberger.

The suit was filed March 7, 2023 in the Western District Court of
Missouri.

Corruption at heart of lawsuit

Last year, Almuttan, who owns several convenience stores in St.
Louis, pled guilty to conspiracy to traffic in contraband
cigarettes, but he is appealing his four-year prison sentence. The
suit says Almuttan remains a member of Mally's board of directors.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has identified Almuttan as the federal
informant in last year's indictment that charged former St. Louis
Board of Aldermen President Lewis Reed and former Aldermen Jeffrey
Boyd and John Collins-Muhammad with accepting bribes from business
owners in order to approve lucrative tax breaks.

Almuttan's brother, Rami, also pled guilty to distributing
synthetic marijuana and other illegal drugs.

Torch owns and operates thousands of the machines in Missouri. They
are manufactured by a North Carolina company called Banilla Games.
The Almuttan brothers' stores were among the first venues to house
the machines in Missouri.

Another aspect of the suit that figures to draw casino operators'
attention is an allegation that the machines round down to the
nearest whole increment, meaning a gambler who won $5.99 would only
get $5 back, something legal slot machines are barred from doing.
Such rounding, if given enough volume, would produce enormous hold
rates for the machines. The net proceeds from the machines are
split between Torch and the owners of the establishments.

"Like the legal slot machines operated in licensed casinos in the
State of Missouri, Torch's slot machines are programmed to present
a dazzling visual display of bright, flashing colors to capture
consumers' attention and reinforce the false prospect of winning
large sums of money," the suit alleges, along with photos of the
machine displays.

No safeguards for vulnerable populations

The lawsuit also alleges that the machines are accessible to
vulnerable consumers, including gambling addicts and children.

"Children, including preteens and even toddlers, have been
regularly observed gambling on Torch's illegal slot machines," the
suit reads.

Gray-market machines also have been linked to the debate over
sports betting in Missouri, which is surrounded by states with
legal sports wagering. Last month, the Missouri House advanced
sports betting bills that would allow casinos to have retail
sportsbooks and both casinos and professional sports franchises to
offer digital platforms. The Senate Appropriations Committee voted
against a bill, sponsored by Republican Sen. Denny Hoskins, that
would have married legal sports betting with the legalization of
VLTs.

The suit also lists contributions of more than $657,000 made by
Torch to various politicians and political action committees in
Missouri, including $2,650 to the campaign of Gov. Mike Parson. The
largest of Torch's donations, made in June of 2020, was $90,000 to
the Missouri Growth PAC, which donates to political campaigns in
the state and counts among its greatest contributors the St.
Louis-based conservative activist Rex Sinquefield.

The suit alleges that while the consumers who played the machines
have lost an unknown amount, it is believed to exceed $5 million.
They are seeking three times that amount, plus court expenses. [GN]

TORCH ELECTRONICS: Illegal Gambling Suit Seeks Class-Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Barker at stltoday.com reports that a new lawsuit is using
state consumer protection statutes and a federal law used to
prosecute organized crime to go after Missouri's most well-known
purveyor of unregulated video slot machines and the convenience
stores that host them.

The lawsuit names Wildwood resident Steven Miltenberger and his
firm, Torch Electronics, in a multi-pronged lawsuit that includes
photos of children using the video slot machines and accusations
that Miltenberger is running an illegal gambling conspiracy with
convenience store owners.

Several Missouri residents who say they lost money playing the
games that have proliferated in gas stations and convenience stores
are seeking class action status on behalf of players who have lost
money on the machines across the state.

Attorney Joe Jacobson of Clayton firm Jacobson Press, who is
representing the seven plaintiffs along with Christopher Miller of
Amundsen Davis, said some of his clients struggle with gambling
addictions. He added his clients have observed children as young as
"10 years old" gambling on the machines.

"You can't avoid these illegal slot machines practically anywhere
you go," Jacobson said. "If you're a person who's got a gambling
problem, it's a constant battle, it's one they lose a lot. I think
that's part of the reason why we have laws that restrict gambling
to casinos that are licensed and have measures in place to protect
the public. Not perfect measures, but a whole lot better than
measures that don't exist."

It's the latest approach opponents are trying against the devices
after years of failed attempts by county prosecutors and the
Missouri Highway Patrol to apply Missouri's gambling laws to the
now-ubiquitous machines.

Several states are dealing with unregulated devices similar to slot
machines but which operators such as Torch claim don't fall within
state gambling definitions. Torch says its machines let players
know if they will win on their next spin, thus falling outside the
definition. But a player must still play that spin in order to
unlock a new chance at winning.

Meanwhile, the company and Miltenberger employ some of the state's
most powerful lobbyists and operatives and shower campaign cash on
state politicians, who have failed to take action on the games for
years.

The suit also names as a defendant Warrenton Oil, the operator of
Fast Lane brand convenience stores that host thousands of Torch
terminals.

Other defendants named in the lawsuit are brothers Mohammed
Almuttan and Rami Almuttan, along with their company. The
Almuttans, who own several convenience stores in north St. Louis
and north St. Louis County, were sentenced in October to four years
in prison as part of a federal investigation that charged them with
trafficking synthetic drugs and cigarettes.

Mohammed Almuttan gained notoriety as the federal informant who
cooperated with the government after his 2017 indictment in a
wide-ranging corruption sting. His cooperation helped convict
longtime St. Louis Board of Aldermen President Lewis Reed and two
other aldermen who accepted cash bribes for local tax breaks.

Miltenberger wrote a letter in support of Rami Almuttan before his
sentencing that said his family had known Rami Almuttan for 20
years and he had been "one of Torch Electronics' first clients."

The lawsuit uses the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, or RICO, a federal statute that has been used by prosecutors
to go after organized crime syndicates. The federal statute
includes a civil provision that allows private entities to sue for
damages.

In addition, the suit cites the Missouri Merchandising Practice Act
and accuses the companies of misleading consumers. Specifically, it
cites the mandated 80% payouts of regulated slot machines and
alleges Torch's machines pay out less while unsuspecting consumers
assume a similar chance of winning as in a casino slot machine.

Finally, the lawsuit cites an old Missouri law that allows people
who lost money gambling to sue to recover it and seeks to create a
class of Missouri consumers who have lost money on Torch's games.
Other laws carve out casinos from the statute, but Torch's games
aren't carved out from that statute, Jacobson said.

The suit was filed in federal court for the Western District of
Missouri, which includes Jefferson City. That makes it one of the
first federal lawsuits against Torch and Miltenberger.

"People tell me the guy (Miltenberger) is well-connected in the
state of Missouri government, so it just seemed prudent to bring
the action in a federal court," Jacobson said.

Political consultant Gregg Keller, who works as a spokesman for
Torch, said the company is reviewing the lawsuit but doesn't
comment on pending litigation.

A representative from Warrenton Oil declined to comment. An
attorney for Mohammad Almuttan didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment.[GN]

TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Adkins Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ADKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:23-cv-00449-DAP (N.D. Ohio, March 7, 2023) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff Adkins was employed by the Defendant as staff.

TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, LLC provides employment services. The
Company offers staffing, recruitment, and support services.
Tradesmen International serves construction, manufacturing, power,
industrial, marine, traders, and craftsmen in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          7034 Braucher Street N.W., Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                 sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Over COVID Mask Mandate to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland of Cook County Record reports that a federal judge
directed to arbitration a lawsuit from an Uber driver who claimed a
companywide mask mandate violated his rights and cost him his job.

Justin Mahwikizi started driving for Uber in 2015 in the Chicago
area. The company deactivated his account in February 2022,
accusing him of violating a policy requiring all drivers to wear
masks in cars as a Covid mitigation. Acting as his own lawyer,
Mahwikizi filed a class action against the company.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin dismissed the complaint because
pro se litigants only represent themselves, not others. But
Mahwikizi filed an amended complaint alleging Uber violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Act, the
California Unfair Competition Law and Common Carrier Law, along
with counts of unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, breach of
contract and tortious interference with contractual or advantageous
relations.

In August 2022, Uber's lawyers asked Mahwikizi to voluntarily
dismiss his complaint and agree to arbitration, pointing to his
January 2022 acceptance of a platform access agreement, the most
current version of the document drivers must sign in order to use
the proprietary software to connect with ride customers. Mahwikizi
declined, prompting Uber to file a motion to compel arbitration.

Durkin granted that motion in an opinion filed March 6.

According to court records, Uber gives drivers 30 days after
completing a platform access agreement to send an email opting out
of the arbitration provision, which "survives the termination of a
driver's relationship with the company," Durkin wrote. Otherwise,
the provision falls under Federal Arbitration Act rules and applies
to all claims. Mahwikizi sent no such email.

"Mahwikizi does not dispute that he agreed to the arbitration
provision or argue that his failure to opt out should be excused,
that the provision is unenforceable under Illinois law, or that his
claims are outside of its scope," Durkin wrote.

Instead, Mahwikizi said Uber drivers are engaged in interstate
commerce and therefore exempt from the federal law.

Neither Mahwikizi nor Uber disputed the class would include a group
of nationwide drivers, but Durkin noted "the overwhelming majority
of courts across the country that have considered" whether
rideshare service drivers qualify for this exemption agreed with
Uber's position.

"Uber drivers provide transportation services that are
predominantly local and intrastate in nature," Durkin wrote, citing
a random sample of drivers covering more than 390 million Uber
rides." Of all trips taken through the Uber platform between 2015
and 2021, approximately 97.54% started and ended in the same state,
and the average trip was 6.32 miles and 16.41 minutes in
duration."

Durkin said Mahwikizi offered no hard evidence to support his claim
of frequently taking drivers across state lines and said even such
proof wouldn't sustain the claims on a class basis. He further
noted courts that have granted exceptions for employees did so when
the workers showed interstate commerce to be "a central feature" of
their employment. Uber drivers, by contrast, are general drivers
and not specifically providers of interstate transportation.

Mahwikizi said the specific Uber for Business platform establishes
a link between drivers' work and transit hubs, like airports and
train stations, that facilitate passengers' interstate travel.

But Durkin said Mahwikizi's description of the platform was
"inaccurate," as it doesn't lead to companies mandating their
employees to use Uber for business travel. He likewise said Uber's
contracts with airports for staging lots and designated areas
doesn't change the fact most of the actual driving by Uber
contractors is local.

Uber has been represented by attorneys Jennifer L. Schilling and
Victoria Vanderschaaf, of Littler Mendelson, of Chicago. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Filing of Class Status Bid Extended
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-03442 (D.D.C.), the Hon.
Judge Reggie B. Walton entered an order granting the the
plaintiff's unopposed motion to enlarge deadline to file motion for
class certification.

The Court further ordered that the deadline for the plaintiff to
file his motion for class certification is stayed until further
order by the Court.

The suit alleges violation of the Right to Privacy Act.

The United States Department of Education is a Cabinet-level
department of the United States government.[CC]


UNITED STATES: Neville Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TINA A. NEVILLE, et al.,
v. CHARLOTTE A. BURROWS, Chair, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, the Hon. Judge Rudolph Contreras entered an order
denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

In light of the parties' representations in the Defendants' motion
to stay briefing, it is hereby ordered that the Plaintiffs' motion
to certify class is denied without prejudice subject to refiling if
the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

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.[CC]


VERTEX ENERGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Hedging Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lesley Bankes-Hughes at bunkerspot.com reports that a class action
lawsuit has been launched on behalf of shareholders of Vertex
Energy alleging that the company failed to disclose, ahead of its
acquisition of Shell's Mobile refinery, that it had entered into
hedging contracts that capped the profit margins on 50% of the
refinery's expected output between April-September 2022.

As previously reported, in April 2022, Shell announced the
completion of the 90,000 barrels a day refinery in Mobile, Alabama
to Vertex Energy. The sale had been agreed in May 2021 for a
consideration of $75 million in cash plus the value of the
hydrocarbon inventory and other closing adjustments and accrued
liabilities.

Vertex Energy's plans for Mobile included the conversion of some of
the refinery's output to produce potentially more profitable
renewable diesel fuel. The acquisition of the refinery was expected
to give a major boost to Vertex's annual revenues, from $115
million in FY2021 to a projected $4 billion in FY2023.

In Q2 2022, Vertex reported a net loss of $63.8 million, which
included an unrealised commodity derivative loss, a loss on an
intermediation agreement due to backwardation and a $46.1 million
realised commodity derivatives loss.

The newly-lodged lawsuit claims that the hedging contracts
significantly capped the profit margins on the Mobile refinery's
expected output over the six months from 1 April 2022, affecting
over 6.5 million barrels of refined fuels output.

In its announcement of its full year 2022 results last month,
Vertex reported net income of $1.9 million and adjusted EBITDA of
$161 million. It noted that work had begun on the Mobile conversion
project, with tracking on schedule for mechanical completion in
March this year and initial production of 8,000 bpd of renewable
diesel in April.

Vertex Energy's portfolio includes operations in Houston and Port
Arthur. It also has a refinery in Marrero in Louisiana. As
previously reported, in January 2020 Bunker One agreed a 10-year
supply and offtake agreement under which its subsidiary, Bunker One
USA, has the exclusive right to purchase 100% of Vertex's Marrero,
Louisiana refinery's marine fuel production through December 2029.
[GN]

WALMART INC: Milton City Joins Opioid-Related Class Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Huppertz, writing for the AJC, reports that the Milton City
Council recently approved a plan to opt-in with the state of
Georgia in an opioid-related class-action legal settlement
involving Walmart and Walgreens.

Settlement agreements have been reached nationwide to resolve
opioid litigation brought by states, local governments and special
districts against two pharmaceutical manufacturers, Teva and
Allergan and three pharmacies, CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart.

The settlements require these manufacturers and pharmacies to pay
more than $20 billion to provide prevention and treatment of opioid
addiction. Of this amount, approximately $17 billion will be used
by participating states and local governments.

Since Georgia is a participating state, Milton must sign up to
participate in order to directly share in any of the settlement
funds. The purpose of this recent council resolution is to opt-in
as an eligible local government. [GN]



WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Doherty Class Suit Over Pump Stations Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Francis and Brandon Carr report that you may remember
the historic rain that flooded homes in Detroit and Grosse Pointe
in June 2021.

Hundreds of families sued, claiming two Great Lakes Water Authority
pump stations failed.

Now, a judge has dismissed the case. The attorney behind the class
action lawsuit says governmental immunity is to blame.

Attorney and flood victim Paul Doherty said the Wayne County
Circuit Court Judge prevented them from gathering evidence to prove
their case.

"With us having no ability to gather proof, the Great Lakes Water
Authority was able to control the narrative and said, 'This was the
storm of the millennium, judge,'" said Doherty. "'No sewer system
could handle it. Dismiss us,' and the judge agreed."

Doherty questioned that logic.

"The only areas that had massive flooding were the two areas
serviced by these pump stations," Doherty said. "So, if no sewer
system could handle the rain, as they contended, then why didn't
Troy have flooding? Why didn't Sterling Heights have flooding?"

Doherty plans to appeal the ruling.

Homeowners around Jefferson Avenue and Chalmers in Detroit remember
the flood like it was March 8, 2023.

"It was a mess, a nasty mess," said Detroit resident Deborah.

Deborah believes there needs to be accountability for what
happened, calling it an injustice.

"How could it have happened," Deborah said. "How can they have been
so negligent?" [GN]

WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Reeves Files Class Suit Over Forfeiture Policies
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Berg of The Detroit News reports that a Detroit man is suing
Wayne County, the county's attorney and a county prosecutor,
alleging they retaliated by filing felony charges against him after
he joined a class-action lawsuit pushing back against the county's
civil forfeiture policies.

Police took Robert Reeves' car from him in 2019 after they stopped
and questioned him about a skid steer they believed to be stolen,
according to the lawsuit, which was filed March 9, 2023 in Wayne
County Circuit Court. The 32-year-old was unable to get his car
back for more than six months and he joined a class-action lawsuit
in February 2020 suing Wayne County over its vehicle seizure and
civil forfeiture practices.

The day after the lawsuit was announced, prosecutors asked police
to release Reeves' car, according to the lawsuit. He got a check
for the $2,200 from cash that he had in his pocket when he was
stopped by police, and picked up his car about two weeks later,
according to the lawsuit.

A month later, prosecutors filed charges against Reeves and another
man for two counts of concealing stolen property. The warrants and
others had been requested by police five months prior, but they sat
dormant at the Prosecutor's Office. But the day after Reeves filed
the lawsuit, Assistant Prosecutor Dennis Doherty asked the officer
in charge of the investigation for a clarification. Ten days later,
Doherty received a new warrant request and recommended charges be
filed, according to the lawsuit.

Prosecutors only pursued the charges against Reeves because he was
a plaintiff in the forfeiture lawsuit, the complaint alleges.
Reeves sued Wayne County, Assistant Prosecutor Dennis Doherty and
Davidde Stella, the assistant corporation counsel for Wayne
County's Department of Corporation Counsel.

Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor Maria Miller declined to comment
due to the pending litigation. A spokesperson for the county did
not immediately respond for comment.

"Wayne County prosecutors directed Michigan State Police to reopen
that investigation and see that the charges were brought against
Robert," said Reeves' attorney, Wesley Hottot. "The immediate
response within the county when Robert sued them was to first
direct MSP to return the property to him, which they did quickly,
and to turn around and charge him with a crime. Those two things
are inconsistent. . . . They were designed to get the county out of
federal lawsuit."

Hottot, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, said
retaliation discourages people from speaking out against the
government and makes it more likely government abuses will go
unchecked.

"Wayne County has been so desperate to keep its forfeiture machine
intact that it would rather throw Robert in jail than face his
arguments in court," Hottot said. "The Institute for Justice has
been litigating civil rights cases for 30 years and has never seen
a government retaliate against one of our clients by filing
charges."

Reeves is only asking for $1 in damages. The bigger picture is to
make sure Reeves and all other would-be litigants are protected if
they sue the government, to let governments know "you can't go
after our clients without good cause," his attorney said.

"We're making sure prosecutors and policy makers in Wayne County
understand that you can't ruin a person's life in this way. It's
unconstitutional," Hottot said. "They're not allowed to baselessly
charge someone to punish them."

Reeves did not get a hearing for nearly a year. When he finally sat
for his preliminary exam in February 2021 to determine if there was
enough evidence for the case to proceed, 36th District Court Judge
Kenneth King dismissed the charges.

Less than a month later, prosecutors refiled charges against
Reeves. It took nearly another year, until January 2022, before his
second preliminary exam began, and King again dismissed it because
of a lack of evidence. For charges to be dismissed not once, but
twice, for a lack of probable cause is "virtually unheard of,"
Hottot said.

While Reeves' felonies were pending, the county filed a motion in
federal court saying his claims couldn't be considered while the
criminal case was pending, according to the lawsuit.

People should be upset that a multi-jurisdictional task force spent
weeks investigating a rental equipment theft ring and one of the
only people charged was Reeves, who was alleged to have the
smallest role in the ring, Hottot said. Reeves had met with another
person at a construction site who asked him to confirm that a skid
steer was working, he said. Police alleged the skid steer was
stolen from Home Depot, but Reeves had not known that it was
stolen, Hottot said, and prosecutors never showed any proof that it
was.

There is nothing stopping prosecutors from filing a third charge
against Reeves except the 10-year statute of limitations, which
runs out in 2029, Hottot said.

"The awesome power that prosecutors wield should be used against
offenders," Hottot said. "It should not be used as a litigation
tactic."

The lawsuit alleges the retaliation is part of a larger problem.
One of the other plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit, Stephanie
Wilson, was charged in a civil forfeiture case, which Hottot said
is rare for courts to pursue. The forfeiture case was dismissed,
reinstated by the Michigan Court of Appeals and is now being
pursued to the Michigan Supreme Court.

"A few weeks after Stephanie joined the case, they started
prosecuting that forfeiture case," Hottot said. [GN]

WELLS FARGO: Deposition Request in Sticht Suit Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HEATHER STICHT, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-1550 (VAB) (D. Conn.), Judge Victor A.
Bolden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
grants in part and denies in part:

     a. the discovery documents sought by Ms. Sticht; and

     b. Ms. Sticht's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition request.

Until January of 2016, Ms. Sticht allegedly owned a residential
real property located at 14 Willow Lane, Clinton, Connecticut
06413, for about 20 years. Wells Fargo was the servicer of Ms.
Sticht's mortgage in connection with the Property.

In 2012 and 2013, following an injury that prevented her from
working, and in a period of financial difficulty, Ms. Sticht
allegedly requested a loan modification from Wells Fargo. Although
Wells Fargo initially informed the Plaintiff that she was eligible
for a temporary modification and reduced her loan payment,
according to Ms. Sticht, Wells Fargo eventually informed her that
she did not qualify for a mortgage modification and began
foreclosure proceedings. Ultimately, Wells Fargo allegedly forced a
sale of Ms. Sticht's home, through a short sale, on Jan. 26, 2016.

On Sept. 21, 2018, Ms. Sticht allegedly received a letter from
Wells Fargo, stating that she should have been approved for a
mortgage modification. According to her, the denial of a mortgage
modification was due to an internal fault in Wells Fargo's private
loan modification software. The letter, according to Ms. Sticht,
was accompanied by a $15,000 check that Wells Fargo said was
intended to 'make things right.'

After receiving the letter, an employee of Wells Fargo allegedly
began making phone calls to Ms. Sticht's home, about one or two
times a week, inquiring as to whether she had received the letter
and whether she would be cashing the check. Ms. Sticht cashed the
check, after Wells Fargo allegedly assured her that doing so would
not entail the waiver of any of her legal rights.

On Oct. 14, 2020, Ms. Sticht sued Wells Fargo, alleging eight
causes action relating to Wells Fargo denying her a mortgage
modification. On Dec. 17, 2020, Wells Fargo filed a motion to
dismiss.  On the same day, it filed a motion to strike certain
paragraphs from the Complaint.

On Jan. 22, 2021, Ms. Sticht filed a motion to Amend/Correct the
Complaint. On Jan. 25, 2021, the Court granted Ms. Sticht's motion
to amend/correct the Complaint and denied, as moot, Wells Fargo's
motion to strike related to original Complaint.

On Feb. 7, 2021, Ms. Sticht filed an Amended Complaint, alleging
six causes of action relating to Wells Fargo denying her a mortgage
modification. On March 16, 2021, Wells Fargo filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint.  On April 12, 2021, Ms. Sticht filed
an opposition to the motion to dismiss. In response to Wells
Fargo's motion to dismiss all claims, Ms. Sticht withdrew the
Second (the unjust enrichment count), Third (the recklessness
count), Fourth (the negligent infliction of emotional distress
count), and Sixth (the breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing).

On April 26, 2021, Wells Fargo filed a reply in further support of
its motion to dismiss. On Jan. 25, 2022, the Court held oral
arguments on the motion to dismiss. Three days after, it issued a
Ruling denying the motion to dismiss. On March 4, 2022, Wells Fargo
filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint.

On Jan. 17, 2023, the parties filed a joint motion requesting a
discovery conference. The counsel for Ms. Sticht and the counsel
for Wells Fargo jointly requested a conference to address
outstanding discovery disputes. Initially, Ms. Sticht sought all
previously produced discovery in a now-settled class action,
Hernandez v. Wells Fargo, No. 3:18cv07354 (WHA) (N.D Cal.)), which
she argues raised an identical claim as the one at issue in her
case. Wells Fargo objected.

The next day, the Court granted that motion and ordered the parties
to file statements in support of their respective positions in
preparation for a discovery conference, which the Court set for
Feb. 9, 2023. On Jan. 27, 2023, Wells Fargo and Ms. Sticht each
filed their statements. On Feb. 3, 2023, they each filed a
response.

On Feb. 9, 2023, the Court held a discovery conference. It
permitted the parties to submit supplemental briefing in support of
their positions. On Feb. 13, 2023, Ms. Sticht filed her
supplemental statement and on Feb. 17, 2023, Wells Fargo filed its
response to Ms. Sticht's Supplemental statement.

Following a discovery conference held on Feb. 9, 2023, Ms. Sticht
filed a sur-reply. In her submission, she suggested a "back up"
solution, narrowing her requests to: (1) complete versions of
documents either included or excerpted in Hernandez as Exhibits
1-40 of Document number 173-1, the Declaration of Michael Schrag In
Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification,
January 9, 2020 ("Request 1"), and (2) the deposition transcripts
of the seven Wells Fargo employees the plaintiffs deposed in
Hernandez ("Request 2").

Ms. Sticht similarly focused her deposition requests to "Mr. Neil
Gomez, the Wells Fargo employee who interacted with Ms. Sticht, and
Ms. Mary Coffin, a Wells Fargo employee whose existence the
Hernandez plaintiffs didn't learn of until it was too late." Wells
Fargo continued its objection to this narrowed discovery request.

The parties' dispute centers around whether Ms. Sticht is entitled
to discovery which Wells Fargo previously produced in a now-settled
class action, Hernandez, and whether Ms. Sticht may depose a Wells
Fargo representative about those documents.

First, rather than engage in contentious discovery disputes over a
series of document requests, Ms. Sticht asks the Court to compel
Wells Fargo to provide to her discovery it has already provided to
the Hernandez plaintiffs.

Judge Bolden concludes that (i) documents relevant to the inquiry
on wrongful denial of mortgage modification in Hernandez would be
relevant; (ii) it would be overboard and burdensome to require it
to review and produce 345 filings with over 390 exhibits filed on
the docket in Hernandez, including documents referenced within
those filings and (iii) discovery documents that Wells Fargo
produced in Hernandez are relevant and their production is not
unduly burdensome.

Accordingly, he grants Ms. Sticht's narrowed discovery Request 1,
specifically, "complete versions of documents either included or
excerpted in Hernandez as Exhibits 1-40 of Doc 173-1, the
Declaration of Michael Schrag In Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion for Class Certification, January 9, 2020."

Next, Ms. Sticht seeks to depose a Wells Fargo corporate
representative regarding the "the content and meaning of the
documents" produced in the Hernandez. In her supplemental
submission, she narrowed her deposition request to Mr. Neil Gomez,
the Wells Fargo employee who interacted with Ms. Sticht, and Ms.
Mary Coffin, a Wells Fargo employee whose existence the Hernandez
plaintiffs didn't learn of until it was too late. Wells Fargo does
not raise an objection the deposition of Mr. Gomez.

Judge Bolden denies without prejudice the request to depose Ms.
Mary Coffin. He holds that Ms. Sticht fails to show that she
possesses unique factual information and institutional knowledge
necessary to the prosecution of the case. And, absent objection, he
grants the request to depose Mr. Neil Gomez.

For the reasons he explained, Judge Bolden grants in part and
denies in part the discovery documents sought by Ms. Sticht. To the
extent protective orders are necessary in order to facilitate the
discovery required to be produced, the parties will endeavor to
work together and submit them for approval by the Court.

Judge Bolden grants in part and denies in part Ms. Sticht's Rule
30(b)(6) deposition request.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 24, 2023 Ruling Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4sjsu564 from Leagle.com.


[*] Hardware Corporation Faces FCRA Class Action in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
PreEMPLOY disclosed that a proposed class action addresses a major
hardware corporation's failure to prospective employees. According
to the case, the hardware company systematically violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This violation involves not providing
a copy of the employees' background checks and a summary of their
rights before making adverse employment decisions. Allegedly, the
company made these decisions based on information found in the
background checks.

According to the plaintiff, a warehouse in Florida operated by the
company scheduled him to work and rescinded the offer before he
could start. He claimed the decision came after the company
obtained a consumer report that incorrectly listed criminal
convictions for crimes he did not commit. Finally, the plaintiff
emphasized that the company neglected to send him a copy of the
consumer report or a summary of his rights under the FCRA before it
took adverse action.

Furthermore, the plaintiff asserted that the company did not
provide adequate time to correct any inaccurate information. The
lawsuit added that this failure to supply disclosures required by
the FCRA also affected other individuals in similar situations. As
a result, the company's negligence caused the class members
significant harm to their finances and reputation.

The class action suit intends to represent all natural persons
affected by this violation. Those involved will include anyone from
five years before the filed complaint and continue through the
conclusion of this case:

   -- Applied for a job with the defendant
   -- Were the subject of a consumer report that the defendant
obtained and used for purposes of employment
   -- Were the subject of an adverse employment action taken by the
defendant
   -- Were not supplied with a pre-adverse action notice, a copy of
the consumer report, and/or a written summary of their rights as
provided by the FCRA

Employers must ensure they comply with the FCRA to avoid potential
lawsuits. However, doing so means more than just complying with the
requirements before taking adverse action. It also includes
following the regulations concerning obtaining background checks
and what to do after taking adverse action.

These regulations often prove confusing and challenging for
employers. As this case revealed, even a minor mistake can lead to
a lawsuit. The best way to ensure you remain compliant with FCRA
regulations is to partner with a trustworthy background check
company. [GN]


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***