---

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

              Wednesday, March 22, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 59

                            Headlines

600 NORTH AKARD: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Sanchez Suit Claims
ADIDAS AMERICA: Court Junks Inouye Suit
ALLBIRDS INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
ALPHABET INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 15
ALTICE USA: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Johnson Suit Affirmed

AMAZON.COM INC: Sued for Collecting Biometric Identifier Info
AMGEN INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 12
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Ex Champion Mulls Joining Concussion Suit
AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Faces Concussion Suit From Former Players
BETTENDORF, IA: Shipley Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 20

BIGSTEELBOX CORP: Customers File Class Suit Over Damaged Property
BLOOM INSTITUTE: Faces Class Suit Over Coding Boot Camp
BP EXPLORATION: Claims in Hodge B3 Case Dismissed With Prejudice
BRAIDAN FORD: Fails to Pay Security Guards' OT Wages Under FLSA
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Consolidated CVR Securities Suit Dismissed

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Guide Outfitter's Suit Certified as Class Action
BUFFALO WILD: Faces Halim Class Suit Over Boneless Wings' False Ads
C.H. ROBINSON: Partial Summary Judgment Bids in JMR Suit Granted
CEREBRAL INC: Embeds Meta Pixel on Website, Doe Class Suit Says
CREATORS AGENCY: Faces $1B Class Suit Over Crypto Fraud Promotion

CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities' Violations
CVS PHARMACY: Swiatek Sues Over Dietary Supplements' False Ads
DAXI SICHUAN: $23K in Attorneys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Zang Suit
DEERE & CO: Class Suit Over Farmers' "Right to Repair" Discussed
DELAVAL INC: Court Tosses Bid to Strike Class Allegations

DNC PARKS: Filing Date to Oppose Class Cert. Bid Extended in Vega
DRAFTKINGS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 8
EASTERSEALS-GOODWILL: Court Narrows Claims in Teeter Suit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Class Action in B.C. Over Loot Boxes
ESTHETICS BY JEANETTE: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

FAVORITE CATERERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cardoza Alleges
FOUNDATION ENERGY: Parties Seek to Strike Class Cert Sched Order
GEICO CASUALTY: Bids to Exclude Expert Testimony Denied as Moot
GEO SECURE: Castillo Seeks to Certify Non-Exempt Employee Class
GERBER LIFE: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal

GIGAACQUISITIONS2 LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Laidlaw Suit
GREAT AMERICAN: Class Cert Filing Deadline Extended to March 24
HALO MEDIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bailes Suit Alleges
HORIZON BANCORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Objection to Jan. 30 Order Overruled in Shaw

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Defence Filing in Defective Engine Suit Until May 19
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Metal Debris in Engine
IKEA NORTH: Agrees to Settle Richardson FACTA Suit for $24-Mil.
IKEA NORTH: Class Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set May 4
IVY LEAGUE: University Athletes Sue Over Antitrust Violations

JEREMY JOHNSON: Irvine Seeks to Certify Mentally Ill People Class
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Ok'd $25M Remicade Antitrust Class Suit
JVK OPERATIONS: More Time to File Class Cert Reply Sought
KONNEKTIVE REWARDS: Tan Bid to File Docs Under Seal Denied
M.A. MORTENSON: Almorisi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

MASSAGE ENVY: Stockman Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
MATT BREWING CO: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MCDERMOTT CUE: General Pretrial Mgm't Order Entered in Campbell
MCDONALD'S CORP: Directors' Bid to Toss Stockholders' Claims OK'd
MENZIES AVIATION: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Moved to April 24

METROPOLITAN POLICE: More Time to File Reply OK'd in Pappas Suit
MID-CITY FOUNDRY: Sanders Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
MOVIN SOLUTION: Fails to Pay Movers' OT Wages, Perez Alleges
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Arbitration Bid in Flores Suit Granted in Part
NAZZARO ENTERPRISES: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

NEW YORK LIFE: Court Modifies Oct. 20 Scheduling Order
NEW YORK, NY: 90 Days Extension to File Class Cert Sought
NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement Terms Get Intial Nod in Sierra
NEWPORT APOTHECARY: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NHL ENTERPRISES: Joiner Sues Over Sharing Users' Info to Facebook

NISSAN NORTH: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Ayala
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 15
NORTH DAKOTA: Book Ban Bills Violated First, 14th Amendments
NORTHSTAR EMERGENCY: Faces Class Action Following Data Breach
SAS RETAIL: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Pietronuto Class Suit Says

SEPHORA USA: Faces Class Actions Over Alleged Labor Violations
SOCIAL FINANCE: Final Settlement Hearing in DACA Suit Set May 11
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Carlson Suit Over Drop in Share Price
SQUARETRADE INC: Class Settlement in Shuman Suit Has Final Approval
SVB FINANCIAL: Faces Vanipenta Suit Over Drop in Share Price

T&T FARMS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 12
TAHOE VENTURES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TERRILL OUTSOURCING: Court Dismissed Stallworth FDCPA Suit in Ill.
TIPPECANOE COUNTY, IN: Court Denies Bid to Appoint Counsel
TOUR RESOURCE: Settlement in Delcavo Gets Final Nod

TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
TYSON FOODS: Removes Bailey Suit to N.D. Illinois
UNITED AIRLINES: Bid for Protective Order Stricken in Konda Suit
UNITED STATES: Court Clarifies January 31 Injunction in Carr Suit
UNITED STATES: Settles 17-Year-Long Suit Over Medical Clearance

UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Samson Seeks to File Docs Under Seal8
VICTORY MARKETING: Medina Sues Over Medical Assistants Unpaid OT
VIRGINIA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged IDEA Violations
VIRGINIA: Southern Regional Jail Faces Civil Rights Violations
VISA INC: Second Cir. Upheld $5.6B Settlement in Antitrust Suit

WALMART INC: Carr, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
WHOLE FOODS: Molock, et al., Seek Class Certification
WYNN RESORTS: Judge Grants Class Cert. in Sexual Misconduct Suit
YALE-NEW HAVEN: Court Narrows Claims in Ruilova ERISA Class Suit
[^] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Register Now!


                            *********

600 NORTH AKARD: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Sanchez Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 600 North Akard LLC d/b/a Dakota's Steakhouse, Case No.
3:23-cv-00540-L (N.D. Tex., Mar. 10, 2023) sues the Defendant for
failing to pay the minimum wages all individuals who were
employed by the Defendant as servers, bartenders, or both, under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant pays its servers and
bartenders -- including Plaintiff -- wages that are less than the
minimum wage. Instead of paying the minimum wage, it appears the
Defendant is attempting to take credit for the tips its employees
earn to meet the minimum wage requirement. Here, the Defendant
allegedly purportedly seeks to take advantage of the tip credit by
paying its servers and bartenders less than the minimum wage and
relying on tips to offset Defendant's obligation to pay the full
minimum wage, says the suit.

In addition, the Defendant also allegedly failed to provide the
Plaintiff and its other servers and bartenders with written notice
of the information required by 29 C.F.R.

Mr. Sanchez was employed by the Defendant as a server from October
2021 to December 2022.

600 North owns and operates the dining establishment commonly known
as Dakota's Steakhouse in downtown Dallas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 840-5102
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmannlaw.com

ADIDAS AMERICA: Court Junks Inouye Suit
---------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID INOUYE, v. ADIDAS
AMERICA, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-00416-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington entered an order:

   (1) granting the Defendant Adidas America, Inc's Motion to
Dismiss;

   (2) dismissing without prejudice Counts I, II, III, IV, V,
       and VI;

   (3) dismissing with prejudice Count VII;

   (4) directing the Plaintiff David Inouye to file an amended
       complaint within 14 days from the date of the Order.

Because Mr. Inouye is the only named the Plaintiff in this action,
the Court lacks jurisdiction over his Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act
(MMWA) claims.

Because Mr. Inouye has not asserted cognizable state-law warranty
claims, Mr. Inouye's MMWA claim is dismissed. For the same reason
as Mr. Inouye's state-law claims, the MMWA claim is dismissed with
prejudice. Even if there were cognizable state-law warranty claims,
the MMWA claim would alternatively be subject to dismissal because
Mr. Inouye has failed to fulfill the 100-named-the Plaintiff
requirement of the
MMWA.

Notably, Mr. Inouye does not allege that he purchased the product
from Adidas; rather, he alleges that he did so from third-party
vendors such as Fanatics. At no point in the complaint does Mr.
Inouye detail how his purchases from Fanatics – and other unnamed
third-party vendors -- directly benefitted Adidas. Even assuming
that Fanatics paid a portion of its revenues to Adidas, this would,
like in Johnson and Florida Power, indicate an indirect benefit "at
best." See Johnson, 687 F. App'x at 830 (finding a purchase from a
third-party who then, in turn, pays premiums to the Defendant
insufficient to establish a direct benefit conferred on the
Defendant); Mr. Inouye has thus failed to show that he conferred a
direct benefit on Adidas.

The case arises out of the allegedly deceptive product labeling by
Adidas America, Inc., of its jerseys as "authentic."

Adidas manufactures, labels, markets, and sells National Hockey
League ("NHL") jerseys. Adidas promotes the Product as "authentic,"
representing as such through methods including labeling, hang tags
attached to the Product, and descriptions on its website.

Third-party stores and websites, including fanatics.com, also
identify the Product as "authentic." Despite Adidas'
characterization of the Product as "authentic," the Product differs
in numerous ways from the jerseys worn by NHL players, the
Plaintiff contends.

Adidas manufactures, labels, markets, and sells National Hockey
League ("NHL") jerseys (the "Product")

A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Tf3MFY at no extra charge.[CC]





ALLBIRDS INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Allbirds, Inc. BIRD resulting from allegations that
Allbirds may have issued materially misleading business information
to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Allbirds securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12941 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 9, 2023, after trading hours, Allbirds
issued two press releases announcing "a strategic transformation
plan to reignite growth in the coming years, as well as improve
capital efficiency, and drive profitability" after falling short of
expectations and also that the current Chief Financial Officer
would step down.

On this news, the price of Allbirds' stock fell $1.11, or 47%, to
close at $1.25 per share on March 10, 2023.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

        Laurence Rosen, Esq.
        Phillip Kim, Esq.
        The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
        New York, NY 10016
        Tel: (212) 686-1060
        Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
        Fax: (212) 202-3827
        lrosen@rosenlegal.com
        pkim@rosenlegal.com
        cases@rosenlegal.com
        www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

ALPHABET INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 15
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 19
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of securities of Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG, GOOGL),
the parent company of Google, between February 4, 2020 and January
23, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action
lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 15, 2023.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Alphabet securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Alphabet class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=13312 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 15, 2023. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Alphabet used its dominance in
the field of digital advertising to disadvantage website publishers
and advertisers who used competing advertising products; (2) the
foregoing conduct was anticompetitive in nature and likely to draw
significant regulatory scrutiny; (3) Alphabet's revenues were
unsustainable to the extent that they were the product of said
anticompetitive conduct; (4) Alphabet's conduct, once revealed,
would negatively impact the Company's reputation and expose it to a
heightened risk of litigation and regulatory enforcement action;
and (5) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the Alphabet class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=13312 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

        Laurence Rosen, Esq.
        Phillip Kim, Esq.
        The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
        New York, NY 10016
        Tel: (212) 686-1060
        Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
        Fax: (212) 202-3827
        lrosen@rosenlegal.com
        pkim@rosenlegal.com
        cases@rosenlegal.com
        www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

ALTICE USA: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Johnson Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALTICE USA, INC., D/B/A SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS,
Appellant v. TINA JOHNSON, Appellee, Case No. CV-21-31 (Ark. App.),
the Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II, reverses the circuit
court's denial of Suddenlink's motion to compel arbitration and
remands the case.

The Appellant does business in Arkansas as Suddenlink
Communications. Suddenlink provides cable television, internet, and
telephone services to subscribing customers throughout Arkansas.
Appellee Johnson filed a complaint in the Clark County Circuit
Court alleging that she suffered significant service interruptions
and unexplained charges at the hands of Suddenlink. The complaint
principally claimed breach of contract and violations of the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Suddenlink unsuccessfully moved to compel arbitration in circuit
court, and pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-108-228
(Repl. 2016) and Rule 2(a)(12) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate
Procedure-Civil, it now takes this appeal.

Johnson subscribed to Suddenlink's phone, television, and internet
services. On July 24, 2020, she filed a complaint alleging, inter
alia, that she has had consistent internet service problems and has
experienced multiple internet outages. She further alleged that she
has never received a credit to her account for the days and hours
that she was without internet, phone, or television service and has
received bills with multiple, unexplained charges.

Based on these and other factual allegations, Johnson claimed that
she should be awarded damages because Suddenlink violated the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and breached its agreement
with her by failing to fulfill its promise to provide reliable
television, telephone, and internet services.

Suddenlink moved to compel arbitration on Aug. 31, 2020, arguing
that the complaint should be dismissed because the parties had a
valid agreement to settle their disputes through arbitration. The
motion alleged that Johnson began contracting with Suddenlink for
broadband telephone, internet, and cable services in or around July
2014, and according to Suddenlink's standard practice at the time,
agreed to be bound by the Residential Services Agreement (RSA),
which contained a provision for binding arbitration.

Attached to the motion was an affidavit from David Coutts, an
operations manager for Altice USA, who was familiar with
Suddenlink's standard practices for the installation of services
for residential customers. According to Coutts, it was Suddenlink's
standard practice and procedure to require that customers sign
Suddenlink's RSA at the time of installation. Daniel Fitzgibbon, a
vice president in Altice USA's legal department, also testified via
affidavit that the RSA "details the terms of Suddenlink's
residential services, including a statement in paragraph 1 that by
accepting, installing, or ordering Suddenlink's services, customers
agree to be bound by the terms of the RSA. Fitzgibbon further
testified that the 2014 version of the RSA contained an arbitration
provision.

In addition to those affidavits, Suddenlink offered proof that
Johnson paid for her phone, television, and internet service
between May 2019 and August 2020. Each invoice provided, just below
the "Total Amount Due" for that billing period, that "payment of
Johnson's bill confirms her acceptance of the RSA, viewable at
suddenlink.com.

Johnson responded to the motion to compel arbitration on Sept. 4,
2020, declaring that she never agreed to arbitrate anything with
Suddenlink.

The circuit court entered an order denying Suddenlink's motion to
compel arbitration on Nov. 12, 2020. It made three findings in
support of its ruling. First, the court found that Suddenlink
failed to produce evidence of a written contract between Johnson
and Suddenlink that binds Johnson to arbitration. Second, the
circuit court observed that Suddenlink failed to produce evidence
that Johnson signed or assented to a contract or agreement with
Suddenlink that binds her to arbitration. Third, it found no proof
that Johnson received any document that Suddenlink asserts is a
contract that binds her to arbitration.

Suddenlink now appeals this order, arguing that Johnson manifested
her agreement to the arbitration provision when she paid monthly
invoices referring her to the RSA on its website.

The Court of Appeals agrees.

First, the Court of Appeals opines that the reference to
Suddenlink's website effectively communicated the terms and
conditions of service that are set forth in the RSA, including the
arbitration provision. Suddenlink also did not offer the invoices
and payment records to vary the terms of the RSA but to show that
Johnson assented to them in the first instance. For that reason,
Johnson's argument based on the RSA's merger clause is rejected.
The Court of Appeals reverses the circuit court's finding that the
arbitration clause lacked mutual agreement.

Second, while the statute of frauds does require a signature on any
agreement calling for a waiver of a constitutional right, the Court
of Appeals cannot agree that it renders the arbitration provision
unenforceable. Consequently, it rejects Johnson's argument that the
statute of frauds prevents enforcement of the arbitration
provision, and it agrees with Suddenlink that the circuit court
erred when it determined that the RSA failed to meet the writing
requirement of the FAA.

Third, the Court of Appeals opines that while arbitration
agreements may not be used to shield one party from litigation
while allowing the other party relief through the court system, the
2014 version of the arbitration clause has been superseded by the
version that was in effect when Johnson paid her invoices in 2019.
The more recent version of the arbitration provision allows both
Suddenlink and the subscriber to file their disputes in small
claims court in appropriate cases, and each must otherwise submit
to arbitration. Therefore, the Court of Appeals finds no merit to
Johnson's argument.

Lastly, the Court of Appeals opines that Johnson's argument that
the RSA as a whole is unconscionable must fail for the same reason
as her mutuality-of-obligation challenge -- Buckeye Check Cashing,
Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 445 (2006) directs that it is
outside the scope of its review. Therefore, to the extent Johnson
asserts unconscionability as an alternate reason to affirm, it
rejects her argument as lacking merit. Moreover, it cannot agree
that the franchise agreement provides a basis to affirm the order
denying Suddenlink's motion to compel arbitration.

The Court of Appeals concludes that the circuit court erred when it
denied Suddenlink's motion to compel arbitration. Johnson's payment
of the invoices that she received from Suddenlink, which directed
her to the RSA available on Suddenlink's website, manifested her
assent to its terms, and the arbitration provision otherwise
appears in writing on Suddenlink's website and is supported by
mutuality of obligation. Johnson's arguments urging the Court of
Appeals to affirm, including her argument that the arbitration
agreement is unenforceable because it is unconscionable, because it
is not authorized by the franchise agreement with the city of
Arkadelphia, and because it contrary to the statute of frauds, lack
merit.

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

Husch Blackwell LLP, by: Mark G. Arnold --
mark.arnold@huschblackwell.com -- pro hac vice, and Laura C.
Robinson -- laura.robinson@huschblackwell.com; and McMillan,
McCorkle & Curry, LLP, by: F. Thomas Curry, for the Appellant.

Thrash Law Firm, P.A. by: Thomas P. Thrash -- tpthrash@vorys.com --
and Will Crowder; and Turner & Turner, PA, by: Todd Turner, for the
Appellee.


AMAZON.COM INC: Sued for Collecting Biometric Identifier Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey Schulz, writing for USA TODAY, reports that Amazon is being
sued for allegedly not telling New York City Amazon Go shoppers
that it collects their biometric identifier information.

The stores use cameras, sensors and palm-scanning devices to track
customers so they can walk in, pick up their items and walk out
without waiting in line to pay a cashier. The charges are sent
directly to their Amazon accounts.

The lawsuit argues that Amazon's stores fail to comply with a 2021
New York City law that says retailers must notify their customers
when they collect biometric identifying information. This includes
face scans, fingerprints or "any identifying characteristic" like
the shape of a person's body.

Amazon says it does not use facial recognition and collects
biometric data only from shoppers who choose to enter the store
with palm-scanning devices. Customers also have the option to enter
by scanning a credit card linked to their Amazon account or a code
in the Amazon app.

"The customer is always in control of when they choose to be
identified using their palm," Amazon's statement reads. Shoppers
who enter with a palm scan "are provided the appropriate privacy
disclosures during the enrollment process."

Why is Amazon being sued?
The class action lawsuit was filed on March 16 by lawyers for
Alfredo Alberto Rodriguez Perez, a New York resident and Amazon
customer who "values his privacy," according to the lawsuit.

Rodriguez Perez argues that the stores collect, convert, retain and
store biometric identifier information on all Amazon Go shoppers in
New York City but have failed to post signs notifying customers
before they enter.

The lawsuit acknowledges that Amazon did post signs near store
entrances in mid-March but claims the signs are misleading because
they say Amazon collects biometric information from palm scans
only.

The lawsuit claims Amazon Go stores collect biometric information
-- such as a body's size and shape -- even when a customer does not
use the palm scanner.

"By posting these signs, Amazon's compliance with the Biometric
Identifier Information Law has gone from bad to worse," the lawsuit
reads. "Amazon is now affirmatively offering false assurances that
it will not collect any biometric information from most customers."
[GN]

AMGEN INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 12
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP of Business Wire reports that lead
plaintiff motions for the Amgen class action lawsuit must be filed
with the court no later than May 12, 2023 in a class action lawsuit
seeking to represent purchasers or acquirers of Amgen Inc. (NASDAQ:
AMGN) common stock between July 29, 2020 and April 27, 2022, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Captioned Roofers Local No.
149 Pension Fund v. Amgen Inc., No. 23-cv-02138 (S.D.N.Y.), the
Amgen class action lawsuit charges Amgen and certain of Amgen's top
executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Amgen class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-amgen-inc-class-action-lawsuit-amgn.html

You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.

Amgen is one of the world's largest independent biopharmaceutical
companies.

The Amgen class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout
the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) the U.S. government claimed Amgen owed
more than $3 billion in back taxes for tax years 2010, 2011, and
2012; (ii) the U.S. government claimed Amgen owed more than $5
billion in back taxes for tax years 2013, 2014, and 2015; (iii) the
U.S. government would likely claim Amgen owed materially more to
the U.S. government than investors had been led to believe for
subsequent tax years for which Amgen had used the same profit
allocation treatment between its U.S. and Puerto Rico operations;
(iv) Amgen had not taken sufficient accruals to account for its
outstanding tax liabilities; (v) Amgen had failed to comply with
ASC 450 and other rules and regulations regarding the preparation
of its periodic U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings;
and (vi) Amgen's refusal to pay taxes claimed by the U.S.
government exposed Amgen to a substantial risk of severe financial
penalties imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service ("IRS").

On August 3, 2021, Amgen issued an earnings release for its second
fiscal quarter of 2021, which, for the first time, disclosed
massive outstanding tax liabilities sought by the IRS. The release
stated that Amgen had received a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS
in July 2021 which sought $3.6 billion in back taxes, plus
interest, for tax years 2010, 2011, and 2012. On this news, the
price of Amgen common stock fell by more than 6%.

Then, on April 27, 2022, Amgen issued an earnings release for its
first fiscal quarter of 2022, which disclosed that Amgen had
received a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS in April 2022 which
sought $5.1 billion in back taxes, plus interest, for tax years
2013, 2014, and 2015, and proposed a $2 billion penalty as a result
of Amgen's improper tax avoidance strategies. On this news, the
price of Amgen common stock fell by an additional 4.3%, further
damaging investors.

Amgen has additionally disclosed that it is under examination by
the IRS for the years 2016 to 2018 for similar issues as the prior
Notices of Deficiency for years 2010 to 2015, as well as
examination by various state and foreign tax jurisdictions. Amgen
has also admitted that "the ultimate outcome of any tax matters may
result in payments substantially greater than amounts accrued and
could have a material adverse effect on the results of our
operations."

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased or acquired Amgen common stock during the
Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Amgen
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with
the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the
putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative
class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Amgen class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Amgen class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of the
Amgen class action lawsuit.

Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading complex class action
firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm
is ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action
Services Top 50 Report for recovering more than $1.75 billion for
investors in 2022 - the third year in a row Robbins Geller tops the
list. And in those three years alone, Robbins Geller recovered
nearly $5.3 billion for investors, more than double the amount
recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9
offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in
the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history, including
the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion -
in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page
for more information:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Ex Champion Mulls Joining Concussion Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marc McGowan and Peter Ryan, writing for The Age, reporst that
Melbourne livewire Kysaiah Pickett has copped a two-match ban for
his bump on Western Bulldog Bailey Smith, one of three high hits in
round one as the AFL grapples with the long-term effects of
concussion.

The verdict came as concussion campaigner Peter Jess said he was
talking to ex-Geelong champion Gary Ablett about whether the
61-year-old would join the concussion class action that was
launched by lawyer Greg Griffin.

Ablett revealed on March 11 that scans had shown he had suffered
structural damage to his brain and claimed it was a result of his
AFL career.

"I am working through it with [Gary]," Jess said when asked whether
he would join the class action that involves past players including
Shaun Smith, Darren Jarman, John Platten and John Barnes. "He is no
different to some of the other individuals involved."

Adelaide's Shane McAdam will learn his own match review fate on
March 13 or his bump on Giant Jacob Wehr during their March 12
clash, while Swans superstar Lance Franklin was offered a one-match
ban for a bump on Gold Coast's Sam Collins.

Pickett was brilliant in the Demons' 50-point demolition of the
Bulldogs, but will have to watch when they meet the Brisbane Lions
and Sydney Swans -- the two sides that eliminated them from last
year's finals -- in the next fortnight.

The Demons have the option of challenging the ruling but run the
risk of Pickett receiving an even lengthier ban in an AFL climate
where such hits are frowned upon.

Joining the 21-year-old on the sidelines is Franklin, whose own
bump on Collins cost him a one-match suspension.

Match review officer Michael Christian classified Pickett's rough
conduct charge as careless conduct, high impact and high contact.

Christian's high-impact call was critical to the finding, given
Smith quickly bounced to his feet, avoided an injury and played the
match out.

Pickett could have escaped with even a fine in the scenario the
impact was judged to be low, and typically cases where a bump does
not cause injury are graded no worse than medium impact.

But the "potential to cause serious injury" clause enabled
Christian to grade the second quarter incident as high impact, with
Pickett leaving the ground to deliver a massive hit at high speed.
Bulldogs fans showered Pickett with boos for the rest of the
night.

It was always unlikely that Pickett and Franklin would avoid a ban
as the AFL faces a series of concussion class actions, and while
the topic of brain injuries becomes increasingly prominent.

However, Jimmy Bartel, who was previously on the match review
panel, had warned earlier on 3AW that Pickett's sanction, and other
incidents like it, could be "something we don't want" due to the
AFL's rigid table of offences.

"I think the issue we've got for Michael Christian, being the match
review officer, is he has a table of offences he has to plug it
into," Bartel said.

"There are some people in the media who don't actually take the two
minutes to understand the table of offences, so they yell and
scream to be heard, 'That should be four weeks, that should be
three weeks'.

"Michael Christian can't work backwards. He can only work from left
to right, so when we plug it in, sometimes the result spits out
something we don't want.

"These two instances [Pickett and Franklin], in particular; you
could make arguments for a fine, [even though] the temperature at
the moment is we have to protect the head."

Concussion is the biggest issue in the game as a growing number of
players reveal the post-football struggles they are dealing with,
and is set to be debated in court.

North Melbourne ruckman Todd Goldstein said players were aware of
the risks they faced in a non-contact sport but also had a greater
understanding of the potential future problems.

"I think playing a contact sport; you're moments away from
something happening to end your career, so you do understand that
risk," Goldstein said.

"Players are getting better at being honest about what happened -
that's why it was so muddy in the past - because you're almost
lauded for lying about what symptoms you're experiencing, and
playing down how you felt.

"Whereas now, I reckon, there's a much more honest conversation
about how you're actually feeling, and I'm seeing players put their
hand up, and saying, 'I have a headache' or 'I'm feeling fuzzy' and
that ruling them out."

West Coast's Tom Barrass and Port Adelaide's Darcy Byrne-Jones can
accept a $2000 and $1000 fine, respectively, with an early guilty
plea for striking Kangaroo Charlie Comben and tripping Lion Zac
Bailey. [GN]

AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL: Faces Concussion Suit From Former Players
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Pearson and Jon Pierik, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald,
report that newly released court documents reveal former AFL stars
Darren Jarman and Jay Schulz have been diagnosed with or are
showing signs of long-term traumatic brain injuries from their
playing days as their legal team launches a concussion class action
against the league and four football clubs.

Griffins Lawyers, representing the family of the late Shane Tuck
alongside Schulz and Jarman, allege the AFL and four clubs --
Richmond, Port Adelaide, Hawthorn and Adelaide -- failed to ensure
proper concussion management.

This, they allege left one player (Tuck) dead and others with brain
injuries.

The allegations can be reported as a former player agent flags
court action could be launched on behalf of the wives and partners
of former players impacted by head knocks following the filing of a
number of concussion-related lawsuits in recent weeks.

Court documents filed in the Supreme Court and released to The Age
on Monday allege Jarman and Schulz both suffered brain injuries and
loss and damages as a result of alleged failures by the AFL and
their respective football clubs.

They claim each former player has either been diagnosed with
traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES) or are showing signs of the
condition, including cognitive impairment, memory loss, loss of
executive function, behavioural changes, mood disorders and loss of
motor functions.

Tuck played 173 AFL games with Richmond between 2004 and 2013
before he took his own life in July 2020. Schulz played 194 times
for Richmond and Port Adelaide from 2003 to 2016, and Jarman was a
star of the competition in 230 games for Hawthorn and Adelaide from
1991 to 2001.

Their legal team alleges each of them suffered repeated head knocks
and symptoms of concussion, including disorientation and loss of
consciousness, while employed to train and play AFL.

"Each of the players on numerous occasions suffered head knocks
resulting in symptoms of concussion," Griffins Lawyers said.

The court documents allege that none of the three players were ever
directed to not playing because of their head injuries, given
adequate assessments or warned that continuing to play could lead
to further or permanent brain injury.

As a result, it's claimed the men continued to play, or resumed
doing so after short breaks, and returned to normal duties while
their brain injuries, manifesting in symptoms of concussion, had
not fully healed.

It's alleged the players sustained further head knocks during
subsequent on-field action.

The trio's legal claim accuses the AFL of failing to take steps to
ensure qualified people examined players for head knocks, and on
the occasions that concussion symptoms were detected, there was a
failure to ensure the men were prevented from resuming play or
normal duties until they had been cleared by a qualified medical
practitioner.

Further, it's claimed the football clubs also failed to ensure AFL
games and training were "reliably monitored by club officials for
signs of head knocks to players".

As a result, it's alleged the AFL failed to take reasonable steps
to adopt the acquired brain injury (ABI) precautions and breached
the concussion management duty of care.

"By reason of the concussion management failures, the players have
suffered and continue to suffer loss and damage," the documents
claim.

While further details of the injuries sustained by Schulz and
Jarman are expected to be released ahead of an upcoming court
hearing, their lawyers allege both have either been diagnosed with
traumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES) or are showing signs of the
condition.

Court documents allege in Tuck's case, he struggled to work after
retiring from football in 2013 and suffered from neuropsychiatric
and psychiatric injury, including depression.

Following his death, Tuck was diagnosed with chronic traumatic
encephalopathy (CTE).

The court action comes just weeks after former Western Bulldog star
Liam Picken launched legal action against the AFL, his club and
doctors over concussions he sustained while playing.

Picken, 2016 premiership player, claims he was left in the dark
about "irregular" cognitive tests, repeatedly sent back onto the
field to play and never sent for expert help before
concussion-related injuries ultimately claimed his career.

Papers were also lodged by Margalit Injury Lawyers on behalf of a
number of players employed by one or more AFL clubs since 1985 who
either suffered concussion or damage from concussions.

Dual Geelong premiership player Max Rooke is the lead plaintiff,
having allegedly suffered between 20 and 30 concussions. Former
Collingwood AFLW vice-captain Emma Grant also launched a separate
case this month.

Veteran AFL player agent Peter Jess, who has worked closely with
Griffins Lawyers on the case for almost a decade, said a class
action on behalf of the wives and partners of former players
impacted by head knocks was also now a possibility.

"This cohort of women have suffered in silence for too long. Now is
the time to run collateral actions, if possible, to expose the
issues they are suffering from as a result of neurological damage
to current and past ex-player partners," Jess said.

"We are currently exploring the possibilities for the creation of a
class action for the current and past wives, partners and their
children. We believe this is just as important as the class action
by the ex-players.

When contacted on March 13, a spokesperson from the AFL said the
league had made more than 30 changes to guidelines and rules over
the past two decades to protect players' heads and annually updated
its concussion guidelines in accordance with current and evolving
science.

"The AFL has a team of people working specifically on brain health
initiatives, with further appointments to shortly be made, and we
continue to strengthen protocols and the education of clubs and
players as to why this issue is taken so seriously," a spokesperson
said.

All four clubs have been contacted for comment. [GN]

BETTENDORF, IA: Shipley Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 20
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORRY SHIPLEY & MARK
SCHULTZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
CITY OF BETTENDORF, IOWA, Case No. 3:22-cv-00047-RGE-HCA (S.D.
Iowa), the Hon. Judge Helen C. Adams entered a scheduling and trial
setting order as follows:

   1. A Jury Trial shall begin on August 19, 2024 at 9:00 AM before
United States District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger at the United
States Courthouse, Davenport, Iowa.

   2. A Final Pretrial Conference shall be held on July 2, 2024 at
10:00 AM at the United States Courthouse, Davenport, Iowa, before
Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger.

   3. Initial Disclosures shall be made by March 31, 2023.

   4. Motions to add parties shall be filed by April 28, 2023.

   5. Motions for leave to amend pleadings shall be filed by April
28, 2023.

   6. The Plaintiff shall designate expert witnesses and disclose
their written reports by May 30, 2023.

   7. The Defendant shall designate expert witnesses and disclose
their written reports by July 31, 2023.

   8. The Plaintiff shall designate rebuttal expert witnesses and
disclose their written reports by August 31, 2023.

   9. Discovery shall be completed by October 31, 2023. Written
discovery shall be propounded so that the time for response is not
later than this date.

  10. The Plaintiff shall file Motion for Class Certification by
November 20, 2023.

  11. The Defendants shall file a Resistance to Motion for Class
Certification by December 20, 2023. the Plaintiffs shall file a
Reply to Motion for Class Certification by January 16, 2024.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yvH1Ea at no extra charge.[CC]


BIGSTEELBOX CORP: Customers File Class Suit Over Damaged Property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vikki Hopes of The Abbotsford Hopes reports that a class-action
lawsuit has been launched against a storage company in Abbotsford
for damages caused to individuals' property during the November
2021 floods.

The defendant in the case is BigSteelBox (BSB) Corp., which has 35
locations across Canada, including at 37400 North Parallel Rd. in
Abbotsford near Cole Road.

The notice of civil claim pertains to shipping containers that were
rented by BSB to the representative plaintiff, Steven Heimburger,
and other individuals.

The lawsuit says that during the 2021 floods, the containers were
"penetrated by water" and caused property damage despite having
been represented as "watertight" or "waterproof. "

The claim states that BSB knew - or should have known - that the
Abbotsford site was situated on a flood plain and should have
advised customers that the area was at risk of flooding.

The lawsuit says that the company's website indicated their
containers were "wind, water and rodent-proof."

But that wording was changed to read only "weather and
rodent-proof" after the company became aware of the property
damage, the lawsuit claims.

The plaintiffs also allege that they were "induced" into signing
rental agreements that released the company from any liability for
loss, damage or injury.

"At the time the plaintiff and class members entered the rental
agreements, the defendant's representations were untrue, inaccurate
or misleading because the storage containers were not 'waterproof,'
'water tight' and were prone to leaking during heavy rain," the
lawsuit states.

In its response to the notice of civil claim, BSB states that the
November 2021 flooding was "an act of God" that was an
"unforeseeable event."

The company states that the terms of their rental agreement were
fair and laid out that BSB is not responsible for loss or damage to
property within a container and that customers are responsible for
acquiring contents insurance.

BSB says in the court documents that its agreement indicates the
customer will not hold the company responsible for losses that
might occur "due to vandalism, collision, fire, lightning, theft,
explosion, flood, windstorm, act of God or any other intervening
factor."

The company also argues that claims that the containers were
waterproof "were not material to the plaintiff's decision" to sign
the agreement, and "there was no reliance by the plaintiff upon
same."

"BigSteelBox's conduct has never been high-handed, outrageous,
reckless, wanton, entirely without care, deliberate, callous,
disgraceful, willful and in contumelious disregard of the
plaintiff's rights," the court documents state in response to the
wording use in the plaintiff's notice of civil claim.

Among the relief measures being sought by the individuals in the
class action are declarations that BSB "misrepresented the
characteristics of the storage containers intentionally and/or
negligently" and that their actions constituted a "deceptive act or
practice."

In addition to seeking the costs for their damaged property, the
individuals are also seeking aggravated and punitive damages,
including damages for gross negligence and breaching the rental
agreement.

None of the allegations has been proved in court. [GN]

BLOOM INSTITUTE: Faces Class Suit Over Coding Boot Camp
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosalie Chan of Insider reports that four students at the coding
boot camp Bloom Institute of Technology, formerly known as Lambda
School, have filed a class-action lawsuit against the school.

The National Student Legal Defense Network, along with cocounsel
Miner, Barnhill & Galland and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, filed the
lawsuit March 16, 2023 on behalf of the students. The school, known
as BloomTech for short, offers students the option to pay up-front
tuition, or to pay no up-front tuition fees and instead pay back
their tuition through an income-share agreement, meaning that when
a student lands a job paying $50,000 or more, they must pay back
14% of their income for four years or until they hit a cap of
$40,000.

The students, who attended from March 2020 until the present, say
in the lawsuit that they enrolled because they were attracted by
the high job-placement rates in tech. They allege that the school
had false and misleading information about job-placement rates on
its website and on CEO Austen Allred's Twitter account.

What's more, they say that BloomTech engaged in unlicensed lending
and point out that the school operated without California state
approval until August 2020. The students are asking for equitable
relief, such as canceling their income-share agreements or getting
a refund.

While students have previously taken legal action against
BloomTech, this is the first class-action lawsuit against it.

Alex Elson, the vice president of Student Defense, said the
organization has received many complaints about the school,
particularly about the misleading job-placement rates, as well as
dissatisfaction with the quality of education.

"They wouldn't have gone if they didn't know what the true rates
are," Elson told Insider.

BloomTech has raised over $129 million from investors like GV
(formerly Google Ventures), Stripe, and Ashton Kutcher.

Former BloomTech students said that the school fell short of its
promise, with underqualified instructors and an incomplete
curriculum, Insider first reported. They said they often had to
rely on self-teaching and were brushed off when they voiced
concerns about the program or complained about harassment. Leaked
documents also showed that BloomTech's job-placement rates were
much lower than advertised, Insider previously reported.

Income-share agreements have become popular among coding boot camps
because students don't have to pay tuition up front. But
income-share agreements can be risky because they're not clearly
regulated by federal laws, which focus on consumer loans.

BloomTech did not immediately respond to a request for comment.[GN]

BP EXPLORATION: Claims in Hodge B3 Case Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLIE DAVID HODGE v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL., Section "R" (2), Civil Action No. 17-3282 (E.D. La.),
Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana:

   a. grants the motions filed by BP Exploration & Production,
      Inc., BP America Production Co., and BP p.l.c. to exclude
      the testimony of the Plaintiff's general causation expert,
      Dr. Jerald Cook, and for summary judgment; and

   b. denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit the expert report of
      Dr. Cook as a sanction for the Defendants' alleged
      spoliation.

The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic
chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to crude oil and
dispersants from his work as an offshore cleanup worker. He
represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health
problems, among others: abdominal cramps, weight loss, and kidney
stones; nosebleeds, sinus pain, chronic rhinitis, and sore throat;
eye burning and blurred vision; headaches and fainting; skin boils,
redless, dryness, and welts; wheezing, chest pain, bronchospasm,
and chronic bronchitis; and diabetes.

The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case
was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs
who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater
Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. The
Plaintiff opted out of the settlement.

After the Plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to this
Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime
negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the
defendants as a result of the oil spill and its cleanup.

To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and
dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in his
complaint, he offers the testimony of Dr. Cook, an occupational and
environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole expert
offering an opinion on general causation. In his June 21, 2022
report, Dr. Cook utilizes a general causation approach to determine
if some of the frequently reported health complaints are indeed
from the result of exposures sustained in performing oil spill
cleanup work.

The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be
excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful.
The Defendants also move for summary judgment, asserting that if
Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is
unable to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both
motions. He contends that the Defendants' failure to record
quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to
spoliation, and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a
sanction. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion.

Judge Vance considers the parties' arguments. She explains that the
Plaintiff has the burden of proving that the legal cause of his
claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals
used during the response. The Fifth Circuit has developed a
two-step process in examining the admissibility of causation
evidence in toxic tort cases. First, the plaintiff must show
general causation, which means that he must show that a substance
is capable of causing a particular injury or condition in the
general population. Second, if the Court concludes that the
Plaintiff has produced admissible evidence on general causation, it
must then determine whether the Plaintiff has shown specific
causation, in other words, that a substance caused that particular
plaintiff's injury. If the Court finds that there is no admissible
general causation evidence, there is "no need to consider" specific
causation.

At issue is whether the Plaintiff has produced admissible general
causation evidence. To prove that exposure to the chemicals in oil
and dispersants can cause the medical conditions he alleges, the
Plaintiff offers the testimony of an environmental toxicologist,
Dr. Cook.

Based on Dr. Cook's report, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff
is unable to prove general causation with relevant and reliable
expert testimony. They contend that Dr. Cook's general causation
report is unreliable because he fails to: (1) identify the harmful
dose of exposure of any particular chemical to which the Plaintiff
was exposed that is necessary to cause the his conditions; (2)
identify which chemicals can cause which conditions; (3) verify the
Plaintiff's diagnoses; and (4) follow the accepted methodology for
analyzing epidemiology. They also note that the Court and others in
this district have excluded various versions of Dr. Cook's report
for similar reasons, including the version at issue in the present
case.

It is undisputed that the only substantive change Dr. Cook made in
version four is a revision to Section 3.4.1 of his report, which he
updated to include tables stating the minimal risk levels of a
handful of chemicals found in crude oil and dispersants on certain
systems of the human body.

Judge Vance holds that Dr. Cook's failure to identify the level of
exposure to a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions
asserted in plaintiff's complaint renders his opinion unreliable,
unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general causation. Given
Dr. Cook's failure to determine the relevant harmful level of
exposure to chemicals to which the Plaintiff was exposed for his
specific conditions, the Court lacks sufficient facts to provide a
reliable opinion on general causation.

In addition, Judge Vance finds that Dr. Cook's report is unhelpful
to the fact-finder for many of the same reasons. She finds that Dr.
Cook's opinion is unhelpful because of his inability to link any
specific chemical that the Plaintiff was allegedly exposed to, at
the level at which he was exposed, to the health conditions that he
purportedly experiences. Given the concerns about the accuracy of
this model from both the Plaintiff's expert as well as the
investigators themselves, Judge Vance does not find that, in this
context, Dr. Cook's conclusions are reliable.

In sum, the Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr.
Cook, has failed to meet his burden of establishing the reliability
and relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr. Cook's report is
unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts necessary" to
establish general causation, she grants the Defendants' motion to
exclude Dr. Cook's testimony.

The Plaintiff's spoliation motion does not seek an adverse
inference. Rather, he seeks the greater sanction of admission of
Dr. Cook's report. The Plaintiff asserts that this sanction is
appropriate because BP's decision not to record quantitative
exposure data during the BP Oil Spill response has deprived him of
data which would quantitatively establish his exposure.

Judge Vance holds that the Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers a
number of deficiencies. First, the Plaintiff's contention that BP's
failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based on the
faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in
anticipation of litigation. Second, the Plaintiff identifies no
source (statute, rule, or other dictate) imposing a duty on BP to
conduct such monitoring and, by suggesting that monitoring was
necessary to create evidence of exposure, concedes that no such
evidence ever existed for BP to preserve. Further, the remedy he
seeks -- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its
numerous deficiencies -- is unwarranted. Accordingly, Judge Vance
denies the Plaintiff's request that she admits Dr. Cook's report as
a sanction for BP's alleged spoliation.

Lastly, in their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants
contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the
Plaintiff cannot establish either general or specific causation. In
his opposition to the Defendants' motion, the Plaintiff notes that
other sections of this Court have denied summary judgment in cases
in which B3 plaintiffs have brought claims premised on transient or
temporary symptoms.

Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his
claims against the Defendants, his claims must be dismissed.
Accordingly, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.

The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bddvbja2 from Leagle.com.


BRAIDAN FORD: Fails to Pay Security Guards' OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY DIXON, on behalf Of himself and those similarly situated v.
BRAIDAN/FORD SECURITY, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00047-CDL (M.D. Ga., Mar. 10, 2023) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, lost wages due to
retaliation, compensatory damages, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and all other applicable relief pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint asserts that during his employment with the
Defendant, the Plaintiff was not paid time and one-half of his
hourly rate for overtime hours worked, but was instead paid
"straight time" for overtime hours worked. Thus, the Plaintiff and
all hourly-paid security guards are entitled to the additional
half-time premium for all hours worked over 40 in each week.

On February 27, 2023, the Plaintiff's Counsel sent the Defendant a
demand letter complaining of violations of the FLSA. The letter was
delivered to Defendant on March 2, 2023. Subsequently, the very
same day, the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff's employment for
"insubordination." The Defendant attempted to get Plaintiff to sign
a letter agreeing he had been insubordinate, which the Plaintiff
refused to sign, says the suit.

The Plaintiff worked as a security guard for the Defendant from
June 2022 as an hourly paid employee until he was terminated on
March 2, 2023.

Braidan/Ford operates as a security guard company, providing
security services for the National Infantry Museum, among other
locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave, 15th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Consolidated CVR Securities Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY CVR SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 21-CV-8255 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M.
Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the operative
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

Bristol-Myers Squibb ("BMS") is a publicly traded global
pharmaceutical company. On Jan. 2, 2019, BMS entered into a
preliminary merger agreement with Celgene Corp., another
pharmaceutical company, pursuant to which each share of Celgene
common stock would be exchanged for one share of BMS common stock,
$50 in cash, and one Contingent Value Right or "CVR."

A CVR is a security payable upon the occurrence of a specified
future event. In 2019, as part of a merger, Bristol-Myers Squibb
("BMS") issued CVRs that were contingent on approval of three
drugs, including Liso-cel, a biologic drug, by the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") by specific deadlines. If the deadlines were
met, BMS would have had to pay $6.4 billion to the holders of the
CVRs. But the FDA approved one of the three drugs 36 days after its
deadline. As a result, the CVRs expired worthless.

The litigation -- a consolidated putative class action brought on
behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the BMS CVRs
between Nov. 20, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2020 -- followed. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants -- BMS and a slew of current
and former BMS executives and directors -- violated the Securities
Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities
and Exchange Commission Rules promulgated thereunder by making
various statements regarding the value of the CVRs and the
likelihood of their being paid out. The premise of their claims is
that Defendants intentionally delayed FDA approval to avoid the
$6.4 billion payout.

The Plaintiffs bring securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b),
14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b),
78n(a), 78t(a); SEC Rules 10b-5, and 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Sections
240.10b-5, 240.14a-9; and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77l(a)(2), 77o.2 Their
claims arise from two sets of statements by the Defendants
concerning the 'diligent' efforts BMS would make to meet the
Milestone Deadlines, the likelihood that the Milestone Deadlines
would be met, and the purported value of the CVRs: (1) statements
made prior to the Merger (and thus before the CVRs were issued) in
the Feb. 22, 2019 Joint Proxy filed with the SEC, and a Nov. 7,
2019 Guggenheim Partners analyst report about the Merger; and (2)
statements made after the Merger (and thus during the lifetime of
the CVRs) in presentations, press releases, earnings calls, and SEC
filings between Dec. 8, 2019, and Nov. 16, 2020. Their claims are
all premised on the same theory: that, all the while, the
Defendants secretly slow-rolled the Liso-cel approval process so
BMS could avoid the $6.4 billion CVR payout.

The Defendants now move, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the Complaint.

As noted, the Plaintiffs bring claims under both the Exchange Act
and the Securities Act. The Defendants advance various arguments in
support of dismissal of these claims, but the Court need only and
does only address a few. First, Judge Furman finds that the
Plaintiffs' claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 fail because the Complaint does not adequately allege
scienter. Second, he concludes that the Plaintiffs' claims under
the Securities Act, as well as their claims under Section 14(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, are shielded by the safe harbor
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (the
"PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 77z-2(c) (Securities Act safe harbor).
In the absence of a "primary" violation, it follows that the
Plaintiffs' "controlling person" claims also fail.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Furman grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims.

That leaves only the question of whether the Plaintiffs should be
granted leave to amend the Complaint. Leave to amend a complaint
should be freely given when justice so requires and complaints
dismissed under the PSLRA are almost always dismissed with leave to
amend. That said, where it appears that granting leave to amend is
unlikely to be productive, it is not an abuse of discretion to deny
leave to amend.

Applying the foregoing standards, Judge Furman denies leave to
amend the Plaintiffs' Securities Act and Section 14(a) and Rule
14a-9 claims because it is unlikely to be productive. By contrast,
and notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiffs do not request
leave to amend, he grants them leave to amend to address the
deficiencies identified in their other claims. The Plaintiffs will
file any Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date of the
Opinion and Order.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 99.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6tehuv from Leagle.com.


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Guide Outfitter's Suit Certified as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Nielsen of Coast Reporter reports that a northern B.C. guide
outfitter's legal battle with the provincial government over the
ban on hunting grizzly bears has been certified as a class action.

In a decision issued March 1, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth
McDonald found there is a cause of action for "negligent
misrepresentation" by the province and that a class action works
from a "practical cost-benefit" approach.

The lead plaintiff is Ronald Fleming, who owns Love Bros. and Lee
Ltd. which has been operating on the headwaters of the Finlay River
for over 50 years according to the business' website.

In December 2017, Doug Donaldson, then Minister of Forests, Lands
and Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, issued an
order that amended the Hunting Regulation and the Limited Entry
Hunting Regulation to effectively removed any open season for
grizzly bears.

A year later, a notice of claim was filed on Fleming's behalf
seeking compensation for loss of the hunt. Amended in May 2021, in
part, it alleges that based on past "representations" by the
province prior to the ban, guide outfitters had reason to conclude
that "protection of their commercial interests would continue" and
that their financial interests would not be harmed, only to see the
province fail in that regard.

It also alleges the step was taken in response to public opinion
and not concern that the hunt was unsustainable, a point McDonald
said in her decision was not in dispute. According to Fleming's
claim, a sustainable 250 grizzly bears out of a population of
15,000 in B.C. are harvested each year.

MacDonald rejected a claim that Donaldson committed "misfeasance in
public office" as lacking a reasonable cause for action and the
case was not certified against him.

Next steps for the parties include presenting a notice program for
approval by the court. [GN]

BUFFALO WILD: Faces Halim Class Suit Over Boneless Wings' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aimen Halim, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and Inspire Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01495 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 10, 2023) is a consumer protection
and false advertising class action against the Defendants
predicated on the false and deceptive marketing and advertising of
Buffalo Wild Wings' Boneless Wings.

According to the complaint, the name and description of the
Products leads reasonable consumers to believe the Products are
actually chicken wings that have simply been deboned, and as such,
are comprised of entirely chicken wing meat. Unbeknownst to the
Plaintiff and other consumers, the Products are not wings at all,
but instead, slices of chicken breast meat deep-fried like wings.
Indeed, the Products are more akin, in composition, to a chicken
nugget rather than a chicken wing, the lawsuit claims.

This clear-cut case of false advertising should not be permitted,
as consumers should be able to rely on the plain meaning of a
product's name and receive what they are promised. Had Plaintiff
and other consumers known that the Products are not actually
chicken wings, they would have paid less for them, or would not
have purchased them at all. Therefore, Plaintiff and consumers have
suffered injury in fact, as a result of Defendants' deceptive
practices, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a Nationwide Class and an Illinois
Class. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other consumers, is
seeking damages, injunctive relief, restitution, declaratory
relief, and all other remedies the Court deems appropriate.

Plaintiff Halim is an Illinois citizen and currently resides in
Chicago, Illinois. In January 2023, Mr. Halim purchased Boneless
Wings from a Buffalo Wild Wings in Mount Prospect, Illinois.

Buffalo Wild Wings is a casual dining restaurant and sports bar
chain that specializes almost entirely in selling chicken
wings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
          10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 751-5948
          E-mail: rglezakos@treehouselaw.com
                  bheikali@treehouselaw.com

C.H. ROBINSON: Partial Summary Judgment Bids in JMR Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JMR FARMS, INC., et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. C.H. ROBINSON
WORLDWIDE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-0879 (PJS/ECW)
(D. Minn.), Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota grants in part and denies in part the
parties' motions for partial summary judgment.

Plaintiffs Bonne Idee Produce, LLC and Bowles Farming Co., Inc. are
produce farmers. The Plaintiffs contracted with Defendant CHR, a
third-party logistics company, to market, sell, and transport their
produce to grocers, restaurants, and other buyers. CHR charged a
commission to the Plaintiffs for its services.

The Plaintiffs later learned that CHR also profited by adding a
markup to the amount that CHR charged to buyers to transport the
produce. They refer to this practice as "freight topping," because
CHR "tops" the actual cost of freight by adding a markup. According
to them, although this markup was charged to the buyer in form, it
was paid by the grower in substance, as the more that CHR took as
its markup, the less that the grower received for its produce. The
Plaintiffs say that CHR never disclosed this practice to them.

The Plaintiffs brought the putative class action on behalf of
themselves and other growers who were allegedly harmed by CHR's
freight topping. They allege that CHR's freight topping was
unlawful for three reasons: (1) it violated the Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act ("PACA"), 7 U.S.C. Sections 499a et
seq.; (2) it breached a fiduciary duty that CHR owed to them; and
(3) it breached the contracts between CHR and them.

In October 2021, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of
similarly situated produce farmers. At the conclusion of the
hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion, the Court determined that,
before it could decide whether to certify a class, it needed to
resolve certain legal questions. It denied the class-certification
motion without prejudice and directed the parties to answer the
following questions:

     1. If the Court finds that the Defendants violated PACA, may
the Plaintiffs recover damages for that violation without proving
they suffered actual harm?

     2. If the Court finds that the Defendants breached a fiduciary
duty owed to the Plaintiffs, may the Plaintiffs recover damages for
that breach without proving they suffered actual harm?

The Court directed the parties to file cross-motions for summary
judgment in order to resolve these questions. The matter is now
before the Court on the parties' cross-motions.

The Plaintiffs allege that CHR violated PACA by failing to disclose
its freight topping to them when it accounted for the sales of
produce it made on their behalf. The Court assumes that is true --
i.e., the Court assumes that CHR violated PACA by failing to
disclose the freight markups. The question that remains is: what
must the Plaintiffs prove in order to recover for such a PACA
violation?

Based on the plain language of PACA and its implementing
regulations, and based on the concessions made by the Plaintiffs at
oral argument, Judge Schiltz finds that, if the Plaintiffs prove
that they bore the economic impact of the freight markups, they may
recover the amount of those markups (1) if they prove that CHR
failed to "render true and correct accountings" of the markups to
them and (2) if CHR is unable in this litigation to prove that the
markups are "supported by proper evidence in its records. And thus,
the Plaintiffs do not need to prove that they suffered actual harm
as a consequence of CHR's failure to disclose the markups.

In addition to their PACA claim, the Plaintiffs allege that CHR
breached a fiduciary duty by engaging in self-dealing. They argue
that after CHR negotiated a purchase price for their produce with a
buyer and paid someone to transport the produce, CHR had complete
discretion to decide how much of the remainder of the purchase
price to allot to itself as a freight markup and how much to allot
to the grower as payment for the produce.

Judge Schiltz holds that nothing in law or logic limits the
principles embraced by the Perl cases to the attorney-client
relationship. Rather, those principles apply with equal force when
a non-attorney breaches a fiduciary duty, as CHR allegedly did in
this case. If CHR breached a fiduciary obligation to the
Plaintiffs, then CHR must forfeit at least a part8 of the
commissions that it charged and at least a part of any profit that
it earned by adding a markup to the freight charges. And CHR must
do so even if the Plaintiffs cannot show that they suffered harm as
a result of CHR's breach.

Based on the foregoing, grants in part and denies in part the
parties' motions for partial summary judgment to the extent
consistent with Judge Schiltz's Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5ufdh9m6 from Leagle.com.

Richard M. Paul III -- Rick@PaulLLP.com -- Sean R. Cooper, Laura C.
Fellows -- Laura@PaulLLP.com -- and Steven L. Rowe, PAUL LLP; Craig
A. Stokes -- cstokes@stokeslawoffice.com -- STOKES LAW OFFICE LLP;
Jennifer Neal -- Jneal@wattsguerra.com -- Francisco Guerra, IV --
Fguerra@wattsguerra.com -- and Mark Fassold --
Mfassold@wattsguerra.com -- WATTS GUERRA LLP; and Robert A. Pollom
-- Robert@krwlawyers.com -- LOYD & POLLOM, PPLC, for the
Plaintiffs.

Mark W. Wallin -- mark.wallin@btlaw.com -- and Christina M. Janice
-- christina.janice@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP; and
Patrick J. Rooney -- patrick.rooney@fmjlaw.com -- and Bradley R.
Hutter -- bradley.hutter@fmjlaw.com -- FAFINSKI MARK & JOHNSON
P.A., for the Defendants.


CEREBRAL INC: Embeds Meta Pixel on Website, Doe Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others 15
similarly situated and for the benefit of the public v. CEREBRAL,
INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01828 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 10, 2023) alleges
that Cerebral affirmatively included the Meta Pixel and other
online trackers on its website, which was done without disclosing
this fact to patients.

The Plaintiffs had their User Data, including sensitive medical
information, harvested through Cerebral's website using the Meta
Pixel tool and other online trackers without their consent when
they entered information on the patient portal for the Cerebral
website, and continued to have their privacy violated when their
User Data was used for profit when pharmaceutical and other
companies, used the private medical and other information collected
to send them targeted advertising related to medical conditions for
which they were trying to obtain treatment through Cerebral's
website. This information was also monetized by other third parties
to reach potential new customers, refine automatic profiling and/or
engage in other profit-motivated ventures, says the suit.

Because of this illegal information gathering, the Plaintiffs
believe Cerebral shared personal health information about then with
third parties without their consent, unknowingly providing other
third parties with access to this sensitive personal information.
Cerebral knows that the User Data collected through the Meta Pixel
and other online trackers includes highly sensitive medical
information but, in either conscious, reckless or negligent
disregard for patient privacy, continued to collect, use, and
profit from this information, and by embedding Meta Pixel and other
online trackers they were sharing and permitting companies like
Meta to collect and use the Plaintiffs' and the Class members' User
Data, including sensitive medical information, the suit asserts.

On August 19, 2022, Cerebral notified some Cerebral users of a
breach of their protected health care information. Several months
prior, Cerebral sent certain Cerebral clients a postcard notifying
them of the opportunity to participate in a research study. The
postcard included the names and addresses of these individuals as
well as information regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and the
recipient's relationship to Cerebral. However, Cerebral failed to
place the postcards in an envelope, thereby exposing the users'
confidential health information to public view.

In early March 2023, the Plaintiffs received notice from Cerebral
notifying the Plaintiffs of Cerebral's use of tracking technologies
on its website which stores a patient's sensitive and confidential
information and shares that information with third parties such as
Facebook/Instagram.

The Plaintiffs and Class members had no idea that Defendant was
collecting and using their User Data, including sensitive medical
information, when they engaged with Cerebral's sites that
incorporate Meta Pixel and other online trackers because the
software code is hidden from users. For example, when the
Plaintiffs logged into Cerebral's patient portal, there as no
indication or disclosure that Meta Pixel was active, embedded in
the page, or that it would collect their sensitive medical
information. The Plaintiffs and all Class members, could not
consent to the Defendant's conduct when they were unaware their
sensitive medical information would be collected and used.

As a result of placing the Meta Pixel and other tracking software
on its website, Defendant has released, disclosed, and/or
negligently allowed third parties that are known to the Defendant,
including Meta and other unauthorized third parties, to access and
view Plaintiffs' and Class members' medical information without
first obtaining their written authorization as required by the
provisions of Civil Code § 56, et seq.
As a further result of the Defendant's actions, the confidential
nature of the Plaintiffs' and Class members' medical information
was breached due to Defendant's negligence or affirmative
decisions. The Personal and Medical Information was accessed,
removed, and viewed by unauthorized third parties including Meta
and other unauthorized parties by virtue of the Meta Pixel and
other tracking software embedded in Cerebral's website, the suit
further alleges.

Cerebral is a telehealth company based in California that operates
through the website cerebral.com.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          April M. Strauss, Esq.
          APRIL M. STRAUSS, APC
          2500 Hospital Drive, Bldg 3
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: (650) 281-7081
          E-mail: astrauss@sfaclp.com

                - and -

          William J. Doyle, Esq.
          Chris W. Cantrell, Esq.
          DOYLE APC
          550 West B St, 4th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 736-0000
          E-mail: bill@doyleapc.com
                  chris@doyleapc.com

CREATORS AGENCY: Faces $1B Class Suit Over Crypto Fraud Promotion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Andersen of Cointelegraph reports that the suit is led by
Edwin Garrison and was filed against "FTX influencers," primarily
on YouTube.

A class-action suit led by Edwin Garrison has been filed against
"FTX influencers," mostly on YouTube, seeking $1 billion because
they "promoted FTX crypto fraud without disclosing compensation."
The suit was filed on March 15 in the Southern District of Florida,
Miami Division.

Kevin Paffrath, Graham Stephan, Andrei Jikh, Jaspreet Singh, Brian
Jung, Jeremy Lefebvre, Tom Nash, Ben Armstrong, Erika Kullberg and
Creators Agency LLC are named as respondents. The defendants are
eight YouTubers, the talent management company that handled the
promotion of FTX and the agency's founder. According to the suit:
"Though FTX paid Defendants handsomely to push its brand and
encourage their followers to invest, Defendants did not disclose
the nature and scope of their sponsorships and/or endorsement
deals, payments and compensation, nor conduct adequate (if any) due
diligence."

The suit describes the defendants as "influencers" who "present
themselves as real-life consumers who share authentic and valuable
information with their followers."

The Moskowitz Law Firm is representing the plaintiffs. The seven
plaintiffs named are from various countries and all "purchased an
unregistered security from FTX in the form of a YBA [yield-bearing
account]." The suit claims the plaintiffs suffered damages through
purchasing the "unregistered security" and the defendants promoted
it for the financial benefit of themselves and/or FTX. Global and
national classes of plaintiffs were identified in the suit and
represent "thousands, if not millions, of consumers globally, to
whom FTX offered and/or sold YBAs," it claims.

The defendants are demanding damages in "a sum exceeding
$1,000,000,000.00."

The suit holds that the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission warned in 2017 that if yield-bearing accounts are found
to be securities, persons promoting them could be prosecuted for
promoting an unregistered security or failing to properly disclose
their payments and compensation. The question of whether that is
the case has been "practically answered in the affirmative through
various regulatory statements, guidance, and actions issued by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory
entities," the suit says.

In addition, the suit claims the SEC has shown a "consistent
approach to cryptocurrency" and goes on to discuss recent and
ongoing cases involving SEC and the crypto industry, as well as the
Howey and Reves tests.

The suit is a consolidation of several class-action suits,
according to the law firm. Garrison's suit was filed on Nov. 15,
2022 "and is the first-filed FTX-related class action filed in the
country," the firm said. Garrison is also a plaintiff in the
class-action suit filed against alleged celebrity endorsers of FTX
as well. [GN]

CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities' Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
PRNewswire of Benzinga Pro reports that the law firm of Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com) informs investors that a
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey against Credit Suisse
Group AG ("Credit Suisse") ((CS). The action charges Credit Suisse
with violations of the federal securities laws, including omissions
and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to the company's
business, operations, and prospects. As a result of Credit Suisse's
materially misleading statements and omissions to the public,
Credit Suisse's investors have suffered significant losses.

YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR
BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/credit-suisse-group-ag?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=cs&mktm=r

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: MAY 8, 2023

CLASS PERIOD: MARCH 10, 2022 THROUGH MARCH 15, 2023

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
Jonathan Naji, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at info@ktmc.com


Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected
among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have
recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of
shareholders we represent.

CREDIT SUISSE'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
On March 10, 2022, Credit Suisse filed with the SEC its 2021 annual
report on a Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2021. The
2021 annual report failed to identify any material weaknesses with
Credit Suisse's internal controls.

On December 1, 2022, Credit Suisse's Chairman, Axel P. Lehmann
("Lehmann") stated in an interview with Financial Times that
customer outflows had not only "completely flattened out," but had,
in fact, "partially reversed." The following day, in an interview
with Bloomberg Television, Lehmann reiterated his previous
statements, reassuring investors that as of November 11, 2022,
customer outflows had "basically stopped." Following Lehmann's
statements, Credit Suisse's American Depository Share ("ADS") price
rose $0.29 per ADS, or 9.36%, to close at $3.38 per ADS on December
2, 2022.

Then on February 9, 2023, Credit Suisse issued a press release
announcing its 2022 financial results. The press release revealed
that, contrary to Lehmann's prior statements, large customer
outflows had continued through year-end 2022. Specifically, the
press release reported customer outflows of 110.5 billion Swiss
francs in the final three months of 2022, a figure which far
exceeded market expectations. Following this news, Credit Suisse's
ADS price fell $0.56 per ADS, or 15.64%, to close at $3.02 per ADS
on February 9, 2023.

On February 21, 2023, Reuters reported that the Swiss Financial
Market Supervisory Authority was reviewing Lehmann's previous
comments regarding customer outflows. Following this news, Credit
Suisse's ADS price fell another $0.10 per ADS, or 3.31%, to close
at $2.92 per ADS on February 21, 2023.

Then on Tuesday, March 14, 2023, Credit Suisse issued its annual
2022 report and revealed that it had identified "certain material
weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting" for
the years 2021 and 2022. Additionally, on Wednesday, March 15,
2023, the chairman of Credit Suisse's largest shareholder, Saudi
National Bank, which holds 9.88% of Credit Suisse, announced that
it won't provide further financial support to Credit Suisse and
that it would not buy more shares on regulatory grounds.

Following this news, the price of Credit Suisse ADSs fell 13.94% to
close at $2.16 per ADS on March 15, 2023.

WHAT CAN I DO?
Credit Suisse investors may, no later than May 8, 2023, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff for the class, through Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP encourages Credit Suisse investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information. The class action complaint against Credit Suisse,
captioned Patrick Calhoun v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al and
docketed under 23-cv-01297, is filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey before the Honorable Karen
McGlashan Williams.

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
Jonathan Naji, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]

CVS PHARMACY: Swiatek Sues Over Dietary Supplements' False Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Swiatek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01523 (N.D. Ill.,
Mar. 11, 2023) sues the Defendant for selling "Dry Mouth Discs"
described as a "dietary supplement" promising "to provide lasting
moisture," "Soothe[s] dry tissue," "Promotes a healthy mouth" and
"Freshen[s] breath" under its CVS Health brand.

In light of the Product's acidity, its representation as beneficial
to oral health and the alleviation of dry mouth is misleading. This
is because, in part, it fails to inform purchasers of the
likelihood of demineralization, dental erosion, greater
sensitivity, and higher incidences of dental caries, the Plaintiff
contends.

Though the Product is identified as a "dietary supplement," it
unlawfully claims to "mitigate disease" through its effects on
salivary gland disorders using lay terminology, "to provide lasting
moisture." To alleviate symptoms of dry mouth, the Product tells
purchasers its use will "provide lasting moisture," next to a body
of water with droplets of water, references to its ability to
stimulate saliva production and provide lubricating effects.
Notwithstanding whether the Product can stimulate saliva, it is
highly acidic, with a pH of 5.3, significantly less than the
critical pH of enamel or root dentin, between 6 and 6.9. The result
is that the tooth structure begins to erode, confirmed by one study
showing use of the Product caused 1% tooth loss, says the suit.

The dangers of these oral moisturizers has been known to dental
professionals through publications in dental journals, which
subjected the Product to laboratory analysis. The conclusion was
that unless such products are formulated to have an acidity level
of about 6.7 pH or higher, their use will contribute to
demineralization, dental erosion, sensitivity, and caries. As a
result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is
sold at premium price, approximately not less than $ 9.29 per 40
lozenges, excluding tax and sales, the suit further contends.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product on one or more occasions at CVS
locations including 25 Northwest Hwy Cary, Illinois, 60013, between
2021 and 2023, and/or among other times.

CVS is a leading pharmacy and healthcare company focused on meeting
the healthcare needs of Americans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DAXI SICHUAN: $23K in Attorneys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Zang Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ZHONGZHI ZANG, on his own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, XIN LI, GUOXING HUANG, Plaintiffs v.
DAXI SICHUAN, INC., doing business as Daxi Sichuan, SHIHAI LIU, HUI
FANG, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-06910-DG-SJB (E.D.N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara grants in part and denies in
part Zhongzhi Zang and Guoxing Huang's motion for attorney's fees
and costs.

Zang brought the action individually and on behalf of a putative
collective against Daxi Sichuan, Inc. and Shihai Liu, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), New York Labor
Law ("NYLL"), and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR").
An Amended Complaint was subsequently filed on May 20, 2019, naming
Hui Fang as an additional defendant and also making additional
class action allegations.

Zang was employed as a kitchen helper by Daxi Sichuan from
approximately May 2017 to June 2017. Individual Defendants Liu and
Fang are officers, directors, managers, or majority shareholders of
Daxi Sichuan. Zang alleged that both Liu and Fang (1) had the power
to hire and fire employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee
work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined the rate
and method of payment, and (4) maintained employee records.

Zang's Amended Complaint contains nine causes of action: violation
of the (1) minimum wage provisions of FLSA; (2) minimum wage
provisions of NYLL; (3) overtime provisions of FLSA; (4) overtime
provisions of NYLL; (5) spread-of-hours provision of NYLL; (6) meal
period provision of NYLL; (7) recordkeeping requirements of NYLL;
(8) notice requirements of NYLL; and (9) wage statement provisions
of NYLL.

On May 20, 2019, Xin Li filed his consent to become a plaintiff and
on Dec. 30, 2019, Guoxing Huang likewise opted-in as a plaintiff.
On Feb. 10, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved to conditionally certify a
FLSA collective action "on behalf of all 'non-managerial
employees,' both tipped and non-tipped, who worked for the
Defendants during the three years prior to the filing of their
complaint and who were not paid minimum wage for all hours worked
or not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours."

The Honorable Steven Gold denied the motion for certification of a
FLSA collective action, finding that the Plaintiffs had not made
even a "modest factual showing" that there was a common
FLSA-violative policy employed by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs
were granted leave to renew their motion at a later date if, during
the course of discovery, additional facts were uncovered that made
certification appropriate. No renewed motion was filed.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel on Jan. 12, 2021, which was
denied for failure to include a certification that the parties met
and conferred pursuant to Rule 37(a). Six months later, the Court
also denied the Plaintiffs' motion to compel class discovery
because the Plaintiffs offered no substantive reason why class
discovery is appropriate. On Nov. 22, 2021, the Court denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions for "twice-busted depositions" but
directed the Defendants to pay costs associated with those
cancelled depositions.

Plaintiffs Zang and Huang filed a notice of acceptance of the
Defendants' Rule 68 offer of judgment on Jan. 16, 2022. The Offer
was for a sum of $20,000, excluding any claims for recovery of
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the
Plaintiff's counsel in connection with the action. The Clerk of
Court thereafter entered judgment in their favor. On March 8, 2022,
Zang and Huang filed the present motion to recover attorney's fees
and costs for work performed by Hui Chen & Associates, PLLC and
Troy Law, PLLC.

The Fee Applicants have filed a motion seeking attorney's fees and
costs.

Judge Bulsara explains that it is well-settled that FLSA and NYLL
provide for an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs to a
prevailing plaintiff. It is also undisputed that the Plaintiffs'
entitlement to fees was not satisfied by the accepted offer of
judgment.

When assessing whether legal fees are reasonable, the Court
determines the "presumptively reasonable fee" for an attorney's
services by examining what reasonable clients would be willing to
pay. To calculate the presumptively reasonable fee, a court must
first determine a reasonable hourly rate for the legal services
performed. The next step is to determine the reasonableness of the
hours expended by counsel. The number of hours spent on a lawsuit
are considered unreasonable if they are excessive, redundant, or
unnecessary.

Turning first to the reasonable hourly rate, Judge Bulsara first
examines the experience and qualifications of the counsel seeking
the fee award. Troy Law requests the following hourly rates: $450
for John Troy; $300 for Aaron Schweitzer; $200 for Leanghour Lim;
$150 for Eric Chen; $150 for Tiffany Troy; and $150 for Preethi
Kilaru.

Judge Bulsara awards hourly rates of $350 for John Troy, $150 for
Schweitzer, $100 for Tiffany Troy, and $75 for Kilaru. In line with
the rates awarded to the junior associates employed by Troy Law, he
finds it appropriate to award hourly rates of $100 for Eric Chen
and $125 for Leanghour Lim. Lastly, he awards Hui Chen an hourly
rate of $300 for work performed.

After determining the reasonableness of the hourly rate, Judge
Bulsara determines whether the hours claimed by the prevailing side
were 'reasonably expended,' and adjusts the award accordingly. He
agrees with the Defendants that several of the billing entries in
invoices submitted by the Fee Applicants are vague, duplicative, or
excessive, warranting a percentage reduction in the number of hours
billed. The records also demonstrate the billing of excessive
amounts of time and an overlap of efforts among co-counsel. The
counsel is requesting $71,699 in legal fees, which constitutes 3.5
times the gross settlement amount of $20,000.

With clear evidence of a lack of success -- failed motions and a
plaintiff who dropped his case -- and no clear evidence by which to
measure the success achieved on behalf of the remaining Plaintiffs,
Judge Bulsara therefore finds it appropriate to impose a 20%
reduction in the number of hours, to be imposed in addition to the
30% deduction described in the Order, for a total of a 50%
reduction. He declines to impose the full additional 40% reduction
sought by the Defendants, to avoid double counting and because the
Court already reduced the reasonable hourly rate for the reasons
explained.

Judge Bulsara, therefore, awards fees consistent with the following
($22,172 in total): John Troy - $7,512.75; Aaron Schweitzer -
$8,825.25; Leanghour Lim - $531.25; Eric Chen - $482.50; Tiffany
Troy - $511.50; Preethi Kilaru - $1,083.7; and Hui Chen - $3,225.

Lastly, the Fee Applicants seek reimbursement for costs consisting
of $400 in court filing fees, $300 in mediation fees, $175 in
service of process fees, and $13.21 in postage and printing fees.

First, the docket indicates the $400 filing fee was paid.
Therefore, although the Fee Applicants did not submit a receipt,
the filing fee should be awarded. Second, there is no receipt,
invoice, or other documentation indicating the cost to serve the
Defendants was $175. Judge Bulsara therefore declines to award $175
in service costs. And, though the Fee Applicants did not submit a
receipt for the mediator's fee, it is undisputed that the parties
were referred to the EDNY Mediation Panel and did, in fact,
participate in mediation. In sum, Judge Bulsara awards the Fee
Applicants $713.21 in costs.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Bulsara grants in part and denies
in part the motion for attorney's fees. He awards the Fee
Applicants $22,172 in attorney's fees and $713.21 in costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4y4tkyun from Leagle.com.


DEERE & CO: Class Suit Over Farmers' "Right to Repair" Discussed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Guebert, writing for South Bend Tribune, reports that before a
January "memorandum of understanding," or MOU, on a farmer's "right
to repair" his farm machinery, U.S. equipment makers and their farm
and ranch customers were locked in a legal and legislative fight
over who could fix today's complex ag machinery -- the customer who
owned or leased it, or the maker that designed, built and held its
warranty.

But, agricultural law experts say, the trumpeted MOU between Deere
& Co., the world's largest farm machinery manufacturer, and the
American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation's biggest farm group,
is unenforceable.

In fact, they explain, the "understanding" offers no binding legal
rights to either farmers or manufacturers and doesn't stop any
farmer or farm group from continuing their court and legislative
fights for their "right to repair."

This battle -- and its hollow truce -- is a fight few foresaw a
generation ago. Back then, farmers and ranchers routinely tackled
equipment repairs as simple as changing their tractor's oil or as
complicated as rebuilding its engine.

Today's farm machinery, especially tractors and combines, are
driven more by software than diesel and their day-in, day-out
performance swings as much on electrons and algorithms as cylinder
compression and hydraulic hook-ups.

Farmers quickly learned to both love and loathe this complexity. At
peak performance, the machinery is a highly productive,
almost-alive partner that eats acres and performs tasks no machine
could have even attempted 20 years ago.

At its worst, however, it's a silent heap of costly steel and cold
cast iron until some fuzzy-cheeked dealer technician shows up to
reset an inaccessible switch or override some mysterious,
proprietary computer code.

Thus the repair fight: Farmers and ranchers want machinery makers
like Deere and CNH Industrial, the owners of Case IH and New
Holland, to give them access to the information and tools they need
to do what they've been doing since the dawn of farming: repair
their tools without additional cost or delay.

When private pressure failed to deliver that access, farmers began
to lobby both state legislatures and Congress for the right. Civil
lawsuits -- 16 in total, now consolidated into a federal class
action -- soon followed.

AFBF claims it worked to secure its Deere agreement -- and, on
March 9, a similar MOU with Case IH -- because its members wanted
to dampen the escalating fight while gaining a clear understanding
of what they can and cannot repair.

The six-page, January memorandum does clarify some sticking points
between farmers and manufacturers. But, critics and attorneys say,
most of its language is too broad and too vague to be legally
meaningful.

In fact, the memo, says Anthony Schutz, the associate dean of the
University of Nebraska College of Law, "is a press release at best.
It creates no rights by any party" and "none of it is enforceable
by any entity."

So why secure a toothless, non-binding agreement that doesn't give
farmers any new right to repair?

It -- and the subsequent AFBF/Case IH deal -- "reduces the
political pressure (machinery makers) were getting at the state
level" from farmers and farm groups on repair issues, offers
Schutz.

"At the same time, the Farm Bureau knew it couldn't keep pushing
state legislators against farmers' rights to repair without causing
problems for itself."

Proof of that analysis came the month after the Deere/AFBF deal. On
Feb. 20, the Colorado House of Representatives approved a state
right-to-repair ag law over objections from machinery makers and a
noticeably quiet state Farm Bureau affiliate.

Moreover, predicts Kevin O'Reilly, the Right-to-Repair campaign
director for the Public Interest Research Groups, the House-passed
Colorado resolution will pass the state senate and be signed into
law by the end of March.

The reason is simple, he says: "The MOUs between Farm Bureau and
the machinery companies badly misunderstand the depth of anger
among farmers over this issue. When enough states pass enough of
their own repair laws, Congress will act."

If the federal courts, that is, don't rule against the machinery
makers first.

Either way, the MOUs were more memos of understatement than memos
of understanding because this fight is just getting started. [GN]

DELAVAL INC: Court Tosses Bid to Strike Class Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Triple S Farms LLC, v.
DeLaval Inc.; West Agro, Inc.; DeLaval International AB; DeLaval
Holding BV; DeLaval Holding AB; and Tetra Laval International SA;
Case No. 0:22-cv-01924-KMM-DTS (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Katherine
Menendez entered an order that:

   1. The motion to strike class allegations is denied.

   2. DeLaval Inc.'s motion to dismiss or alternatively to
      strike  is denied in part and granted in part.

   3. West Agro's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
      Claim is denied in part without prejudice and granted in
      part.

Triple S Farms, LLC, is a dairy farm located in Belgrade,
Minnesota. In 2018, to upgrade its milking operation, Triple S
purchased a robotic DeLaval voluntary milking system ("VMS") known
as the DeLaval VMS (TM) V300 ("V300") and made substantial changes
to its barn to incorporate the new robotic system.

In this litigation, Triple S alleges that the Defendants
misrepresented the capabilities of the V300, that the robot is
defective and fails to operate as promised, and that these and
other issues have cause Triple S to incur substantial damages.
Triple S seeks to represent a class of United States dairy farmers
who purchased, financed, leased, or rented a V300. the Defendant
DeLaval Inc.

Triple S brings this action on behalf of itself and other similarly
situated individuals. It purports to represent a nationwide class,
a direct purchaser subclass, and a Minnesota
subclass, which are defined in the Complaint as follows:

   -- Nationwide Class

      "All Persons who purchased, financed, leased, and/or
      rented a V300;"

   -- Direct Purchaser Subclass

      "All Persons who purchased, financed, leased, and/or
      rented a V300 pursuant to a DeLavalSales Agreement;"

   -- Minnesota Subclass

      "All Persons who are residents of Minnesota and who
      purchased, financed, leased, and/or rented a V300."

Triple S also alleges that all of the requirements for maintaining
a class action are satisfied.

DeLaval is a producer of dairy and farming machinery.

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



DNC PARKS: Filing Date to Oppose Class Cert. Bid Extended in Vega
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA SOCORRO VEGA, v. DNC
PARKS & RESORTS AT ASILOMAR, INC., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00484-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone
entered an order:

   1. directing the plaintiff to file opposition or statement of
non-opposition to ex parte motion;

   2. extending deadline to file opposition to class
      certification motion; and

   3. continuing April 5, 2023 hearing on class certification
motion.

The Court said, "Given the nature of the proffers of defense
counsel and the Defendants' requested relief, the Court shall
require the Plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of
non-opposition to the Defendants' motion before it issues a ruling
on the matter. To that end, the Court shall grant the Defendants a
brief extension of the deadline to oppose the class certification
motion and shall continue the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion."

The Plaintiff initiated this putative class action on April 12,
2029. Pursuant to the amended scheduling order, the
pre-certification discovery cutoff was set for December 14, 24
2022.

The the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class on February 17,
2023. The hearing on the motion is currently set for April 5, 2023.


The Defendants proffer they are entitled to ex parte relief because
the parties originally agreed to stipulate to produce witnesses and
extend the opposition deadlines, but the Plaintiff's counsel
reneged on this agreement on the eve of the Defendants' deadline to
oppose the class certification motion.

The Court finds the Defendants would be irreparably prejudiced
because, absent ex parte relief, the deadline to oppose the class
certification motion, March 3, 2023, will have passed before the
Defendants have had an opportunity to be heard on the merits of
their motion to modify the schedule, and they may be unable to
meaningfully oppose the class certification motion without the
requested discovery.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/408M753 at no extra charge.[CC]

DRAFTKINGS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
Business Wire reports that if you suffered a loss in DraftKings,
you have until May 8, 2023, to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
DraftKings Inc. ("Company" or "DraftKings") non-fungible tokens
("NFTs") between August 11, 2021 and the present. Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/draftkings.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period: (1) the
NFTs were securities for which DraftKings unlawfully failed to file
a registration statement; (2) DraftKings ensured that money
invested by class members stayed on DraftKings' private and
exclusively controlled marketplace, propping up the market for and
overall valuation of DraftKings' NFTs; and (3) investors have
suffered significant damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/draftkings or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
or his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in DraftKings, you have until May 8, 2023, to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in
any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

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

EASTERSEALS-GOODWILL: Court Narrows Claims in Teeter Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE TEETER,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
EASTERSEALS-GOODWILL NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAIN, INC., Case No.
4:22-cv-00096-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered
an order:

    1. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant
Easterseals-Goodwill's motion to dismiss; and

    2. dismissing without prejudice Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, and
VII.

The Court declines to rule on the issue of amendment or
supplementation in light of the determination that Teeter's
common-law negligence cause of action survives ESGW's motion to
dismiss.

The Plaintiff Teeter filed this action on behalf of herself and
putative class members on October 10, 2022. ESGW moves the Court to
dismiss the action on the basis that Teeter lacks standing and has
failed to state a claim for relief. The Court conducted a motion
hearing on January 25, 2023.

Teeter claims that ESGW collected, stored, and "assured reasonable
security" over her and class members' personal health information
("PHI") and personal identifying information ("PII") as part of
their employment.

Teeter alleges that ESGW failed to take reasonable measures to
assure the security of this information. (Id. at 8.) ESGW detected
the unauthorized account activity as early as July 20, 2022.

ESGW did not report this activity to Teeter until it sent her a
letter dated September 16, 2022. Teeter alleges that she and class
members suffered harm that includes the following injuries:
identity theft; loss of an opportunity to determine how their
PHI/PII and financial information is used; and compromise,
publication, and/or theft of personal information.

Teeter additionally asserts out-of-pocket expenses and lost time
associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery
from the breach, as well as "continued risk" to their PHI/PII and
"future costs."

ESGW is a private, nonprofit organization serving low-income
families and children and adults with disabilities in Idaho,
Montana, Utah, and Wyoming.

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

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Class Action in B.C. Over Loot Boxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Walton, writing for iNFOnews.ca, reports that Electronic Arts
Inc. may have committed deceptive acts or practices by selling loot
boxes to gamers in B.C.

Mark Sutherland filed a class-action lawsuit against EA in the
Supreme Court of B.C. It cites 70 games that have been published
since 2008, all of which contain loot boxes, which he says are
"addictive elements."

Loot boxes provide players with virtual items and can be purchased
with real-world money. The lawsuit alleges some gameplay is not
possible without obtaining loot boxes.

Although loot boxes can also be earned for free through gameplay,
EA drives "players to purchase virtual currency to purchase loot
boxes by deliberately structuring game play so the time involved is
unrealistically long," the lawsuit alleges.

Some loot boxes offer content at random, and the value of items
inside can vary, which the lawsuit compares to gambling and alleges
is a breach of the Criminal Code. It says EA did not disclose the
odds of getting each particular item until 2019, and have only
provided disclosure that offers no "meaningful certainty" since
then.

Items obtained through loot boxes can be sold for real-world money,
and the lawsuit alleges the loot is "almost always" worth less than
the cost of purchase.

". . . so a class member wagering by opening a loot box stands to
lose their money's worth, except on the rare occasion when a player
obtains a high value item."

However the claim that EA is engaging in unlawful gambling is bound
to fail, Justice Margot Fleming decided.

Sutherland also alleged that EA committed deceptive and
unconscionable acts or practices under the Business Practices and
Consumer Protection Act.

The lawsuit has been approved to move forward as a class action
proceeding. Justice Fleming agreed the case disclosed a cause of
action for the claim that EA committed a deceptive act, but she
struck down the unconscionability claim.

Both parties are allowed to make further submissions in response to
the reasons for judgement published on March 14.

EA Games issued an emailed statement to iNFOnews.ca.

"We're pleased that the trial court rejected, as a matter of law,
the allegations of unlawful gaming," spokesperson Chris Potter
said. "The court's decision reaffirms our position that nothing in
our games constitutes gambling."

None of the allegations in this lawsuit have been proven in court.
[GN]

ESTHETICS BY JEANETTE: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Esthetics by Jeanette
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Chloe Gonzalez, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated employees v. Esthetics by
Jeanette LLC, Jeanette Dolce, Does 1-20, Case No.
34-2023-00335991-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March
10, 2023).

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

Esthetics by Jeanette LLC -- https://www.ebjspa.com/ -- is a beauty
salon in the Arden-Arcade, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew Lewis, Esq.
          THE LEWIS LAW OFFICE, PC
          2999 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 180
          Roseville, CA 95661-4219
          Phone: 650-665-9000


FAVORITE CATERERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cardoza Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELMER CARDOZA individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MY FAVORITE CATERERS, INC.; and FARID
HAYAMZADEGAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01913 (E.D.N.Y., March
13, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest
periods, and provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Cardoza was employed by the Defendants as cook.

MY FAVORITE CATERERS, INC. owns, operates, or controls a
restaurant, located at Great Neck, NY 11024 under the name
"Shiraz."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq.
          580 Fifth Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 457-1699


FOUNDATION ENERGY: Parties Seek to Strike Class Cert Sched Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephen Lane Ritter, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Foundation
Energy Management, LLC, et. al, Case No. 6:22-cv-00246-JFH (E.D.
Okla.), the Parties jointly move the Court to strike the current
class certification scheduling order pending resolution of the
Defendants' partial motion to dismiss.

The Court entered the initial and current class certification
scheduling order on November 7, 2022, which set December 15, 2022,
as the deadline for motions seeking leave to amend or add
additional parties.

All parties agree to the relief requested in this joint motion. No
trial or class certification hearing date has been set, but
granting this motion will strike all deadlines in the current class
certification scheduling order.

Further pursuant to LCvR7.1(i), the parties will submit a proposed
order granting the relief requested in this motion to the Court's
proposed order inbox.

Foundation Energy Management LLC is a manager of energy investments
for institutional partners.

Foundation Energy is a manager of energy investments for
institutional partners.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
          Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
          BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
          431 W. Main Street, Suite D
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 698-2770
          E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
                  ryan@bradwil.com

                - and -

          Brady L. Smith, Esq.
          Harry "Skeeter" Jordan, Esq.
          BRADY SMITH, PLLC
          One Leadership Square, Suite 1320
          211 N. Robinson
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 293-3029
          E-mail: brady@blsmithlaw.com
                  skeeter@blsmithlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nathan K. Davis, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
          1200 17th Street, Suite 1900
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 634-2000
          Facsimile: (303) 634-2020
          E-mail: ndavis@swlaw.com

                - and -

          L. Vance Brown, Esq.
          Sean-Michael Brady, Esq.
          ELIAS, BOOKS, BROWN & NELSON, P.C.
          Two Leadership Square
          211 North Robinson Suite 1300
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 232-3722
          Facsimile: (405) 232-3746
          E-mail: vbrown@eliasbooks.com
                  mbrady@eliasbooks.com

GEICO CASUALTY: Bids to Exclude Expert Testimony Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET DAVIS, ANGEL
RANDALL, ALMA LEE RESENDEZ, MANDY PHELAN, and TREY ROBERTS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GEICO CASUALTY CO., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02477-EAS-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order that:

  -- GEICO's motions to exclude expert testimony and reports are
     denied as moot;

  -- GEICO's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and
     denied in part;

  -- the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in
     part and denied in part;

  -- GEICO's Motion to stay is denied as moot; and

  -- the Plaintiffs' extension request is denied as moot.

Sales tax, title fees, and registration fees are mandatory parts of
the replacement cost under the GEICO Policy for the Plaintiffs'
(and the class members') total-loss vehicles and therefore are
components of ACV under the Policy.

GEICO's failure to pay these taxes and fees constitutes a breach
contract. As for those class members who have received full payment
for any of the disputed taxes and fees, they may not maintain
actions for those already-paid fees (but they may still maintain
actions for those fees to which GEICO has not yet paid). GEICO may,
however, assert the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction
at the Plaintiff Phelan's trial.

Finally, as stated in the Order Setting Trial Date and Settlement
Conference, the parties shall attend a settlement conference before
the undersigned on March 7, 2023 at 9:30 a.m., at which the
undersigned will discuss with the parties how this class action
should be managed moving forward.

The Court finds that GEICO cannot, as a matter of law, establish
the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction against the
Plaintiff Davis. The undisputed chronology of the Plaintiff Davis's
settlement process demonstrates that, at the time GEICO issued the
total loss payment, there was no bona fide dispute. Only after
receiving her payment from GEICO did she take issue with the
amount. Moreover, after communicating her displeasure with GEICO,
GEICO never made a subsequent payment to settle any purported
"dispute" over the claim. Thus, because GEICO cannot prove that "at
the time the offer was made, the claim was subject to a bona fide
dispute," the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction does
not bar the Plaintiff Davis's claim.

In contrast to the Plaintiff Davis, there is a question of material
fact as to the existence of a bona fide dispute when GEICO issued
payment to the Plaintiff Phelan. Before receiving payment from
GEICO, the Plaintiff Phelan told GEICO that she disagreed with
GEICO's valuation of her vehicle, and she requested additional
payment for fees. After communicating this with GEICO, GEICO later
offered payment with amounts included for sales tax, which the
Plaintiff Phelan subsequently accepted.

The Plaintiffs challenge GEICO's characterization of this series of
events as amounting to a bona fide dispute, noting that "there is
simply no evidence that GEICO disputed it owed benefits under the
Policy but paid it simply to resolve the dispute -- rather, GEICO
paid the amount it believed it owed under the Policy." If true --
that is, if GEICO simply paid the amount it believed it owed under
the Policy, then the Plaintiffs are correct, the Court says.

However, the Court is unable to say what GEICO believed at the time
it issued payment. Therefore, the Court finds that this is a matter
best reserved for the trier of fact.

The five named the Plaintiffs in this case were each involved in a
car accident between 2009 and 2020. At the time of the accidents,
the Plaintiffs' vehicles were insured under an
insurance policy (the "Policy") that was issued by GEICO Casualty
and its subsidiaries.

Geico operates as an insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/429uzaE at no extra charge.[CC]



GEO SECURE: Castillo Seeks to Certify Non-Exempt Employee Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE BRITNEY CASTILLO,
Individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
3:22-cv-00445-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an
order:

   1. certifying the proposed class of California-based non-
      exempt employees;

   2. appointing the Plaintiff as class representative; and

   3. appointing Sullivan &Yaeckel Law Group APC as class
      counsel.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class
the Defendant's motion

dated March 3, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3mWvtre at no extra charge.[CC]

the Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
          Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC
          2330 Third Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 702-6760
          Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
          E-mail: yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                  ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com

GERBER LIFE: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPHINE LOGUIDICE and
EMILIE NORMAN, v. GERBER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
7:20-cv-03254-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), Gerber Life seeks leave to file under
seal its Memorandum in Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

In its memorandum in opposition, Gerber Life incorporates the
deposition testimony of various witnesses and information
pertaining to the internal operation of Gerber Life's business,
which Gerber Life reasonably believes to contain and/or comprise
trade secrets or other confidential research, development, or
commercial information that is not generally known, and that Gerber
Life would not normally reveal to third parties or, if disclosed,
would require such third parties to maintain the same in
confidence.

The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, supporting
Memorandum, Declaration of N. Lyons, and accompanying exhibits, to
which Gerber Life now responds, were also filed under seal.

Gerber Life provides juvenile and family life insurance products to
middle-income families along with medical insurance to small- and
medium-sized businesses.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 3, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZM4Pji at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Natalie A. Lyons, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                  nlyons@cohenandmalad.com

                - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Michael G. Stewart, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Ste. 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  mikes@bsjfirm.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Amanda Rosenberg, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  arosenberg@kalielgold.com

                - and -

          James Bilsborrow, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          E-mail: jbilsborrow@seegerweiss.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric W. Richardson, Esq.
          Brent D. Craft, Esq.
          Joseph M. Brunner, Esq.
          Emily E. St. Cyr, Esq.
          Jordan T. Steiner, Esq.
          Petra G. Bergman, Esq.
          VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
          301 East Fourth Street, Suite 3500
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 723-4019
          Facsimile: (513) 852-7885
          E-mail: ewrichardson@vorys.com
                  bdcraft@vorys.com
                  jmbrunner@vorys.com
                  eestcyr@vorys.com
                  jtsteiner@vorys.com
                  pgbergman@vorys.com

                - and -

          Patrick J. Gennardo, Esq.
          Joseph G. Tully, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          90 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-210-9400
          Facsimile: 212-210-9444
          E-mail: patrick.gennardo@alston.com
                  joe.tully@alston.com

GIGAACQUISITIONS2 LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Laidlaw Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CODY LAIDLAW, Plaintiff v. GIGACQUISITIONS2, LLC,
RALUCA DINU, AVI S. KATZ, NEIL MIOTTO, JOHN MIKULSKY, and GIL
FROSTIG, Defendants, C.A. No. 2021-0821-LWW (Del. Ch.), the Court
of Chancery of Delaware denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Court of Chancery considers a motion to dismiss breach of
fiduciary duty claims against the directors and the controlling
stockholder of GigCapital2, Inc.  ("Gig2" or the "Company"). Gig2
is a Delaware corporation formed as a special purpose acquisition
company (SPAC) on March 6, 2019. Defendant Avi Katz founded Gig2 as
one of his seven SPAC endeavors and held a controlling interest in
its sponsor, GigAcquisitions2, LLC.

Katz caused the Sponsor to incorporate Gig2 in Delaware. He
appointed himself as Gig2's CEO, its Executive Chairman, and a
member of its board of directors. Katz, through the Sponsor, also
selected the other four initial Board members: Raluca Dinu (his
spouse), Neil Miotto, John Mikulsky, and Gil Frostig. These
directors each held additional roles at GigCapital-related
businesses.

Shortly after its incorporation in March 2019, Gig2 issued common
stock to the Sponsor, Northland Gig 2 Investment LLC, and
EarlyBirdCapital, Inc. amounting to approximately 20% of Gig2's
post-IPO equity for an aggregate price of $25,000 or $0.0058 per
share (the "Founder Shares"). Gig2 issued 4,018,987 Founder Shares
to the Sponsor and a total of 288,513 Founder Shares to Northland
and EarlyBird.

On June 10, 2019, Gig2 completed its IPO. It sold 15 million units
to public investors for $10 per unit and raised total proceeds of
$150 million. The funds generated by the IPO were deposited in a
trust.

On Nov. 2, 2020, Gig2 filed a definitive proxy statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission recommending that stockholders
vote to approve an amendment to Gig2's certificate of incorporation
to extend the deadline to consummate a merger until March 10, 2021.
The redemptions associated with the two extension amendments
reduced the cash in the trust account to approximately $149.6
million.

Gig2 began searching for a merger target after its formation.
Eventually, it identified UpHealth Holdings, Inc. and Cloudbreak
Health, LLC. UpHealth was a digital health company operating in
integrated care management, digital pharmacy, global telehealth,
and behavioral health. Cloudbreak was a unified telemedicine and
video medical interpretation solutions provider.

On Nov. 23, 2020, Gig2 announced that it had entered into merger
agreements with UpHealth and Cloudbreak. Under the agreements,
UpHealth stockholders and Cloudbreak unitholders and optionholders
would receive consideration in the form of Gig2 common shares. Upon
consummation of the mergers, Gig2 would change its name to
UpHealth, Inc. ("New UpHealth") and its common stock would trade on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "UPH."

The mergers were contingent on Gig2 having at least $150 million in
total cash. After the redemptions associated with the extension
amendments, the Company's cash had fallen below the $150 million
threshold. Consequently, Gig2 pursued financing arrangements to
minimize the risk that it would fail to meet this condition.

On Jan. 20, 2021, Gig2 entered into private investment in public
equity (PIPE) subscription agreements to sell three million Gig2
shares at $10 per share. The same day, Gig2 entered into
convertible note subscription agreements under which Gig2 agreed to
issue convertible notes (the "Notes") for an aggregate purchase
price of $255 million. The Notes were convertible into 22,173,913
shares of Gig2 common stock at a conversion price of $11.50 per
share. The PIPE and Notes transactions were set to close
concurrently with the mergers.

On May 13, 2021, Gig2 filed its definitive proxy statement
concerning the UpHealth and Cloudbreak mergers with the SEC. In
several places, the Proxy indicated that Gig2 shares were worth $10
each. It further disclosed the potential for conflicts of interest
between the Sponsor and the Board, on one hand, and Gig2's public
stockholders, on the other. The economic values of the individual
interests were not disclosed.

On June 4, 2021, stockholders approved the mergers and related
transactions, with more than 94% of the votes cast being in favor.
Public stockholders redeemed 9,373,567 shares for approximately
$94,592,758, leaving $54,935,238 in Gig2's trust account. The
mergers, along with the PIPE and Notes transactions, closed on June
9, 2021. Six days later, Gig2 disclosed that the PIPE and Notes
agreements had been finalized according to the revised terms
described on June 8.

Before the June 4, 2021 special meeting, Gig2's stock price traded
around the $10 redemption price. As of the filing of the Complaint
on September 23, New UpHealth stock traded at $3.75 per share. New
UpHealth's stock currently trades around $2.04 per share.

Laidlaw has been a Gig2 (or New UpHealth) stockholder since Aug.
14, 2020. On Sept. 23, 2021, he filed the Complaint in the Court of
Chancery. The Complaint advances three direct claims on behalf of
the Plaintiff and current and former Gig2 stockholders. Count I is
a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the five members of
Gig2's Board. Count II is a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
against Katz and the Sponsor as the controlling stockholders of
Gig2. Count III is a claim for unjust enrichment against the
Sponsor and the director defendants.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on Nov. 3, 2021.
Briefing was completed on May 20, 2022. The Court heard oral
argument on the motion to dismiss on November 18.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants were motivated to
undertake value-destructive mergers at the expense of public
stockholders, who would have been better served by redeeming their
shares or a liquidation. The Defendants allegedly breached their
fiduciary duties by acting on these misaligned incentives and
impairing the fair exercise of public stockholders' redemption
rights.

Similar claims were first considered by the Court of Chancery in In
re MultiPlan Corp. Stockholders Litigation. Its more recent
decision in Delman v. GigAcquisitions3, LLC addressed claims even
more akin to those pleaded in the present case. In fact, that
opinion addressed allegations that the same central cast of
defendants advanced the interests of Katz and the SPAC's sponsor
while preventing public stockholders from making an informed
redemption decision.

The Defendants -- in GigAcquisitions3 -- moved to dismiss the
claims under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 for failure to plead
demand futility and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Their Rule 23.1 argument
rests on suppositions that the Plaintiff's claims are derivative or
do not allege any individually compensable harm. More specifically,
the Defendants assert that the Plaintiff is advancing a derivative
"bad deal" claim and a duplicative "disclosure-related" claim.

The Court of Chancery states that at first glance, readers may
think the Court inadvertently re-published an earlier decision. The
legal theories presented and the Defendants named are largely
indistinguishable from those in the Court of Chancery's recent
GigAcquisitions3 decision. But a different GigCapital-affiliated
SPAC is Court's present focus.

GigCapital2, like its sister entity, did not deviate from the
typical SPAC playbook. Public stockholders who purchased units in
the initial public offering were given the choice between redeeming
and recouping their $10 per share investment plus interest or
investing in the post-merger company. The SPAC's fiduciaries were
allegedly incentivized to minimize redemptions in order to secure
returns for the sponsor, which purchased a 20% stake at a nominal
price.

The Court if Chancery notes that the Defendants are once more
accused of acting on this conflict by issuing a false and
misleading proxy statement that impaired public stockholders'
ability to make an informed redemption decision. Specifically, they
allegedly failed to disclose the net cash per share that the SPAC
would contribute to the merger. Given that net cash per share would
provide a strong indication of value post-merger and that the SPAC
would see significant dilution and dissipation of cash upon
closing, such information would have been material to public
stockholders choosing between investing and redeeming.

In GigAcquisitions3, this premise led the Court of Chancery to
conclude that the plaintiffs pleaded a reasonably conceivable
breach of fiduciary duty claim. So too in the present case. It
further concludes that it is reasonably conceivable that the
Defendants withheld material information about financing terms that
harmed public stockholders.

In sum, the Court of Chancery opines that the Defendants' arguments
in support of dismissal are familiar. Nearly all were previously
considered and rejected in GigAcqusitions3. Unsurprisingly, they
fare no better in present case. Hence, the Court of Chancery denies
the motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4c8t9hzm from Leagle.com.

Michael J. Barry -- mbarry@gelaw.com -- GRANT & EISENHOFFER, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware; Michael Klausner -- klausner@stanford.edu --
Stanford, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff Cody Laidlaw.

John L. Reed -- john.reed@dlapiper.com -- Ronald N. Brown --
ronald.brown@dlapiper.com -- & Kelly L. Freund --
kelly.freund@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP (US), Wilmington,
Delaware; Melanie E. Walker & Gaspard Rappoport, DLA PIPER LLP
(US), Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendants
GigAcquisitions2, LLC, Raluca Dinu, Avi S. Katz, Neil Miotto, John
Mikulsky & Gil Frostig.


GREAT AMERICAN: Class Cert Filing Deadline Extended to March 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAMID R. TAVAKOLIAN,
Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. GREAT AMERICAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Case No.
5:20-cv-01133-SPG-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace
Garnett entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue
hearing on motion for class certification and related dates as
follows:

  -- The deadline for the Plaintiff to file his Motion for
     Class Certification, currently set for February 24, 2023,
     be set for March 24, 2023;

  -- The deadline for the Defendant to file its Opposition to
Motion for Class Certification, be set for May 5, 2023; and

  -- The deadline for the Plaintiff to file his Reply to Motion for
Class Certification be set for May 26, 2023.

Great American operates as a stock insurance company. The Company
engages in the insurance business such as annuity.

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


HALO MEDIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bailes Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JARED BAILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HALO MEDIA LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-02129 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
and provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Bailes was employed by the Defendant as software
engineer.

HALO MEDIA LLC is a producer of web & native mobile/desktop
applications. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq.
          GISKAN, SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
          90 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 964-9640
          Email: jsolotaroff@gslawny.com


HORIZON BANCORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Horizon Bancorp, Inc. HBNC resulting from
allegations that Horizon Bank may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Horizon Bank securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12953 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 10, 2023, after trading hours, Horizon
Bank filed a current report on Form 8-K as well as a late filing
notice with the Securities & Exchange Commission ("SEC"). In these
filings, it announced that it had received a notice from NASDAQ as
a result of failing to timely file its annual report, and that it
had identified material weaknesses in its internal controls.

Specifically, the material weaknesses in internal controls issues
related to "(i) accounting revisions of previously issued financial
statements with respect to the classification of sold commercial
loan participation balances, the reporting of indirect loan dealer
reserve asset balances and related amortization expense and the
classification of certain available for sale and held to maturity
securities from private labeled mortgage-backed pools to federal
agency mortgage pool, which revisions were previously disclosed in
the Earnings Release and the Company's Form 10-Q filings during
2022, in addition to errors in previously issued financial
statement disclosures relating to the transfer of available for
sale to held to maturity securities and the cash flow
classification of repurchases of outstanding stock from an
investing activity to a financing activity, which will be disclosed
for the first time in the 2022 Form 10-K, and (ii) a calculation
error in the Company's public float as noted above."

On this news, the price of Horizon Bank's stock fell $1.43, or 10%,
on March 13, 2023, the next trading day.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Objection to Jan. 30 Order Overruled in Shaw
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLYVE SHAW and KENARDRO
PRESS, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
HORNBLOWER CRUISES & EVENTS, LCC, Case No. 1:21-cv-10408-VM-OTW
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Victor Marrero entered an order that the
objection to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang's January 30, 2023 Order
filed by the Defendant Hornblower Cruises, LLC is overruled.

   -- Hornblower is directed to comply with Magistrate Judge
Wang's January 30, 2023 Order requiring Hornblower "to  produce the
number of people employed at the relevant locations in California
before the March 2020 layoffs"; and it is further ordered that the
objection to Magistrate Judge Wang's February 3, 2023 Order filed
by Hornblower is overruled.

   -- Hornblower argues that while the Plaintiffs are unlikely to
suffer any prejudice if the stay is granted, "there is  a serious
risk of prejudice to the Defendant if a stay is  not in place,"
along with a "substantial risk of inconsistent rulings from [this
Court] and Judge Wang." (Objection to Denial of Stay at 5.)
Hornblower contends that allowing discovery pending the outcome of
its  Objection to Discovery would "reward the Plaintiffs for poor
pleading and force the Defendants to incur the costs of significant
discovery in response to any complaint."

   -- However, the Court is not persuaded by Hornblower's argument
that it will suffer unfair prejudice if a stay is not granted. As
the Court explained above, Hornblower has not made a substantial
unmeritorious, and showing the that discovery the Plaintiffs'
ordered claims seeks are discrete pieces of information that are
relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.

The Plaintiffs Clyve Shaw and Kenardro Press brought this putative
class action, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, against Hornblower.

The Plaintiffs allege that Hornblower violated the federal Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act, the New York
State WARN Act, and the Illinois WARN Act, by failing to provide
the required timely notices to its employees prior to closing a
site of employment and conducting a mass layoff.

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

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Defence Filing in Defective Engine Suit Until May 19
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Daemon of Globe World News Echo reports that the Federal
Court has given both manufacturers until May 19, 2023 to file a
defence.

The biggest class action involving dangerous cars in Australian
history has begun in the Federal Court, with the owners of popular
Hyundai and Kia models seeking compensation.

The cars included Hyundai Tuscon, Kia QL Sportage and CK Stiner,
sold in Australia between 2014 and 2020.

Hundreds of thousands of the companies' vehicles have been affected
and were the subject of a recall.

The safety issues include potential engine fires, and drivers of
the Hyundai and Kia vehicles were advised not to park their parks
in an enclosed area, like a garage.

The class action was launched after thousands of reports of
problems with the models overseas, with some exploding into
flames.

"If an electrical short circuit occurs, this could result in an
engine compartment fire when the key is switched off and the
vehicle is parked," a Kia recall stated.

"A vehicle fire could increase the risk injury or death to vehicle
occupants or bystanders and/or damage to property."

"Until it has been repaired, Kia recommends that the vehicle should
not be parked near any flammable structures or in an enclosed area,
i.e. not in a garage."

Driving school owner Naomi Murphy said two of her work vehicles
needed complete engine replacements.

She's hoping for compensation and a new warranty through the court
action.

"I said I'm not putting my students and my instructors at risk to
have a car blow up on the side of the road," she said.

Bannister Law is representing applicants of the class action.

It had previously said that the cars' owners were also paying
higher insurance premiums because they could not park their cars in
secure areas. [GN]

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Suit Over Metal Debris in Engine
------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. v. HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA, HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, KIA AMERICA, INC., KIA CORPORATION,
Case No. 8:23-cv-00439 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 10, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff alleging that Defendants failed to
adequately research, design, test, and manufacture the Class
Vehicles before warranting, advertising, promoting, marketing, and
selling the Class Vehicles as suitable and safe for use in an
intended and reasonably foreseeable manner.

The Class Vehicle engines experience engine fires and engine
failures resulting from the following defects and malfunctions: as
a result of the Defendants' negligent and sub-standard
manufacturing processes, metal debris and other contaminants
remained in the engine when engine oil first was introduced into
the engine. Over time, and as a result of the presence of this
debris and these contaminants in the oiling system, the connecting
rod bearings begin to fracture. Once the connecting rod bearings
fracture, large amounts of metal debris begin to accumulate in the
engine oil. Both as a result of the presence of debris on the
downstream side of the oil filter, and because of the magnitude and
scope of debris 10 and contaminants which are present, further
damage takes place to various engine components, resulting in
dangerous, sudden, and unforeseeable engine failure, overheating
and fire to the Class Vehicles, says the suit.

Eventually, the Class Vehicles begin producing a "knocking" sound
originating from the engine as a result of the deteriorated
bearings. In some instances, the compromised connecting rod
bearings eventually cause the piston to break through the engine
block as a result of the deterioration in the engine parts. This
exposes hot engine oil to hot engine parts which, with the presence
of oxygen, can ignite the oil and cause an engine fire. As a result
of these defects, the Class Vehicles suffer from restricted and
inadequate engine oil lubrication. In the Class Vehicles, the
lubrication channels become clogged and restricted as a result of
these defects, even under normal use and proper maintenance. When
the lubrication channels clog, engine oil is unable to be pumped
throughout the engine  and is also unable to adequately return to
the oil pan, causing a condition known as oil starvation. This
results in insufficient lubrication throughout the Class Vehicle's
engine, which causes premature wear of the engine components and
catastrophic engine failure and fire, the suit asserts.

In September 10, 2015, HMA publicly recalled certain model year
2011–2012 Sonata vehicles manufactured at Hyundai Motor
Manufacturing Alabama and equipped with the 2.4-liter or 2.0-liter
GDI engines.

According to the Hyundai GDI recall, Hyundai determined that metal
debris may have been generated from factory machining operations as
part of the manufacturing of the engine crankshaft during December
11, 2009 to April 12, 2012.

As a result, Hyundai decided to issue a safety recall for
approximately 470,000 Sonata model sedans, years 2011–2012,
manufactured between December 11, 2009, and April 12, 2012, at
Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama and equipped with either a 2.0
liter or 2.4-liter GDI engine. The recall provided notification to
owners of the issue, inspection, and replacement of the engine
assembly, as necessary, free of charge. Additionally, Hyundai
increased the warranty for the engine sub-assembly to 10
years/120,000 miles for both original and subsequent owners.

Between May 25 and June 10, 2016, KA followed Hyundai's lead and
notified owners of 2011–2014 model year Optima vehicles of issues
with the same connecting rod wear which results in knocking noise
from the same engines. Despite Kia's recall, Defendant Kia has
failed to adequately repair the recalled 2011–2014 Kia Class
Vehicles.

In March, April, and June 2017, Hyundai and Kia announced that they
were recalling an additional 1.4 million vehicles with the GDI
Engines because they received widespread reports that the engines
could fail and stall, i.e., the same reason for the first recall.
This recall included the 2013–2014 Hyundai Santa Fe, the
2013–2014 Sonata, the 2011–2014 Kia Optima, the 2011–2013 Kia
Sportage, and the 2012–2014 Kia Sorento vehicles.

The Defendants failed to provide either the appropriate notice to
the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' insureds or the appropriate and
necessary repairs to the Class Vehicles containing the GDI Engines
that are prone to engine failure and other safety risks, the suit
further alleges.

The Plaintiffs include STATE AUTO PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY; MILBANK INSURANCE COMPANY; MERIDIAN SECURITY INSURANCE CO;
HOME STATE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN FAMILY
INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN FAMILY CONNECT INSURANCE COMPANY;
AMERICAN FAMILY CONNECT PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY;
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I.; AMERICAN STANDARD
INSURANCE COMPANY OF OHIO; AMERICAN STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF
WISCONSIN; GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; MAIN STREET
AMERICA ASSURANCE COMPANY; MAIN STREET AMERICA PROTECTION INSURANCE
COMPANY; MIDVALE INDEMNITY COMPANY; NGM INSURANCE COMPANY; OLD
AMERICAN COUNTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; OLD DOMINION
INSURANCE COMPANY; PERMANENT GENERAL, ASSURANCE CORPORATION;
PERMANENT GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION OF OHIO; THE GENERAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY; ERIE
INSURANCE EXCHANGE ; ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK; ERIE
INSURANCE PROPERTY & CASUALTY CO.; AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE
COMPANY; AMERICAN STATES PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY; CONSOLIDATED
INSURANCE COMPANY; FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA;
LIBERTY COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; LIBERTY INSURANCE
CORPORATION; LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY; LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; LM
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; LM INSURANCE CORPORATION; SAFECO
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS;
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA; SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
OREGON; THE FIRST LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION; WAUSAU
UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY; OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY;
EXCELSIOR INSURANCE COMPANY; COMPANY OF AMERICA; LIBERTY SURPLUS
INSURANCE CORPORATION; ALLIED PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY; AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY; COLONIAL COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
CO.; DEPOSITORS INSURANCE COMPANY; HARLEYSVILLE INSURANCE COMPANY;
NATIONWIDE AFFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; NATIONWIDE
AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONWIDE ASSURANCE COMPANY;
NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA; NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONWIDE
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONWIDE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY; TITAN INSURANCE COMPANY; VICTORIA FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY;
NEW JERSEY INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY; NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS
INSURANCE COMPANY; GENERAL CASUALTY COMPANY OF WISCONSIN; GENERAL
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; and SOUTHERN PILOT
INSURANCE COMPANY.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathan Dooley, Esq.
          Elliott R. Feldman, Esq.
          Kevin P. Caraher, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892-7933
          Facsimile: (213) 892-7999
          E-mail: NDooley@cozen.com
                  Efeldman@cozen.com
                  KCaraher@cozen.com

IKEA NORTH: Agrees to Settle Richardson FACTA Suit for $24-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Dreier, Cox Media Group National Content Desk of Kiro 7
reports that if you shopped at an Ikea from 2017 to 2019, you may
be able to claim part of a $24 million settlement.

Nexstar reported that the retailer has come to an agreement in a
class action lawsuit concerning customers' privacy.

Ikea was accused of including more than the last five digits of a
customer's credit and debit card number on printed receipts.

Richardson, et al v. IKEA North America Services LLC, et al said
that by doing so the company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act, also known as "FACTA," Nexstar reported.

If you shopped with Ikea and used a debit or credit card from Oct.
18, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2019, then you may be able to cash in,
according to the court-authorized website set up as part of the
settlement.

The website said that affected parties were "provided an
electronically printed receipt displaying the first six (6) and the
last four (4) digits of the credit or debit card number used in
connection with such transaction(s)."

The court must still decide to approve the settlement, but if it
does then those who filed a claim will get a payment after any
appeals are resolved. The deal has preliminary approval as of March
11, 2022, according to Classaction.org.

Despite agreeing to the settlement and payout, Ikea "has not
conceded the truth or validity of any of the claims against it,"
the website said.

To qualify for a portion of the $24 million settlement, you must
fill out a claim form by May 4. By filing a claim, you give up your
rights to sue Ikea in connection to the case. You can also opt-out
or object to the settlement, according to the website.

Estimated payouts are expected to be between $30 and $60, Nexstar
reported. [GN]

IKEA NORTH: Class Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set May 4
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Dreier, writing for KIRO7, reports that if you shopped at
an Ikea from 2017 to 2019, you may be able to claim part of a $24
million settlement.

Nexstar reported that the retailer has come to an agreement in a
class action lawsuit concerning customers' privacy.

Ikea was accused of including more than the last five digits of a
customer's credit and debit card number on printed receipts.

Richardson, et al v. IKEA North America Services LLC, et al said
that by doing so the company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act, also known as "FACTA," Nexstar reported.

If you shopped with Ikea and used a debit or credit card from Oct.
18, 2017, to Dec. 31, 2019, then you may be able to cash in,
according to the court-authorized website set up as part of the
settlement.

The website said that affected parties were "provided an
electronically printed receipt displaying the first six (6) and the
last four (4) digits of the credit or debit card number used in
connection with such transaction(s)."

The court must still decide to approve the settlement, but if it
does then those who filed a claim will get a payment after any
appeals are resolved. The deal has preliminary approval as of March
11, 2022, according to Classaction.org.

Despite agreeing to the settlement and payout, Ikea "has not
conceded the truth or validity of any of the claims against it,"
the website said.

To qualify for a portion of the $24 million settlement, you must
fill out a claim form by May 4. By filing a claim, you give up your
rights to sue Ikea in connection to the case. You can also opt-out
or object to the settlement, according to the website.

Estimated payouts are expected to be between $30 and $60, Nexstar
reported. [GN]

IVY LEAGUE: University Athletes Sue Over Antitrust Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Greiner of The Enquirer reports that just in time for March
Madness, two Brown University basketball players have filed a
lawsuit challenging the Ivy League's policy to not award athletic
scholarships as an antitrust violation. They are asking a
Connecticut-based federal court to certify the action as a class
action - which would open the case to any Ivy League athlete
recruited since March of 2019.

Tamenang Choh played for Brown's men’s basketball team from 2017
to 2022, and Grace Kirk has played for Brown's women's basketball
team since 2020. They each were recruited to play a sport by at
least one Ivy League school, and received full cost-of-attendance
athletic scholarship offers from at least one other Division I
college.

As a result of the Ivy League Agreement, however, Brown awarded
them only need-based financial aid that did not cover either of
their full costs of attendance -- tuition, room, board, and
incidental expenses -- and paid them no other compensation or
reimbursement for their athletic services to the school.

According to the complaint, the Ivy League Agreement not to award
athletic scholarships is an illegal price-fixing agreement. In the
words of the complaint, "[i]t is a naked restraint of trade among
horizontal competitors. The Ivy League Agreement has direct
anticompetitive effects, raising the net price of education that
Ivy League Athletes pay and suppressing compensation for the
athletic services they provide to the [Ivy league schools]. Absent
the Ivy League Agreement, these schools would determine
unilaterally, and in competition with each other, how many athletic
scholarships to provide, by sport, and in what amounts, and how
much to compensate (either directly or through reimbursement of
tuition, room, and board, or both) for athletic services."

According to the complaint, Brown and the other Ivy League schools
are subject to federal antitrust laws. It notes, "the [Ivy League]
Defendants operate as commercial enterprises, with each employing
over 100 individuals in its athletic department or in positions
relating to inter-collegiate athletic competition. The Council, the
governing body of the Ivy League, coordinates the common rules,
procedures, and initiatives among the University Defendants,
including by setting the rules they must follow as part of the Ivy
League athletic conference. The Council thus creates and enforces
the rules the University Defendants agree to follow under the Ivy
League Agreement."

It's important to note here that a school's decision not to award
athletic scholarships isn't the problem. If any school - an Ivy or
otherwise - decided on its own not to award athletic scholarships
that would be one thing. But it's the concerted action among
ostensible competitors that gives rise to the lawsuit. If the
complaint is right, there is a big financial incentive for the
schools to enter this agreement - it makes their cost of athletics
a lot cheaper, and it restricts competition. That is precisely what
antitrust laws try to prohibit.

The schools may argue that they have adopted the rule for
altruistic reasons. They may claim, for example, that they are
seeking to balance the academic/athletic mix of its student body.
But the complaint is having none of it. As it notes, "[d]efendants
cannot reasonably claim to act with purely altruistic motives.
Instead, seeking to maximize revenue (and prestige), the University
Defendants monetize the athletic services that Ivy League Athletes
provide, by participating in, and earning revenue from,
intercollegiate athletic competitions, including ticket sales,
television rights, merchandise sales, and increased donations from
alumni. The Council negotiates and seeks to maximize revenue from
broadcast rights for athletic competitions between teams from the
University Defendants and distributes the revenues to the schools.
The University Defendants also work assiduously to increase their
multi-billion-dollar endowments, which have grown astronomically
over the past three decades and which collectively exceed $170
billion."

We'll see what happens as the suit progresses, but the gauntlet has
been thrown down. This is taking March Madness to an entirely new
level. [GN]

JEREMY JOHNSON: Irvine Seeks to Certify Mentally Ill People Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Julie Irvine, guardian ad
litem of Juan Alvarez, Aubrey Archambeau, and Joseph Baker, as
named the Plaintiffs on behalf of a class, v. Jeremy Johnson,
Administrator, South Dakota Human Services Center, sued in his
official capacity, and Matt Althoff, Secretary of the South
Dakota Department of Social Services, sued in his official
capacity, Case No. 4:21-cv-04224-KES (D.S.D.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the class defined in the Amended Complaint:

      "mentally ill people who are accused of crimes in South
Dakota, have been found incompetent, and incarcerated awaiting an
attempt to restore them to competency, or who will in the future be
accused of crimes in South Dakota, found incompetent, and
incarcerated awaiting an attempt to restore them to competency;"

   2. appointing James D. Leach as class counsel.

A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated March 3, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FnIO1U at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James D. Leach, Esq.
          DAKOTA JUSTICE
          1617 Sheridan Lake Rd.
          Rapid City, SD 57702
          Telephone: (605) 341-4400
          E-mail: jim@southdakotajustice.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Ok'd $25M Remicade Antitrust Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole DeFeudis of End Point News reports that a Pennsylvania
federal judge on March 15, 2023 cemented a $25 million settlement
in a class action suit alleging Johnson & Johnson blocked
biosimilar competition to its immunosuppressive drug Remicade.

First approved in 1998 for Crohn's disease, Remicade (a TNF
inhibitor biologic also known as infliximab) has since been cleared
in a slate of other immune-mediated conditions, including
ulcerative colitis, psoriatic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.
However, the yearly cost for some patients reaches $26,000,
according to a complaint updated in 2018.

Despite the emergence of multiple biosimilars in the US --
including Pfizer and Celltrion's Inflectra, and Merck and Samsung
Bioepis' Renflexis, now commercialized in partnership with Organon
after its spinout -- plaintiffs argued that J&J used its monopoly
power to suppress competition and "forced health insurance
companies and healthcare providers to enter into exclusionary
agreements that effectively blocked competition for Remicade, thus
causing Plaintiffs and members of the Classes (as defined below) to
overpay on their infliximab purchases."

"These acts, each anticompetitive on their own, were magnified when
used in concert and all served to maintain J&J's stranglehold on
the market, maintain its grasp on the nearly $5 billion annual
market for the medication, and shut out would-be competitors whose
entrance into the market would naturally cause prices for the
important drug to decline," a complaint reads.

J&J settled a separate case with Pfizer back in 2021, which argued
that J&J's "exclusionary plan has been remarkably effective at
stifling competition." At the time, infliximab biosimilars
controlled just 25% of the US market, according to an investor note
from then-Bernstein biotech analyst Ronny Gal.

While J&J denies wrongdoing in the latest class action case, Judge
Karen Marston finalized a $25 million settlement March 15, 2023
dismissing the case with prejudice. The class includes "persons and
entities in the United States and its territories who indirectly
purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of
the purchase price of Defendants' infliximab from April 5, 2016
through February 28, 2022," Marston concluded.

In approving the settlement, Marston also overruled the objections
of one patient who argued that the settlement figure was
"unreasonably low." She awarded the class counsel $7 million in
attorney's fees, and nearly $2.3 million in "out-of-pocket expenses
incurred in the prosecution of this action." Two groups, the
National Employees Health Plan and the Local 295 Employer Group
Welfare Fund, received $15,000 and $15,600, respectively, as class
representative service awards.

Remicade brought in $2.3 billion in worldwide sales last year, down
roughly 26% from the year prior, according to J&J's latest earnings
report.

"Janssen has long been supportive of a robust, competitive
environment for biologics, including biosimilars. This settlement
resolves all of the private litigation on this matter," Janssen
said in a statement via email. [GN]

JVK OPERATIONS: More Time to File Class Cert Reply Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENIA MONTIEL-FLORES and
ALMANELLY RIVERA ZUNIGA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. JVK OPERATIONS LIMITED and VINOD SAMUEL,
Case No. 2:19-cv-03005-JS-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply in further support
of their motion for class certification is extended to March 24,
2023;

   2. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file an opposition to the
Defendants' motion to decertify the collective is extended to March
24,2023, and the Defendants' deadline to file a reply in further
support of their motion to decertify the collective is extended to
April 3, 2023;

   3. This stipulation may be signed in counterparts and by
electronic methods, and a photocopy, email copy, or  facsimile copy
of any such signature shall be deemed an original.

JVK is a provider of linen and garments laundry services for
healthcare facilities on the East Coast.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Z3b1Cp at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam Saekowitz, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone:(212)460-0047
          E-mail: ajsackowitz@katzmelinger.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas E. Rowe, Esq.
          CERTILMAN BALIN ADLER & HYMAN, LLP
          90 Merrick Avenue
          East Meadow, NY 11554
          Telephone:(516) 296-7000
          E-mail: drowe@certilmanbalin.com

KONNEKTIVE REWARDS: Tan Bid to File Docs Under Seal Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANNE TAN, an individual,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.
KONNEKTIVE REWARDS, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01082-LL-DDL
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David D. Leshner entered an order
that:

   1. the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal
is denied;

   2. The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal
is denied;

   3. Within 7 days of the date of this Order, the Plaintiff shall
file on the public docket unredacted 3 copies of  Dkt. Nos. 259,
259-1, 265, 265-1 and 21 265-2; and

   4. The parties shall follow the procedures described herein for
all future motions to seal. Failure to comply will be considered a
basis for denying the motion.

The Court finds that the parties have not demonstrated compelling
reasons to seal the Plaintiff's opposition to the Spoliation Motion
and Exhibits 1 and 4 thereto.

Similarly, the Court finds that the parties have 9 not demonstrated
compelling reasons to seal the Plaintiff's Perjury Motion and
Exhibits 10 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18 thereto; the
request to seal Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 11 4, 5, 9, 15 and 16 is moot.

Furthermore, the Court cannot rely on documents improperly lodged
under seal in making findings and recommendations with
respect to the Sanctions Motion and the Perjury Motion.

In this putative consumer fraud class action, the Plaintiff alleges
the Defendants and others "scammed" her by enticing her to redeem
an offer for a free trial of skin care products, only to charge
her, unwittingly, for the full price of the products and ongoing
installments of the same.

In the Plaintiff's case, the alleged scam began with a text message
that appeared to be from Amazon. The Plaintiff alleges she was
duped by means of the text message into signing up to receive a
sample of skin cream for only the price of shipping -- less than
$5.00 -- but that ultimately the Defendants charged her more than
$170.00 for products she neither wanted nor consented to buy. See
id. the Plaintiff has moved to certify a class of similarly
aggrieved consumers, supported by her deposition testimony about
the text message she received.

On January 4, 2023, the Konnektive the Defendants moved for
evidentiary sanctions against the Plaintiff, reporting that the
Plaintiff had spoliated her cell phone and with it, the "fake text
message" she allegedly received.

The Quick Box the Defendants joined the motion. The Defendants seek
an order precluding the Plaintiff from testifying, whether by
declaration or at trial, about the contents of the text messages
that were allegedly lost.

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

M.A. MORTENSON: Almorisi Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M.A. Mortenson
Company, et al. The case is styled as Hani Almorisi, an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. M.A. Mortenson
Company, Edwards Sanborn Solar III, LLC, Case No. BCV-23-100727
(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March 9, 2023).

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

Mortenson -- https://www.mortenson.com/ -- is a U.S.-based, top-20
builder, developer, and engineering services provider serving the
commercial, institutional, and energy sectors.[BN]

MASSAGE ENVY: Stockman Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alexandria Stockman, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC,
Case No. 2023CH01041 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on March 10, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01510 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Massage Envy Franchising LLC -- http://www.massageenvy.com/-- is
an American massage and skin care national franchisor, based in
Scottsdale, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          John F. Verhey, Esq.
          Kenneth L. Schmetterer, Esq.
          Yan Grinblat, Esq.
          DLA Piper LLP (US)
          444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 368-4044
          Email: john.verhey@dlapiper.com
                 kenneth.schmetterer@dlapiper.com
                 yan.grinblat@dlapiper.com


MATT BREWING CO: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matt Brewing Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Matt Brewing Co., Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02057 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2023).

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

The F.X. Matt Brewing Co. -- http://www.saranac.com/-- is a
family-owned brewery in Utica, New York, brewer of Saranac craft
beers and soft drinks, and 4th generation run family brewery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


MCDERMOTT CUE: General Pretrial Mgm't Order Entered in Campbell
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOVAN CAMPBELL, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MCDERMOTT CUE
MFG., LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01729-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara Moses entered an order
regarding general pretrial management as follows:

-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those
    related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions
    to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive
    relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification
    under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in
    compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil
    Cases, available on the Court's website at
    https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.

-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery
    must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of
    discovery set by the Court.

-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
    discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need
    for such an application arises and must comply with Local
    Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual
    Practices.

-- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
    conferences are not required, but may be requested where
    counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court
    may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues.

-- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
    proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to
    extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance
    with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l9805r at no extra charge.[CC]


MCDONALD'S CORP: Directors' Bid to Toss Stockholders' Claims OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE McDONALD'S CORPORATION STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION, C.A. No. 2021-0324-JTL (Del. Ch.), the Court of
Chancery of Delaware grants the Director Defendants' motion to
dismiss the claims against them.

McDonald's is one of the world's largest employers. The Plaintiffs
are stockholders of the Company who have sued derivatively on its
behalf. They allege that from 2015 until 2020, the Company's
directors ignored red flags about a corporate culture that condoned
sexual harassment and misconduct. They contend that the Company
suffered harm in the form of employee lawsuits, lost employee
trust, and a damaged reputation. As Defendants, they have named
nine directors who served during the critical period (the "Director
Defendants").

The operative complaint asserts three counts against the Director
Defendants. Count I of the complaint asserts that the Director
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by opting to terminate
Stephen J. Easterbrook without cause. Count II asserts that the
Director Defendants breached their duty of oversight by failing to
remedy severe, widespread sexual harassment at the Company.

Count IV is a claim for waste. The Plaintiffs contend that by
causing the Company to enter into the initial separation agreement
with Easterbrook that granted him lucrative separation benefits,
the Director Defendants signed off on an agreement that no rational
person would support.

In Count III, the complaint alleges that Easterbrook and David
Fairhurst (i) breached their duty of loyalty by engaging in sexual
misconduct, (ii) violated the Company's policies by engaging in
sexual misconduct, and (iii) breached their duty of oversight by
failing to address the problem of sexual harassment and misconduct
at the Company.

The Director Defendants have moved to dismiss Counts I, II, and IV
on multiple grounds, including for failure to state claims on which
relief can be granted.

In advancing their claims, the Plaintiffs rely on the principle
that corporate fiduciaries cannot act loyally and in the best
interests of the corporation they serve if they consciously ignore
evidence indicating that the corporation is suffering or will
suffer harm. To state a claim under this theory, the Plaintiffs
must allege facts supporting an inference that the directors knew
about a problem -- epitomized by the proverbial red flag -- yet
consciously ignored it. They must do more than plead that the
directors responded in a weak, inadequate, or even grossly
negligent manner. The pled facts must indicate a serious failure of
oversight sufficient to support an inference of bad faith.

Although the Director Defendants argue otherwise, the Court of
Chancery opines that the Plaintiffs have pled facts supporting an
inference that the Director Defendants knew about a problem with
sexual harassment and misconduct at the Company. The complaint
identifies a series of events during 2018 that put the Director
Defendants on notice of a threat to the Company, including (i) a
wave of coordinated complaints filed with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") that contained disturbing
allegations about acts of sexual harassment and retaliation at the
Company, (ii) a ten-city strike by Company workers across the
United States, and (iii) an inquiry from a United States Senator
seeking to investigate issues of sexual harassment and misconduct
at the Company.

That is enough to support a pleading-stage inference, but there is
one more, brutal fact: In December 2018, the Director Defendants
learned that the Company's Global Chief People Officer and head of
its worldwide human resources function, the very executive officer
specifically charged with promoting a culture of inclusion and
respect at the Company, had engaged in an act of sexual harassment.
Not only that, but the investigation into the 2018 incident
uncovered a prior incident of sexual harassment by the Global Chief
People Officer in 2016. The Global Chief People Officer also had
been warned about his consumption of alcohol at Company events.
When the head of the human resources function has repeatedly
engaged in sexual harassment, that is the most vibrant of red flags
regarding a potential problem with sexual harassment and
misconduct.

What the complaint does not support is an inference that the
Director Defendants failed to respond. The confluence of events
during 2018, including the revelations about the Global Chief
People Officer, led to action. Throughout 2019, the Director
Defendants engaged with the problem of sexual harassment and
misconduct at the Company. They worked with Company management on a
response that included (i) hiring outside consultants, (ii)
revising the Company's policies, (iii) implementing new training
programs, (iv) providing new levels of support to franchisees, and
(v) taking other steps to establish a renewed commitment to a safe
and respectful workplace.

Given that response, the Court of Chancery opines that it is not
possible to draw a pleading-stage inference that the Director
Defendants acted in bad faith. The pled facts do not support a
reasonably conceivable claim against them for breach of the duty of
oversight.

In a distinct but related claim, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by terminating
the Company's CEO without cause in November 2019 after learning
that he had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with an
employee. They argue that the Director Defendants had grounds to
terminate the CEO for cause, yet acted in their own self-interest
by approving a no-cause termination because they feared that if
they did the right thing and terminated the CEO for cause, then
they would face an ugly litigation that would expose their own
failures to address the Company's problems with sexual harassment
and misconduct.

The Plaintiffs also allege that the Director Defendants acted
hastily and without conducting a thorough investigation because
they did not want to confront the potential extent of their own
failures. A full investigation, they say, would have turned up
additional evidence of the CEO's misconduct, including three other
improper relationships between the CEO and Company employees. In
addition, they note that during the same month that the Director
Defendants terminated the CEO without cause, they terminated the
Global Chief People Officer with cause after learning that he had
engaged in yet another incident of misconduct. The Plaintiffs seek
an inference that the Director Defendants knew the correct course
of action, yet chose a no-fault termination because it was the path
of least resistance and avoided a potential examination of their
own oversight failures.

The Court of Chancery notes that it has previously rejected similar
arguments and held that the business judgment rule protects a
board's decision to terminate an executive without cause, even if
the situation might support a with-cause termination. To rebut the
protections of the business judgment rule, the Plaintiffs advance
their theory of self-interest based on the Director Defendants'
mishandling of the problems with sexual harassment and misconduct
at the Company.

But the pled facts do not support an inference that the Director
Defendants mishandled those issues, the Court of Chancery finds.
The pleading-stage record shows that the Director Defendants
engaged meaningfully. It is not reasonably conceivable that the
Director Defendants sought to provide the CEO with a no-fault
termination out of self-interest. It is also not reasonably
conceivable that the Director Defendants breached their duty of
care. Assuming for the sake of argument that they had breached
their duty of care by not conducting a more thorough investigation,
the Company's certificate of incorporation contains an exculpatory
provision, so the directors would not face liability for that
shortcoming.

The Court of Chancery holds that reasonable minds can disagree
about whether the Director Defendants made the right decision by
opting initially to terminate the CEO without cause. Even if the
Defendant Directors made an objectively wrong decision, the
business judgment rule protects them from liability for a good
faith error.

The Plaintiffs have challenged two other decisions that the
Director Defendants made: (i) the decision to hire the CEO in the
first place, and (ii) the decision to give the Global Chief People
Officer one last chance after learning of his repeated acts of
sexual harassment. Those decisions are similarly debatable. The
business judgment rule protects those decisions as well.

The Plaintiffs' final claim is for waste, the Court of Chancery
says. To plead a waste claim, a plaintiff must identify a
transaction that is so one-sided that no rational person would
approve it. Typically, that involves a transaction in which one
side receives no meaningful consideration. Contemporary cases view
waste as a means of pleading facts that would support an inference
that the fiduciary defendants acted in bad faith.

The Plaintiffs assert that by terminating the CEO without cause,
the Director Defendants allowed him to keep millions of dollars in
compensation while obtaining comparatively little for the Company
in return. Although reasonable minds could disagree with the
Director Defendants' course of action, the bargain is not so out of
whack as to constitute waste. Some might argue that the get was
inadequate to support the give and that a termination for cause
would have been more beneficial to the Company and its reputation
in the long run. That is not the test. The decision to terminate
the CEO without cause was not so extreme as to support a pleading
stage inference of bad faith.

In sum, the Court of Chancery concludes that the Plaintiffs have
failed to plead a claim against the Director Defendants for breach
of the duty of oversight. They have failed to plead a claim against
the Director Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty in connection
with the decisions to promote Easterbrook to CEO, to discipline
Fairhurst, and to terminate Easterbrook without cause. The
Plaintiffs have failed to plead a claim against the Director
Defendants for waste.

For these reasons, the Director Defendants' motion to dismiss the
claims against them is granted.  The claims against the Director
Defendants are dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2023 Ruling is available
at https://tinyurl.com/37rbj6xv from Leagle.com.

Michael J. Barry -- mbarry@gelaw.com -- Christine M. Mackintosh --
cmackintosh@gelaw.com -- Rebecca A. Musarra -- rmusarra@gelaw.com
-- Vivek Upadhya -- vupadhya@gelaw.com -- Michael D. Bell, GRANT &
EISENHOFFER P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Barbara J. Hart, GRANT &
EISENHOFFER P.A., New York, New York; Geoffrey M. Johnson,
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP, Cleveland Heights, Ohio; Jing-Li
Yu, SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP, New York, New York; Max R.
Huffman, SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP, San Diego, California;
Jeffrey M. Norton, Benjamin D. Baker, NEWMAN FERRARA LLP, New York,
New York; Attorneys for Plaintiffs Teamsters Local 237 Additional
Security Fund, Teamsters Local 237 Supplemental Fund for Housing
Authority Employees, Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund, and Phyllis
Gianotti.

Garrett B. Moritz -- gmoritz@ramllp.com -- S. Reiko Rogozen --
rrogozen@ramllp.com -- Holly E. Newell -- hnewell@ramllp.com --
ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Ronald L. Olson,
George M. Garvey, Robert L. Dell Angelo, Brian R. Boessenecker,
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP, Los Angeles, California; Attorneys for
Defendants Enrique Hernandez, Jr., Lloyd H. Dean, Robert A. Eckert,
Margaret H. Georgiadis, Richard H. Lenny, John J. Mulligan, Sheila
A. Penrose, John W. Rogers, Jr., and Miles D. White, and McDonald's
Corporation.

Daniel C. Herr -- dherr@dherrlaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL C.
HERR LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; Shawn P. Naunton --
snaunton@zuckerman.com -- Catherine S. Duval, Leila Bijan,
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP, New York, New York; Attorneys for Defendant
Stephen J. Easterbrook.

Kathleen M. Miller -- KMILLER@SKJLAW.COM -- Julie M. O'Dell --
JODELL@SKJLAW.COM -- Jason Z. Miller -- JMILLER@SKJLAW.COM --
SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys
for Defendant David Fairhurst..


MENZIES AVIATION: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Moved to April 24
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORA PATRICIA AMAYA, an
individual; and BRYAN LOZANO GONZALEZ, an individual; on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. MENZIES AVIATION
(USA), INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-05915-MCS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order revising its December 16,
2022 Scheduling Order as follows:

             Event                               Date

  Deadline to File a Motion for Class         April 24, 2023
  Certification

  Deadline to File an Opposition to           May 15, 2023
  the Motion for Class Certification

  Deadline to File a Reply in Support         June 5, 2023
  of the Motion for Class Certification

  Hearing Date on Motion for Class            June 26, 2023
  Certification

The parties have not presented good cause to modify the expert
disclosure and discovery cut-off dates, so the dates provided in
the Scheduling Order remain in place.

Menzies was founded in 2000. The company's line of business
includes arranging passenger transportation such as airline and bus
ticket offices.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l6M8YA at no extra charge.[CC]

METROPOLITAN POLICE: More Time to File Reply OK'd in Pappas Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAPPAS v. METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-02800 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Rudolph Contreras entered an
order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of
time to file reply in support of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
class and appoint class representatives and class counsel.

The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990.

The Plaintiffs shall submit any reply on or before March 24,
2023.[CC]


MID-CITY FOUNDRY: Sanders Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juvelle Sanders, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MID-CITY FOUNDRY CO., Case No. 2:23-cv-00318-JPS (E.D.
Wis., March 9, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws ("WWPCL") by the Plaintiff for purposes of
obtaining relief under the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon
wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate.

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

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee.

The Defendant is a foundry with physical locations in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin and Grafton, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOVIN SOLUTION: Fails to Pay Movers' OT Wages, Perez Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN VEGA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MOVIN SOLUTION, INC., a New York corporation, ANA
CONSTANZA, an individual, DAVID ALTER, an individual, and MARTINE
ALTER, an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-02062 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 10,
2023) sues the Defendants for failing to pay overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law, and for violations of the "spread of hours" and overtime
wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor

The Plaintiff worked anywhere from less than 40, to 45, to 50, or
occasionally over 60 hours per week, depending on the jobs he was
working on. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay him and the FLSA
class members overtime compensation at rates of one and one-half
times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked more than 40
hours in a workweek. The Defendants also failed to pay him the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he worked 10
hours or more, asserts the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff was employed as a mover for the Defendants from May
2020 through November 2022.

Movin Solution is a moving company with its official address listed
with the New York Secretary of State as 16 Selena Court, Glen Cove,
NY 11542.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Arbitration Bid in Flores Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN FLORES, STEVE WILKS, and RAY HORTON, as Class
Representatives, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE; NEW YORK
FOOTBALL GIANTS, INC. d/b/a NEW YORK GIANTS; MIAMI DOLPHINS, LTD.
d/b/a MIAMI DOLPHINS; DENVER BRONCOS FOOTBALL CLUB d/b/a DENVER
BRONCOS; HOUSTON NFL HOLDINGS, L.P. d/b/a HOUSTON TEXANS; ARIZONA
CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB LLC d/b/a ARIZONA CARDINALS; TENNESSEE
TITANS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. d/b/a TENNESSEE, TITANS and JOHN DOE
TEAMS 1 through 26, Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-0871 (VEC)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York grants in part and denies in part
the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and to stay the
current proceedings.

The case shines an unflattering spotlight on the employment
practices of National Football League ("NFL") teams. Although the
clear majority of professional football players are Black, only a
tiny percentage of coaches are Black. In 2002, to much hoopla, the
NFL announced that it was going to do something about the paucity
of Black coaches. Its solution was to adopt the so-called "Rooney
Rule."

The Rooney Rule as originally adopted required any NFL team looking
to hire a head coach to interview at least one minority candidate.
The Amended Complaint in the case alleges that, however laudable
the intent, the Rooney Rule has devolved into a cruel sham, with
Black candidates being interviewed for positions that the team has
already decided will be filled by a white candidate and with Black
coaches being treated more harshly vis-à-vis employment decisions
than similarly-situated white coaches.

Three Black men who are current or former NFL coaches have sued the
NFL and several member teams for racial discrimination in violation
of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, the
New York City Human Rights Law, and the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination.

The NFL is an unincorporated association of thirty-two professional
football clubs. Although each club is a separate legal entity, the
clubs are governed by a shared set of NFL rules and policies,
including the NFL Constitution. The NFL is overseen by a
Commissioner, currently Roger Goodell, who is appointed by member
teams.

Brian Flores, Steve Wilks, and Ray Horton are Black men who allege
that they have each been discriminated against when employed or
when seeking to be employed as coaches for NFL teams. Flores and
Horton allege that several NFL teams interviewed them for head
coaching positions solely to fulfill the so-called "Rooney Rule"
without any intent of hiring them.

Flores alleges that (i) the Denver Broncos interviewed him in 2019
solely to satisfy the Rooney Rule without actually considering him
for its head coach position; (ii) that when he was head coach of
the Miami Dolphins, Dolphins owner Stephen Ross attempted to bribe
him; (iii) that, in January 2022, the New York Giants invited him
to interview for the position of head coach, but the Giants had
already selected Brian Daboll; and (iv) the Houston Texans removed
him from consideration for their head coach position solely as
retaliation for filing the instant lawsuit.

Wilks alleges that the Arizona Cardinals hired him as a "bridge
coach," meaning a coach who is not given a meaningful opportunity
to succeed and is simply 'keeping the seat warm' until a new coach
is brought in. Horton alleges that in January 2016, the Tennessee
Titans only offered him the interview to comply with the Rooney
Rule, as the Titans had already decided to hire Mike Mularkey, a
white man, when they interviewed Horton.

Flores, Wilks, and Horton each had an employment contract with each
team he coached. The NFL was not a party to those contracts. The
NFL Commissioner was, however, required to approve each contract.
In each contract, each Plaintiff acknowledged that he had read the
NFL Constitution and Bylaws and agreed to be bound by them.

While the exact text of those contracts varies, in relevant part
each agreement provides that the NFL Commissioner will oversee an
alternative dispute resolution process for all disputes arising
between the parties. Wilks' contract with the Cardinals also
included a clause delegating any disputes regarding whether the
contracts were "void or voidable" to the arbitrator.

The Plaintiffs acknowledge that they entered into employment
agreements with several of the Defendant teams and that those
agreements provide an alternative dispute resolution process. They
argue, however, that the alternative dispute resolution agreements
are invalid or do not encompass their claims, or, if they are valid
and do encompass their claims, they are unenforceable.

Judge Caproni finds that Flores' claims against the Dolphins,
Wilks' claims against the Cardinals, and Horton's claims against
the Titans must be submitted to arbitration; Flores may, however,
litigate his claims against the Broncos, Giants, and Texans in
federal court. Pursuant to the applicable state laws, she finds
that the Plaintiffs' claims, except for Flores' claims against the
Giants and Texans, fall within the scope of the parties'
arbitration agreements.

Judge Caproni opines that the Defendants have failed to carry that
burden with respect to Flores's claims against the Giants and
Texans because they have failed to prove that an arbitration
agreement was in effect when or after Flores was being considered
for hire by those teams. In addition, because there is no
enforceable arbitration agreement governing Flores' claims against
the Broncos and his related claims against the NFL, Flores may
litigate those claims in federal court. Accordingly, Flores may
litigate his claims against the Giants and Texans, and his related
claims against the NFL, in federal court.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Caproni grants the Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration except she denies it as to Flores'
claims against the Broncos, Giants, and Texans, and his related
claims against the NFL. She denies the Defendants' request to stay
the case as to Flores' claims that may proceed to litigation and
grants as to all of the claims that must be arbitrated. The Clerk
of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at
docket entry 47.

The parties are ordered to appear for a pretrial conference on
March 24, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 443 of the Thurgood
Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York, 10007.

The parties must submit a joint letter regarding the status of the
case, including:

      a. a statement of all existing deadlines, due dates, and/or
cut-off dates;

      b. a statement describing the status of any settlement
discussions and whether the parties would like a settlement
conference;

      c. a statement of the anticipated length of trial and whether
the case is to be tried to a jury;

      d. a statement regarding the anticipated schedule of
arbitration;

      e. any contemplated motions;

      f. a proposed schedule for discovery, which must comply with
the guidance set forth in the Court's model Civil Case Management
Plan and Scheduling Order, available on the Court's website;

      g. any other issue that the parties would like to address at
the pretrial conference; and

      h. any other information that the parties believe may assist
the Court in advancing the case to settlement or trial.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2c6vnfam from Leagle.com.


NAZZARO ENTERPRISES: Loadholt Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nazzaro Enterprises
Texas, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Loadholt, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nazzaro Enterprises
Texas, Inc. doing business as: Rebecca's Toys & Prizes, Case No.
1:23-cv-02075-KPF (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2023).

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

Nazzaro Enterprises Texas, Inc. doing business as Rebecca's Toys &
Prizes -- https://www.rebeccas.com/ -- is a toy store in Hurst,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


NEW YORK LIFE: Court Modifies Oct. 20 Scheduling Order
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STUART KROHNENGOLD, et al.
v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01778-JMF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered an order
granting the parties' joint motion for a modification of the
October 20, 2022 Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order,
to extend the deadlines related to the Plaintiffs' forthcoming
motion for class certification.

  -- The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification
     no later than 30 days following the Court's ruling on the
     Defendants' pending Partial Motion to Dismiss the Second
     Amended Complaint if the Motion is granted and 90 days
     following the Court's ruling if the Motion is denied.

  -- Any opposition shall be filed no later than 45 days
     following the filing of the motion for class certification.

  -- Any reply shall be filed no later than 21 days following
     the filing of any opposition.

New York Life offers customizable policies throughout the U.S.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/408FNus at no extra charge.[CC]


NEW YORK, NY: 90 Days Extension to File Class Cert Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Krohnengold v. New York
Life Insurance Company et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01778-JMF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Parties jointly move for a modification of the
October 20, 2022 Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order,
to extend the deadlines related to the Plaintiffs' forthcoming
motion for class certification, such that the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification will be due 90 days following the Court's
ruling on the Defendants' pending Partial Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint.

    1. The Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants breached
       their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
       Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by selecting and
       maintaining certain of New York Life's own proprietary
       mutual funds as investment options in the New York Life
       Insurance Company Employee Progress Sharing Investment
       Plan and New York Life Insurance Company Agents Progress
       Sharing Investment Plan (the "Plans"), two defined
       contribution plans sponsored by New York Life Insurance
       Company.

   2. Specifically, the Plaintiffs challenge the offering of the
      MainStay Income Builder Fund, the MainStay Epoch U.S. All
      Cap Fund, the MainStay Epoch U.S. Small Cap Fund, and the
      suite of MainStay Retirement target date retirement funds
      (the "MainStay Funds") in the Plans. the Plaintiffs also
      allege that the Defendants breached ERISA fiduciary duties
      by designating the Fixed Dollar Account, a stable value
      fund, as the Plans' default investment option -- i.e., the
      default investment for participants who did not make an
      affirmative election for the investment of their
      contributions to the Plan(s).

   3. After the Court earlier denied in part, and granted, in
      part, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended
      Complaint, the Plaintiffs filed the SAC on September 7,
      2022.

      On September 28, 2022, the Defendants filed the Motion,
      which argues that the Court should dismiss the SAC's
      claims regarding the Fixed Dollar Account. See ECF No. 66.

   4. On October 13, 2022, the Defendants filed a contested
      motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the Motion.

New York Life offers customizable policies throughout the U.S.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jk8KfV at no extra charge.[CC]

the Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Daniel R. Sutter, Esq.
          Eleanor Frisch, Esq.
          Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telehone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com
                  krichter@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsutter@cohenmilstein.com
                  efrisch@cohenmilstein.com
                  meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James O. Fleckner, Esq.
          Dave Rosenberg, Esq.
          William J. Harrington, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          100 Northern Avenue
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 570-1000
          E-mail: jfleckner@goodwinlaw.com
                  drosenberg@goodwinlaw.com
                  wharrington@goodwinlaw.com

NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement Terms Get Intial Nod in Sierra
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMIRA SIERRA, AMALI
SIERRA, RICARDO NIGAGLIONI, ALEX GUTIERREZ, AND CHARLES HENRY WOOD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, a municipal entity; and Mayor BILL DE BLASIO,
Chief of Department TERENCE A. MONAHAN, Assistant Chief KENNETH C.
LEHR, Inspector ROBERT GALLITELLI, Bureau Chief HARRY WEDIN, Deputy
Chief JOHN D'ADAMO, Deputy Chief GERARD DOWLING, Captain JULIO
DELGADO, Sergeant KENNETH RICE, Sergeant THOMAS GARGUILO, Police
Officer JOHN MIGLIACCIO, and Police Officer THOMAS MOSHER, in their
individual capacities, Case No. 1:20-cv-08924-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Colleen McMahon entered an order as follows:

   (1) The proposed settlement terms as reflected in the
       parties' Stipulation of settlement and order are
       preliminary approved; and  

   (2) the proposed class as defined in the parties' stipulation
       is conditionally certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
       23(c) and 23(e); and

   (3) Hamilton Clarke, LLP; Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick LLP,
       Rickner PLLC; and Michael L. Spiegel, Esq. are appointed
       as Class Counsel; and  

   (4) the proposed class settlement notice procedure as
       reflected in stipulation is approved; and

   (5) Rust Consulting, Inc. is appointed Class Administrator.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mIQg16 at no extra charge.[CC]



NEWPORT APOTHECARY: Zarzuela Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newport Apothecary,
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Zarzuela, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Newport Apothecary,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02097 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2023).

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

Newport Apothecary, Inc. is a day spa in Newport, Rhode
Island.[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


NHL ENTERPRISES: Joiner Sues Over Sharing Users' Info to Facebook
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY JOINER, DANIEL KASSL, and HANWOOK NAM, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. NHL ENTERPRISES,
INC and NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, Case No. 1:23-cv-02083 (S.D.N.Y.,
Mar. 10, 2023) is a class action brought on behalf of all persons
who subscribed to NHL Team Websites, arising from Defendants non-
disclosure that subscribers' personal identifying information (PII)
would be captured by the Facebook Pixel utilized by the Defendants
and then transferred to Facebook.

According to the complaint, the Defendants purposefully implemented
and utilized the Pixel, which tracks user activity on the Team
Websites and discloses that information to Facebook to gather
valuable marketing data. The Defendants do not seek and have not
obtained consent from users or subscribers to utilize the Pixel to
track, share, and exchange their PII and Video Watching Data with
Facebook. The Defendants knew that their Pixel resulted in users'
PII and Video Watching Data being shared (resulting in a Video
Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) violation), and that they failed to
obtain users' consent to allow their Pixel to operate in a way that
shares users' protected information with Facebook, the suit
claims.

Subscribers of the Team Websites have been harmed as a result of
the Defendants' violations of the VPPA. In addition to monetary
damages, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief requiring Defendants to
immediately

   (i) remove the Pixel from the Team Websites or

  (ii) add, and obtain, the appropriate consent from subscribers.

The Plaintiffs' claims are brought as a class action, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons. The Plaintiffs seek relief in
this action individually and on behalf of subscribers of the Team
Websites for violations of the VPPA, 18 U.S.C. 2710.

Mr. Joiner subscribed to NHL's and Chicago Blackhawks' newsletters
in or around the year 2021. During the sign-up process, Mr. Joiner
was not offered or asked for consent to share his information as a
result of, or through, the Defendants' Pixel.

NHL operates and promotes professional and semiprofessional clubs
and events, including through the development of websites and
mobile apps.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

NISSAN NORTH: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Ayala
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE J. AYALA, JR.; and
JEFF SANTOS, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
6:20-cv-01625-RBD-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr.
entered an order:

   1. granting Nissan's motion for summary judgment;

   2. denying as moot Nissan's Daubert motion;

   3. denying the Plaintiffs' class and collective certification
      motions;

   4. denying as moot Nissan's motion in limine;

   5. directing the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the
      Defendant and against the Plaintiffs, terminate all
      pending deadlines, and close the file.

Finally, as to the investment in equipment and facilities, there is
no evidence that Nissan supplied anything to the mechanics.

Nissan sets a particular number of hours that a particular job
should take and pays the dealers for only that number of hours,
regardless of how long the mechanic worked on that job.

The dealers then pay the mechanics -- Nissan does not pay them
directly. The Plaintiffs, who were mechanics for various Nissan
dealerships, contend that this system results in them being
underpaid when the work takes longer than the flat rate allows.

So the Plaintiffs sued Nissan as their "joint employer" for:

     (1) violating the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by
         failing to pay minimum wage;

     (2) violating the FLSA by failing to pay overtime; and

     (3) violating Florida's Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA") by
         failing to pay minimum wage; and (4) three separate
         unjust enrichment claims.

Nissan is a car manufacturer and distributor that sells cars to
dealerships.

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

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP of Business Wire reports that lead
plaintiff motions for the Norfolk Southern class action lawsuit
must be filed with the court no later than May 15, 2023 in a class
action lawsuit seeking to represent purchasers of Norfolk Southern
Corporation (NYSE: NSC) common stock between October 28, 2020 and
March 3, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Captioned
Bucks County Employees Retirement System v. Norfolk Southern
Corporation, No. 23-cv-00982 (S.D. Ohio), the Norfolk Southern
class action lawsuit charges Norfolk Southern and certain of
Norfolk Southern's top executives with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Norfolk Southern class action lawsuit, please
provide your information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-norfolk-southern-corporation-class-action-lawsuit-nsc-html

You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.

Norfolk Southern is a rail transportation company that implemented
a strategy known as "Precision Scheduled Railroading" ("PSR"),
which is associated with hyper-efficient operational changes
designed to increase revenues and decrease costs. Operational
changes typically include reductions in staff; longer, heavier
trains that can stretch up to miles in length; and tighter
schedules.

The Norfolk Southern class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Norfolk Southern's PSR,
including its use of longer, heavier trains staffed by fewer
personnel, had led to Norfolk Southern suffering increased train
derailments and a materially increased risk of future derailments;
(ii) Norfolk Southern's PSR was part of a culture of increased
risk-taking at the expense of reasonable safety precautions due to
Norfolk Southern's near-term focus solely on profits; (iii) Norfolk
Southern's PSR rendered Norfolk Southern more vulnerable to train
derailments and train derailments with potentially more severe
human, financial, legal, and environmental consequences; (iv)
Norfolk Southern's capital spending and replacement programs were
designed to prioritize profits over Norfolk Southern's ability to
provide safe, efficient, and reliable rail transportation services;
(v) Norfolk Southern's lobbying efforts had undermined Norfolk
Southern's ability to provide safe, efficient, and reliable rail
transportation services; (vi) Norfolk Southern's commitment to
reducing operating expenses as part of its PSR goals undermined
worker safety and Norfolk Southern's purported "commitment to an
injury-free workplace" because Norfolk Southern's PSR plan
prioritized reducing expenses through fewer personnel, longer
trains, and less spending on safety training, technology, and
equipment such as hot bearing wayside detectors (a/k/a "hotboxes")
and acoustic sensors; (vii) Norfolk Southern's rail services were,
as a result of its adoption of PSR principles, more susceptible to
accidents that could cause serious economic and bodily harm to
Norfolk Southern, its workers, its customers, third parties, and
the environment; and (viii) Norfolk Southern had failed to put in
place responsive practices and procedures to minimize the threat to
communities in the event that these communities suffered the
derailment of a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous and toxic
materials.

On February 3, 2023, eastbound Norfolk Southern Railway Company
general merchandise freight train 32N derailed 38 railcars in East
Palestine, Ohio, leaving behind what the Associated Press called "a
mangled and charred mass of boxcars and flames." The derailed
equipment included 11 tank cars carrying hazardous materials that
subsequently ignited, fueling fires that damaged an additional 12
non-derailed railcars.

On February 6, 2023, responders engaged in a controlled detonation
and burn of the vinyl chloride, spewing massive volumes of
chemicals into the vicinity. The chemicals released from the
derailment entered the air and water of the surrounding residential
areas, the closest of which were only 1,000 feet from the site of
the accident. On this news, the price of Norfolk Southern stock
fell.

Then, on February 8, 2023, after lifting a previously issued
evacuation order, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine stated that Norfolk
Southern was "the one[] who created the problem. It's their
liability. They're the ones who ought to pay for it." Following
their return, numerous residents reported hazardous air quality and
other health and environmental concerns. On this news, the price of
Norfolk Southern stock again fell.

Thereafter, on February 13, 2023, the Environmental Protection
Agency stated that it had concluded that Norfolk Southern may be
responsible for the cleanup costs of the derailment site or the
costs incurred by the EPA for area cleanup. On this news, the price
of Norfolk Southern stock once again fell.

Next, on February 15, 2023, reports emerged that Ohio Attorney
General Dave Yost was considering taking legal action against
Norfolk Southern over the derailment. On this news, the price of
Norfolk Southern stock again fell.

Finally, on March 6, 2023, Norfolk Southern announced a 6-part plan
to improve operational safety that included, among other things,
adding about 200 temperature sensors along its tracks where
existing sensors are at least 15 miles apart, reviewing the
temperature levels that set off alarms for train crews, and adding
more acoustic sensors that analyze vibrations for potential
problems. On this news, the price of Norfolk Southern stock fell,
further damaging investors.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Norfolk Southern common stock during the
Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Norfolk
Southern class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the
movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by
the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative
class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Norfolk Southern class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Norfolk Southern class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff of the Norfolk Southern class action
lawsuit.

Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading complex class action
firms representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm
is ranked #1 on the most recent ISS Securities Class Action
Services Top 50 Report for recovering more than $1.75 billion for
investors in 2022 – the third year in a row Robbins Geller tops
the list. And in those three years alone, Robbins Geller recovered
nearly $5.3 billion for investors, more than double the amount
recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9
offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in
the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history, including
the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion
– in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following
page for more information:

Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

NORTH DAKOTA: Book Ban Bills Violated First, 14th Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------
Masaki Ova of The Jamestown Sun reports that the James River Valley
Library System Board of Directors unanimously approved on March 15,
2023, joining a class action lawsuit against the book ban bills in
the North Dakota Legislature.

The agreement is for Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP to represent North
Dakota librarians and board trustees at no cost, said Joe Rector,
library system director. He said an attorney, who is originally
from Bismarck and now in Los Angeles, specializes in First
Amendment cases.

If House Bill 1205 and Senate Bill 2360 are not killed at the
committee level, the firm will represent the librarians and board
of trustees.

"If the bills become law, they will sue the state," Rector said.
"Any settlement gained through the suit would go to the firm to
help recoup some of their costs."

He said representation involves public relations communication such
as contacting legislators and the governor to let them know there
will be a class-action lawsuit against the state if the bills are
passed.

He said HB 1205 and SB 2360 are banning items that are currently
legal in all 50 states.

"Under the First Amendment, parents are able to make choices,
booksellers are able to sell, people are able, buy, review,
consider," he said.

Rector said the bills are violations of the First and 14th
amendments.

The Senate Judiciary Committee gave a unanimous "do pass"
recommendation to HB 1205 on Tuesday, March 14. The bill goes to
the Senate for a vote which was not scheduled as of March 17, 2023
morning.

The House passed a version of the bill with a 65-28 vote in
February, but the bill was overhauled with amendments by a Senate
panel that makes it specific to minors and children's collections
in public libraries.

If passed, HB 1205 defines "explicit sexual material" as "any
material which, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
of minors; is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the
adult community in North Dakota as a whole with respect to what is
suitable material for minors; and taken as a whole, lacks serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors," The
Bismarck Tribune reported Tuesday, March 14.

The bill would also mandate public libraries to develop a policy
and process for reviewing library collections including the removal
or relocating of sexual material, how to respond to a request to
remove the materials and reviewing the library collection to ensure
it does not contain explicit sexual material by Jan. 1, 2024.

Rector said HB 1205 being amended to apply only to children's
materials is huge but bill proponents insist that many libraries in
the state have children's materials that they are trying to ban. He
said the James River Valley Library System does not have materials
of that category.

He said HB 1205 allows individuals from outside of the library
system's service area to request the removal of books or other
materials.

He said reviewing the library's children's materials will take many
people and hours to go through.

"Every staff member could sit here and read books for eight hours a
day and it would still take us a couple months," he said.

State Librarian Mary Soucie said that the North Dakota State
Library would need 71 temporary staff to review its fiction
collection and 35 temporary staff to review e-books if HB 1205
passes, the Tribune reported.

The House Judiciary Committee heard SB 2360 on Tuesday, March 14.
The Senate passed the bill 38-9 in February.

Sen. Keith Boehm, R-Mandan, presented amendments to the bill.

SB 2360 criminalizes a person who willfully displays at newsstands
or any other business establishment frequented by minors or where
minors are or may be invited any material that either contains
explicit sexual material that is harmful to minors.

Rector said minors frequent the libraries in Jamestown and can see
any items on the shelves. He said the library system would violate
the law even though they aren't directly promoting the material to
people.

Boehm's amendments also include exempting from criminal liability a
"public library for limited access for educational purposes carried
on at such an institution by adults only," and eliminating
"sex-based classifications" from the proposed list of "explicit
sexual material," which includes written and visual depictions of
various sex acts, nudity and partial nudity, the Tribune reported.

The Tribune reported House Judiciary Committee Chair Lary Klemin,
R-Bismarck, did not expect the panel to immediately act on the bill
Tuesday, March 14.

Rector said the library system staff is "extremely careful" about
what material is in the libraries.

"We try to be in the middle of the road, try to think of what the
people in Stutsman County believe," he said. "What are their basic
values? (We are) not trying to trigger people, not trying to put
things under people's nose. We try to put the information at an
age-appropriate level according to what people in Stutsman County
on average think. That doesn't mean we are always correct because
we aren't taking a poll." [GN]

NORTHSTAR EMERGENCY: Faces Class Action Following Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dre Day reports that on March 14 NorthStar Emergency Medical
Services revealed on their website that they've learned of a data
security breach.

As previously reported by the Tuscaloosa Thread, the private
ambulance service in Tuscaloosa may have given bad actors access to
the records of more than 80,000 current and former patients.

We've recently discovered a class action complaint being filed
against NorthStar following the data breach.

"Following a thorough analysis, the investigation determined that
information contained in the affected files may have included
patient-protected health information (PHI)," Mason LLP Attorney at
Law said on their website concerning the class action complaint.

"The type of information contained within the affected data
includes patient names, and any other combination of identifiable
personal information, all of which could be used to harm the
individual in question."

On Mason LLP Attorney at Law's website they state that it's
required for any client on one of their cases must provide proof of
being affected with a "DATA BREACH NOTIFICATION LETTER."

On their site, they have a section for looking to sign up for the
class action claim.

Upon submission, Mason LLP Attorney at Law will reach out with a
retainer to sign that allows them to represent you in the case.

Readers can click here to visit Mason LLP Attorney at Law and get
more details about the class action complaint or to sign up for
those who qualify as an affected party in the data breach involving
NorthStar Emergency Medical Services. [GN]

SAS RETAIL: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Pietronuto Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PIETRONUTO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. SAS RETAIL SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-01879 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 11, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
failed to timely pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated current
and former employees their wages within seven calendar days after
the end of the week in which these wages were earned, in violations
of the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings NYLL claims on behalf of himself and a class
of persons under F.R.C.P. Rule 23 consisting of all persons who are
currently, or have been, employed by the Defendant as retail
merchandisers and in positions with similar titles including retail
reset merchandisers, store remodeling merchandisers, store shelving
merchandisers, and retail service specialists, in the State of New
York at any time during the six years prior to the filing of the
initial Complaint and the date of judgment in this action.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs and other appropriate relief
pursuant to NYLL section 198.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a retail
merchandiser from March 2020 to July 2020.

Sas Retail provides retail and merchandising services to retail
stores throughout the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com

SEPHORA USA: Faces Class Actions Over Alleged Labor Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Gelinas, writing for The New York Post, reports that New
York's stores and restaurants struggling after the pandemic have a
new headache, besides inflation and crime.

A state court's aggressive reinterpretation of a
more-than-century-old law puts businesses on the hook for
potentially billions of dollars in unexpected costs.

If you have a job, you probably get paid every two weeks -- the
most common schedule by which employers pay workers.

The federal government pays workers every two weeks, as does the
city.

New York law has long carved out an exception: "A manual worker
shall be paid weekly."

The weekly pay provision goes back to 1890, when the Legislature
held that "every manufacturing, mining or quarrying, lumbering,
mercantile . . . corporation . . . shall pay weekly."

The purpose, as discussion around a 1935 amendment made clear, was
to "protect the employees of" firms and individuals "who would set
up business . . ., defer the payments of wages" and then
"disappear."

Fine and good -- but for decades, all but ignored.  

In 2018, though, a construction worker named Irma Vega won a
judgment against a New York firm, CM & Associates. A Bronx civil
court found that CM, in paying her every other week, had violated
the law. In 2019, an appeals court upheld the ruling.

But the novel aspect of the Vega ruling was that the New York court
reinterpreted the consequences of not following the law in an
entirely new way.

The court found that Vega could recoup as "damages" a dollar value
equal to 100% of the wages paid late.

That is, CM would have to pay an extra week's pay for all of its
every-other-week paychecks, as, by paying every other week, it had
been late with one out of every two weeks' pay.

This new interpretation came despite the fact that as written, the
law only allows for such lawsuits for bad-faith "underpayments,"
not payments a week late.

Though Vega had only worked at CM for a year, the statute of
limitations on this law is six years.

And the definition of manual laborer, which nobody had thought very
much about before, applies to any worker earning less than $900 a
week who does "physical labor" -- interpreted as standing up --
more than 25% of the time.

That means hundreds of thousands of employers statewide, from big
chains to mom-and-pop stores, could face a massive liability of
repaying half of their weekly payrolls for six years -- billions of
dollars.

Lawyers have filed class-action suits against employers ranging
from the Sephora makeup chain to Walmart to Urban Outfitters.

This when the retail and restaurant industries are still missing
96,000 jobs statewide, relative to pre-COVID. Other businesses too
are in the trap, from those that employ nurses' aides to security
guards.

"This would kill my company," said one small-business owner.

The law even applies to nonprofits, including nonprofits that
employ homeless-outreach and day-care workers under contracts with
city government.

Large companies, those with more than 1,000 in-state employees, can
apply for an exemption and pay workers every other week.

This exemption confirms the intent of the 19th-century law, to
prevent fraud by which a company would hire people and then
immediately go out of business.

But large companies that didn't apply for an exemption can't get
one retroactively -- plus the exemption gives chains an advantage
over small businesses.

New York's top court hasn't yet ruled on the matter and may do so
under a different case. Federal courts too may have a say, as such
a disproportionate penalty may be unconstitutional.

But New York's civil court schedule is packed, and businesses might
not get a final judgment for years.

The governor and state lawmakers can fix this, without waiting for
the courts: All they need to do is amend state labor law to
retroactively clarify whether workers can sue, and recover such
heavy damages, over the fact they were paid every other week
instead of every week.

For now, though, state Sen. Kevin Thomas of Nassau County has
introduced a bill capping fines at $3,000, which has gone nowhere,
with no Assembly counterpart. The governor hasn't said a word.

Fixing this mess should be easy: It hurts no one except trial
lawyers, who have found a lucrative new business.

Not fixing the law, by contrast, could cost tens of thousands of
retail and restaurant jobs, as businesses large and small are sued
into bankruptcy. [GN]

SOCIAL FINANCE: Final Settlement Hearing in DACA Suit Set May 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that SoFi Lending agreed to a class
action settlement to resolve claims that it discriminated against
borrowers with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or
Conditional Permanent Residence (CPR) status.

The settlement benefits a nationwide class of individuals living in
any state other than California who had valid, unexpired Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or Conditional Permanent
Residence (CPR) status when they applied for SoFi financing but
were denied for at least one loan between May 19, 2017, and Dec.
15, 2022.

The settlement also benefits a class of Californians who had valid,
unexpired DACA or CPR status when they applied for SoFi financing
but were denied for at least one loan between May 19, 2017, and
Dec. 15, 2022.

According to the class action lawsuit, SoFi violated state and
federal civil rights laws by discriminating against DACA and CPR
applicants. The lender allegedly made these individuals ineligible
for loans simply based on their citizenship status.

SoFi is a bank that was founded in August 2011. Since then, the
company has funded over $50 billion in loans and amassed over 5
million members around the country.

SoFi hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the civil rights class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash
payment for each eligible credit denial they experienced when
seeking financing from SoFi. Members of the national class can
receive up to $1,000 per denial, while California class members can
receive up to $3,000 per denial.

Payments may be reduced on a pro rata basis if the number of claims
exceeds the total $155,000 settlement fund allocated to denial
payments.

If the total number of cash payments doesn't exceed the net
settlement amount, the remaining funds will be donated to the
University of California Immigrant Legal Services Center. This
non-profit organization advocates for immigrant students and their
families in addition to providing access to legal services.

In addition to providing cash payments to affected borrowers, SoFi
agreed to make changes to its lending policies. New policies will
ensure that DACA and CPR applicants are evaluated for financing on
the same terms as U.S. citizens.

The deadline for exclusion and objection was March 6, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May
11, 2023.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by March 21, 2023.

Who's Eligible

The settlement benefits a nationwide Class of individuals living in
any state other than California who had valid, unexpired Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or Conditional Permanent
Residence (CPR) status when they applied for SoFi financing but
were denied for at least one loan between May 19, 2017, and Dec.
15, 2022.

The settlement also benefits a Class of Californians who had valid,
unexpired Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or
Conditional Permanent Residence (CPR) status when they applied for
SoFi financing but were denied for at least one loan between May
19, 2017, and Dec. 15, 2022.

Potential Award
Up to $3,000 per denial

Proof of Purchase
N/A

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
03/21/2023

Case Name
Juarez, et al. v. Social Finance Inc., et al., Case No.
4:20-cv-03386-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California

Final Hearing
05/11/2023

Settlement Website
DACALendingSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Settlement Administrator
C/O Rust Consulting Inc - 7638
PO Box 2659
Faribault, MN 55021-9659
info@DACALendingSettlement.com
833-472-1980

Class Counsel
Ossai Miazad
Moira Heiges-Goepfert
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

Sophia L Hall
LAWYERS FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

Defense Counsel
Issac deVyver
Karla Johnson
MCGUIREWOODS LLP [GN]

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Carlson Suit Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVE CARLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.; GARY KELLY; TAMMY
ROMO; and ROBERT E. JORDAN, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00920
(S.D. Tex., March 13, 2023) is a class action on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
Southwest Airlines securities between June 13, 2020 and December
31, 2022, inclusive, the Plaintiff seeking to pursue claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1)
Southwest Airlines continuously downplayed or ignored the serious
issues with the technology it used to schedule flights and crews,
and how it stood to be affected worse than other airlines in the
event of inclement weather; (2) it did not discuss how its unique
point-to-point service and aggressive flight schedule could leave
it prone to prolonged delays in the event of inclement weather; and
(3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the
suit.

Southwest Airlines stock price allegedly fell from a closing price
of $33.67 on December 30, 2022 to $32.6 on the next trading day,
January 3, 2023, a drop of more than 3%.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' wrongful
conduct, the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class suffered
damages in connection with their respective purchases and sales of
the Company's securities during the Class Period, the suit
asserts.

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. is a domestic airline that provides
primarily short-haul, high-frequency, and point-to-point services.
The Company offers flights throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          Email: clinehan@glancylaw.com
                 prajesh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867

SQUARETRADE INC: Class Settlement in Shuman Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL SHUMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. SQUARETRADE
INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02725-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Chief
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of Settlement and for Attorney's Fees, Litigation
Costs, and Service Awards.

The parties in the case have entered into a class action
settlement. Following preliminary approval of the settlement by the
Court, notice was sent to class members, who were given the
opportunity to object to the settlement or opt out and notice that
the Court would be holding a fairness hearing and instructions on
how to participate.

Presently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion. In the
Motion, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to: 1) certify the settlement
class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
grant final approval of the settlement agreement; 2) award
attorneys' fees and costs in the combined total amount of $1
million ($41,318.39 in costs and $958,681.61 in attorneys' fees);
and 3) award each of the three named plaintiffs a service award of
$5,000.

SquareTrade fully supports approval of the settlement and the
application for the service awards to the named Plaintiffs. It also
stipulated at the fairness hearing that it does not object to the
litigation costs requested by the Plaintiffs. However, it does not
agree with the excessive amount of attorney's fees requested.

The fairness hearing was held on Feb. 24, 2023 via Zoom Webinar.
The counsel for the parties were present but no class members
appeared.

The parties' settlement is set forth in the Amended and Restated
Settlement Agreement, dated Sept. 15, 2022. Under the Settlement
Agreement, the Settlement Class consists of two subclasses: the
Fast Cash Subclass and the SKU-cap Subclass.

      The Fast Cash Subclass is defined as follows: Any person who,
during the Class Period, (i) submitted a claim for coverage under a
Protection Plan, and (ii) whose claim was resolved via a Fast Cash
payment from Defendant.

      The SKU-cap Subclass is defined as: Any person who, during
the Class Period, (i) submitted a claim for coverage under a
Protection Plan, (ii) resolved the claim by receiving a monetary
payment from Defendant, and (iii) received less than the amount the
person should have received were it not for the SKU-cap Error.

The Class Period is the time period between April 20, 2016, through
June 27, 2022.

Judge Spero finds that, for purposes of settlement, the
prerequisites for a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)'s notice requirement, he approves the
parties' notice plan, finding that it was provided in the best
practicable manner to the class members and fulfills the
requirements of due process. As of Feb. 10, 2023, 703,729 Class
Members were mailed or emailed at least one Notice that was not
returned as undeliverable, representing over 99.76% of the total
Class Member population.

Judge Spero also finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2). He is
satisfied that the settlement agreement was the result of
arms'-length negotiation rather than collusion.

The Plaintiffs have also requested fees pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc.
Code section 1021.5. They request $958,681.61 in attorneys' fees
based on work performed on behalf of the class by the Gibbs Law
Group LLP and Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC ("HF&A"), which have
been appointed jointly as the Class Counsel. According to the
Plaintiffs, this amount is based on 1,481.5 hours billed by Gibbs
attorneys and 1,368.1 hours billed by HF&A attorneys, with a
negative multiplier of .52. These hours do not include 489.6 hours
billed by Gibbs and 188.7 hours by HF&A, which were excluded from
the lodestar as an exercise of billing judgment. The Plaintiffs
have also voluntarily excluded from their lodestar hours worked
after the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement
Agreement, on Oct. 17, 2022.

Upon reviewing the Class Counsel's motion for fees, and the
attached contemporaneous billing records, Judge Spero finds that
the Class Counsel's time expended on the case was reasonable,
particularly in light of the billing judgment exercised by the
Class Counsel, which significantly reducing the time billed. He
further finds that the Class Counsel's billing rates are
reasonable; the rates are consistent with those billed for
non-contingent complex litigation work and with the rates approved
by courts in this District. He also notes that that SquareTrade
does not challenge the reasonableness of the rates the Plaintiffs
seek. For these reasons, he approves the Plaintiffs' request for
$958,681.61 in attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiffs also seek an award of their litigation costs under
Cal. Civ. Code section 1780(e).

Judge Spero finds that all of the costs requested by the Plaintiffs
are reasonable and allowable. First, the Plaintiffs are entitled to
the filing fee ($400) and service of process costs ($989) under
Civ. L.R. 54-3(a) and California Code of Civil Procedure section
1033.5(a)(1) and (a)(4). Second, they are entitled to $21,564.89
for the costs of transcribing and recording depositions under
California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(3).

Judge Spero further exercises discretion under section 1033.5(c) to
award the costs sought by the Plaintiffs for mediation ($8,677.00)
and document hosting and analysis ($9,687.50). He also notes that
SquareTrade has stipulated that it does not object to the
Plaintiffs' request for litigation costs, as discussed above.
Therefore, he awards $41,318.39 in costs.

Lastly, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to approve a service award of
$5,000 each to Class Representatives Michael Shuman, Kathleen
Abbott, and Tommy Gonzales. They have offered evidence that each of
the named Plaintiffs sat for a full-day deposition and responded to
extensive discovery requests.

Judge Spero finds that the requested awards are reasonable in light
of the work that the named Plaintiffs have done on behalf of the
class. Therefore, he grants the Plaintiffs' request.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Spero grants the parties' request
for final approval of the Settlement Agreement and awards
$958,681.61 in attorneys' fees, $41,318.39 in costs and $5,000 each
to named Plaintiffs Michael Shuman, Kathleen Abbott, and Tommy
Gonzales. The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment consistent with
his Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n976taz from Leagle.com.


SVB FINANCIAL: Faces Vanipenta Suit Over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDRA VANIPENTA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SVB FINANCIAL GROUP; GREG W.
BECKER; and DANIEL BECK, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-01097 (N.D.
Cal., March 13, 2023) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of SVB between June 16, 2021 and March 10, 2023, both
dates inclusive, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by
the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the reports filed by
the Defendants with the Securities and Exchange Commission were
materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and
failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the
Company's business which were known to the Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the Company
failed to disclose to investors the risks presented by impending
rising interest rates; (2) the Company failed to disclose to
investors that, in an environment with high interest rates, it
would be worse off than banks that did not cater to tech startups
and venture capital-backed companies; (3) the Company failed to
disclose that, if its investments were negatively affected by
rising interest rates, it was particularly susceptible to a bank
run; (4) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

Had the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class been aware
that the market price of the Company's securities had been
artificially and falsely inflated by the Company's and the
Individual Defendants' misleading statements and by the material
adverse information which the Company's and the Individual
Defendants did not disclose, they would not have purchased the
Company's securities at the artificially inflated prices that they
did, or at all, says the suit.

SVB FINANCIAL GROUP is the holding company for Silicon Valley Bank.
The Bank is a commercial bank that serves emerging growth and
middle-market growth companies in targeted niches, focusing on the
technology and life sciences industries. Silicon Valley operates
offices throughout the Silicon Valley and other areas of
California, as well as in other states. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

T&T FARMS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 12
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PORTER, an
individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. T&T FARMS, INC., an Indiana Corporation, and THOMAS
HALLECK, JR., an individual, Case No. 3:21-cv-00529-JD-MGG (N.D.
Ind.), the Hon. Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. entered an order
amending the Amended Scheduling Order as follows:

  -- The deadline for the parties to complete fact discovery is
     July 27, 2023.

  -- The deadline for the parties to disclose retained experts
     under Rule 26(a)(2) is May 30, 2023 for the Plaintiff, and
     June 29, 2023 for the Defendants.

  -- The deadline to depose the Plaintiff's named expert(s) is
     August 29, 2023.

  -- The deadline to depose the Defendants' named expert(s) is
     September 28, 2023.

  -- The deadline for the parties to engage in mediation is
     August 10, 2023.

  -- The deadline to file a motion for class certification in
     this matter is October 12, 2023.

  -- The deadline for completion of all discovery is October 29,
     2023.

T & T Farms is a licensed and DOT registred trucking company
running freight hauling business from Winamac, Indiana.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3T7vQLz at no extra charge.[CC]


TAHOE VENTURES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tahoe Ventures, Inc.
The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Tahoe Ventures, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02035-MKV (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2023).

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

Tahoe Venture -- https://tahoecap.com/ -- is a pre-seed and seed
venture fund. Our mission is to back founders during the earliest
stages of their company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TERRILL OUTSOURCING: Court Dismissed Stallworth FDCPA Suit in Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Accounts Recovery reports that A state court judge in Illinois has
granted a defendant's motion to dismiss a Hunstein class-action
case, ruling that the process of the defendant sending the
information to the vendor that prepared and mailed the collection
letter was not a communication in connection with the collection of
a debt, and therefore, not subject to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act case.

Astute readers of AccountsRecovery.net will remember reading about
this case last June, when a federal judge granted the plaintiff's
motion to remand the case back to state court, but in doing so,
provided an analogy that showed why Hunstein cases should not be
considered third-party disclosure violations of the FDCPA.

The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant,
which was allegedly sent by a third-party vendor. Communicating the
plaintiff's "private" information to the debt allegedly violated
Section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA. But, as Judge Eve M. Reilly from the
Circuit Court of Cook County noted, that section of the statute
says:

Except as provided in section 1692b of this title, without the
prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector,
or express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, or as
reasonable necessary to effectuate a postjudgment judicial remedy,
a debt collector may not communicate, in connection with the
collection of any debt, with any person other than the consumer,
his attorney, a consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by
law, the creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of
the debt collector.

In filing its motion to dismiss, the defendant argued the plaintiff
failed to state a claim in her complaint.

Judge Reilly noted that the communication in question is the one
between the defendant and the vendor. The plaintiff did not allege
that the defendant made a demand for payment when it sent the
plaintiff's information to the vendor, because the vendor did not
have a relationship of any kind with the plaintiff. The
relationship between the defendant and the vendor showed that the
purpose of the communication was not to induce payment. The
plaintiff herself stated in her complaint that the communication
was "a matter of course."

"Objectively, the purpose and context of Defendants' communication
to the letter vendor was not to induce payment, rather it was to
provide necessary information for the letter vendor to populate a
letter on behalf of Defendants," Judge Reilly wrote. "Plaintiff's
own allegations are worded in such a way that supports Defendants'
argument that their communication was not intended to induce
payment. Even in construing the facts in a light most favorable to
Plaintiff, it is clear that Defendants' communication to the letter
vendor was not made in connection with the collection of a debt."

Putting a cherry on top of the sundae, Judge Reilly noted that she
"does not believe that the type of communications at issue here are
the type of abusive debt collection practices the FDCPA was meant
to prevent. " [GN]

TIPPECANOE COUNTY, IN: Court Denies Bid to Appoint Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCUS T. BARTOLE, v.
TIPPECANOE COUNTY, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00007-PPS-JPK (N.D.
Ind.), the Hon. Judge Philip P. Simon entered an order:

   (1) denying the motion to reconsider;

   (2) directing the clerk to docket pages 4 through 17 of ECF 5
       as an Amended Complaint;

   (3) denying the motion to appoint counsel;

   (4) denying the motion for a preliminary injunction;

   (5) denying as moot the motion to extend;

   (6) granting Marcus T. Bartole leave to proceed on an
       injunctive relief claim against Sheriff Bob Goldsmith in
       his official capacity to obtain the cell conditions and
       diet to which he is entitled under the Fourteenth
       Amendment;

   (7) granting Marcus T. Bartole leave to proceed on an
       injunctive relief claim against Sheriff Bob Goldsmith in
       his official capacity to prevent retaliation by jail
       staff in violation of his First Amendment rights;

   (8) dismissing Tippecanoe County, Sarah Wyatt, Karey Morgan,
       Julie Roush, and Director of the Indiana Administration
       Office of the Court;

   (9) dismissing all other claims;

  (10) directing the clerk to request a Waiver of Service from
       and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to
       use any lawful means to locate and serve process on
       Sheriff Bob Goldsmith at the Tippecanoe County Jail, and
       provide him with a copy of this order and the amended
       complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section  1915(d); and

  (11) directing Sheriff Bob Goldsmith to respond, as provided
       in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind.
       L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which Marcus T.
       Bartole has been granted leave to proceed in this
       screening order.

Marcus T. Bartole, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a motion to
reconsider the order directing him to file an amended complaint
using this court's form and to refrain from quoting legal authority
and making legal arguments.

Tippecanoe County is located in the west-central portion of the
U.S. state of Indiana about 22 miles east of the Illinois state
line and less than 50 miles from the Chicago and the Indianapolis
metro areas.

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



TOUR RESOURCE: Settlement in Delcavo Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY DELCAVO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TOUR RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02137-JWL (D.
Kan.), the Hon. Judge John W. Lungstrum entered an order granting
the parties' joint motions for approval of their settlement of the
class claims.

  -- The parties have agreed that the Defendant will pay class
     counsel a total of $25,000 in cash and another $25,000 in
     travel benefits over the next two years.

  -- Accordingly, the Court finds that adequate notice of the
     settlement was provided to the class members.

  -- Finally, the Court approves as reasonable the proposed
     procedures for distribution of the settlement funds, as set
     forth in the Court's preliminary approval order. The Court
     also reconfirms its prior appointment of McInnes Law, LLC
     as administrator of the settlement fund.

  -- This class action comes before the Court on the parties'
     joint motions for approval of a settlement that resolves
     the claims asserted by the class that the Court previously
     certified.

  -- By Memorandum and Order of December 8, 2022, the Court
     preliminarily approved the settlement and the proposed
     attorney fee award, appointed a settlement and notice
     administrator, and authorized notice to the class. On
     February 28, 2023, the Court conducted a hearing on these
     motions.

  -- The Defendant provides travel services for groups, and in
     2019 a music group, the Bach Festival Society, arranged for
     the Defendant to provide services for a June 2020 tour to
     Italy.

  -- The Plaintiff's son was a member of the group, and in
     November 2019 the Plaintiff paid the Defendant $400 as an
     initial deposit for the trip. In March 2020, when travel to
     Italy became impossible in light of the COVID-19 pandemic,
     Bach's trip and the Plaintiff's booking were canceled.

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



TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Tupperware Brands Corporation (NYSE: TUP) resulting
from allegations that Tupperware may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Tupperware securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12606 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 1, 2023, Tupperware disclosed prior
period misstatements and material weaknesses in internal controls
over financial reporting in a press release. The Company stated,
"In connection with its year end financial close process, the
Company has identified misstatements which originated in prior
annual and unaudited interim periods, the most significant of which
to date relate to the Company's historical accounting for income
taxes. Until the Company has completed its final close process,
there is the possibility that additional current and prior period
misstatements could be identified." In addition, "the Company
concluded that it did not design and maintain effective internal
controls related to the accounting for the completeness,
occurrence, accuracy, and presentation of the income tax provision
and related income tax assets and liabilities. Accordingly, in the
2022 Form 10-K, the Company will disclose a material weakness in
internal control over financial reporting and, as a result, that
its disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting were not effective as of December 31, 2022."

On this news, the price of Tupperware's stock price fell 14% to
close at $3.49 per share on March 1, 2023.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

        Laurence Rosen, Esq.
        Phillip Kim, Esq.
        The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
        275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
        New York, NY 10016
        Tel: (212) 686-1060
        Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
        Fax: (212) 202-3827
        lrosen@rosenlegal.com
        pkim@rosenlegal.com
        cases@rosenlegal.com
        www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

TYSON FOODS: Removes Bailey Suit to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MICHELLE BAILEY; and MICHAEL JETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TYSON FOODS INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois, County
of Cook (Case No. 2023 CH 00881) to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on March 13, 2023.

The clerk of court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-01537. The case is assigned to Judge Franklin U.
Valderrama.

TYSON FOODS, INC. produces, distributes, and markets chicken, beef,
pork, prepared foods, and related allied products. The Company's
products are marketed and sold to national and regional grocery
retailers, regional grocery wholesalers, meat distributors,
warehouse club stores, military commissaries, and industrial food
processing companies. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chad W. Moeller, Esq.
          Jason C. Kim, Esq.
          Alissa J. Griffin, Esq.
          Kathleen E. Okon, Esq.
          NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP
          2 N. LaSalle St. Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 269-8000
          Email: cmoeller@nge.com
                 jkim@nge.com
                 agriffin@nge.com
                 kokon@nge.com

UNITED AIRLINES: Bid for Protective Order Stricken in Konda Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Konda v. United Airlines
Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01320 (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren
King entered an order striking the Defendant's motion for a
protective order, and the Plaintiff's motion to compel for failure
to comply with the Local Civil Rules.

The Court orders that -- to the extent the parties are unable to
reach a resolution to their dispute themselves -- the parties
submit a joint motion pursuant Local Civil Rule 37(a)(2) no later
than Friday, March 10, 2023.

The Court further orders the Defendant to file a certification of
word count for its motion to compel (which appears to be
overlength) and orders the Plaintiff to file a certification of
word count for its Response, no later than March 6, 2023.

In their certifications, each party must identify the overlength
portion (if any) of its brief. The Court will not consider any
overlength portion. The Court cautions that it expects strict
compliance with the Local Civil Rules, Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and its Standing Order for All Civil Cases.

The suit alleges American with Disabilities Act.

United Airlines is a major American airline headquartered at the
Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Court Clarifies January 31 Injunction in Carr Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH CARR, BRENDA
MOORE, MARY ELLEN WILSON, MARY SHAW and CAROL KATZ, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, v. XAVIER BECERRA,
SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00988-MPS (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Michael P.
Shea entered an order clarifying the January 31 injunction.

Although the Government properly provided Medicaid officials in
each State with a copy of the January 31 Ruling and copies of its
previous guidance and properly informed those officials by letter
that its previous guidance was "reinstate[d] with respect to the
class members," today on the call the Government's attorney stated
that it was not clear that certain aspects of its previous guidance
continued to have effect. Further, the Plaintiffs have submitted
correspondence with Connecticut Medicaid officials suggesting that
those officials were "awaiting guidance from [the Secretary]" as to
his position on whether States must restore coverage to Medicaid
beneficiaries whose benefits were terminated during the pandemic
back to the date of termination, including in cases when that date
fell before the January 31 Ruling. At the end of the call, the
Government's attorney requested that the judge issue a
clarification on these matters.

In line with the Government's request and to clear up any confusion
on the matter, Judge Shea issue the following clarification.

   "Reinstating the Secretary's previous guidance as to the
   class means that the guidance the Secretary issued in the few
   months immediately following the enactment of the FFCRA, that
   is, his position as to the obligations of State Medicaid
   agencies before the Interim Final Rule ("IFR") was adopted in
   November 2020, is now, once again, the Secretary's guidance
   and is in full force and effect. To "reinstate," according to
   the Merriam-Webster dictionary, means "to place again (as in
   possession or in a former position)" and "to restore to a

   previous effective state."  
   Merriam-Webster.com/Dictionary/Reinstate; see also The
   American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th
   Ed. (defining "reinstate" as "To bring back into use or
   existence"; "to restore to a previous condition or position";
   and "to place again in possession, or in a former state; to
   restore to a state from which one had been moved; to instate
   again"). Therefore, the current position of the Secretary on
   the scope and effect of the FFCRA must reflect -- as to the
   members of the class -- the position the Secretary took in
   the guidance issued in the few months following the enactment
   of the FFCRA.

More specifically, the Secretary must now take the same
positions– and must inform State Medicaid agencies that he
takes the same positions -- as those reflected in the "Frequently
Asked Questions" "Updated as of April 13, 2020," and "Last Updated
June 30, 2020." These three documents, which are the same ones the
Secretary properly sent to State Medicaid officials along with the
January 31 Ruling on February 6, 2023,
include, among many other pieces of guidance, the following
"frequently asked question" and the following answer by the
Secretary:

   Question 7. If a state has already terminated coverage for
   individuals enrolled as of March 18, 2020, what actions
   should the state take? Must those individuals have their
   coverage reinstated? To receive the increased FMAP, states
   may not terminate coverage for any beneficiary enrolled in
   Medicaid during the emergency period effective March 18,
   2020, unless the beneficiary voluntarily requested to be
   disenrolled, or is no longer a resident of the state. States
   that want to qualify for the increased FMAP should make a
   good faith effort to identify and reinstate individuals whose
   coverage was terminated on or after the date of enactment for
   reasons other than a voluntary request for termination or
   ineligibility due to residency. At a minimum, states are
   expected to inform individuals whose coverage was terminated
   after March 18, 2020 of their continued eligibility and
   encourage them to contact the state to reenroll. Where
   feasible, states should automatically reinstate coverage for
   individuals terminated after March 18, 2020 and should
   suspend any terminations already scheduled to occur during
   the emergency period.

Coverage should be reinstated back to the date of termination. That
guidance, along with the rest of the guidance in the
FAQs, now reflects the position of the Secretary, because that is
what it means to "reinstate previous guidance," which is what I
ordered the Secretary to do. The Secretary shall communicate this
order, its "previous guidance" as reflected in the three FAQs cited
above, and my January 31 ruling to State Medicaid officials by
close of business Eastern time on March 7,
2023.

Further, if asked, the Secretary (and his designees and agents)
shall, as long as the injunction in the January 31 Ruling remains
in effect, inform the States that these FAQs, including the answer
to Question 7 above, reflect the current guidance of the Secretary
as to the scope and meaning of the FFCRA.

On January 31, 2023, Judge Shea granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, certified a class of Medicaid enrollees, and
issued the following injunction on behalf of the class:

   "the Defendant is ordered to refrain from enforcing the
   [Interim Final Rule] with respect to the members of [the]
   certified class through the close of business on March 31,
   2023, and to reinstate its previous guidance with respect to
   these individuals. the Defendant is further ordered to inform
   (within 7 days of this order) the relevant state agencies of
   this revised position as to the class members (the "January
   31 Ruling").

The January 31 Ruling made clear that the injunction would expire
at the close of business Eastern Time on March 31, 2023.

On February 28, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an "emergency motion for
enforcement of preliminary injunction", to which the Government
responded today at noon.

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


UNITED STATES: Settles 17-Year-Long Suit Over Medical Clearance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Weisner of Federal Times reports that a settlement has been
finalized between the U.S. Department of State and more than 200
class action members who alleged that the agency's Foreign Service
medical clearance policy illegally discriminated against job
candidates with disabilities.

The case, which began in 2006, claimed that the department's
"worldwide availability" hiring rule, which required Foreign
Service officer candidates to be able to work at any of the State
Department's 270 overseas posts without a need for ongoing medical
treatment, unfairly precluded applicants with disabilities from
employment.

"In the past, people with disabilities were stereotyped as unable
to serve their country in the Foreign Service," said Bryan
Schwartz, lead class counsel, in a statement. "They were considered
too risky to send abroad. They were, in fact, able and willing to
serve with distinction. Through this important case, we have given
them that opportunity."

On March 17, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
approved the agreement after the department agreed to settle in
December, Federal Times previously reported.

The class applies to qualified Foreign Service applicants who were
denied or delayed employment from Oct. 7, 2006 onward because the
State Department deemed them ineligible of worldwide availability
due to their disability.

"The U.S. Department of State is pleased to announce changes to its
minimum medical qualification standard for career Foreign Service
applicants to further advance its commitment to hire a workforce
representative of all segments of society and in support of the
secretary's modernization agenda," a spokesperson told Federal
Times. [GN]

UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Samson Seeks to File Docs Under Seal8
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANTZ SAMSON, a
Washington resident, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-00175-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. directing the clerk to unseal his redacted Reply in Support
of renewed motion for class certification and the sealed deposition
excerpts filed with this motion, or
   2. directing the clerk to maintain the documents under seal.

The Plaintiff Frantz Samson requests the Court grant permission to
file under seal or in open court documents and testimony that the
Defendant UHC has designated confidential and the portions of his
reply brief in support of his class certification motion that
discuss these materials.

During the course of discovery in this matter, UHC designated
portions of Jennie Jeanette and Kevin McGavick's deposition
testimony as "Confidential."

The Plaintiff relies on this testimony in his reply brief in
support of his renewed class certification motion. However, the
material is being filed under seal in compliance with the Amended
Stipulated Protective Order and Local Civil Rule 5(g). The
Plaintiff also is filing under seal a redacted version of his Reply
in Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certification because that
document refers to information that UHC is asserting, or has
previously asserted, is confidential.

As required by Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(A), the Plaintiff's counsel
conferred with UHC's counsel regarding the Plaintiff's intent to
file documents designated as confidential under seal, and UHC
confirmed that it maintains its confidentiality designations with
respect to Ms. Jeanette's testimony.

Neither the Plaintiff's reply brief nor the documents UHC seeks to
have sealed meet the compelling reasons standard for sealing court
records.

Because UHC has designated certain documents and information
confidential, it is UHC's burden to demonstrate compelling reasons
to maintain them under seal.

United Healthcare provides hospital, medical, and other health
services.

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

the Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          Email: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
                 bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                 amcentee@terrellmarshall.com

                - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, 25th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                 jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                 jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 772-7200
          Email: jshub@shublawyers.com

VICTORY MARKETING: Medina Sues Over Medical Assistants Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VICTORY MARKETING AGENCY, LLC, WELLHEALTH MANAGEMENT,
LLC, AND VINCENT ANTONIO., Case No. 4:23-cv-00201 (E.D. Tex., Mar.
10, 2023) alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime wages to
their hourly health clinic staff, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants pay hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek at the same rate they pay for hours
worked in the first 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants also
failed to pay for all hours worked. The Defendants record the time
worked, but only pay for the hours that work locations are open for
business, the Plaintiff adds.

Mr. Medina worked as a medical assistant in Wellhealth's clinics in
Texas, including Plano and Mesquite, from November 23, 2020 to
April 11, 2021.

Victory is a staffing agency headquartered in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, Texas 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  dmoulton@brucknerburch.com

VIRGINIA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged IDEA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Cline, writing for Virginia Mercury, reports that after
failing to meet federal requirements to support students with
disabilities in 2020, the Virginia Department of Education will
remain under further review by the federal government after
continuing to fall short in monitoring and responding to complaints
against school districts, according to a letter from the U.S.
Department of Education.   

"We have significant new or continued areas of concerns with the
State's implementation of general supervision, dispute resolution,
and confidentiality requirements" of IDEA, stated the Feb. 17
letter from the Office of Special Education Programs.

The U.S. Department of Education first flagged its concerns in a
June 2020 "Differentiated Monitoring and Support Report" on how
Virginia was complying with the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, following a 2019 visit by the Office of Special
Education Programs.

IDEA, passed in 1975, requires all students with disabilities to
receive a "free appropriate public education."

The Virginia Department of Education disputed some of the federal
government's findings in a June 19, 2020 letter.

Samantha Hollins, assistant superintendent of special education and
student services, wrote that verbal complaints "are addressed via
technical assistance phone calls to school divisions" and staff
members "regularly work to resolve parent concerns" by providing
"guidance documentation" and acting as intermediaries between
school employees and parents.

However, some parents and advocates say systemic problems in how
the state supports families of children with disabilities persist.
At the same time, a June 15, 2022 state report found one of
Virginia's most critical teacher shortage areas is in special
education.

"Appropriate policies and procedures for both oversight and
compliance, and their implementation, are crucial to ensuring that
children with disabilities and their families are afforded their
rights under IDEA and that a free appropriate public education
(FAPE) is provided," said the Feb. 17 letter from the Office of
Special Education Programs.

While the U.S. Department of Education wrote that it believes the
Virginia Department of Education has resolved some of the problems
identified in 2020, including resolving complaints filed by parents
and creating a mediation plan, it said it has identified "new and
continued areas of concern" and intends to continue monitoring
Virginia's provision of services for students with disabilities.

Among those are ongoing concerns over the state's complaint and due
process systems that "go beyond the originally identified concerns"
originally found. The Office of Special Education Programs writes
it has concluded Virginia "does not have procedures and practices
that are reasonably designed to ensure a timely resolution process"
for due process complaints.

The department also said it has concerns over the practices of at
least five school districts that are inconsistent with IDEA's
regulations.

The decision comes after the U.S. Department of Education announced
in November that Fairfax County Public Schools, Virginia's largest
school district, failed to provide thousands of students with
disabilities with the educational services they were entitled to
during remote learning at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Virginia is also facing a federal class-action lawsuit over claims
that its Department of Education and Fairfax County Public Schools
violated the rights of disabled students under IDEA.

Parents involved in the case said the Virginia Department of
Education and Fairfax school board "have actively cultivated an
unfair and biased" hearing system to oversee challenges to local
decisions about disabled students, according to the suit.

Charles Pyle, a spokesman for the Virginia Department of Education,
said in an email that "VDOE continues to work with our federal
partners to ensure Virginia's compliance with all federal
requirements, as we have since the ‘Differentiated Monitoring and
Support Report' was issued in June 2020."

The federal government said if Virginia could not demonstrate full
compliance with IDEA requirements, it could impose conditions on
grant funds the state receives to support early intervention and
special education services for children with disabilities and their
families.

Last year, Virginia received almost $13.5 billion in various grants
linked to IDEA, according to a July 1, 2022 letter to former
Superintendent of Public Instruction Jillian Balow, who resigned on
March 9.

James Fedderman, president of the Virginia Education Association,
blasted Gov. Glenn Youngkin's administration after the findings
were released.

"While the Youngkin administration has been busy waging culture
wars in schools, his administration has failed to meet basic
compliance requirements with the U.S. Department of Education for
students with disabilities," Fedderman said. "This failure
threatens our federal funding for students with disabilities and is
a disservice to Virginia families who need critical special needs
support." [GN]

VIRGINIA: Southern Regional Jail Faces Civil Rights Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Pilkington, writing for The Guardian, reports that families of
14 inmates who have died in a West Virginia jail in the past year
amid reports of deplorable conditions, rampant violence and
inadequate medical services are demanding a federal investigation
into what they say is negligence on the part of state authorities.

Recently the 14th death was recorded at the Southern regional jail
in Beaver, West Virginia. Herbert Doss, 48, who had been
incarcerated for three months, died of causes that are not yet
known.

The alarming spate of deaths has triggered protests from the West
Virginia Poor People's Campaign, a branch of the nationwide
movement. The campaign has joined bereaved families and other
advocacy groups to file a complaint to the civil rights division of
the US justice department calling for a full federal investigation
into the "senseless and tragic" deaths.

Families working with the Poor People's Campaign have accused state
officials of failing to thoroughly investigate the deaths. Kim
Burks, whose son Quantez Burks, 37, died on 1 March 2022, less than
24 hours after being admitted to Southern regional jail, said: "We
will not let this injustice stand. We are never going to stop until
we get justice for Quan."

An independent autopsy organized by the family found signs of blunt
force trauma on Quantez's body including fractured ribs. "The
findings were consistent with being handcuffed while being beaten,"
Kim Burks said. "Both of his wrists were broken, he had an arm
broken, nose broken, and a leg bone broken."

In the past decade, more than 100 inmates have died in West
Virginia regional jails. The spate of 13 deaths at southern
regional jail alone in 2022 marked a disturbing increase in
mortalities, up from only one death at the institution in 2018.

The Rev William Barber, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign,
said that the men and women being incarcerated at the jail were
owed the right of equal protection under the law. "We cannot be
silent while poor West Virginians of all races die under the watch
of state jails."

In an interview with the Guardian, Barber said that the call for a
federal civil rights investigation was coming from Black and white
families alike. "This is not a straight race issue. The fact that
you have white and Black families standing together at a time of so
much division is critical."

A class-action lawsuit claiming civil rights violations at southern
regional jail has also been lodged with a federal court on behalf
of almost 1,000 current and former inmates. The 89-page document
paints a devastating picture of understaffing, overcrowding,
endemic violence and a rotting infrastructure that has created
appalling conditions inside cells.

"A 1950s or 60s Russian Gulag could not have been worse than 2023
West Virginia," Stephen New, co-counsel in the lawsuit, told the
Guardian. "Prisoners are killing each other and themselves. Guards
are instructing female gangs to beat up female prisoners. It's
dystopian."

New represents the family of Kimberly Gilley, who died in December
at southern regional jail after she was allegedly brutally sexually
assaulted by other female inmates looking for drugs they suspected
were hidden inside her body.

Gilley was being held in custody for a parole violation on an
original shoplifting charge. New said that after the attack she
received inadequate medical care.

"There is no death penalty in West Virginia," New said. "Kimberly
did not deserve the death penalty for shoplifting."

Much of the information contained in the class-action complaint has
been supplied by four current or former correctional officers at
southern regional jail who came forward as whistleblowers. One of
the whistleblowers said in an affidavit that overcrowding was so
bad that two-person cells frequently accommodated three to four
inmates, while up to six have been reported.

The capacity of southern regional jail is 468 inmates, but the
current population is 711. The West Virginia legislature has been
told that there are more than 800 vacancies for correctional jobs
in the state's jails and prisons.

The complaint says that even the limited number of cells designated
for protection of suicidal inmates are grossly overcrowded. One of
the whistleblowers recalled as many as 16 inmates being placed in a
single suicide cell of about 120 sq ft, where they were left for
days.

Over the past several years underinvestment has led to crumbling
infrastructure. Many cells have no running water, leaving inmates
with limited or no access to drinking water.

Sinks are often cracked or leaking, and inmates can find themselves
sleeping on the floor without a mattress in a pool of sink or
toilet water, "or even toilet waste", the complaint alleges.
Toilets are commonly broken and infested with bugs or maggots.

The class-action lawsuit alleges that correctional officers
"regularly beat inmates with no justification as a form of
punishment for filing or attempting to file a grievance, for
talking back, or refusing orders". Inmates who are taken to the
jail's medical unit for treatment after a beating are said to have
"slipped in the shower" or "fallen down the stairs".

In a statement, a spokesperson for the West Virginia division of
corrections and rehabilitation said they were committed to the
"safety, quality of life and wellbeing of those in the care of the
legal system in our state. We empathize with the friends and
families of those that have experienced the loss of a loved one
that was placed in our care."

The spokesperson said that the Republican governor of West
Virginia, Jim Justice, and the leadership of the corrections
department, would cooperate with all investigations into the
deaths.

One of the inmates to die was Alvis Shrewsbury, 45, a father of
three who was sent to southern regional jail on a six-month
sentence for driving on a suspended license. According to a legal
filing in federal court, Shrewsbury was subjected to brutal attacks
by other inmates from the day he entered the jail.

The beatings occurred almost daily and he was deprived of food and
water. The complaint alleges that correctional officers knew what
was happening but did not intervene.

Relatives of the prisoner told the authorities he was weak and
"starving", and that he was complaining of having broken ribs and
abdominal pain. But when he went to the medical wing the nurse said
"you have nothing wrong with you".

He died on 16 September 2022, 19 days after he entered the lockup.

His mother, Anna Shrewsbury, who is working with the Poor People's
Campaign, demanded answers. "We have been pushed aside, our son's
name forgotten by the very people who were supposed to protect him.
As a mother I refuse to stand by and allow this to happen to anyone
else," she said. [GN]

VISA INC: Second Cir. Upheld $5.6B Settlement in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that A U.S. appeals court on
March 15, 2023 questioned the lawfulness of "service" awards for
class-action plaintiffs who play key roles in litigation, adding to
uncertainty about these common but divisive payments as the U.S.
Supreme Court considers whether to take up the issue of their
legality.

The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $5.6
billion settlement resolving antitrust claims against Visa Inc and
MasterCard Inc over certain fees they impose on retail merchants.
But the three-judge panel ordered a lower court to re-examine one
part of the pact: $900,000 in awards for the eight lead
plaintiffs.

Such court-approved payments are meant to compensate plaintiffs for
the time and labor they expended in helping their lawyers resolve
lawsuits. But the payments cut into settlement funds -- reducing
how much money is available for class members -- and can be
substantially more than what other class members on average will
receive in a settlement.

"Service awards are likely impermissible under Supreme Court
precedent," Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote in March 15, 2023's
ruling for the panel, including Judges Pierre Leval and Michael
Park. Jacobs said the "calculation of such an award is
standardless."
Federal appellate courts are divided over service awards, with most
of the circuits allowing incentive payments to lead plaintiffs.
That list includes the 2nd Circuit, notwithstanding March 15,
2023's opinion in the credit card case. But the Atlanta-based 11th
Circuit has said that such awards are flatly prohibited by a pair
of Supreme Court rulings that date back to the 19th century.

Two pending Supreme Court petitions, one filed in October and the
other in January, have asked the justices to resolve the appellate
split.

"The 2nd Circuit's decision reconfirms that the Supreme Court
should grant [the] petition in order to resolve a sharp
disagreement on this important question," said plaintiffs' lawyer
Ashley Keller of Keller Postman, who filed the October Supreme
Court petition challenging the 11th Circuit's ruling that incentive
fees are impermissible.

The lawyers who objected to the $6,000 service award in the 11th
Circuit case, a class action settlement over robo-calls, also
opposed the payments that were part of the negotiated settlement in
the antitrust litigation against Visa and MasterCard.

Those attorneys, C. Benjamin Nutley in California and John Davis in
Tampa, did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

The second Supreme Court petition, which challenges a 2nd Circuit
decision affirming an incentive award in a student loan servicing
class action, was filed by Eric Isaacson, who frequently represents
class action objectors and pioneered the theory endorsed by Jacobs
in March 15, 2023's payment card opinion.

Isaacson told Reuters that he plans to cite the new 2nd Circuit
decision in a reply brief to the justices next week.

The 2nd Circuit panel faulted a trial judge's consideration of the
time plaintiffs spent on legislative activities that did not
directly involve the litigation.

The case is In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
No. 20-339. [GN]

WALMART INC: Carr, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA CARR and LASHAWNA
WICKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; v. WALMART, INC., a corporation, WALMART ASSOCIATES,
INC., a corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
5:21-cv-01429-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for an order:

   1. Determining that a class action is proper as to all causes
      of action in 8 the operative complaint on the grounds
      that: (1) the class is ascertainable and sufficiently
      numerous, (2) common questions of law and fact predominate
      over individual issues, (3) the class representative's
      claims are typical of the class, (4) the class
      representative will adequately represent the interests of
      the class, and (5) class treatment is superior;

   2. Certifying a class of:

      "all individuals who separated from their work at a
      Walmart fulfillment or distribution center in California
      during the period from April 6, 2017 to the present, and
      who received additional wages (e.g., regular, overtime,
      double time, reporting time, meal premium, and paid-time-
      off, and excepting warehouse incentives and overtime
      related to warehouse incentives) one or two immediately
      subsequent pay cycles after the issuance of a "Statement
      of Final Pay" to the individual;

   3. Certifying the following subclasses:

      a. Subclass A:

         "All individuals who separated from their work at a
         Walmart fulfillment or distribution center in
         California during the period from April 6, 2017 to the
         present, and who received additional wages (e.g.,
         regular, overtime, double time, reporting time, meal
         premium, and paid-time-off, and excepting warehouse
         incentives and overtime related to warehouse
         incentives) one or two immediately subsequent pay
         cycles and more than three days and after the issuance
         of a "Statement of Final Pay" to the individual;

      b. Subclass B:

         "All individuals who separated from their work at a
         Walmart fulfillment or distribution center in
         California during the period from April 6, 2017 to the
         present, and who received additional wages in the form
         of a California meal period premium one or two
         immediately subsequent pay cycles after the issuance
         of a "Statement of Final Pay" to the individual;"

         As an alternative to Subclass B: All individuals who
         separated from their work at a Walmart fulfillment or
         distribution center in California during the period
         from April 6, 2017 to the present, and who received
         additional wages in the form of a California meal
         period premium one or two immediately subsequent pay
         cycles and more than three days and after the issuance
         of a "Statement of Final Pay" to the individual;" and

      c. Subclass C:

         "All individuals who separated from their work at a
         Walmart fulfillment or distribution center in
         California during the period from April 6, 2017 to the
         present, and who received additional wages in the form
         of PTO one or two immediately subsequent pay cycles
         after the issuance of a "Statement of Final Pay" to the
         individual;"

         As an alternative to Subclass C: All individuals who
         separated from their work at a Walmart fulfillment or
         distribution center in California during the period
         from April 6, 2017 to the present, and who received
         additional wages in the form of PTO one or two
         immediately subsequent pay cycles and more than three
         days and after the issuance of a "Statement of Final
         Pay" to the individual.

First, the interest of each class member in "individually
controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions" is
minimal. While the aggregate damages of putative class members may
be large, waiting time penalties are necessarily limited to 30
days' wages, and class members are not high wage earners.

Second, although the Plaintiffs are aware of a related action
against the Defendants addressing the same policies for retail
store employees, the Plaintiffs are not aware of any other class
actions pending against the Defendants for the class of non-retail
fulfillment or distribution center employees identified.

Third, concentration of the litigation in this forum is
appropriate, because the Plaintiffs seeks to represent customers
who worked for the Defendants in California.

Finally, there is no reason to believe that the prosecution of the
claims of the proposed putative class members will create more
management problems than the alternative (i.e., the prosecution of
hundreds or thousands of separate lawsuits by each person).

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
          Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
          YOON LAW, APC
          One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 612-0988
          Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
          E-mail: kyoon@yoonlaw.com
                  syasuda@yoonlaw.com

                - and -

          G. Samuel Cleaver, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. SAMUEL CLEAVER
          3660 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste 922
          Los Angeles, CA 90020
          Telephone: (213) 568-4088
          E-mail: sam@gscleaverlaw.com

WHOLE FOODS: Molock, et al., Seek Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MOLOCK, RANDAL
KUCZOR, JOSE FUENTES, CHRISTOPHER MILNER, AND JON PACE, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET
GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-02483-APM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs
request that the Court grant their motion in its entirety and enter
a proposed order, which

    (1) certifies the Proposed Class;

    (2) requires the Defendant Whole Foods to produce contact
        information for each putative Class Member;

    (3) approves the form, content, and method of distribution
        of the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice; and (4) appoints
        Regan Zambri Long PLLC as Class Counsel.

Finally, the Plaintiffs' Counsel satisfy the final Rule 23(g)(1)(A)
factor because they have committed, and will continue to commit,
the resources necessary to fully protect the interests of the
Class, the lawsuit says.

Regan Zambri is a law firm that has the resources, knowledge, and
personnel necessary to vigorously pursue a case of this
magnitude. The firm's resources are not merely financial, but also
include substantial expertise and work-product in similar cases,
the lawsuit says.  

The Plaintiffs are front-line grocery workers who are the victims
of Whole Foods' fraudulent wage theft. They and their colleagues --
in their scores of thousands -- were harmed
through precisely the same malfeasance by Whole Foods. Over the
past six and one-half years, the Plaintiffs have pursued claims on
behalf of themselves and Whole Foods's other victims.

The Plaintiff moves for class certification against Whole Foods as
to the following claims:

     (1) breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith
         and fair dealing (Count I);

     (2) unjust enrichment (Count II);

     (3) failure to pay wages upon discharge in violation of
         D.C. Code section 32–1303 (Count III);

     (4) failure to pay wages in violation of D.C. Code section
         32–1302 (Count IV);

     (5) failure to maintain accurate employment records in
         violation of D.C. Code section 32–1008 (Count V);

     (6) failure to pay wages upon discharge in violation of Md.
         Code section 3–504 (Count VI);

     (7) failure to pay wages in violation of Md. Code section
         3–502 (Count VII);

     (8) failure to inform of wages in violation of Md. Code
         section 3–504 (Count VIII); and

     (9) fraud (Count XI).

The Plaintiff proposes that the Class consist of past and present
employees of Whole Foods who were not paid wages owed to them under
the Gainsharing program.

Under F ED . R. C IV . P. 23(c)(5), the Plaintiff proposes that the
Class be divided into the following sub-classes:

      a. Past and present employees of Whole Foods who were
         employed in the District of Columbia and did not
         receive all earned wages at least twice during each
         calendar month on regular paydays in violation of the
         District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law.

      b. Past employees of Whole Foods who were employed in the
         District of Columbia and were not paid all earned wages
         within seven days after resignation or termination.

      c. Past and present employees of Whole Foods who were
         employed in the State of Maryland and did not receive
         all earned wages at least once in every two weeks or
         twice in each month on regular paydays, in violation of
         MD Code, Labor and Employment, section 3–502.

      d. Past employees of Whole Foods who were employed in the
         State of Maryland and were not paid all earned wages
         for work that the employee performed before the
         termination of employment, on or before the employee's
         next anticipated payday, in violation of MD Code, Labor
         and Employment, section 3–505.

      e. Past and present employees of Whole Foods who were
         employed in the State of Maryland and were not at the
         time of their hiring provided full and accurate notice
         of their rates of pay, in violation of MD Code, Labor
         and Employment, § 3–504; and,

      f. Past and present employees of Whole Foods who accepted
         employment from Whole Foods in reliance on the promised
         compensation (including Gainsharing payments) but did
         not receive the promised payments.

Whole Foods is a holding company that controls several
subsidiaries, which in turn own the physical stores throughout the
country.

A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 3, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4052Sy0 at no
extra charge.[CC]

the Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Salvatore J. Zambri, Esq.
          Patrick M. Regan, Esq.
          Christopher J. Regan, Esq.
          REGAN ZAMBRI LONG PLLC
          1919 M Street, NW, Suite 350
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 463-3030
          Facsimile: (202) 463-0667

WYNN RESORTS: Judge Grants Class Cert. in Sexual Misconduct Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Adams, writing for CDC Gaming, reports that a U.S. district
judge in Nevada recently granted a motion for certification in a
class-action lawsuit against Wynn Resorts. The suit alleges that
management deceived investors by not disclosing sooner Steve Wynn's
history and pattern of sexual misconduct. As we know, it was
finally revealed, not by management, but by The Wall Street
Journal. In the end, Wynn resigned and the management and board of
directors were reorganized. As a result, the price of the stock
dropped from its peak of $195 a share in May 2018 to a low of $48
in April 2020. Stockholders were understandably distressed.

Steve Wynn's conduct did have a role in the decline of the stock,
but so did the policies of President Xi of China, the pandemic, and
the radical drop in casino revenue that COVID caused. Those can be
seen as causes in an economic analysis, but they cannot be held
accountable. In a court of law, class-action suits need a guilty
party, a culprit, someone to hold responsible and to pay those
harmed. So this group of investors targeted Wynn management.

Class-action lawsuits in gaming are not uncommon.

Even more recently another federal judge allowed one against
Russell Investments Trust Company brought by employees of Caesars.
The employees claimed their retirement accounts lost value due to
RITC's change in investment strategies. This suit is easy to
understand. That fund was their retirement, in some cases almost
everything they had saved; it and Social Security would define the
last years of their lives.

The Wynn suit is more nebulous; the parties are not threatened with
living under a bridge in their old age. Rather, the plaintiffs see
a chance to make back some of what they lost when the price of Wynn
fell. Actually, it is more likely that the suit was the idea of a
law firm specializing in class actions. These firms constantly scan
the news, on the alert of opportunity.

Steve Wynn's demise was seen as an opportunity by many people. He
left an imagination gap in the gaming industry and his problems
came at just the right time to join the MeToo movement's list of
high-profile abusers. The case does have some logic to it: When
seemingly overnight, a company's stock falls that much it is
logical to think that management and the board of directors might
have had a role in the drop.

In another case in Kentucky, a company called VGW Malta Ltd. agreed
to pay $11.5 million to a group of players at the Chumba Casino and
Luckyland Slots. Any patron who had spent more than five dollars in
any 24-hour period in those casinos between March 2017 and 2022 was
eligible to join the suit. The plaintiffs argued that the games
were illegal in Kentucky and, therefore, they had been cheated. It
is actually more complicated, but that is the essence of the claim.
The Kentucky Legislature must have agreed. This month, lawmakers
passed a law banning those "gray" games.

In the most recent case, DrafKings is being sued for "allegedly
selling NFTs (non-fungible tokens) as unregistered securities." I
won't attempt to unbundle that one; I simply don't understand it.
But it serves here to illustrate how common gaming class actions
have become.

We can understand one more gaming-related class action that we can
understand. It too is against Caesars, this one about Caesars's
sports-betting advertising -- that Caesars misleads would-be
bettors with false advertising about bonuses, free or risk-free
bets. The language comes almost directly from the criticisms of a
public official in New York recently.

Besides this lawsuit, the questionable nature of the language in
those advertisements has also led to proposed legislation in
several states. Those efforts seek to limit the amount of
advertising a sports-betting company can do, prevent the
advertising altogether, eliminate tax breaks for advertising and
promotions, and/or ban the use of those promotions.

The Caesars suit is the most serious for gaming. Besides the
potential cost to the company, it will highlight sports-betting
advertising and promotions to a greater degree than is already the
case. Symbolically, it is also the most important; it puts gaming
in the same frame as other major categories where the industry
involved is described as greedy, heartless, harmful, and predatory.
That category includes drugs like opioids and products like
tobacco, asbestos, talcum powder, and lead-based paint. The critics
claim these products do serious harm to the health of the users.
And in those cases, the critics have won. Lead-based paint and
asbestos are gone and tobacco is on a very short leash. Tobacco
adverting is not allowed and smoking is now illegal in public
spaces in most states, although casinos are still exempt in many
jurisdictions.

Being classed as harmful or dangerous is not to a product's
advantage. It is not a good position for sports betting or for the
gaming industry. Other than being class actions against the gaming
industry, those product lawsuits have only one other aspect in
common: the threat they represent. The gaming industry cannot
afford to be demonized in the press, legislatures, or courts.
Gaming depends on a reputation for integrity and friendliness and
without that, the industry becomes an unpleasant shadow of its
potential as an entertainment industry. [GN]

YALE-NEW HAVEN: Court Narrows Claims in Ruilova ERISA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAITY RUILOVA and EILEEN BRANNIGAN, Individually and
as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on
behalf of the YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL AND TAX EXEMPT AFFILIATES TAX
SHELTERED ANNUITY PLAN, Plaintiffs v. YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL,
INC.; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC.; THE
SYSTEM INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICE CORP.
AND SYSTEM AFFILIATES, THE RETIREMENT COMMITTEE OF YALE NEW HAVEN
HEALTH SERVICES CORP. AND SYSTEM AFFILLIATES; and DOES No. 1-20,
Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00111-MPS (D. Conn.), Judge Michael P. Shea of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut grants in part and
denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs Ruilova and Brannigan, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, bring the action against
Defendants Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc., The Board of Trustees of
Yale-New Haven Hospital, Inc., The System Investment Committee of
Yale New Haven Health Service Corporation and System Affiliates,
The Retirement Committee of Yale New Haven Health Services
Corporation and System Affiliates, and Does No. 1-20. The
Plaintiffs are former employees of Yale-NH Hospital and "former
participants" in the Plan. They allege that the Defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq., in
their administration of the Yale-New Haven Hospital and Tax Exempt
Affiliates Tax Sheltered Annuity Plan, a 403(b) defined
contribution retirement plan.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants imprudently
offered and retained certain investments in the Plan, overpaid for
the Plan's recordkeeping and administrative fees, offered an overly
expensive menu of investment options to Plan participants, and
violated their duty of loyalty to the Plan. They also allege that
certain Defendants failed to monitor the fiduciary conduct of other
Defendants or were complicit in the fiduciary breaches of other
Defendants.

Yale-NH Hospital is a Connecticut nonprofit corporation and a
"flagship hospital" that serves as the largest acute-care provider
in southern Connecticut and one of the Northeast's major referral
centers. It permits its employees to participate in the Plan.
Though Yale-NH Hospital established the Plan, the Board of Trustees
of Yale-NH Hospital -- named in this lawsuit as an organization
with each member of the Board also sued in his or her individual
capacity as Does No. 1-10 -- appointed other "authorized
representatives" to serve as the Plan's fiduciaries during the
period at issue.

During the Class Period, the Plan used Fidelity Management &
Research Co. to provide the essential recordkeeping and
administrative ("RK&A") services for it. All national recordkeepers
can provide both kinds of RK&A services to large defined
contribution plans.

Ruilova and Brannigan allege that the Defendants' failure to
recognize that the Plan and its participants were grossly
overcharged for RK&A services and their failure to take effective
remedial actions amount to a shocking breach of their fiduciary
duties to the Plan. In 2020, Fidelity charged the Plan $46 per
participant in RK&A fees, whereas the nine plans examined by the
Plaintiffs with similar participant numbers all paid less than $35
per participant in RK&A fees.

The Plan offers a suite of 14 target date funds (TDF(s)), which are
investment vehicles that offer an all-in-one retirement solution
through a portfolio of underlying funds that gradually shifts to
become more conservative as the assumed target retirement year
approaches. The Defendants were responsible for crafting the Plan
lineup and could have chosen any of the target date families
offered by Fidelity, or those of any other target date provider.
Ruilova and Brannigan allege that the Defendants failed to act in
the sole interest of Plan participants and breached their fiduciary
duty by imprudently selecting and retaining in their TDF lineup the
Fidelity Freedom funds (the "Active suite"). The Active suite was
designated as the Plan's Qualified Default Investment Alternative"
during the Class Period.

The Plan also offers other investment options to participants
besides the Active suite. Ruilova and Brannigan claim that the
Defendants' decision to include and retain five particular funds as
Plan options (Parnassus Core Equity Fund, Invesco Diversified
Dividend Fund, AMG TimesSquare Mid Cap Growth Fund, Fidelity High
Income Fund, and Lazard Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio) was a
breach of their fiduciary duties because these funds underperformed
their benchmarks and had high fees for several consecutive
quarters.

The Defendants also failed to monitor the average expense ratios
charged by investment managers to similarly sized plans and the
Plan was paying total fees that were up to 83% higher than the
average total cost for comparable plans.

Ruilova and Brannigan bring this action and allege the above facts
on their behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of: All
participants and beneficiaries in the Yale-New Haven Hospital and
Tax Exempt Affiliates Tax Sheltered Annuity Plan at any time on or
after Jan. 21, 2016 and continuing to the date of judgment, or such
earlier date that the Court determines is appropriate and just,
including any beneficiary of a deceased person who was a
participant in the Plan at any time during the Class Period.

The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). They move to dismiss all
Counts, asserting that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim.
They also argue that several Defendants are not Plan fiduciaries
and that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring claims
related to the performance and cost of Plan funds that the named
Plaintiffs never invested in.

First, Judge Shea holds that the Plaintiffs have class standing to
advance claims related to the funds in which they did not invest.
He finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged injury to
themselves from the Defendants' conduct by virtue of their own
investments in Plan funds. Regardless of whether they would have
standing on their own to assert claims about funds in which they
did not invest, they may assert class claims regarding such funds
on behalf of absent class members if the conduct that injured them
implicates the same set of concerns as the conduct that injured the
members of the proposed class.

Second, Judge Shea holds that the Plaintiffs' breach of duty claim
regarding retention of the Active suite amounts to a challenge to
active fund management combined with incomplete data about cost and
performance. Even considering all of the Plaintiffs' allegations in
the light most favorable to them, and under the circumstances at
the time of the investment decisions, he cannot reasonably infer
that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by retaining
the Active suite during the Class Period.

Third, Judge Shea holds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged any
indicia of imprudence related to the five funds they challenge
except for performance and cost data. He says these data do not
demonstrate continual and substantial underperformance, and the
duty of prudence does not compel ERISA fiduciaries to reflexively
jettison investment options in favor of the prior year's top
performers As the Plaintiffs' allegations fail to move their claim
of imprudence as to these funds from the possible to the plausible,
they fail to state a fiduciary breach claim as to these funds.

Fourth, at this stage, the Plaintiffs' RK&A fee and service
comparisons -- when combined with other facts about the market for
RK&A services and the RK&A fee bid process -- are enough to support
a reasonable inference that the Defendants' choice to retain
Fidelity as the RK&A service provider -- or their failure to use
their leverage to negotiate lower fees with Fidelity -- was the
result of an imprudent process and outside of the range of
reasonable judgments a fiduciary may make. Judge Shea thus declines
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duty by allowing the Plan to pay RK&A fees that were
excessive in relation to the services Fidelity provided the Plan.

Fifth, Judge Shea dismisses the claim about the Plan's total plan
cost ("TPC"). He finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead
enough facts to support their allegation that the TPC was
excessively high due to the expense ratios of each of its funds.
Even if the Plaintiffs had adequately pled facts showing that the
Plan's higher-than-average TPC was attributable to the expense
ratios of the Plan's chosen funds, he says a higher-than-average
TPC does not support an inference of fiduciary breach without
additional factual allegations tending to show that the Defendants
failed to monitor the Plan's TPC.

Sixth, because the Plaintiffs seek to repackage their breach of
prudence claims under a different label, without alleging facts
from which he can reasonably infer disloyalty, Judge Shea dismisses
the allegations that the Defendants violated their duty of loyalty.
He holds that Ruilova and Brannigan have also failed to state a
claim for violation of the duty of loyalty. The Plaintiffs have
failed to allege any facts from which the Court can infer
self-dealing or a conflict between the trustee's fiduciary duties
and personal interests. Their theories of misconduct are predicated
on neglect, not disloyalty.

Seventh, Judge Shea agrees with the Defendants' argument that
Ruilova and Brannigan have failed to allege facts showing that the
Board, individual Board Members, and individual Committee members
are Plan fiduciaries with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty
claim (Count I). They have failed to allege facts showing that the
Board was involved in RK&A service provider and investment
decisions and thus Count I is dismissed as to the Board. Count I
must also be dismissed against the Individual Board members.

However, Judge Shea holds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled
a breach of fiduciary duty by the Committees in the selection of an
RK&A provider, and the Committees' decisions must be made by the
Committees' members. At the pleadings stage, therefore, they have
adequately alleged that the Committees' members were Plan
fiduciaries.

Lastly, Judge Shea finds that Ruilova and Brannigan state a
failure-to-monitor claim against Yale-NH Hospital and the
Committees. Their derivative co-fiduciary breach claim fails,
however, because it does no more than recite the legal elements of
co-fiduciary breach. The co-fiduciary breach portion of Count Two
of the Amended Complaint against Yale-NH Hospital and the
Committees is thus dismissed.

As with their co-fiduciary breach claim, however, the Plaintiffs
have failed to plead facts showing knowledge. The conclusory
statements that each Defendant possessed the requisite knowledge"
and "knowingly participates in breaches of fiduciary duty," are
insufficient to state a claim, and there are no other factual
allegations in the Amended Complaint from which the Court can
reasonably infer knowledge. Judge Shea thus dismisses Count III
against all the Defendants.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Shea grants in part and denies in
part the motion to dismiss. He grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims related to Plan investments, to the
Plan's total cost, and to the duty of loyalty. He also dismisses
Count I against certain Defendants, some of the derivative claims,
and all of the alternative claims. He denies the Defendants' motion
to dismiss as to the recordkeeping and administrative fees claim,
as well as the related failure-to-monitor claims against the
Committees and Yale-NH Hospital.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/9js8s8bb from Leagle.com.


[^] 2023 Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - Register Now!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Register now for the 7th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics
Conference!  The in-person conference will be held at The Harmonie
Club, New York City, on Monday, May 8th, 2023.

This year's conference chair is Bola Oyesanya, Managing Director
and Private Banker at Citi Law Firm Group.

The value-packed event features special presentations from keynote
speakers, live panel discussions with industry experts and
networking with other professionals.

This year's conference sponsors are:

* Premier Sponsor:

  Citi

* Major Sponsors:

  Baird Mandalas Brockstedt
  Bock Hatch & Oppenheim, LLC
  Schochor, Federico and Staton, P.A.

* Patron Sponsors:

  Huntington

* Advocate Sponsors:

  Atticus
  Battea Class Action Services
  Simpluris

Interested in becoming a speaker in May? Contact:

  Bernard Toliver, CMP
  (240) 629-3300 ext. 149
  E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com

Visit https://www.classactionconference.com/ for more information.

The conference is presented by Beard Group, Inc.



                            *********

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 ***