---

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

              Monday, April 10, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 72

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Bender Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Clark Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Dunno Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Mallo Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Schlemmer Class Suit Alleges

3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Wieczorek Suit Alleges
ALACRITY ADJUSTING: McCoy Seeks Overtime Wages for Team Leads
ALPHA DYNO NOBEL: Steck Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
ALTUGLAS LLC: McGraw Sues Over Equipment Failure, Chemical Spill
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Holt Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages

AMAZON.COM INC: Falcon Rappaport Attorney Discusses BIPA Lawsuit
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Enters Into Shareholder Class Action Settlement
AMY'S KITCHEN: Carrillo et al. Allege Mishandling of 401(k) Funds
APPLE INC: Alvarez Suit Transferred to N.D. California
APPLE INC: Costa Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

ATHENE USA: Tawam Sues Over Secret Reporting of PII
AUDRY ROSE LLC: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Schultz Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
BAY SHIP & YACHT: Spears Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BINANCE: Faces $1-Bil. Class Action Over Securities Violations

BITTERMAN AND SONS: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling
BRAD K. HEPPNER: Scura Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bids for Class Certification Partially Granted
BUMP BOXES: Faces Holt Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages

BURGERFI INTL: Gilbert Class Suit Still Pending in Delaware
CAPITAL ONE SERVICES: Hughes Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
CAPITAL SECURITY: Burnett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Failure to Secure PII and PHI
CEREBRAL INC: Discloses Sensitive Patients’ Info, Doe Suit Alleges

CHANGPENG ZHAO: Sizemore Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
CHELSEA DOGGY DAY: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Faces Koskan Suit Over Denied Coverage Claims
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Faces Koskan Suit Over Denied Insurance Claim
CORRIDOR CLOTHIERS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

CORTEVA INC: Faces Kirven Suit Over Crop Pesticides' Monopoly
CREDIT CONTROL: Veney Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware
CROCKETT & JONES: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Ports Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DANA'S BAKERY: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

DELTA DENTAL: Moneim Settlement Final Hearing Approval Set Aug. 4
DISH NETWORK: Faces Jaramillo Suit Over Inflated Share Price
DREAMS CLUB: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Unpaid Wages
EHEALTHINSURANCE SERVICES: Salaiz May Amend Dismissed Complaint
ELEVANCE HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Kneppar Alleges

ESTRELLA DO NORTE: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Shen Class Suit
F&H FOOD TRADING: Smith Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
FASHION POET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jerez Suit Alleges
FERRARA CANDY: N.D. Illinois Dismisses Gardner's Consumer Claims

FINDLAY HATS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FINE LINENS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FIRST NATIONAL: Zupnick Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection
FLORIDA POWER: Class Certification in Velez Suit Affirmed on Appeal
FLORIDA SECURITY: Wheelock Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

FLOUR BOX: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FOX CORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
GALICIA BAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Crespo Suit Alleges
GARRETT MOTION: Averts Class Action Over Securities Violations
GERDAU MACSTEEL: Faces Johnson Suit Over Parental Leave Policy

HANK'S CLOTHING: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HARDER MECHANICAL: $1.6MM Accord in Ellis Suit Gets Final Approval
HUT AMERICAN: Bruce Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
I-FIX-SCREENS.COM: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
INDEPENDENT LIVING: Swaim Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina

INVITE HEALTH INC: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
J CHOO USA: Licea Wiretapping Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
JDC HEALTHCARE: Chestnut Cambronne Investigates Data Breach Claims
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Settlement Final Approval Heard on Aug. 9
L'OREAL USA: Averts Class Action Over Product's "Paris" Labeling

LCM HOLDINGS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Keith Suit Alleges
LECANGS LLC: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LEVAN GROUP I: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIBERTY SENIOR: Stauffer Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LLR INC: 9th Cir. Vacate Class Certification Over Sales Tax Suit

MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS: Serna Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
MDL 2672: Court Enjoins Christiansen's Action in Orange County
MDL 2966: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Consider Not Sealing Docs
MERRITT HEALTHCARE: Faces Guerrero Suit Over Patient Info Breach
MGM RESORTS: Seeks Dismissal of Price-Gouging Class Action

MISSISSIPPI: Court Dismisses Alexander's Claims Against Turner
MOTION AND FLOW: Heckard Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NAT'L ASSOC. OF REALTORS: Motion to Certify Antitrust Suit Okayed
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued in Calif. Over Student Athlete Payments
NCB MANAGEMENT: Suit Filed in E.D. Pennsylvania

NEBRASKA BOOK: Fails to Give 60-Day Layoff Notice, DeGroot Claims
NEIMAN MARCUS: Shaw Sues to Remedy Unlawful Discrimination
NETCREDIT LOAN: Muccio Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Letter
NEUHAUS INC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NEW YORK: Court Narrows Civil Rights Claims in Bruno v. DOCCS

NISSAN SHAPIRO: Faces Huebner Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection
NOOWORKS LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Chester, Penn. to Join Train Derailment Suit
OLYMPIC CLUB: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PARTYLITE GIFTS INC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PHARMERICA LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime, Berner Suit Alleges
POLAR CORP: N.D. Illinois Dismisses Matthews' Consumer Claims
PROTECTIVE LIFE: E.D. California Narrows Allen's Insurance Claims
PUERTO RICO: PRASA Gets Dismissal of Morovis' Section 1983 Claims
QUTEN RESEARCH: Cohen Sues Over False Magnesium Content of Products

REDWIRE CORP: Court Refuses to Dismiss Lemen securities Fraud Suit
ROOT INC: Dismissal Bid of Kolominsky's Class Suit Granted
RUGBY FOOTBALL: More Than 150 Former Players to Join Class Action
SAM'S WEST: Casella Suit Alleges Mislabeling of Products
SHASTA LINEN SUPPLY: Roberts Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

SKULLCANDY INC: Faces Cody Suit Over Website's Live Chat Feature
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Faces Calderon Suit Over Wrongful Termination
STATE FARM: Court Narrows Claims in Sanchez Class Suit
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Winter Class Suit
TABLE 87: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benitez and Chopen Allege

TAL EDUCATION: Faces Lewandowski Suit Over Drop in Share Price
TAMMY'S NAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hinson Suit Claims
TESLA INC: Bose Files Suit Over Antitrust Laws' Violations
TIMES PUBLISHING: Discloses Subscriber’s Personal Info, Darden
Says
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Fishkind Class Suit Over RAV4 Roof Leaks

TSC ACQUISITION: Kimberling Sues Over Breach of Customers' Info
TWITTER INC: Faces Class Suit Over Contract Workers' Layoffs
UMBRELLA MANAGEMENT: Santiago Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
UNITED SERVICES: Coleman, et al., Lose Class Certification Bid
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Denial of Arbitration in Cotzomi Suit Flipped

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Class Action Over Campus Shutdown Okayed
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Discloses Personal Info, Edwards Claims
UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK: Sexual Assault Lawsuit Discontinued
US TRAFFIC: Johns Suit Seeks Flaggers' Proper Overtime Wages
VIVA ITALIA: Filing of Conditional Class Cert Bid Due July 28

WALMART INC: Toledo Sues Over Deceptive Marketing and Sales
WELLS FARGO: Filing of Class Certification Bid Extended to July 11
WESSON OIL: Mislabeling Settlement Claims Filing Due Set May 22
WESTERN SKY DAIRY: Galvan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WESTRUX INTERNATIONAL: San Miguel Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Pay

YOUTH ON THE MOVE: Court Partly OK's Burgos Conditional Status Bid
[*] Class Action Against Cos. Over ESG-Related Issues Inevitable
[*] Morgan Lewis Attorneys Discuss Automotive Class Action Trends

                            *********

3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Bender Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BENDER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-01227-RMG (D.S.C., Mar. 28,
2023) is a class action alleging that the Defendants collectively
designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released,
trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold,
and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce, aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly
toxic and bio persistent per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), which would expose end users of the product to the risks
associated with PFAS.

The Defendants allegedly designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation
and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from the Defendant's AFFF products
caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. The Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same.

Mr. Bender is a resident and citizen of Silver Creek, New York. He
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with
testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, says the suit.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Telephone: (631) 600-0000
          Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                - and -

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-9200
          Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Clark Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Clark, and Greg Clark by the Proposed Administrator and
Next-of-Kin, Erin Clark v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-01226-RMG (D.S.C., Mar. 28,
2023) is a class action alleging that the Defendants collectively
designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released,
trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold,
and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce, aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly
toxic and bio persistent per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), which would expose end users of the product to the risks
associated with PFAS.

The Defendants allegedly designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation
and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from the Defendant's AFFF products
caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. The Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same.

Plaintiff Clark is an adult resident of the State of California.
Mr. Clark was, at the time of death, an adult resident and citizen
of  Huntington Beach, California. Decedent regularly used, and was
thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter. Prior to death, Decedent was diagnosed with testicular
cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death.
Decedent passed away on approximately October 2, 2021, says the
suit.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Telephone: (631) 600-0000
          Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                - and -

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-9200
          Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Dunno Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Dunno v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-01222-RMG (D.S.C., Mar. 28,
2023) is a class action alleging that the Defendants collectively
designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released,
trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold,
and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce, aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly
toxic and bio persistent per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), which would expose end users of the product to the risks
associated with PFAS.

The Defendants allegedly designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation
and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from the Defendant's AFFF products
caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. The Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same.

Mr. Dunno is a resident and citizen of Seward, Alaska. Plaintiff
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed
with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, says the suit.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Telephone: (631) 600-0000
          Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                - and -

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-9200
          Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Mallo Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Mallo v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-01221-RMG (D.S.C., Mar. 28, 2023) is a class action
alleging that the Defendants collectively designed, marketed,
developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users,
produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise
released into the stream of commerce, aqueous film-forming foams
(AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio
persistent per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which would
expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.

The Defendants allegedly designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation
and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from the Defendant's AFFF products
caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. The Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same.

John Mallo is a resident and citizen of Bellevue, Iowa. Plaintiff
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed
with neuroendocrine cancer as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products, says the suit.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Telephone: (631) 600-0000
          Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                - and -

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-9200
          Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Schlemmer Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schlemmer v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-01230-RMG (D.S.C., Mar. 28,
2023) is a class action alleging that the Defendants collectively
designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released,
trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold,
and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce, aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly
toxic and bio persistent per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), which would expose end users of the product to the risks
associated with PFAS.

The Defendants allegedly designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation
and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from the Defendant's AFFF products
caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. The Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same.

James Schlemmer is a resident and citizen of North Tonawanda, New
York. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The
Plaintiff was diagnosed with colorectal cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, says the suit.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Telephone: (631) 600-0000
          Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                - and -

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-9200
          Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: AFFFs Contain Toxic PFAS, Wieczorek Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS WIECZOREK v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-01220-RMG (D.S.C., Mar. 28,
2023) is a class action alleging that the Defendants collectively
designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released,
trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold,
and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce, aqueous
film-forming foams (AFFF) with knowledge that it contained highly
toxic and bio persistent per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), which would expose end users of the product to the risks
associated with PFAS.

The Defendants allegedly designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation
and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from the Defendant's AFFF products
caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. The Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same.

Mr. Wieczorek is a resident and citizen of Parma, Ohio. He
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with kidney
cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, says
the suit.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Telephone: (631) 600-0000
          Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                - and -

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-9200
          Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

ALACRITY ADJUSTING: McCoy Seeks Overtime Wages for Team Leads
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK MCCOY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ALACRITY ADJUSTING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00216-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., March 28, 2023) alleges that
the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for
failing to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a work week.

McCoy was employed as a "team lead" for Alacrity in its property
and automobile claims adjusting departments from March 28, 2021.

Alacrity Adjusting Solutions, LLC is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of
business at 303 Timber Creek, Hammond, Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Chadwick M. Welch, Esq.
            HEIDELBERG PATTERSON WELCH WRIGHT
            368 Highland Colony Parkway
            Ridgeland, MS 39157
            Telephone: (601) 790-1588
            Facsimile: (601) 707-3075
            Email: cwelch@hpwlawgroup.com

                  - and -

            C. Maison Heidelberg, Esq.
            HEIDELBERG PATTERSON WELCH WRIGHT
            368 Highland Colony Parkway
            Ridgeland, MS 39157
            Telephone: (601) 790-1588
            Facsimile: (601) 707-3075
            E-mail: mheidelberg@hpwlawgroup.com

                  - and -

            Judson M. Lee, Esq.
            JUDSON M. LEE, PLLC
            2088 Main Street, Suite A
            Madison, MS 39110
            Telephone: (601) 707-9711
            Facsimile: (601) 707-7509
            E-mail: jlee@ms-lawyer.net

ALPHA DYNO NOBEL: Steck Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Steck, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated
employees v. ALPHA DYNO NOBEL, and DYNO NOBEL, INC., Case No.
2:23-at-00318 (E.D. Cal., March 31, 2023), is brought arising from
the Defendants' practice of keeping inaccurate records concerning
work hours, failing to pay wages for all time employees spent
working, and failing to abide by California law governing meal
periods.

California law requires that an employee be provided a 30-minute
meal period relieved of all duties within the first five hours of
working. Failure to timely provide the meal period obligates the
employer to pay a premium of one hour of additional pay at the
regular wage rate. The Defendants sought to evade these laws by
having employees, including the Plaintiff, automatically clocked in
and out for meal periods in timecard records such that the records
do not show the actual hours worked. The Defendants practice of
entering false data in timecard records resulted in the Plaintiff
and other employees not being paid for all hours worked and not
being paid premiums for missed or late meal periods. Defendants
engaged in these practices in a systemic way affecting all
employees, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the enterprise generally known as
Alpha Explosives as a non-exempt employee who was paid by the
hour.

ALPHA DYNO NOBEL, conducts business including employment of natural
persons and manufacture of explosives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, PC
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          Email: jwatson@justice4you.com


ALTUGLAS LLC: McGraw Sues Over Equipment Failure, Chemical Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY MCGRAW; EMILY COHEN; and DANIELLE BYRD, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALTUGLAS LLC;
and TRINSEO LLC a/k/a TRINSEO PLC, Defendants, Case No. 230303396
(Com. Pleas., Philadelphia Cty., March 29, 2023) is an action
seeking damages against the Defendants' failure to prevent
equipment failure of its chemical plant releasing harmful
chemicals.

On March 24, 2023, between 8,100 and 12,000 gallons of latex
emulsion solution was released from the Altuglas chemical plant in
Bristol, Pennsylvania into Otter Creek, a tributary of the Delaware
River. The Defendants have admitted that this toxic release
resulted from an "equipment failure" at their facility. The latex
solution spilled by Defendants contained butyl acetate, ethyl
acetate, and methyl methacrylate. The chemical spill and potential
contamination of drinking water prompted residents and businesses
throughout Philadelphia to immediately purchase bottled water and
incur other economic damages that they would not have otherwise
incurred except for the spill, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs and the Philadelphia residents and businesses
incurred additional economic damages besides the cost of bottled
water as a result of the Defendants' chemical spill, including, the
cost of gas for their vehicles to travel to stores to purchase
bottled water, as well as the value of their time spent doing so,
the suit added.

ALTUGLAS LLC operates an acrylic resins manufacturing plant at
Bristol, PA 19007. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Y. Michael Twersky, Esq.
          Dena Young, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Email: scarson@bm.net
                 mitwersky@bm.net
                 dyoung@bm.net

               - and -

          Daniel C. Levinm Esq.
          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Eliam Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
                 cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
                 nelia@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Zahra R. Dean, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                 whoese@kohnswift.com
                 zdean@kohnswift.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Holt Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Holt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-00104-GLJ (E.D.
Okla., March 23, 2023) alleges that Amazon.com violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its goods and services, Amazon.com allegedly engages in
unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers
after they have opted out of these solicitations. This unsolicited
text message spam caused the Plaintiff, including violations of
their statutory rights, trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of
their privacy, and intrusion upon seclusion.

In addition, the Defendant's failure to honor opt-out requests
demonstrates that it does not maintain written policies and
procedures regarding its text messaging marketing; provide training
to its personnel engaged in telemarketing; and/or maintain a
standalone do-not-call list, says the suit.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
        401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
        Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
        Telephone: (954) 400-4713
        E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

             -and-

        Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
        DAPEER LAW, P.A.
        20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
        Aventura, FL 33180
        Telephone: (305) 610-5223
        E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Falcon Rappaport Attorney Discusses BIPA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Ruth Bogatyrow Kraft, Esq., of Falcon Rappaport & Berkman LLP,
in an article for Mondaq, disclosed that in a class action suit
brought on March 16, 2023, a visitor to an Amazon Go convenience
store in New York City alleged that the company violated the New
York City biometric posting statute. That ordinance, enacted in
2021, requires businesses to post clearly visible signage to alert
customers that it is tracking biometric information.

Biometric scanning typically involves the use of facial recognition
software or fingerprints to identify consumers or employees. It has
become increasingly popular in the workplace as a means of tracking
time; think of it as the 21st-century answer to timecards.

The first biometric information privacy act in the country, in
Illinois, the "BIPA", initially enacted nearly 15 years ago in
2008, has been upheld and resulted in the proliferation of class
action lawsuits in that jurisdiction. The argument made in those
suits is that, unlike identity theft involving credit cards or
social security numbers, a person cannot obtain a new fingerprint,
retinal, voice or face scan. Since 2018, over 2000 lawsuits have
been filed under the Illinois statute, resulting in a historic
monetary settlement of $650 million in Patel v. Facebook,
(3:15-cv-3747). Had that matter gone to verdict, it could have
exposed Facebook to billions of dollars in damages.

In a more recent suit, the defendant claimed that such exposure
would bankrupt entire industries. However, in its decision only
weeks ago in Cothron V. White Castle Systems, Inc. (2023 IL
128004), the Illinois Supreme Court, in response to a certified
question from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, held that each
instance of collection of biometric data constitutes a separate
violation of the BIPA, rejecting defendant's theory that claims be
limited to the first instance that an entity scans or transmits
biometric information.

In the newly filed litigation, Perez et al v Amazon.com, Inc.
commenced in the Federal Court for the Southern District of New
York (1:23-cv-2251. The plaintiff claims that the Amazon
cashier-less stores monitor consumers but did not post the
requisite signage until recently. Amazon has opened 10 Go stores in
New York City since 2019 which monitor visitors and charges their
credit cards automatically as they leave. The suit alleges that
Amazon tracks its customers and uses "computer vision, deep
learning algorithms, and sensor fusion . . .[to] measure the shape
and size of each customer's body".

Notably, the case is co-counseled by STOP, the Surveillance
Technology Oversight Project, a legal advocacy group concerned with
individuals' privacy rights. The suit was filed only five weeks
after a demand that Amazon provide a written statement that any
violations of the biometric posting statute had and would continue
to be cured. The plaintiff seeks a minimum of $500 in damages per
class member plus injunctive relief. Ascertainability, a required
element for class membership, is questionable with respect to those
who did not scan their palms to actually complete purchases.

In the Second Circuit, alleged injuries must be financial or
otherwise tangible under the civil rights laws. However, that
standard does not necessarily apply to the New York City ordinance
over which the Court has supplemental jurisdiction. The Ninth
Circuit ruling in Patel stands for the proposition that an
intangible injury may be sufficient to establish standing and that
a statutory violation alone is sufficient if the operative statute
is meant to protect a plaintiff's interest and the violation
presents a material risk of harm. Such an analysis resounds in the
same legal theory as cases brought pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Such an interpretation, if adopted in Perez, would open the
floodgates to class action litigation in the absence of
demonstrable, tangible injury. Moreover, with the adoption of
California's Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA") in 2021, which treats
biometric information the same as all other personal information.

In the past few years, this genre of class action privacy
litigation has exploded as technology has advanced and more
individuals are likely to be subjected to collection of their
biometric data. Moving forward, it is apparent that the potential
for enormous monetary damages will result in an onslaught of even
more suits as localities and states enact comparable legislation.

The Firm will continue to monitor and report developments both in
biometric privacy legislation and litigation to assist its clients
in developing proactive assessments and strategies.

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

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Enters Into Shareholder Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeking Alpha reports that AMC has entered into a potential
settlement with class action plaintiffs to allow APE units to
convert into AMC shares, adding a material sweetener for AMC
stockholders.

The judge has not yet approved the agreement, which offers slightly
improved terms to AMC shareholders over APE unitholders.

If the settlement holds, then AMC shares should trade at
approximately an 8% premium to APE units prior to conversion
(depending on the exact number of APE units issued).

AMC remains hard and expensive to borrow, but there may be
remaining arbitrage opportunity into conversion, though AMC stock
has historically not traded 'rationally'.

AMC preferred (APE) units may now convert into AMC (NYSE:AMC)
shares as a settlement has been agreed to the pending class action.
However, the judge must approve the settlement and the settlement
is slightly dilutive to APE holders. Whereas previously the
conversion was effectively 1-to-1, with the settlement which gives
additional shares to legacy AMC shareholders (1 extra share for
every 7.5 AMC shares held) the conversion factor is approximately
1.08 AMC shares to 1 APE unit, depending on exactly how many APE
units have been issued at the time of conversion and assuming the
legal settlement holds.

Historical Recap
Movie theaters were basically shut down during COVID-19 and then,
as if to make things worse for AMC, the rise of streaming services
as an alternative to movie theaters' first-run rights hit demand
further. Other theater companies have gone bankrupt.

This hostile environment leads to AMC issuing significant equity
and debt to remain solvent. As this dilution continued, AMC was
ultimately prevented by shareholders from issuing the additional
shares which it arguably needed to maintain liquidity and
potentially pay down debt. AMC then creatively issued preferred APE
units in late summer 2022 as a way to sell what were intended to be
as close to AMC shares as possible, but without shareholder
approval, and then planned to convert those APE units into AMC
shares after a vote, which was easier to win because the new
created APE units could vote too, and would disproportionately
benefit from conversion.

AMC's vote on March 14, 2023 allowed for conversion but was
pre-emptively blocked by a class action. Now, AMC has a "binding
settlement term sheet" with the plaintiffs which should allow
conversion, though it needs to be approved by the judge.

A Literal Arbitrage
This is a very close to an arbitrage in the literal sense, because
APE units should become AMC shares (albeit at a slight discount) if
things proceed as AMC planned. APEs will cease to exist and
unitholders will become AMC shareholders, if all goes to plan.

However, there remains a large spread between AMC shares and APE
units, even based on after-hours pricing on April 3, 2023. As I
wrote previously, the trade is not costless as implied options
premia, AMC borrow costs, and short squeeze risks all make the
trade less attractive and more expensive than it initially
appears.

Still, the trade is worth monitoring, because we have two assets
that now appear likely to converge, and yet trade at quite
different prices. To be clear, AMC shares should now trade at a
slight premium of around 8% to APE units if the conversion occurs
in short order on the settlement terms because of the settlement
sweetener that gives AMC holders extra shares, but absolutely not
at more double the current price in my view.

Fundamental Value - Not Much
Still, regardless of what has been very interesting and creative
financial engineering, we should remember that the equity value of
AMC may be zero. Let's take a very rosy $300M of pre-COVID
best-case EBIT for AMC and assume AMC can get back to that. Well,
even if they do meet that EBIT goal, $4.5B of debt with a 7%
interest rate means that the company is still losing cash ($315M of
interest expense vs. $300M of EBIT).

Next, bear in mind that my EBIT number is an imagined and arguably
best-case scenario, whereas the interest expense is a cold, hard
fact and could rise further in the environment of dramatically
rising interest rates over recent months.

Therefore, when considering the arbitrage, we must bear in mind
that AMC shares may ultimately be worth zero. That's not to say the
company is worthless in enterprise value terms, it isn't, it just
means that all the value is potentially held by the debtholders
given the high leverage today. There's arguably no value left
beyond that for shareholders.

Of course, I'm not saying AMC will go bankrupt in short order.
Indeed, issuing even more shares at above their intrinsic worth may
help get AMC out of its current troubles to some degree, but we
should not necessarily expect APE units and AMC shares to 'meet in
the middle' of their current prices over the medium-term since
leverage is so high. Remember, if the class action settlement
holds, that involves even more incremental dilution with no real
improvement to the business or capital structure. You have to
really believe that AMC will execute exceptionally well to see
equity value here. I remain skeptical.

Investment Considerations
It is fascinating to see AMC shares trading at $4/share after-hours
given the potential settlement when APE units trade at $1.80/unit.
In theory, if the settlement proceeds as planned, these prices
should trade much closer, with AMC at around an 8% premium to APE.
The vote has taken place, so the main risk now is whether the judge
approves the so-called settlement term sheet, assuming both parties
stick to its terms.

Therefore, if you can short 1 share of AMC and long ~0.93 units of
APE without paying an implied $2.20 of total costs (in terms of
option premia or borrow cost) before closing and hold the trade at
a size where margin calls won't force you to close the trade
prematurely, you may well make money.

The question of course is if the market will offer that after
today's news. For now, the spread between APE units and AMC appears
excessively high, but over recent months borrow costs and options
premia have been extremely elevated too. That creates the illusion
of a juicy spread, but not necessarily a profitable trade once all
costs and risks are considered.

Risks

   -- AMC shares have historically not traded in a way that I would
consider rational. This could happen again. Even if we think we
know the 'end state' value of APE units and AMC shares, the interim
values could end up at any value, and similar to other meme stocks,
have historically seen wild volatility arguably divorced from
business fundamentals and more driven by technical trading
factors.

   -- AMC borrow costs are very high, as are option premia/implied
volatility. This means that even if APE units and AMC shares were
to converge, you may not necessarily make money on a convergence
trade after all costs. Also, options are unavailable on APE units.

   -- AMC may have zero equity value given its debt load, this is a
factor in constructing a trade to capitalize on the AMC/APE spread
over the medium term.

   -- If the settlement holds, a well-specified arbitrage now
requires slightly fewer APE shares for every AMC share held. The
trading impact of that is uncertain.

Conclusion
The AMC/APE convergence trade appears to have risks associated with
the vote removed after March 14, now risks associated from the
class action appear to have reduced. That said, the settlement
appears to offer a greater share of the economic value to AMC
shareholders at the expense of APE unitholders meaning the trade is
no longer 1-to-1. Nonetheless, with such a wide spread and
apparently low risk, there may be money to be made on convergence
even taking account of elevated borrow cost and high implied
volatility. It is important to factor in those elevated costs
before placing any trade, as is having sufficient liquidity to
manage any interim short-squeeze. Still, we may finally be close to
the end of the months-long AMC/APE saga. [GN]

AMY'S KITCHEN: Carrillo et al. Allege Mishandling of 401(k) Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Carrillo and Enrique Castillo and Jennifer Petri,
individually and as a representative of a Putative Class of
Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of all similarly situated
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Amy's Kitchen Inc.
401(k) Retirement Plan v. Amy's Kitchen Inc.; Administrative
Committee of Amy's Kitchen Inc. 401(K) Retirement Plan, Both
Individually And As The De Facto Administrative Committee Members;
Andy Berliner; Peter Wong; Carmelita A. Lewis; and Does 1-50, Case
No. 3:23-cv-01359 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2023) alleges that the
defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 and the Prudent Investor Rule Restatement (Third) Trusts.

Allegedly, the defendants acted imprudently and failed to act by
predominantly selecting/retaining unnecessary and expensive service
providers and mutual funds with wasteful and unnecessary portfolio
manager's compensation that caused additional trading and
transaction costs. Amy's Kitchen, Inc. paid Cetera from
participants' accounts to babysit a dozen and a half
poorly-selected investment options from which portfolio manager's
compensation was deducted from employees. Cetera and the portfolio
managers were not necessary to operate the Amy's Kitchen Inc.
401(k) Retirement Plan in violation of ERISA. In addition, facts
indicate the Amy's Kitchen's failures to remove investments were
derived directly from careless selections/retention processes that
Transamerica Life Insurance Co.'s monitoring criteria may have
exacerbated.

Amy's Kitchen is a family-owned and operated natural and organic
food company that was founded in 1987. The company is based in
Petaluma, California and is best known for its line of vegetarian
and vegan frozen meals, entrees, and snacks. Amy's Kitchen products
are made with non-GMO ingredients, and many are certified organic.
They offer a wide range of products, including gluten-free,
dairy-free, and soy-free options, making it easier for people with
dietary restrictions to find options that meet their needs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         James A. Clark, Esq.
         Renee P. Ortega, Esq.
         Ariel A. Pytel, Esq.
         TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
         11335 Gold Express Drive, Ste. 105
         Gold River, CA 95670
         Telephone: (916) 361-6009
         Facsimile: (916) 361-6019
         E-mail: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com
                 renee.ortega@towerlegalgroup.com
                 ariel.pytel@towerlegalgroup.com

APPLE INC: Alvarez Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Katie Alvarez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01752
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 31, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01516-EJD to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN
          768 Plandome Road
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 426-6870
          Email: pcwhalen@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jordan Scott Joachim, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING
          620 8th Ave., 42nd Floor, #4204A
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 841-1086
          Email: jjoachim@cov.com

               - and -

          Kathryn Cahoy, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Phone: (650) 632-4700
          Email: kcahoy@cov.com


APPLE INC: Costa Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Francis Costa, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-01353 (N.D. Cal., March
23, 2023), alleges that Apple, Inc. violated the overtime
compensation requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Allegedly, Apple violated the FLSA when it failed to include the
value of vested restricted stock unit compensation in Costa's
regular rates of pay to calculate overtime pay.

Costa was employed by Apple in Orlando, Florida from approximately
June 2015 to September 2019 and in North Charleston, South Carolina
from approximately September 2019 to May 2022. In this complaint,
Costa seeks relief under the FLSA to remedy Apple's alleged failure
to pay appropriate overtime compensation.

Apple, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of
business located in Cupertino, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
         NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
         235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 277-7235
         Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
         E-mail: dbrome@nka.com

              - and -

         Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
         NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
         4700 IDS Center
         80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         E-mail: fisher@nka.com

              - and -

         Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
         SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
         951 Yamato Rd. Suite 285
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         E-mail: ldonnell@shavitzlaw.com

ATHENE USA: Tawam Sues Over Secret Reporting of PII
---------------------------------------------------
Muneer Tawam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ATHENE USA CORPORATION and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-02429 (C.D. Cal., April 1, 2023), is
brought against the Defendant for violations of the Video Privacy
Protection Act ("VPPA") as a result of the Defendant who secretly
report all the details of the visitor's personally identifiable
information ("PII"), the titles watched, and more.

Whenever someone watches a video on https://athene.com/ (the
"Website"), Defendant secretly report all the details to Google and
Facebook): the visitor's personally identifiable information
("PII"), the titles watched, and more.

In enacting the VPAA, Congress intentionally chose to extend its
protections to all persons who watch videos, not simply those who
purchase them or claim pecuniary loss. As such, statutes like the
VPPA are largely enforced by civic minded "testers" such as
Plaintiffs.

When Plaintiff played the video on the Website, Defendant knowingly
disclosed event data, which recorded and disclosed the videos'
title, description, and URL. Alongside this event data, Defendant
also disclosed identifiers and PII for Plaintiff, including the
c_user, fr cookies and _gid. In other words, Defendant did exactly
what the VPPA prohibits: it disclosed Plaintiff's video viewing
habits to a third party.

In summary, based upon the preceding information transmitted by
Defendant to Facebook and Google, Defendant enabled any individual
who possesses basic reading skills to identify the title of the
video viewed by any class member, because the title of every video
watched is transmitted by Defendant to Facebook. Defendant's
conduct is illegal, offensive, and contrary to visitor
expectations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a consumer advocate who played and watched a video
entitled "Athene Amplify 2.0 Product Overview" in early 2023 on
Defendant's website at the link
https://www.athene.com/products/rila/amplify2.

The Defendant is a retirement services company that issues,
reinsures, and acquires retirement savings products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          David W. Reid, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          A Professional Corporation
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                 dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                 vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com


AUDRY ROSE LLC: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Audry Rose, LLC. The
case is styled as Yanilza Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Audry Rose, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02669 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2023).

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

Audry Rose -- https://audryrosejewelry.com/ -- embodies jewelry
that is unique yet timeless.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Schultz Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jennifer Schultz, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Avenue5 Residential,
LLC, Enjoy! The River LLC, Case No. 23-00002-13-00032 was removed
from the Spokane County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington on March 30, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00088-SAB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability.

Avenue5 Residential -- https://www.avenue5.com/ -- is a multifamily
property management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
          KIRK D. MILLER PS
          421 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 660
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Phone: (509) 413-1494
          Fax: (509) 413-1724
          Email: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com

               - and -

          Shayne Sutherland, Esq.
          CAMERON SUTHERLAND PLLC
          421 W Riverside Avenue, Suite 660
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Phone: (509) 315-4507
          Fax: (509) 315-4585
          Email: ssutherland@cameronsutherland.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patrick Gavin Lynch, Esq.
          Robert D Lee, Esq.
          Cozen O'Connor
          999 Third Avenue, Suite 1900
          Seattle, WA 98104-4028
          Phone: (206) 808-7826
          Email: PLynch@cozen.com
                 rlee@cozen.com

               - and -

          Athanasios P Papailiou
          PACIFICA LAW GROUP LLP
          1191 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (503) 805-0818
          Email: athan@athanpapailiou.com


BAY SHIP & YACHT: Spears Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BAY SHIP & YACHT CO.,
et al. The case is styled as Deyonte Spears, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Bay Ship & Yacht Co., Bay Maritime Corp., Case No. 23CV030336 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 30, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

Bay Ship & Yacht -- https://www.bay-ship.com/ -- was founded in
1977 by Bill Elliott with a primary focus on the construction and
repair of wooden ships.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
          BLACKSTONE LAW
          8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 745
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211


BINANCE: Faces $1-Bil. Class Action Over Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Farrington, writing for Proactive, reports that the hits
keep coming for Binance.

Mere days after being served with a lawsuit from the US Commodity
Futures Trading Commission for allegedly breaching commodities law
over its derivatives productions, the world's foremost
cryptocurrency exchange is now facing a one-billion-dollar class
action lawsuit jointly filed by Moscowitz Law Firm and Boies
Schiller Flexner.

In a blog post published by Moscowitz, the firm stated: "The action
is founded on the assertion that the assets traded on the exchange
are in fact unregistered securities, which were being promoted
illegally by the Binance-paid influencers.

Unregistered securities allegations are nothing new for Binance;
the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued the company's
BUSD stablecoin partner Paxos for issuing what it deemed to be an
unregistered security.

The action forced Binance to cease minting the stablecoin to US
customers, causing a significant fall in BUSD's market
capitalisation.

Binance founder Changpeng 'CZ' Zhao is named in the latest lawsuit
alongside three well-known crypto influencers: Miami Heat
basketball star Jimmy Butler; content creator Ben Armstrong aka
BitBoy Crypto; and real estate YouTuber Graham Stephan.

Moskowitz is known in the cryptocurrency space for its appetite for
class action lawsuits.

Last year, the firm brought a class action against collapse crypto
lender Voyager Digital (CSE:VYGR, OTCQX:VYGVF) for investor losses
of US$5bn.

Moscowitz also coordinated two actions against FTX before federal
and state courts, targeting the failed company's brand ambassadors
including Shaquille O'Neal, Larry David, Steph Curry, and Tom
Brady.

"If we win on the unregistered securities issue, there will be no
question that Binance and the influencers are liable," Moskowitz
said in an interview with Fortune.

Armstrong responded to the class action by labelling Moscowitz "a
walking piece of human garbage".

Other defendants have yet to respond publicly to the allegations.
[GN]

BITTERMAN AND SONS: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bitterman and Sons,
Inc. The case is styled as Vincent Clement, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Bitterman and Sons, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-02498 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023).

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

Bitterman and Sons, Inc. -- https://bittermansalt.co/ -- offers
wholesale and bulk salt who search the world over for
hand-harvested, sustainable and flat out delicious salts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis Brisbois reports that Los Angeles Partners Eric Y. Kizirian,
Michael K. Grimaldi, and Zourik Zarifian recently secured a
significant appellate win on behalf of BMW when the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of Lewis Brisbois' client.

As a Law360 article titled "9th Circ. Snuffs BMW Drivers'
Electric-Car Battery Suit" explains, the underlying matter involved
a consolidated class of consumers who alleged that they overpaid
for BMW's i3 compact electric sedan because these vehicles had a
purportedly defective "range extender" feature. They contended that
the range extender, which was supposed to recharge low batteries,
caused the cars to suddenly decelerate or experience reduced power
when the battery state of charge dropped to near depletion. In a
decision that Law360 reported upon previously, the district court
granted BMW's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs
subsequently appealed.

On appeal, a three-judge panel similarly rejected the consumers'
claims, concluding that they failed to present any evidence of a
defect. The panel explained that without any expert testimony
establishing the existence of an actual design defect in the range
extender feature, the plaintiffs failed to satisfy their
evidentiary burden and none of their individual or class claims
could not stand.

Mr. Kizirian told Law360 that he was pleased with the Ninth
Circuit's decision. "The district court's decision was correct in
all respects, and I'm glad the Ninth Circuit panel unanimously
shared that same view," he stated.

Mr. Kizirian serves as co-chair of Lewis Brisbois' Class Action &
Mass Tort and Consumer Warranty Practices. He specializes in
defending class actions and complex litigation across the United
States, litigating in the United States Supreme Court, federal and
state appellate courts, and various district and state courts
across the country.

Mr. Grimaldi is a senior member of Lewis Brisbois' Class Action &
Mass Tort Practice. He specializes in defending all types of class
actions and complex/aggregate litigation, routinely defending
businesses in federal and state courts around the country.

Mr. Zarifian is a member of Lewis Brisbois' Class Action & Mass
Tort Practice. He focuses his practice on complex litigation
matters, including class action, mass torts, and products
liability. [GN]

BRAD K. HEPPNER: Scura Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
David Scura, And Clifford Day, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BRAD K. HEPPNER, JON R. SABES, STEVEN
F. SABES, PETER T. CANGANY, RICHARD W. FISHER, THOMAS O. HICKS,
DENNIS P. LOCKHART, BRUCE W. SCHNITZER, THE BENEFICIENT COMPANY
GROUP L.P., FOXO TECHNOLOGIES INC., and EMERSON EQUITY LLC, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00680-D (N.D. Tex., March 30, 2023), is brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired GWG's L Bonds or Preferred Stock of
GWG ("GWG securities") between December 23, 2017, and April 20,
2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The Defendants used GWG to carry out a Ponzi scheme, at the expense
of GWG's investors. The Defendants diverted hundreds of millions of
dollars in GWG investor funds for their own gain, and their actions
rendered GWG unable to make required payments to its investors,
substantially destroyed the value of GWG securities, and drove GWG
into bankruptcy.

GWG's business was founded in 2006 by brothers Steven F. Sabes and
Jon R. Sabes. From 2006 through at least 2018, the Defendants
Steven and Jon Sabes were senior executive officers and controlling
shareholders of GWG and its predecessor companies. From its
founding through in or about 2018, GWG was primarily in the
business of purchasing life insurance policies from insured
individuals, with the goal of collecting policy benefits upon the
death of the insureds.

GWG raised funds to purchase these life insurance policies
primarily by selling GWG stock and bonds to investors. GWG's
securities were sold through a network of approximately 140
regional brokers through Defendant Emerson Equity who sold the GWG
securities to individual retail investors and retirement savers.
These brokers received substantial fees and commissions (at times
exceeding 5% of the securities' face value) from GWG for such
sales. In addition, many brokers continued selling GWG securities,
particularly GWG's L Bonds, despite their known risk and GWG's poor
performance outlined in publicly filed documents.

However, by in or about 2017, GWG's business was failing. Insureds
were living longer than the projections that GWG had disclosed to
investors, resulting in higher costs to maintain the insurance
policies in the form of additional premiums, higher financing costs
to obtain additional investor funds to make the required premium
payments under the policies, and a longer wait to collect any
eventual death benefits. GWG issued increasing amounts of its own
securities to cover its increasing costs, satisfying obligations to
old GWG investors with new GWG investor funds. At no time was
revenue from the insurance policies that GWG had acquired
sufficient to cover GWG's expenses.

The Defendants' scheme began to unravel in 2021 when, under
mounting pressure from various accounting problems, auditor
resignations, and an SEC investigation (which remains ongoing and
has already resulted in charges against certain brokers),
Defendants were forced to pause GWG's sales of securities, leaving
it unable to fund its expenses and make required payments to its
existing investors. No longer able to continue the scheme, and
therefore having no further use for GWG, in 2021 Defendant Heppner
promptly resigned from GWG and separated his company Defendant Ben
LP from GWG (having combined the companies only three years
earlier). Having extracted hundreds of millions of dollars from
GWG, Defendants left it a hollowed shell of its former business,
saddled with unsustainable debts. On January 18, 2022 GWG disclosed
that it was unable to make certain required payments to its
investors. On April 20, 2022, GWG filed for bankruptcy. GWG
investors have not received the payments to which they are entitled
since at least February 2022.

The Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about
GWG's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that they intended to, and did,
misappropriate GWG assets, GWG's life insurance investment business
had failed, and GWG could only repay prior investors by issuing
increasing amounts of securities to new investors. In essence,
Defendants had turned GWG into a Ponzi scheme. As a result of
Defendants' scheme and omissions, GWG's resulting inability to make
required payments to its investors, and the resulting precipitous
decline in the market value of GWG's securities, Plaintiffs and
other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased GWG's preferred stock.

Brad K. Heppner is the founder, CEO, and Chairman of Defendant The
Beneficient Company Group L.P.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          212 W. Spring Valley Road
          Richardson, TX 75081
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph D. Cohen, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          Email: jcohen@glancylaw.com


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bids for Class Certification Partially Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP reports that on March 30, 2023,
the Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Granting and Denying
Daubert Motions and Motions to Strike.

The Court reaffirmed its prior judgment that the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") applies to Brookdale's assisted living
facilities in California. The Court certified a class of people who
use wheelchairs and scooters under the theory that Brookdale's
Fleet Safety Policy, which requires scooter and power wheelchair
users to transfer out of their scooter or wheelchair and onto
either a manual wheelchair or a passenger seat within the van or
bus in order to ride, violates Title III of the ADA.

Meanwhile, the Court did not agree that all three proposed classes
should be certified for injunctive relief and damages. The firm is
reviewing options and next steps.

Elderly, vulnerable seniors should not have to live in facilities
that are inaccessible to residents with disabilities (e.g., that
lack restrooms that are accessible, that lack accessible shower or
toilets with grab bars or sinks that are accessible, and other
critical ADA and CBC access features). Nor should they be forced to
transfer from their scooters and wheelchairs while accessing
Brookdale's transportation services, be left for hours without
toileting assistance and other vitally important services, or live
in fear due to lack of evacuation plans that are sufficient to
address the needs of persons with mobility and vision
disabilities.

The firm continue to request that Brookdale make its facilities
accessible to people with disabilities and staff its facilities
with sufficient personnel to ensure that our clients are safe and
receive the care for which they and their families have paid.[GN]

BUMP BOXES: Faces Holt Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER HOLT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUMP BOXES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:23-cv-00106-GLJ (E.D. Okla., March 28, 2023) alleges that the
defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, several unsolicited text messages were
sent to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number even though the
Plaintiff has already opted out of the Defendant's solicitations
numerous times. The Defendant's unsolicited text message spam
caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations
of their statutory rights, trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion
of their privacy, and intrusion upon seclusion, says the suit.

Bump Boxes, Inc. is a foreign corporation doing business in
Oklahoma. It offers pregnancy subscription boxes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone:  (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

                 - and -

          Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 610-5223
          E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com

BURGERFI INTL: Gilbert Class Suit Still Pending in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
BurgerFi International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the quarterly period ending January 2, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 3, 2023, that the
Gilbert class suit is still pending in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.

Eric Gilbert v. BurgerFi International, Inc., Ophir Sternberg, et
al. (Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No.
2022-0185- , filed on February 25, 2022). Mr. Gilbert filed a class
action lawsuit against BurgerFi International, Inc. and each of the
members of the Board of Directors alleging that the Company's
Amended and Restated Bylaws improperly contains a provision
restricting written consents by the stockholders.

Mr. Gilbert sought an amendment to the bylaws, as well as attorney'
fees and costs.

On March 23, 2022, BurgerFi made conforming amendments to its
bylaws to remove the provision restricting written consent by the
stockholders.

On March 24, 2022, the Court of Chancery entered a stipulated order
pursuant to which plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with
prejudice as to himself only.

The Court of Chancery retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose
of deciding the anticipated application of plaintiff's counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in
connection with the corrective actions.

The Company subsequently agreed to pay $150 thousand to plaintiff's
counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of
the claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the action and to
finally settle the matter, which amount is included in accrued
expenses in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

BurgerFi International, Inc. multi-brand restaurant company based
in Florida.

CAPITAL ONE SERVICES: Hughes Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Services,
LLC. The case is styled as Jeffrey Hughes, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Capital One Services, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-01365-AT-JKL (N.D. Ga., March 30, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act.

Capital One Services, LLC -- https://www.capitalone.com/ --
provides financial services. The Company offers credit cards,
checking and savings accounts, auto loans, rewards, and online
banking services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          909 Davis St., Suite 500
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Phone: (312) 729-5288
          Email: ABurke@Burkelawllc.com

               - and -

          Clifton R. Dorsen, Esq.
          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR AND FEAGLE
          2374 Main Street, Suite B
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Phone: (404) 373-1978
          Fax: (404) 601-1855
          Email: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
                 jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

               - and -

          Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
          Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP -WOODSTOCK
          133 Mirramont Lake Drive
          Woodstock, GA 30189
          Phone: (770) 427-5600
          Fax: (404) 601-1855
          Email: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
                 kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com


CAPITAL SECURITY: Burnett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Security
Solutions, Inc., et al. case is styled as Cameron Alexander
Burnett, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Capital Security Solutions, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2023-00337168-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March
30, 2023).

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

Capital Security Solutions, Inc. --
https://capitalsecurity.solutions/ -- is a leading the industry of
security companies in Sacramento, who proudly provides elite armed
and unarmed Sacramento security services to keep you and your
business protected.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Schelly, Esq.
          LIPELES LAW GROUP
          880 Apollo Street, Suite 336El
          Segundo, CA 90245


CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Failure to Secure PII and PHI
------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Taylor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES, Case No. 2:23-cv-00414-NAD
(N.D. Ala., March 31, 2023), is brought arising out of the recent
targeted cyberattack and data breach on CVA's network that resulted
in unauthorized access to highly sensitive patient and employee
data and brought against CVA for its failure to secure and
safeguard approximately over 400,000 other individuals' personally
identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information
("PHI") ("Private Information").

As a condition of receiving services, CVA's patients are required
to provide and entrust CVA with sensitive and private information,
including PII and PHI. CVA discovered that its systems were subject
to a cybersecurity attack culminating in ransomware from November
28, 2022 to December 5, 2022, which resulted in unauthorized access
to Private Information (the "Data Breach"). On February 3, 2023,
CVA began sending out notification letters to affected parties. CVA
reported the Data Breach with the Vermont Attorney General as well
as the Massachusetts Attorney General around that same time. CVA's
notice letter provided scant detail, particularly considering the
size and scope of the Data Breach and the sensitivity of
Plaintiff's and Class Members' compromised information.

CVA's notice did not disclose how it discovered the cybersecurity
attack, how the ransomware was detected and terminated, the means
and mechanisms of the cybersecurity attack, the reason for its
two-month delay in notifying Plaintiff and the Class of the Data
Breach after learning that Private Information was impacted, how
CVA determined that PHI and PII was "impacted," and, importantly,
what steps CVA took following the Data Breach to secure its systems
and prevent future cyberattacks.

CVA reported that the scope of information involved includes name,
date of birth, patient number, social security number, driver's
license number or state ID financial account number, and/or medical
health insurance information. The Data Breach was a direct result
of CVA's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity
procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' PII and
PHI from the foreseeable thread of a cyberattack.

By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information for its own pecuniary benefit, CVA assumed a
duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to implement and maintain
reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and
safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
against unauthorized access and disclosure.

As a result, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable
losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional
distress, and the imminent risk of future harm caused by the
compromise of their sensitive personal information, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff has provided his PII and PHI to CVA for a number of
years.

CVA is a medical group practice that specializes in heart care; CVA
is comprised of cardiologists who specialize in an array of
diagnosis and treatment options.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allison Riley, Esq.
          RAGSDALE LLC
          517 Beacon Pkwy W.
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: (205) 305.7896
          Email: ragsdalellc@me.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Hwy. E., 2nd Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: (856) 772-7200
          Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
                 bjohns@shublawyers.com
                 sholbrook@shublawyers.com


CEREBRAL INC: Discloses Sensitive Patients’ Info, Doe Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cerebral, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:23-cv-02190 (C.D. Cal., March 23, 2023) alleges that Cerebral
violated Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of
1996, the California statutory and common law, as well as its own
privacy policies and representations.

Allegedly, Cerebral disclosed its users' confidential and highly
sensitive medical and other private information to third parties.
The company installed Pixel and other tracking technologies on its
website and mobile application in order to intercept and to send
private information to third parties such as Meta Platforms, Inc.
d/b/a Facebook and/or Google LLC without the informed consent of
its users, says the suit.

Cerebral is a tele-therapy and medication management company
purportedly focused on helping people suffering with insomnia,
anxiety and depression, among other mental health issues. It owns,
maintains and controls a website, www.cerebral.com and a mobile
application.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
          MaryBeth LippSmith, Esq.
          Jaclyn L. Anderson, Esq.
          LIPPSMITH LLP
          555 S. Flower Street, Suite 4400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 344-1820
          Facsimile: (213) 513-2495
          E-mail: g@lippsmith.com
                  mb@lippsmith.com
                  jla@lippsmith.com

              - and -

          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          Elena Belov, Esq.
          ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
          849 W. Webster Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60614
          Telephone: (312) 576-3024
          E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com
                  elena@almeidalawgroup.com

CHANGPENG ZHAO: Sizemore Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sizemore, Rudy Vazquez, Mikey Vongdara, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. CHANGPENG ZHAO,
Binance Holdings Limited, Binance Holdings (IE) Limited, Binance
(Services) Holdings Limited, BAM Trading Services Inc., Jimmy
Butler, Graham Stephan, Ben Armstrong, Case No. 1:23-cv-21261-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., March 31, 2023), is brought against the Defendants the
world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, Binance, its CEO, and
various "Influencers" who promoted, assisted in, and/or actively
participated in Binance's offer and sale of unregistered
securities.

Binance is the world's largest centralized, web-based
crypto-products platform, offering its customers in the United
States the ability to buy, loan, and trade (including spot and
margin) digital assets, including cryptocurrency and tokens,
including their own native token, called BNB. In the simplest
terms, the value of the BNB token is based on the total number of
existing BNB coins and the profits of the Binance exchange, all
actions which depend "upon the actions of others" and are thus
"securities" under the Howey test. In fact, unlike other crypto
tokens which are traded on an open market, the number of existing
BNB coins all depend upon the "burn rate" of the token by Binance's
Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Changpeng Zhao. This
is a classic example of a centralized exchange, which is promoting
the sale of an unregistered security.

Undersigned Counsel brought the first-class action in the country
against cryptocurrency platform Voyager Digital, alleging, in part,
that they sold unregistered securities in the form of crypto tokens
and interest-bearing cryptocurrency accounts. Undersigned Counsel
now represents Plaintiffs and the Classes as defined below in this
class action against Binance, because it, too, has offered and sold
unregistered securities to investors throughout the country.
According to the platform's website, Binance has an average daily
trade volume of $65 billion and facilitated 300 billion spot
transactions in 2022. Binance allows users to trade more than 350
cryptocurrencies, and has 120 million registered users. Binance was
founded by its current Chief Executive Officer, Changpeng Zhao, and
certain other Defendants, on or about July 14, 2017, shortly after
making an Initial Coin Offering ("ICO") for the Binance Coin
("BNB").

Binance issues a native token BNB, and, at least until February
2023, a USD backed stablecoin, BUSD. In February 2023, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") told Binance that BUSD
should have been registered as a security under federal
regulations. The SEC was considering taking legal action against
Binance for the alleged unregistered token. Paxos Trust Company,
the firm behind BUSD, disagreed with those claims. Paxos ceased
issuing BUSD tokens on February 21, 2023 following action from the
New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS).

Earlier this week, on March 27, 2023, the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission ("CFTC") sued Binance, alleging that the crypto trader
violated U.S. trading laws by trading unregistered crypto
derivatives. The regulator also claimed that Binance coached its
employees and VIP members on how to circumvent regulations and
compliance controls to maximize their profits.

Despite Binance's solicitation of and reliance on customers located
in the United States to generate revenue and provide liquidity for
its various markets, it has admittedly failed to register with any
federal regulatory body or with any individual state to do business
in the United States, and has failed to follow U.S. laws, including
those designed to prevent money laundering and financing of
terrorists, to the detriment of its customers.

During the class period, Binance partnered with Defendants to
promote Binance and solicit new customers, including through
traditional advertisements on television and social media with
contracting with nationally recognized "Brand Ambassadors," such as
Miami Heat's Jimmy Butler. The Binance Affiliate Program allows
partners from across the globe, to receivekickbacks and commissions
based specifically on fees  earned from promoting the sale of
unregistered securities to individuals who enroll through their
Affiliate links. Binance hosts an annual ceremony honoring the
"Best Influencers" from each area across the Globe.

With the rise to prominence of the internet and social media, a new
multi-billion-dollar cottage industry of "Influencers" has been
created. Evidence has now been uncovered that reveals Influencers
played a major role in the rise of Binance and in fact, Binance
could not have arisen to such great heights without the massive
impact of these Influencers, who hyped these unregistered
securities for payments of multimillion dollars, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased, repurchased, invested, and/or reinvested
unregistered securities from the Binance Entities.

Changpeng Zhao is the founder and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO")
of Binance.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 740-1423
          Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                 joseph@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          Brooke Alexander, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Phone: (914) 749–8200
          Email: balexander@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Stephen Neal Zack, Esq.
          Tyler Ulrich, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2800
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-539-8400
          Email: szack@bsfllp.com
                 tulrich@bsfllp.com


CHELSEA DOGGY DAY: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chelsea Doggy Day
Care Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Chelsea Doggy Day Care
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02513 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023).

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

Chelsea Doggy Day Care Inc. -- https://doggiedaycarechelsea.co.uk/
-- is a premium doggie day care for dogs in Chelsea.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Faces Koskan Suit Over Denied Coverage Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES KOSKAN and TRESLYN KOSKAN, through their daughter and
attorney-in-fact Laurie Biagini, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01941 (N.D. Ill., March 28,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for declaratory
relief and breach of contract.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged denial of the
Plaintiffs' claims for home health care coverage while staying at
an assisted living facility, termed as Alternate Care Facility
(ACF) in the policy. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs'
policy does not provide coverage for both an ACF stay and a Home
Care Visit claim simultaneously. In contrast, the Plaintiffs assert
that the policies expressly do provide that Nursing Facility and
ACF claims are mutually exclusive. If the Defendant intended for
ACF benefits and Home Care Visit benefits to be mutually exclusive,
then it easily could have drafted the policies to say just that but
the Defendant did not, says the suit.

Continental Casualty Company is an insurance company, with its
principal place of business in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Mark D. DeBofsky, Esq.
         DEBOFSKY LAW, LTD.
         150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1925
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 561-4040
         Facsimile: (312) 600-4426
         E-mail: mdebofsky@debofsky.com

                  - and -

         Sean K. Collins, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS
         184 High Street, Suite 503
         Boston, MA 02110
         Telephone: (855) 693-9256
         Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
         E-mail: sean@neinsurancelaw.com

                  - and -

         Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
         GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
         4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
         Cincinnati, OH 45249
         Telephone: (513) 345-8291
         Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
         E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

                  - and -

         Elizabeth I. Wrobel, Esq.
         WROBEL & SMITH, PLLP
         1599 Selby Ave., Suite 105
         St. Paul, MN 55104
         Telephone: (651) 925-6658
         E-mail: elizabeth@wrobelsmithlaw.com

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Faces Koskan Suit Over Denied Insurance Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JAMES KOSKAN AND TRESLYN KOSKAN, through their daughter
and attorney-in-fact Laurie Biagini, individually and as a class
representative, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01941 (N.D. Ill., March 28, 2023)
arises after the Defendant denied Plaintiffs' claims for home
health care coverage while staying at an assisted living facility,
which is termed as an alternate care facility in the policy.

According to the complaint, the Defendant breached the contracts
with Plaintiffs by denying claims for home care visits just because
the policyholder was already receiving facility benefits for an ACF
stay. The Plaintiffs now seek compensatory damages, consequential
damages, punitive damages, interest, attorney fees, costs, and
expenses as a result of the Defendant's breach.

Continental Casualty Co. is incorporated in Delaware and maintains
its principal place of business in Chicago, IL. The company offers
property and casualty business insurance solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Mark D. DeBofsky, Esq.
           DEBOFSKY LAW, LTD.
           150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1925
           Chicago, IL 60606
           Telephone: 312-561-4040
           Facsimile: (312) 600-4426
           E-mail: mdebofsky@debofsky.com
                 
                - and -

           Sean K. Collins (ND Ill. 687158)
           LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS
           184 High Street, Suite 503
           Boston , MA 02110
           Telephone: 855-693-9256
           Facsimile: 617-227-2843
           E-mail: sean@neinsurancelaw.com

                - and -

           Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
           GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
           4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
           Cincinnati, OH 45249
           Telephone: (513)345-8291
           Facsimile: (513-345-8294
           E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

                - and -

           Elizabeth I. Wrobel, Esq.
           WROBEL & SMITH, PLLP
           1599 Selby Ave, Suite 105
           St. Paul, MN 55104
           Telephone: 651-925-6658
           E-mail: elizabeth@wrobelsmithlaw.com

CORRIDOR CLOTHIERS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corridor Clothiers
LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Rodriguez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Corridor Clothiers LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02492 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023).

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

Corridor -- https://corridornyc.com/ -- is a New York-based,
independent brand focused on positive energy and raising
vibrations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORTEVA INC: Faces Kirven Suit Over Crop Pesticides' Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFTON KIRVEN; RONALD YEARGIN; and JANIE YEARGIN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORTEVA,
INC.; SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG; SYNGENTA CORP.; SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00268 (M.D.N.C.,
March 29, 2023) alleges violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants Syngenta
and Corteva have unfairly impeded competitors and artificially
inflated the prices that U.S. farmers pay for crop-protection
products. The Defendants do this by deploying a set of so-called
"loyalty programs," which are designed to severely limit the
availability of lower-priced generic products.

Through this scheme, the Defendants have suppressed generic
competition and maintained monopolies long after their lawful
exclusive rights to particular crop-protection products have
expired. These unlawful business practices have cost farmers many
millions of dollars a year on their purchases of crop protection
products ("CPPs") containing active ingredients rimsul- furon,
oxamyl, acetochlor, azoxystrobin, mesotrione, metolachlor, or
s-metolachlor, alleges the suit.

CORTEVA, INC. provides agricultural products. The Company offers
seeds and crop protection products, as well as software solutions
and digital services. Corteva serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Kyre, Jr., Esq.
          Richard L. Pinto, Esq.
          Lyn K. Broom, Esq.
          PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC
          3203 Brassfield Road
          Greensboro, NC 27410
          Telephone: (336) 282-8848
          Facsimile: (336) 282-8409
          Email: kkyre@pckb-law.com
                 rpinto@pckb-law.com
                 lbroom@pckb-law.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Shomik Ghosh, Esq.
          Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
          SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON
          7 World Trade Center, 46th Floor
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (646) 880-8850
          Facsimile: (973) 232-0887
          Email: sghosh@shnlegal.com
                 mclerkin@shnlegal.com

               - and -

          Spiro, Esq.
          SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON
          2 Bridge Avenue, Ste. 322
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (862) 341-4804
          Facsimile: (973) 232-0887
          Email: jspiro@shnlegal.com

               - and -

          David B. Harrison, Esq.
          Thomas M. Kenny, Esq.
          SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON
          363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C
          Montclair, NJ 07042
          Telephone: (973) 232-4109
          Facsimile: (973) 232-0887
          Email: dharrison@shnlegal.com
                 tkenny@shnlegal.com

               - and -

          Danielle F. Moriber, Esq.
          SPIRO HARRISON & NELSON
          1441 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 841-1181
          Facsimile: (973) 232-0887
          Email: dmoriber@shnlegal.com

CREDIT CONTROL: Veney Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Sabrina Veney, as parent and
legal guardian of J.V., a minor, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Credit Control Services, Inc. doing
business as: Credit Collection Services, Case No. 1:23-cv-00372-UNA
(D. Del., March 31, 2023).

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

Credit Control -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is a
nationally licensed provider of customized, performance-driven
receivables management services that was founded in 1989.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig N. Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1523 Concord Pike, Suite 400
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Phone: (302) 722-6885
          Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


CROCKETT & JONES: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crockett & Jones
U.S.A., Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Crockett & Jones
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02514 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023).

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

Crockett & Jones -- https://www.crockettandjones.com/ -- are makers
of the finest English men's and women's handmade shoes & footwear
founded in 1879 in Northampton.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Ports Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Cushman & Wakefield of
California, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Anthony Ports,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc., Cushman & Wakefield U.S.,
Inc., Does 1-20, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23605522 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Francisco Cty., March 30, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Cushman and Wakefield of California, Inc. --
https://www.cushmanwakefield.com/en -- provides real estate
management services. The Company focuses on buying, selling,
financing, leasing, managing and valuing of assets, as well as
providing strategic planning and research, and other advisory
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
          MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: 800-610-9646


DANA'S BAKERY: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dana's Bakery NY,
LLC. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Dana's Bakery NY, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02723 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023).

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

Dana's Bakery -- https://www.danasbakery.com/ -- revolutionizes the
traditional French macaron with an authentic American twist.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DELTA DENTAL: Moneim Settlement Final Hearing Approval Set Aug. 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deltadentalins reports that the Court will hold a hearing on August
4, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. to determine whether to grant final approval
to the Proposed Settlement. The Court will also consider the
application for attorney's fees and service awards at this hearing.


Anyone can attend this hearing and any Class Member who has not
opted out may address the Court at the Final Approval Hearing.
Substantive objections must be submitted in writing to the Class
Administrator by May 31, 2023.

A Proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of
Delta Dental of California participating dentists against Delta
Dental of California ("Delta Dental") who had claims submitted,
approved, and paid by Delta Dental more than 365 days before Delta
Dental sent an initial written request or demand for reimbursement
of alleged overpayment of such claims form four years prior to the
date of the filing of the initial complaint (April 6, 2014) up to
March 10, 2023. The lawsuit claims that Delta Dental issued
reimbursement requests or demands to providers in connection with
claims paid more than 365 days earlier without expressly alleging
that the provider committed fraud or made misrepresentations to
Delta Dental in alleged violation of 28 C.C.R. Section
1371.1(b)(5). Delta Dental denies all wrongdoing.

Who are the Class Representatives?

The lawsuit was brought by the following class representatives:
Ahmed Moneim,
D.D.S., Charina Bailon, D.D.S. and Joyce Tse, D.D.S. Each of the
individual representatives is a member of the Class.

Am I included in the Proposed Settlement?

If you were a Delta Dental of California participating dentist and
between April 6, 2014
and March 10, 2023 and you received an initial written request or
demand for reimbursement of alleged overpayment of claims for
claims submitted, approved and paid by Delta Dental more than 365
days before the initial request or demand, you are a member of the
Class. The lawsuit does not involve, and the Class does not include
patients who are or were enrollees in dental plans offered by Delta
Dental of California.

What does the Proposed Settlement provide?

In connection with future written reimbursement request or demand
letters to providers, if Delta Dental seeks reimbursement of claims
initially paid more than 365 days earlier, the Proposed Settlement
requires Delta Dental to clearly indicate that the provider
allegedly committed fraud or made misrepresentations. In addition,
Delta Dental would be required to inform providers how to access
Delta Dental's dispute resolution mechanism, provide notice of the
right to dispute a request within 30 working days and inform
providers that interest shall accrue on uncontested overpayments.

As part of the settlement, Delta Dental will also relinquish its
right to collect, and shall not collect or attempt to collect, any
and all amounts from Settlement Class Members that (a) it has not
yet collected, (b) were first sought in connection with a written
reimbursement request ordemand issued more than 365 days after the
initial
claim(s) was/were paid and (c) were not expressly alleged to be
the result of provider fraud or misrepresentation in the initial
reimbursement request or demand up to the date of preliminary
approval. Delta Dental will not use the fact that a request for
reimbursement had been made to any of the Settlement Class Members
in order to deny, hinder or alter any of the membership rights of
any of the Settlement Class Members including the right to
recredentialing as a Delta Dental Member. Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, Delta Dental shall have the right, in
connection with any membership or recredentialing decisions, to
take into account the facts or alleged facts underlying any
reimbursement request. Class members who did not make payment to
Delta Dental, or who did not pay the full amount demanded by Delta
Dental pursuant to a demand or demands issued by Delta Dental for
reimbursement of an allegedly overpaid claim shall have all such
debt cancelled which amounts to approximately $8,445,213.

In addition, Delta Dental will pay a total of $2,800,000 (the
"Settlement Amount").

Assuming the Court approves Class Counsel's request for attorney's
fees and expenses of
$1,000,579.00 and approves the Class Representative service awards
of $3,5000 each, a
balance of $1,788,921 would remain for distribution to Settlement
Class Members.

How will the Settlement Amount be allocated among Class Members?

In general, the amount allocated to each Class Member will be a
share of the Settlement
Amount that is proportionate to the reimbursement amount(s) made by
the Class Member,
based on determinations using available data, when compared to the
total reimbursement
amounts paid by Class. Once determined, the allocations will be
deemed final and not subject to legal challenge.

Based on current calculations and available data, it is currently
estimated that
approximately 448 Class Members will be allocated the $1,7,888,921
portion of the
Settlement Amount. Assuming that Class Counsel’s request for
attorney's fees and expenses of $1,000,579.00 is approved and that
the Court approves the Class Representative service awards of
$3,500 each, these amounts are estimated to range from $5 to
approximately $49,497. The average allocation from the Settlement
Amount is currently estimated to be approximately $4.016.
Recipients of distributions from the Settlement Amount will be sent
a Form 1099-MISC. Class Members who did not make reimbursements
during this period will not receive any portion of the Settlement
Amount.

Allocations not relating to a group practice's reimbursement to
Delta Dental will be
distributed directly to the Settlement Class Member. In connection
with allocations relating to a group practice's reimbursement for a
Settlement Class Member, the Settlement Class Member and the group
practice will receive a notice informing them that unless either
party objects the distribution will be made to the group practice.
If either party objects, the payment will be held until the
disagreement is resolved by agreement or a court order. Once the
allocations and distributions have been determined, they will be
deemed final and not subject to legal challenge.

Distributions from the Settlement Amount will be made within 120
calendar days from
the date that the Proposed Settlement receives final approval. Any
distributions from the Settlement Amount that remain outstanding
(e.g., checks that are uncashed) for more than 90 days after being
mailed will be paid to La Clinica de La Raza, www.laclinica.org,
for the provision of dental services.

Delta Dental will bear the costs of administering the Settlement
Amount. However,
under certain circumstances, Delta Dental will establish a
Qualified Settlement Fund ("QSF") as provided in the Proposed
Settlement, into which the Settlement Amount, or a portion of it
shall be deposited. Costs and expenses for the operation and
administration of the QSF, if one is established, including but not
limited to fees and expenses for any claims administrator fees and
expenses relating to the distribution of the Settlement Amount,
which are currently estimated ton be less than $50,000, will be
paid out of the QSF.

How do I get benefits?

You do not need to file a claim to participate in the Proposed
Settlement. The
Settlement Amount will be allocated and distributed in the manner
described above, using the information that is available in Delta
Dental's records.

What are my other rights?

Remain in the Proposed Settlement: If you do nothing, you will
remain in the Proposed
Settlement and will remain a Settlement Class Member. You will be
bound by the terms of the Proposed Settlement and give up your
right to sue Delta Dental about the claims in this case.

You may be eligible to receive a distribution or benefits as
described in this Notice.
Object to the Proposed Settlement: If you stay in the Proposed
Settlement but still
wish to object to it, you must submit a written objection to the
Class Administrator at the address below by May 31, 2023. The Court
will consider only written objections.
Opt Out of the Proposed Settlement: If you do not want to be
legally bound by the
Proposed Settlement and want to retain your right to sue, you must
exclude yourself by May 31, 2023 by sending an opt-out request to
the Class Administrator at the address below. If you opt out, you
will not receive any distribution from the Settlement Amount and
will not be represented by Class Counsel. However, your status as a
Delta Dental Premier Dentist will not be affected.

Attend the Hearing: The Court will hold a hearing on August 4, 2023
at 9:30 a.m. to
determine whether to grant final approval to the Proposed
Settlement. The Court will also consider the application for
attorney's fees and service awards at this hearing. Anyone can
attend this hearing and any Class Member who has not opted out may
address the Court at the Final Approval Hearing. Substantive
objections must be submitted in writing to the Class Administrator
by May 31, 2023.

The complete Proposed Amended Settlement Agreement, long-form
Class
Notice, and other documents pertinent to the Proposed Settlement
can be accessed at
deltadentalins.com/dentists or by contacting the Class
Administrator, Delta Dental, at:

Attn: Litigation
Delta Dental of California
560 Mission Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94105
1-888-742-4131
Re: Ahmed Moneim, D.D.S. et al. v. Delta Dental
of California,
San Francisco County Superior Court, No. CGC-18-565581

The Court's docket may be accessed at www.sfsuperiorcourt.org.
Click Online Services,
then Case Query and fill in the case number CGC-18-565581. [GN]

DISH NETWORK: Faces Jaramillo Suit Over Inflated Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Jaramillo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Dish Network Corporation, W. Erik Carlson,
Paul W. Orban, and Charles W. Ergen, Case No. 1:23-cv-00734-SKC (D.
Colo., March 23, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On Feb. 24, 2023, Dish announced that a "network outage" caused the
company's websites and apps to cease functioning, subjected
customers to authentication issues when signing into TV channel
apps using their Dish credentials, and appeared to render the
Dish's call center phone numbers unreachable. Then, on Feb. 28,
2023, Dish confirmed that it had "determined that the outage was
due to a cyber-security incident and notified appropriate law
enforcement authorities," adding that the "threat agent" behind the
ransom ware attack stole date from Dish's compromised systems,
potentially containing personal information. On this news, Dish's
stock price fell $0.79 per share, or 6.48%, to close at $11.41 per
share on Feb. 28, 2023. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
the Dish's securities, plaintiff has suffered significant losses
and damages, says the suit.

Dish is a Nevada corporation with principal executive offices
located at 9601 South Meridian Boulevard, Englewood, CO. Dish's
common stock trade in an efficient market the Nasdaq Global Select
Market under the ticker symbol "DISH." Dish, together with its
subsidiaries, provides pay-TV services in the US. It operates in
two segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. Dish offers video services under
the DISH TV brand; and programming packages that include
programming through national broadcast networks, local broadcast
networks, and national and regional cable networks, as well as
regional and specialty sports channels, premium movie channels, and
Latino and international programming packages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
         J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 661-1100
         Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
         E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

DREAMS CLUB: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
MELISSA GONZALEZ, an individual, and individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SJPSC, LLC dba DREAMS
CLUB, a California Limited Liability Company; STEPAN KAZARYAN, an
individual; DOE MANAGERS 1- 3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02272 (C.D. Cal., March 28, 2023)
alleges that the Defendants evaded the mandatory minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally
absconded with Plaintiff' tips.

During their time being employed by Defendants, the Plaintiff was
denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of
Defendants' scheme to classify Plaintiff and other
dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors." Allegedly, the
Defendants also required Plaintiff to share her tips with
Defendants and other non-service employees who do not customarily
receive tips, including the managers, disc jockeys, and the
bouncers.

Dreams is a California Limited Liability company with its principal
place of business located at 811 Cristobal Avenue, Wilmington, CA.
It operates an adult-oriented entertainment facility. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           John P. Kristensen, Esq.
           Justice D. Turner, Esq.
           Gabriel Minsal, Esq.
           CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
           8827 W. Olympic Boulevard
           Beverly Hills, CA 90211
           8827 W. Olympic Blvd
           Telephone: 310-273-1230
           E-mail: kristensen@cz.law
                   jturner@cz.law
                   gminsal@cz.law
                   kristensenteam@cz.law

EHEALTHINSURANCE SERVICES: Salaiz May Amend Dismissed Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as ERIK SALAIZ, Plaintiff v. EHEALTHINSURANCE
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-04835-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss and motion to strike class allegations, and denies its
motion to stay discovery.

The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff Erik
Salaiz against Defendants eHealthInsurance Services, Inc. and John
Doe for allegedly making unlawful calls in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law.

Now before the Court are three motions: (1) Defendant's motion to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); (2)
Defendant's motion to strike class allegations; and (3) Defendant's
motion to stay discovery.

Judge Freeman grants the motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
Judge Freeman finds that "Plaintiff has not alleged facts
sufficient to state a claim on a theory of direct liability
because. . . the Complaint alleges that eHealth is "directly liable
under the TCPA for outsourcing their telemarketing to John Doe. . .
Plaintiff does not allege that eHealth made the calls directly or
that an employee of eHealth made the calls."

Judge Freeman agrees with eHealth's argument that the Plaintiff has
not alleged that eHealth represented to Plaintiff that John Doe was
authorized to make calls on its behalf. Judge Freeman holds that
"Plaintiff's conclusory allegation that eHealth gave John Doe
actual authority to generate prospective customers is insufficient
to plead a theory of actual authority." Likewise, Judge Freeman
finds that "Plaintiff's conclusory allegation -- that eHealth
ratified John Doe's TCPA violations by knowingly accepting the
benefit of Plaintiff as a new customer -- is insufficient to plead
knowledge, and therefore Plaintiff has not adequately pled
ratification."

eHealth brings a motion to strike Plaintiff's class allegations,
identifying several deficiencies with Plaintiff's proposed class
definition. eHealth argues that (1) the class is overbroad; (2) the
class definition improperly depends on the outcome of merits
inquiries; and (3) the class is based on the lack of consent of the
recipient as opposed to the called party.

Judge Freeman grants the motion to strike class allegations with
leave to amend. She agrees with eHealth's argument that "the
definition is overbroad in two senses. First, the proposed class
definition would include individuals who were called by any party
to sell eHealth services, not just John Doe. Second, the proposed
class definition would include individuals who were called by any
party to sell John Doe's services." Judge Freeman also agrees with
eHealth that the language in the class definition as to consent is
improper and that the use of the term "recipient" in the class
definition makes the class overly broad.

Finally, eHealth argues that the Court should stay discovery. While
Judge Freeman grants the motion to dismiss, she gives the Plaintiff
leave to amend, because she is not "convinced that the Plaintiff
will be unable to state a claim for relief" -- the motions that
were pending before the Court were not dispositive. As such, Judge
Freeman determines that there is not good cause to stay discovery.

A full-text copy of the Order dated March 22, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/ynh53trw from Leagle.com.


ELEVANCE HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Kneppar Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEAH KNEPPAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE ELEVANCE HEALTH COMPANIES, INC. f/k/a
THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-00863-GLS
(D. Md., March 29, 2023) is an action against the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Kneppar was employed by the Defendant as a medical
management nurse.

WELLPOINT INC. is a health benefits company. The Company provides
members with health benefits and improved health care. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott E. Nevin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700,
          Baltimore, MD 2120
          Telephone: (410) 260-0183
          Facsimile: (410) 244-1047
          Email: snevin@nicholllaw.com

               - and -

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          Email: srey@nka.com

               - and -

          Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 993-5801
          Email: ssb@llrlaw.com;
                 apagano@llrlaw.com

ESTRELLA DO NORTE: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTINO RODRIGUEZ and JOUSMAR RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESTRELLA DO NORTE
RESTAURANTE INC. (D/B/A BEIJA FLOR) and LUCIA CRUZ, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02425 (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New
York Labor Law, and the spread of hours and overtime wage orders of
the New York Commissioner of Labor.

According to the complaint, the violations of FLSA include the
Defendants' failure to pay the required minimum wage rate and their
failure to provide overtime compensation at a rate of one and
one-half times the regular rate of pay for each hour worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Justino Rodriguez was employed by Defendants at Beija Flor from
approximately Nov. 2, 2021, until on or about Jan. 27, 2023.

Jousmar Rodriguez was also employed by Defendants at Beija Flor
from approximately Jan. 20, 2022, until on or about Jan. 27, 2023.

Justino and Jousmar performed the roles of a kitchen assistant, a
porter, a cook, a delivery worker, a dishwasher and a food
preparer.

The Defendants own, operate, and control a Brazilian restaurant,
located at 38-02 29th St., Queens, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Shen Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Exela Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Shen putative class suit.

On March 23, 2020, the Plaintiff, Bo Shen, filed a putative class
action against the Company, Ronald Cogburn, the Company's former
Chief Executive Officer, and James Reynolds, the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer. Plaintiff claimed to be a holder of 67
shares of Company stock, purchased on October 4, 2019 at $80.40 per
share. Plaintiff asserts two claims covering the purported class
period of March 16, 2018 to March 16, 2020: (1) a violation of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against all
defendants; and (2) a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against Mr. Cogburn and Mr. Reynolds.

The allegations stem from the Company's press release, dated March
16, 2020 (announcing the postponement of the earnings call and
delay in filing of its annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019), and press release and related SEC
filings, dated March 17, 2020 (announcing its intent to restate its
financial statements for 2017, 2018 and interim periods through
September 30, 2019) and certain other matters.

The Company moved to dismiss the case and the Company's motion was
granted in its entirety on June 24, 2021.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint by the Court's deadline on
August 5, 2021, and the Company moved to dismiss this amended
complaint on September 3, 2021, which dismissal was denied on
January 21, 2022, permitting the case to move forward.

At this time, it is not practicable to render an opinion about
whether an unfavorable outcome is probable or remote with respect
to this matter; however, the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses and will continue to vigorously assert them.

Exela Technologies, Inc. is a business process automation leader
leveraging a global footprint and proprietary technology to help
turn the complex into the simple through user friendly software
platforms and solutions that enable our customers digital
transformation. The company is based in Irving, Texas.


F&H FOOD TRADING: Smith Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlyn Smith, Krystal Rivera, Kimberly Isaacs-Heyliger, and Rachel
Bailey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. F&H FOOD TRADING GROUP, INC., LITTLE ALLEY STEAK, LLC, and IVANA
SIJAKOVIC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01424-SCJ (N.D. Ga., March 31, 2023),
is brought alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") for the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees proper wages.

The Defendants employed, and/or continues to employ, Plaintiffs and
other Tipped Employees within the meaning of the FLSA. Defendants
paid Plaintiff and other Tipped Employees a tip credit wage (less
than minimum wage) for all hours worked at the Restaurant. Federal
law permits Defendants to pay employees less than the minimum wage
so long as they are working a tipped occupation, and able to earn
tips. Federal law prohibits Defendants from utilizing the tip
credit when requiring employees to perform non-tip producing tasks
that are not contemporaneous with tip-producing activities or are
not for reasonable times immediately before or after performing
contemporaneous tipped activities.

The Defendants denied Plaintiffs and other Tipped Employees minimum
wage compensation for the above stated discrete and
easy-to-identify periods where Plaintiffs and other Tipped
Employees were performing opening and closing duties that were not
contemporaneous with customer service duties and were for
unreasonable time periods before and after the performance of
customer service. The Defendants violated the FLSA by willfully
refusing to pay Plaintiffs and other Tipped Employees proper
minimum wage compensation for these non-customer service duties
amounting to a separate occupation, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of the Defendants
who were employed as servers and bartenders at the Restaurant.

F & H and Little Alley own and operate Little Alley Steak
restaurant located in Roswell, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FASHION POET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jerez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Jerez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in
the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. The Fashion Poet
LLC, and Ady Gluck-Frankel, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02397
(E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act, Articles 6 and 19 of the New York State
Labor Law, and their supporting New York State Department of Labor
regulations.

Plaintiff Jerez was employed as a tailor and general worker at
Defendants' clothing studio known as "the Fashion Poet" from on or
around June 2022 to, through and including, Feb. 1, 2023. She
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff with proper
wages as required under the FLSA or NYLL. She further asserts that
the Defendant failed to provide accurate wage notices and accurate
wage statements, denying Plaintiff's statutory right to receive
true and accurate information about the nature of her employment
and related compensation policies.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and to
recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated and statutory damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the FLSA, NYLL, and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention
Act.

The Fashion Poet LLC is a domestic limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. It
maintains a principal place of business at 4014 1st Ave., 6th Fl.,
Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FERRARA CANDY: N.D. Illinois Dismisses Gardner's Consumer Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Steven C. Seeger of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case captioned as KIANNA GARDNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FERRARA CANDY CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-1272 (N.D. Ill.).

Ferrara Candy Company "manufactures, labels, markets, and sells
hard caramel candy" under the Nips brand.

Between December 2021 and January 2022, Kianna Gardner bought
Ferrara's Nips -- a caramel hard candy -- at least once, and maybe
more often -- from stores like her local Walmart in Chicago. As
Gardner tells it, she got less than she bargained for -- she
discovered that Nips didn't offer her that full-fat dairy
experience that she had come to expect. She figured out that the
fat content is "almost exclusively from vegetable fat." And she
wanted fat from cows, not plants.

Consequently, Gardner filed a federal lawsuit, claiming that she
was duped. She believes that the manufacturer of Nips -- Ferrara
Candy Company -- misled her. She thinks that the packaging was
deceptive and misleading because it uses the terms "caramel" and
"creamy." She acknowledges that Nips candy does, in fact, contain
milk fat. But there was less dairy fat than she craved and
expected. Gardner brings a variety of claims, all of which share a
common thread -- each of the claims requires a false or misleading
statement that deceives a reasonable consumer.

Gardner feels misled, for two reasons: first, the box says
"caramel," and Gardner believes that caramel must contain cream. .
. and the box says "creamy," and Gardner doesn't think that Nips
can be creamy unless it contains cream.

Judge Seeger finds that "Gardner has failed to allege that the
candy's label was false, deceptive, or misleading under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act or
comparable laws from other states. . . Ferrara's candy does have
milk fat in it. . . it meets the dictionary definitions of caramel.
In fact, the complaint concedes that reduced-fat milk is the number
three ingredient in Nips, behind corn syrup and sugar."

Citing the case of Biczo v. Ferrara Candy Co., 2023 WL 2572384, at
*2 (N.D. Ill. 2023), Judge Seeger points out that "Courts widely
dismiss claims that a product contained only a de minimis amount of
an ingredient when the packaging itself did not promise more. . . A
statement about the presence of an ingredient is not a promise
about the amount of the ingredient."

As to the remaining claims, Judge Seeger notes that "every claim in
Gardner's complaint requires proof of a deceptive act or practice
-- the alleged misrepresentation of milk fat -- so the entire
complaint rises or falls with that analysis. No deception, no
claims." Because Gardner has not sufficiently alleged that a
reasonable consumer would be misled by the Nips labeling, Judge
Seeger dismisses the remaining claims, too.

Finally, under Illinois law, unjust enrichment is not a separate
cause of action. Rather, it's a condition brought about by fraud or
other unlawful conduct. Because all of Gardner's other claims fail,
so too does her unjust enrichment claim.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March
22, 2023, is available https://tinyurl.com/25bnyva8 from
Leagle.com.


FINDLAY HATS: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Findlay Hats, LLC.
The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Findlay Hats, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02651 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2023).

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

Findlay Hats, LLC -- https://www.findlayhats.com/ -- offers
stampede laces, hidden pockets, lifetime warranty & free
shipping.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FINE LINENS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fine Linens Of New
York, LLC. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Fine Linens Of New
York, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02509 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023).

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

Fine Linens -- https://www.finelinens.com/ -- is a family-owned
business whose bedding, bath towels and housewares have delighted
New York City shoppers since 1976.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRST NATIONAL: Zupnick Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Rohel Zupnick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., CADDIS FUNDING,
LLC, Case No. 509918/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., March 31,
2023), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") as result of the
Defendants' deceptive, misleading, and unfair debt collection
practices, Plaintiff has been damaged.

On February 6, 2023, Defendants sent the Plaintiff an initial
collection letter ("the Letter") in an attempt to collect the
subject debt. The Letter is dated February 6, 2023. The body of the
Letter sets forth a "Judgment Date: 06/16/2004." The Letter does
not state that interest is accruing on the judgment. The Letter
does not state that interest is waived on the judgment. The Letter
does not make a definitive statement concerning interest, but
instead indicates that "in the event there is interest or other
charges accruing on your account, the amount due may be greater
than the amount shown above after the date of this notice."

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff knows that judgments
generally accrue interest. Therefore, the "total amount of the debt
now" is increasing because of the accumulation of additional
interest. If Defendants are waiving statutory interest, the Letter
must so state and their failure to do so was false, deceptive and
misleading. Because of the lack of any information foreclosing this
possibility, Plaintiff does not know if the amount of her
obligation is static or dynamic.

The Letter materially misled 43. the Plaintiff because when faced
with two equal-amount debts, one of which is getting bigger
(dynamic) and one of which will never get bigger (static),
Plaintiff would pay the dynamic debt first. The Plaintiff was
therefore unable to evaluate how much is truly being alleged as the
correct interest charge, is being misled as to the total owed, and
cannot properly evaluate the demand for payment or how to address
it.

The Defendants' deceptive, misleading, and unfair representations
with respect to its collection efforts were material
misrepresentations that affected and frustrated the Plaintiff's
ability to intelligently respond to the Defendants' collection
efforts because the Plaintiff could not adequately respond to the
Defendants' demand for payment of this alleged debt, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of
Kings.

First National is a "debt collector."[BN]

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


FLORIDA POWER: Class Certification in Velez Suit Affirmed on Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case captioned as Florida Power & Light Company,
Appellant v. Heydi Velez, et al., Appellees, Case No. 3D22-181,
(Fla. Dist. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third
District, affirms the trial court's order certifying a class of the
Appellant's customers.

In February 2018, the Plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit
against Florida Power & Light Company for breach of contract and
gross negligence after Hurricane Irma. They alleged one count for
breach of contract seeking compensatory damages for FPL's failure
to comply with its contractual obligations to use reasonable
diligence at all times to provide continuous service in accordance
with FPL's Tariff and industry standards.

The trial court held a three-day evidentiary hearing on class
certification and other issues in December 2021. At the end of the
hearing, the trial court granted the Plaintiffs' motion and
certified the class. FPL then appealed.

Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to
certify the class under Rule 1.220(b)(3), the Court affirms the
trial court's "Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification." The Court points out that "the trial court
correctly concluded that in this case, common questions of law and
fact predominate over individual questions, and that class
representation is superior to other methods of adjudication. . .
FPL could identify exactly which customer lost power, at what
address, when they lost power, and the reason why they lost
power."

The Court makes reference to the case of Paladino v. Am. Dental
Plan, Inc., 697 So.2d 897, 899 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), where the court
held that "even where some individualized issues of proof exist in
a case, where an issue raised by a common contract provision
predominates, the better reasoned approach is to maintain the suit
as a class action and, if required after further development of the
issues, permit the lower court to create subclasses."

Moreover, the Court finds that "the record supports the trial
court's conclusion that the Plaintiffs established that common
questions of law and fact predominate over individual plaintiff
issues. FPL's Tariff is a form document, and FPL admitted it
applies to all Plaintiffs and class members. . . FPL drafted the
Tariff, and it was presented to its customers on a take it or leave
it basis. . . The Tariff also incorporates FPL's 'Service
Standard'. . . The Tariff further provides for the storm charge
that the Plaintiffs referenced in their amended complaint. . . The
evidence showed that FPL uses 'cause codes' among other data
related to customer power outage, which the trial court noted would
provide the court with a reasonable methodology for generalized
proof of class-wide impact." Thus, FPL's conduct in determining the
cause of power loss for each client is the same. In addition, the
standard Tariff is the same one given to all customers. Thus, the
evidence used to prove one of the named plaintiffs' breach of
contract claims is the same evidence that will be used to prove the
rest of the class members' breach of contract claims. Accordingly,
plaintiffs can use FPL's data to prove FPL's liability for the
entire class.

The Court concludes that the trial court was correct in concluding
that class representation was superior to other methods of
adjudication. . . accurately noted that there were potentially
millions of prospective class members and that their small,
individual economic claims were not large enough to justify each
individual plaintiff filing a separate action. . . Thus. . . class
action would be the "most economically feasible remedy given the
potential individual damage recovery for each class member". . .
Consequently, "the trial court was correct in determining that
plaintiffs presented evidence that a class action was superior to
other available methods for resolving this controversy."

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated March 22, 2023 is available
https://tinyurl.com/mzfsbte2 from Leagle.com.


FLORIDA SECURITY: Wheelock Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessie Wheelock, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
FLORIDA SECURITY SERVICES, INC., and ROBERTO DURAN, individually,
Case No. 1:23-cv-21243-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 31, 2023), is brought
to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws
of the United States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the
Act").

The Plaintiff was compensated for all his working hours at his
regular rate of $11.00 an hour. However, the Plaintiff was not paid
for overtime hours, as required by law. The Plaintiff did not clock
in and out, but the Defendants were able to track and monitor the
hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals. The Defendants knew about the number of hours worked
by Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. Therefore,
during the relevant period of time, Defendants willfully failed to
pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and one-half his
regular rate for every hour that she worked in excess of 40, in
violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff had duties as a security officer.

FLORIDA SECURITY is a Florida corporation that provides security
services to businesses, residential communities, construction
sites, retailers, and related security services such as executive
bodyguard protection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLOUR BOX: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Flour Box, LLC.
The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. The Flour Box, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-02659 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2023).

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

The Flour Box -- https://flourbox.com/ -- is a small bakery cafe in
Hillman City, Seattle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FOX CORP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
its investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Fox Corporation (NASDAQ: FOX, FOXA) resulting from
allegations that FOX may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public. The prospective class includes
those who purchased FOX call options and/or sold put options.

SO WHAT: If you purchased FOX 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=13327 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: In the wake of the 2020 U.S. Presidential
Election, Dominion Voting Systems sued FOX for defamation.
Dominion's lawsuit alleges that FOX defamed Dominion's business by
endorsing, repeating or broadcasting a series of "verifiably false
yet devastating lies about Dominion." Dominion claims that various
statements that were made on FOX News, including that Dominion
committed election fraud by rigging the 2020 election, that
Dominion's software and algorithms manipulated vote counts in the
2020 election, that Dominion was founded for the purpose of rigging
elections, and that Dominion paid kickbacks to government officials
who used its machines, were defamatory and false. Dominion seeks
over $1.6 billion in damages, as well as additional punitive
damages.

Beginning in February 2023, specific details emerged of internal
discussions at FOX in the wake of the 2020 election, revealing that
FOX's senior leaders understood that claims to the effect that
Dominion had rigged the 2020 election were false. As a consequence,
FOX faces significant potential legal liability.

As a result of ongoing revelations about FOX's legal exposure in
the Dominion lawsuit, FOX's Class A stock has declined from a
closing price of $37.03 on February 17, 2023 to a closing price of
$32.52 on March 15, 2023, a 12% decline. FOX's Class B stock has
declined from a closing price of $34.22 on February 17, 2023 to a
closing price of $29.83 on March 15, 2023, a 12% decline.

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]

GALICIA BAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Crespo Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ISABEL CRESPO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 83 02 GALICIA BAR REST INC (D/B/A GALICIA
BAR), JOSE MAYO, SEGUNDO CALDAS, and MAURICIO SANCHEZ, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-02410 (E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at Galicia Bar as a
bartender from approximately April 2016 until on or about March 20,
2023. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff appropriate
minimum wage compensation for the hours that she worked. The
Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked, says the Plaintiff.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant and bar,
located at 83-02 Northern Blvd, Jackson Heights, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GARRETT MOTION: Averts Class Action Over Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Honeywell
International Inc. spin-off Garrett Motion Inc. shook off a
proposed securities class action alleging the automotive technology
company concealed from investors its asbestos-related liabilities
inherited from Honeywell.

The investors failed to adequately allege that Garrett Motion or
its directors and officers acted with intent to deceive,
manipulate, or defraud investors, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the
US District Court for the Southern District of New York said.

The investors' third amended complaint alleged that the defendants
touted Garrett's "superior technology and R&D funding and growth
plan," and bragged to investors about its "financial health,
financial flexibility, stability, and resiliency". [GN]


GERDAU MACSTEEL: Faces Johnson Suit Over Parental Leave Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GERDAU MACSTEEL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-CV-10719-BAF-CI (E.D. Mich., March 28, 2023) challenges the
Defendant's policy and practice of discriminating against non-union
birth fathers in the provision of paid parental leave.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant violated the Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Federal Equal Pay Act, the
Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and the Workforce
Opportunity Wage Act.

Plaintiff Nicholas Johnson is a resident of Michigan and a
non-union employee of Gerdau, which is a steel production company
incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware. He began
working for Gerdau at its Monroe, Michigan steel mill in 2021 as a
non-union R&D Technical Specialist. The Plaintiff worked for Gerdau
at its Monroe, Michigan steel mill until Aug. 1, 2022.

Gerdau MacSteel Inc. manufactures steel products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Matthew J. Clark, Esq.
           GREGORY, MOORE, BROOKS & CLARK, P.C.
           28 W. Adams Ave., Suite 300
           Detroit, MI 48226
           Telephone: (313) 964-5600
           E-mail: matt@unionlaw.net
            
                - and -

           Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
           Brian W. Denlinger, Esq.
           ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
           315 S. Beverly Drive, Ste. 504
           Los Angeles, CA 90212
           Telephone: (310) 277-0614
           E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
                   bd@ackermanntilajef.com

HANK'S CLOTHING: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hank's Clothing for
Men and Women, Inc. The case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hank's Clothing for
Men and Women, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02662 (S.D.N.Y., March 30,
2023).

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

Hank's Clothing For Men & Women Inc operates as a clothing store.
The Company offers products like mens wear, accessories, footwear,
home furnishings, luggage, and womens wear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARDER MECHANICAL: $1.6MM Accord in Ellis Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants the motion for final approval of a
class settlement and motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and
incentive awards filed by Plaintiff Jeff Shipe in the case
captioned as GARY ELLIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. HARDER MECHANICAL
CONTRACTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00844-JSW (N.D.
Cal.).

In October 2020, Plaintiff Gary Ellis originally filed this action
against the Defendant Harder Mechanical Contractors, Inc. in Contra
Costa County Superior Court. The Defendant removed the action to
this Court. The first amended complaint alleges that the Defendant
failed to pay the minimum wage for all pre-shift and post-shift
time worked and failed to pay all wages due upon termination and
alleges violations of California Business & Professions Code,
California Labor Code, and the Wage Order 16.

The parties agreed to participate in a mediation session with
Jeffrey A. Ross and reached an agreement to settle the case. For
purposes of the settlement, the Court certifies a class, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, comprising all current and
former hourly employees who worked for the Defendant in California
during the Class Period -- May 1, 2016, through June 2, 2022,
inclusive.

To settle the action, the Defendant has agreed to pay $1.63 million
plus the Defendant's share of payroll taxes. After subtracting fees
and costs, the net settlement amount is estimated to be $1.2
million, to be distributed to class members based on the formula
set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Class members will receive
an average individual settlement payment of $465.

Upon finding that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate and
in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members, the Court
orders as follows:

1. No later than 28 calendar days of the Effective Date of the
Settlement Agreement, the Defendant will deposit into the Qualified
Settlement Fund established by Phoenix Settlement Administrators
the Maximum Settlement Amount, plus the Defendant's share of the
payroll taxes. PSA will disburse the settlement funds in accordance
with this Final Approval Order and Judgment and the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

2. The Court confirms Keller Grover LLP and the Law Offices of Scot
D. Bernstein, A Professional Corporation, as Class Counsel.

3. The Court approves the distribution of the Net Settlement Amount
to Settlement Class Members in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

4. The Court approves the payment of any residual funds to the
State Controller's Office, Unclaimed Property Division to be made
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

5. Within 21 days after the settlement checks become stale, the
parties should file a Post-Distribution Accounting, which provides
the information set forth in the Northern District's Procedural
Guidance for Class Action Settlements.

6. If this settlement does not become final and effective in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, this Final
Approval Order and Judgment and all orders entered in connection
herewith, will be vacated and will have no further force or
effect.

7. This Judgment and Final Order will have a res judicata effect
and bar the named Plaintiff and each Settlement Class Member from
bringing any action asserting any Released Claims against any of
the Released Parties.

8. This Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and this Judgment and Final Order.

The Court also awards Class Counsel $375,000 in attorneys' fees and
costs in the amount of $11,807. The Court also grants the request
to approve payment in the amount of $18,000 to PSA for settlement
administration services. Finally, the Court grants the motion for
incentive award in the amount of $4,000 each to Plaintiff Shipe and
to the estate of Plaintiff Gary Ellis.

A full-text copy of the Order dated March 22, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/ych527t9 from Leagle.com.


HUT AMERICAN: Bruce Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hut American Group
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Nicholas Bruce, On behalf of
himself and those similarly situated v. Hut American Group LLC,
Flynn Restaurant Group LP, Jeremy Biser, Michael Hallman, Greg
Flynn, Ron Bellamy, Case No. 5:23-cv-05049-TLB (E.D.N.Y., March 31,
2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Hut American -- https://www.hutamerican.com/ -- is the largest
Pizza Hut franchisee, operating 941 restaurants across 27
states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Louis Martin, Esq.
          MARTIN & KIEKLAK LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 3597
          Fayetteville, AR 72702-3597
          Phone: (479) 442-2244
          Fax: (479) 442-0134
          Email: aaron@MartinLawPartners.com


I-FIX-SCREENS.COM: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I-Fix-Screens.com,
Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. I-Fix-Screens.com, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-02511 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023).

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

iFixScreens -- https://ifixscreens.com/ -- is a device repair
expert company with multiple stores across the US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INDEPENDENT LIVING: Swaim Files Suit in M.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Independent Living
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Monica Swaim, on her own behalf
and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Independent Living
Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00276 (M.D.N.C., March 30, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Independent Living Systems, LLC -- https://ilshealth.com/ -- offers
a comprehensive range of clinical and third-party administrative
services to managed care organizations and providers that serve
high-cost, complex member populations in the Medicare, Medicaid and
Dual-Eligible Market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Matthew Wilkerson, Esq.
          VAN WINKLE BUCK WALL STARNES & DAVIS, P.A.
          POB 7376
          Asheville, NC 28802
          Phone: (828) 258-2991
          Fax: (828) 257-2767
          Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com


INVITE HEALTH INC: Clement Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Invite Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Vincent Clement, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Invite Health, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02500 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023).

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

InVite Health -- https://www.invitehealth.com/ -- is an online
vitamin store for high quality vitamins and supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

J CHOO USA: Licea Wiretapping Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. J CHOO USA, INC, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2224127 (Filed Oct. 21, 2022),
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on March 28, 2023.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:23-cv-00545 to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that Jimmy Choo's website,
https://www.jimmychoo.com "secretly wiretaps the private
conversations of everyone who communicates through the chat
feature" on the Website. The Plaintiff further alleges that Jimmy
Choo "allows at least one third party to eavesdrop on such
communications in real time and during transmission to harvest data
for financial gain."

The Plaintiff alleges that this activity "violated the California
Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), in numerous ways."

The Plaintiff purports to bring the claims on behalf of a
California class of persons, with the following proposed
membership:

   "All persons within California who within the statute of
   limitations period: (1) communicated with Defendant via
   the chat feature on Defendant's Website using a cellular
   telephone, and (2) whose prior communications were recorded
and/or
   eavesdropped upon without prior consent.

J Choo manufactures footwear products.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Becca J. Wahlquist, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 547-4900
          Facsimile: (213) 547-4901
          E-mail: BWahlquist@kelleydrye.com

JDC HEALTHCARE: Chestnut Cambronne Investigates Data Breach Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chestnut Cambronne PA, a law firm experienced in data breach class
action litigation is investigating claims on behalf of victims of a
data breach involving data entrusted to JDC Healthcare Management,
LLC, including sensitive personal information of current and former
clients. JDC Healthcare Management, LLC runs more than 70 Jefferson
Dental & Orthodontic practices throughout Texas. If you received a
notice of data breach letter from JDC Healthcare Management, LLC,
please contact us as soon as possible to understand your legal
rights in response to the data breach.

WHAT HAPPENED?
On or around August 9, 2021, JDC Healthcare Management, LLC
detected malware within its IT network. A forensic investigation
into the security breach confirmed the malware was downloaded onto
its system on July 27, 2021. It was later determined that
unauthorized individuals accessed JDC Healthcare Management,
LLC’s IT systems from July 27, 2021 to August 16, 2021 and viewed
or copied files on its systems that contained patient’s protected
health information.

HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IMPACTED BY THE DATA BREACH?
JDC Healthcare Management, LLC did not notify victims of the breach
until March 2022. In total, the data of 1,026,820 individuals was
compromised in the breach.

WHAT INFORMATION WAS EXPOSED IN THE DATA BREACH?
JDC Healthcare Management, LLC has disclosed the following
information was included in the data breach:

Full Name;
Dates of Birth;
Social Security Number;
Driver’s license numbers;
Financial information;
Health insurance information; and
Medical information

WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF THE JDC HEALTHCARE
MANAGEMENT, LLC DATA BREACH?
If you would like to have a free, confidential consultation with an
attorney to learn more about your rights and potential remedies in
responding to the JDC Healthcare Management, LLC data breach,
please contact Chestnut Cambronne PA attorney Bryan Bleichner at
(612) 339-3700 or email us at bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com.
[GN]

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Settlement Final Approval Heard on Aug. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Juul Class Action Lawsuit is a legal case brought against Juul
Labs, the manufacturer of Juul e-cigarettes, for allegedly falsely
advertising their e-cigarettes as safe and non-addictive, while not
disclosing the high levels of nicotine and harmful chemicals in
their products. The lawsuit also alleges that Juul targeted minors
in their marketing campaigns. Currently, the court has not rendered
a verdict on whether any of the defendants have breached any laws.

Is the Juul Class Action Lawsuit a scam?
It is not a scam.

If you purchased Juul products such as its Juul Device
(e-cigarette), Juulpods, and/or other products from its official
website on or before December 7, 2022, you may have received a
notification email from Juul regarding your eligibility to receive
a payment from the $255 million settlement. If you didn't receive a
notice or if you purchased Juul products from a retail store on or
before December 7, 2022, you may also be eligible to receive a
portion of the settlement.

Who is eligible to file a claim?
To be eligible to file a lawsuit against Juul, you must meet the
following criteria:

You must be 18 years old or older and have experienced health
issues related to Juul e-cigarettes.
If you are the legal guardian of a child who is 18 years old or
younger who has experienced health issues related to Juul
e-cigarettes, you can file a lawsuit on behalf of your child.
In both cases, you will need to provide proof of the health
problems that you claim Juul caused. Severe health problems include
cardiovascular diseases, respiratory failure or lung issues,
behavioral changes, heart attacks, nicotine poisoning, seizures,
strokes, mental health issues, and many more.

How to file a claim?
If you believe you are eligible to receive a payment from the Juul
settlement, you must file a claim before the deadline of July 14,
2023. To file a claim, you can visit the official website for the
Juul Class Action Lawsuit at https://www.juulclassaction.com/en.

Upon submitting a valid claim, the amount of compensation you
receive will be determined by the total sum of money you have spent
on Juul products. The Juul settlement's final approval hearing is
scheduled for August 9, 2023.

How to protect yourself against fake emails?
There's a risk of scammers using the Juul Class Action Lawsuit as
an opportunity to send fake emails and obtain personal information.
To avoid being scammed, follow these precautions:

1. Check the sender's email address to confirm it's from Juul
Labs.
2. Avoid clicking on links or attachments in emails requesting
personal information.
3. Be cautious of emails that pressure you into acting immediately
or ones that offer unexpected financial rewards.
4. Use the official Juul Class Action Lawsuit website,
https://www.juulclassaction.com/en, to submit claims or get
information.
5. Download Trend Micro Maximum Security for even more protection,
including Web Threat Protection, Ransomware Protection,
Anti-phishing, and Anti-spam Protection. [GN]

L'OREAL USA: Averts Class Action Over Product's "Paris" Labeling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell, writing for Global Cosmetic News, reports that
L'Oréal has succeeded in having a class action lawsuit that
claimed the French beauty giant's use of the word 'Paris' was
misleading dismissed, according to a report published by Reuters.

THE DETAILS Manhattan-based US District Judge Analisa Torres ruled
that the use of the word 'Paris' and French words on packaging
would not deceive a reasonable shopper into believing that the
product in question was made in France.   

THE WHY? Torres followed precedent in previous cases concerning the
use of Hawaiian and Jamaican on product packaging and noted that
the disclaimer detailing the country of manufacture was clearly and
correctly provided on the label. [GN]


LCM HOLDINGS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Keith Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN KEITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LCM HOLDINGS ENTERPRISE INC., d/b/a AMERICAN
AUTO TRANSPORT, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-60613-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
March 29, 2023) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making
unsolicited calls.

LCM HOLDINGS ENTERPRISE INC. is a Michigan based B2B professional
consulting firm. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com

               - and -

          Max S. Morgan, Esq.
          THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
          1528 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 587-6240
          E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com

LECANGS LLC: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lecangs LLC. The case
is styled as Jessica Lopez, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lecangs LLC, Case No. 23CV030348 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 30, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

Lecangs, a 3PL company -- https://us.lecangs.com/ -- provides
comprehensive eCommerce warehousing and logistics services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
          Phone: 213-381-9988
          Fax: 213-381-9989
          Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com


LEVAN GROUP I: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Levan Group I, L.P.
The case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Levan Group I, L.P., Case No.
1:23-cv-02655 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2023).

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

Levan Group I, L.P. was founded in 1995. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of draperies, curtains, and
upholstery materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIBERTY SENIOR: Stauffer Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Stauffer, individually and for others similarly situated v.
LIBERTY SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-00573-BO (E.D.N.C.,
March 30, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime and other
damages from the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").

Like the Putative Class Members, the Plaintiff regularly worked
more than 40 hours in a week. But these workers never receive
overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek. Instead
of paying overtime, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members the same hourly rate for all hours worked,
including those in excess of 40 hours in a workweek (or "straight
time for overtime").

The Defendant's straight time for overtime pay scheme violates the
FLSA because it deprives the Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members of overtime pay at the proper premium rates. Further, the
Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members
for all the hours they worked. Instead, the Defendant automatically
deducts 30 minutes per shift from their work time for so-called
meal breaks. the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members thus are
not paid for that time. But the Defendant fails to provide the
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members with bona fide meal
breaks.

Instead, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members to remain on-duty throughout their shifts and
continuously subjects them to interruptions, even during their
unpaid "meal breaks." the Defendant's auto-deduction policy
violates the FLSA by depriving the Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members of overtime pay for all overtime hours worked, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Certified Nursing
Assistant (CNA) and a Medical Technician at the Defendant's Bradley
Creek Health Center in Wilmington, North Carolina.

Liberty is a healthcare provider that operates senior care
facilities across the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Strianese, Esq.
          Tamara Huckert, Esq.
          STRIANESE HUCKERT LLP
          3501 Monroe Rd.
          Charlotte, NC 28205
          Phone: 704-966-2101
          Email: chris@strilaw.com
                 tamara@strilaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Phone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com


LLR INC: 9th Cir. Vacate Class Certification Over Sales Tax Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey H. Fisher of Kilpatrick Townsend reports that In Van v.
LLR, Inc., 61 F.4th 1053 (9th Cir. 2023), the Ninth Circuit vacated
the district court's grant of class certification and remanded for
re-assessment of whether the plaintiff had satisfied the
predominance requirement. Although the court rejected challenges to
class certification based on standing and the voluntary payment
doctrine, it found that individual issues related to defendants'
provision of discounts for the purpose of offsetting the allegedly
improper sales tax assessment potentially defeated predominance.

Plaintiff Katie Van filed a putative class action against
Defendants LLR, Inc., and LuLaRoe (collectively, "LuLaRoe")
alleging that LuLaRoe over-charged sales tax to Alaskan customers.
LuLaRoe, a multi-level marketing company that sold leggings and
other women's clothing through independent fashion retailers, used
a point-of-sale system that calculated sales tax based on the
retailer's location, not the customer's location. This practice
caused LuLaRoe to overcharge customers in states - like Alaska -
that did not charge any sales tax. The District Court of Alaska
granted class certification in September 2021 and LuLaRoe
appealed.

Finding that LuLaRoe's provision of retailer discounts created
individualized issues, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Before addressing the discounts, the court addressed - and rejected
- LuLaRoe's other challenges to of class certification.

First, the Court of Appeals found that Ms. Van had standing. 61
F.4th at 1063. After the filing of litigation, LuLaRoe had
attempted to refund the money improperly collected as sales tax.
LuLaRoe did not, however, pay interest for the time between the
improper charge and the return. The only injury suffered by many of
the putative class members was a small amount - often less than
$0.05 of the time value of money. LuLaRoe argued that such de
minimis injury was insufficient to establish standing. The court
disagreed, concluding that "[a]ny monetary loss, even one as small
as a fraction of a cent, is sufficient to support standing." Id. at
1064.

Second, the court found that the voluntary payment doctrine did not
defeat predominance. LuLaRoe argued that some retailers informed
purchasers of the sales tax issues before consummating the
purchase. But LuLaRoe's "minimal proffers of evidence" did not
suffice to show "that any class member knew of the sales tax and
then paid it." Id. at 1068. While the voluntary payment doctrine
could create individual issues, the Ninth Circuit found that
LuLaRoe failed to submit evidence sufficient to substantiate its
defense.

Finally, the court addressed LuLaRoe's argument that class
certification should be vacated because some retailers provided
discounts for the purpose of offsetting the improperly assessed
sales tax. Id. Because LuLaRoe only provided evidence that 18 of
the 13,860 discounts were provided for the purpose of offsetting
improperly assessed sales tax, the district court found that any
individual issue was de minimis and insufficient to defeat class
certification.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed. Id. at 1069. It found that the
evidence that at least 18 of the discounts were targeted at excess
taxes meant that discovery would be necessary to understand the
purpose of each of these discounts. Such discovery "could
potentially involve up to 13,680 depositions and months of trial,
[and] certainly cannot be described as de minimis." Id. After
finding an individual issue, the court remanded to the district
court to "re-assess whether Van has met her burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that common issues predominate over
questions affecting only individual members." Id.

Conclusion: The Van decision emphasizes the importance of fully
developing evidence of individualized issues during discovery. The
district court rejected LuLaRoe's voluntary payment defense because
of a lack of evidence. But it found the LuLaRoe's discounts created
individual issues, and potentially defeated predominance, because
LuLaRoe had demonstrated that at least a portion of the discounts
targeted tax offsets. This contrast highlights the critical
importance of class action defendants promptly identifying factual
strategies for defeating predominance and systematically developing
evidence to support those strategies. [GN]

MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS: Serna Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAMON SERNA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS, LLC; LANDRY'S INC.; LANDRY'S
PAYROLL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV03171 (Filed Feb. 14, 2023), was removed from Los Angeles
Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on March 28, 2023.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-02269-AB-MRW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts in the Complaint that Defendants employed him
and other persons who performed work for Defendants as hourly-paid
and/or non-exempt employees throughout the state of California.

The Complaint alleges that "the Class is so numerous that the
individual joiner of all its members is impracticable." On the
basis of its own investigation, Defendant Mastro's Restaurants
determined here are more than 100 current and former non-exempt
and/or hourly-paid employees who worked for it in California during
the four-year period prior to the filing of the Complaint.
Therefore, Plaintiff's proposed class consists of at least 100
members now at the time of removal and at the initiation of this
civil action [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew M. Sonne, Esq.
          Lauren J. Blaes, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
          Telephone: (714) 513-5100
          Facsimile: (714) 513-5130
          E mail: msonne@sheppardmullin.com
                  lblaes@sheppardmullin.com

MDL 2672: Court Enjoins Christiansen's Action in Orange County
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL"
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This
Document Relates to: Porsche Gasoline Litigation, Case No.
15-md-02672-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California grants the
Motion to Enforce Judgment filed by the Defendants: Volkswagen AG,
Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, and Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

The Defendants seek to enjoin Maria Christiansen from pursuing her
action filed in Orange County Superior Court against Porsche Cars
North America, Newport Auto Center, Porsche of Newport Beach, Bosch
Automotive Service Solutions, Inc., court-appointed settlement
administrator JND Legal, and Does 1-10.

Christiansen argues, inter alia, because she attempted to opt out
of the settlement, Porsche cannot enforce the Court's Final
Approval Order and Judgment against her.

In their class action complaint, the Plaintiffs in this action
alleged that some Porsche vehicles had worse fuel economy and
higher emissions than the test-specific models, due to a different
axle ratio, while other vehicles with a high performance "Sport+
Mode" exceeded NOx emissions limits while driven in that mode,
bringing claims under common law, federal and state warranty laws,
and state consumer protection laws.

In June 2022, the parties moved for certification of the class and
preliminary approval of an $80 million settlement. The Court
granted preliminary approval of the class settlement, setting
September 30 as the deadline for class members to opt out. On Nov.
9, 2022, the Court finally approved the settlement and entered
final judgment.

On June 28, 2022, just prior to preliminary approval of the
settlement, Christiansen filed a complaint in Orange County
Superior Court, bringing claims for breach of warranty, fraud,
design and manufacturing defects, and emissions tampering. When
Christiansen attempted to serve Porsche Cars North America by
mailing process to Porsche's counsel, counsel informed Christiansen
that she was not authorized to accept service and that Christiansen
was part of the settlement class, directing her to the settlement
website. Christiansen indicates that she sent, or attempted to
send, an opt out request to the settlement administrator on Sept.
6, 2022, but the settlement administrator does not report receiving
her opt-out request.

Instead of seeking relief from this Court, Christiansen filed an
amended complaint in the Orange County action, asserting new claims
against JND for declaratory relief, breach of fiduciary
obligations, negligent settlement administration, and breach of
California Business and Professions Code. In her declaration
attached to this amended complaint, Christiansen contends that her
opt-out request was successfully sent but "lost" by JND, and
Porsche's counsel sought an extension of time to file its demurrer
in the Orange County action to conceal JND's loss of her opt-out
request until after the September 30 opt-out deadline, thus
"unfairly extinguishing her rights as a Plaintiff."

Under the All Writs Act, Porsche seeks an order enjoining the
pendency of the Orange County Action.

The Court determines that "Christiansen's claims against Porsche
plainly are "related . . . [to the] subject matter of the Complaint
or this Action. . . Christiansen's factual allegations against
Porsche are in many ways nearly identical to the allegations in the
amended complaint in this action. . . Christiansen quotes the
complaint in this action directly, calling it the 'companion Class
Action.' Christiansen's claims against JND, while certainly more
novel than her claims against Porsche, also 'arise out of or [are]
in any way related to' this action because they arise from JND's
administration of the class settlement."

Thus, the Court is empowered to enjoin the Orange County Action,
given that Christiansen's claims in that action are covered by the
release and this Court's exclusive jurisdiction. But it may only do
so if the Court finds that Christiansen failed to exclude herself
from the settlement.

Fundamentally, the parties disagree as to whether Christiansen's
exclusion request was received by JND. Christiansen claims to have
sent it; JND claims not to have received it. But the Court need not
decide whether Christiansen's email was sent and received because,
ultimately, it would have been deficient. Thus, the question is not
whether Christiansen submitted a valid opt out in September, but
whether she has demonstrated good cause to belatedly opt out of the
settlement now and pursue her claims in the Orange County Action.

The Court points out that "while the one-month delay between the
end of the opt-out period on September 30 and October 25 was
arguably not within Christiansen's "reasonable control," the three
and a half-month delay that followed undoubtedly was. . . While
Porsche would likely not have been prejudiced had Christiansen
moved for exclusion months ago. . . now that the settlement has
been final for over four months, Porsche would be prejudiced
because it will have to defend nearly identical claims that it
understood to be precluded by the final approval order in this
action."

Therefore, the Court will not retroactively recognize
Christiansen's unsuccessful opt-out attempt. As a result,
Christiansen is enjoined from pursuing her claims in the Orange
County Action.

A full-text copy of the Order dated March 22, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/2s6exvhb from Leagle.com.


MDL 2966: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Consider Not Sealing Docs
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE: XYREM (SODIUM
OXYBATE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 3:20-md-02966-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Class Plaintiffs move the Court for an administrative
order to consider whether to seal portions of their Reply in
Support of Class Certification and several exhibits referenced in
the Supplemental Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel that have been
designated as confidential by another party or non-party.

The Class Plaintiffs file this motion to comply with the Stipulated
Protective Order entered in this case and Civil Local Rule 79-5.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 79-5 and 7-11(c), no hearing date has
been set.

  -- Material to Be Filed Under Seal

     Paragraph 13.3 of the Stipulated Protective Order prohibits a

     party from filing in the public record any disclosure or
     discovery material that has been designated as "Confidential"
or
     "Highly Confidential" without written permission from the
     Designating Party or an order of the Court secured after
     appropriate notice to all interested Designated Parties.

Portions of Class Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class
Certification and the Declaration Exhibits contain, summarize, or
reflect the content of materials Defendants and third parties have
designated "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential. " None of the
information at issue in this administrative motion was designated
as confidential by Class Plaintiffs. Class Plaintiffs file this
administrative motion to comply with the Stipulated Protective
Order and Civil Local Rule 79-5.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K49aaP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
          Scott Grzenczyk, Esq.
          Tom Watts, Esq.
          Jordan Isern, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
                  scottg@girardsharp.com
                  tomw@girardsharp.com
                  jisern@girardsharp.com

                - and –

          Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 577-0050
          E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com


MERRITT HEALTHCARE: Faces Guerrero Suit Over Patient Info Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA GUERRERO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERRITT HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC,
d/b/a MERRITT HEALTHCARE ADVISORS, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00389 (D. Conn., March 29, 2023) alleges that Merritt
failed to properly secure and safeguard her protected health
information and personally identifiable information stored within
its information network in violation of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act.

Between July 30, 2022, and Aug. 25, 2022, unauthorized third-party
cybercriminals gained access to Merritt's information network with
the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PHI/PII and financial
information, including marketing and selling this information, says
the suit.

Merritt Healthcare Holdings, LLC, d/b/a Merritt Healthcare
Advisors, is a limited liability corporation located at 75 Danbury
Rd, Unit B5, Copps Hill Court, Ridgefield, Connectictut. It is a
healthcare advisory firm that provides services to healthcare
organizations throughout the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

                   Erin Green Comite, Esq.
                   Anja Rusi, Esq.
                   SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
                   156 South Main Street
                   P.O. Box 192
                   Colchester, CT 06415
                   Telephone: (860) 537-5537
                   Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
                   E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com
                           arusi@scott-scott.com

                           - and -

                   Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
                   SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
                   17th Floor  The Helmsley Building 230 Park
Avenue
                   New York, NY 10169
                   Telephone: (212) 223-6444
                   Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
                   E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                                 
                           - and -

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

                           - and -

                   Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
                   Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
                   LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
                   1133 Penn Ave., Floor 5
                   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
                   Telephone: (412) 253-6307
                   E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
                           nickc@lcllp.com

MGM RESORTS: Seeks Dismissal of Price-Gouging Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Zalucki, writing for KTNV, reports that a motion has been
filed to dismiss the lawsuit against several Las Vegas Strip hotel
operators that alleges the companies engaged in a price-fixing
scheme.

The lawsuit filed by Hagens Bergman alleges that a revenue
management platform known as Rainmaker has been using "real-time
pricing and supply information" to help hotel operators maximize
profits in violation of antitrust laws.

The motion, which was filed by Attorneys representing MGM Resorts,
said the plaintiffs are alleging "conspiracy," which they "failed
to prove" is happening.

The motion says the plaintiffs have failed to prove that any
Rainmaker software was being used at any of the ten hotels in Las
Vegas that MGM is alleged to operate. These hotels include the
Bellagio, Aria, Park MGM, New York-New York, MGM Grand, Excalibur,
Luxor, Mandalay Bay, Four Seasons and VDARA at Aria.

". . . They have failed to allege that these hotels even receive
such pricing recommendations," the motion states.

The defendants note that the original class-action lawsuit named
the Borgata, which is an MGM property operated in New Jersey, but
claim the reference is "irrelevant to the lawsuit."

Attorneys for MGM even cited previous anti-trust litigation, which
states, "A complaint alleging an anti-trust conspiracy must allege
that each individual defendant joined the conspiracy and played
some role in it . . ."

The lawsuit claims the Rainmaker program advertises "15% revenue
growth" as well as testimonials from its parent company, Cendyn,
describing "implausible performance" for clients during the
COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit have until June 12 to respond. [GN]

MISSISSIPPI: Court Dismisses Alexander's Claims Against Turner
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sharion Aycock of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Mississippi grants in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the case captioned as ANDREW ALEXANDER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PELICIA E.
HALL, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:20-CV-21-SA-JMV (N.D.
Miss.).

To the extent the Defendants seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
claims against Marshal Turner, the Court finds that the claims
should be dismissed to the same extent its previous Order dismissed
the claims against the other Defendants, but no further.

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on Feb. 10,
2020. After multiple amendments, they filed their Fifth Amended
Complaint. This civil action arises from the conditions at the
Mississippi State Penitentiary, otherwise known as Parchman. The
Plaintiffs were housed at Parchman as inmates between Feb. 17,
2017, and the present. Among the numerous Defendants named in the
Fifth Amended Complaint are Pelicia Hall -- Commissioner of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) from March 2017
through December 2019 and Marshal Turner -- Superintendent of
Parchman.

In their Fifth Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that
Parchman has for some time "been in an ongoing state of crisis" and
is "so severely underfunded and staffed with persons such as the
Defendants herein, that inmates are routinely denied access to
basic amenities such as clean water, plumbing, and electricity."
The Fifth Amended Complaint further alleges that nine inmates have
died at Parchman since Jan. 1, 2020.

In its previous Order, the Court substantially limited the
Plaintiffs' ability to recover. Specifically, the Court held that
the Plaintiffs had adequately alleged a violation of their Eighth
Amendment rights; however, the Court also noted that the Prison
Litigation Reform Act barred the Plaintiffs from recovering
compensatory damages for this claim (because they did not allege
any physical injury). Therefore, to the extent the Plaintiffs
sought compensatory damages under that claim, the Court granted
dismissal. In addition, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs'
conspiracy claim altogether because that claim was not based upon
any allegation that the Defendants' conduct "was motivated by
racial animus," and Section 1985 does not extend beyond that
limited category.

Now, the Defendants filed the present Joint Motion, wherein they
request that the Court partially vacate its previous Order. The
Defendants contend that "Plaintiffs' Complaint should be dismissed
in full against Defendant Marshal Turner and all Defendants."

In considering the present Motion, the Court notes the context in
which it was filed. Aside from the issue with the entry of default
against Turner, the present Motion essentially requests the same
relief that the Defendants sought in their original Motion to
Dismiss. Notably, the Defendants did not file a motion to
reconsider nor did they file an interlocutory appeal of the Court's
denial of qualified immunity. Instead, after Turner was served with
process, the Defendants filed the present Motion, essentially
raising the same arguments.

The Defendants argue that the Court improperly failed to segregate
each of the Plaintiffs' claims and analyze them separately and
that, had the Court done so, it would have yielded a result of
dismissal. The Court disagrees. The Court reasons that: "Although
the allegations of the Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint cover a
significant variety of purported conditions, the claims are not
simply allegations of amorphous unconstitutional overall
conditions. . . Instead. . . the Fifth Amended Complaint reveals
that the Plaintiffs allege multiple specific categories of Eighth
Amendment violations."

The Fifth Amended Complaint sets forth very similar allegations as
to each Defendant, which the Defendants characterize as a failure
to specify how each Defendant specifically caused the damages each
of the Plaintiffs have allegedly suffered. The Court rejects this
argument. Rather, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations
illustrate their contention that each of the Defendants engaged in
virtually the same conduct -- leading to the alleged constitutional
violations. The Court's ruling is limited to the sufficiency of the
allegations -- and in no way addresses whether the Plaintiffs will
ultimately be able to prove those claims.

The scope of this lawsuit is very limited. The Plaintiffs' only
viable claims at this stage are for potential nominal and punitive
damages based upon alleged Eighth Amendment violations. In its
ruling today, the Court simply concludes that the Plaintiffs have
stated plausible claims to survive Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.

Undoubtedly, the Court deems that the Plaintiffs, through
discovery, will have to develop proof that each Defendant engaged
in the alleged conduct depriving each of the Plaintiffs of their
constitutional rights. And if the Plaintiffs fail to do so as to
any particular Defendant, that Defendant will certainly be entitled
to dismissal. But for purposes of the present stage of the
litigation, the Court finds that the allegations are sufficient to
survive Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.

A full-text copy of the Order and Memorandum Opinion dated March
22, 2023 is available https://tinyurl.com/2p87f4up from
Leagle.com.


MOTION AND FLOW: Heckard Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Motion and Flow
Control Products Inc., et al. The case is styled as Antoinette
Heckard, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Motion and
Flow Control Products Inc., Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
34-2023-00337182-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March
30, 2023).

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

Motion & Flow Control Products, Inc. -- https://www.mfcp.com/ --
distributes fluid connectors and fluid power equipment,
instrumentation fittings, seals, and valves.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
          Phone: 213-381-9988
          Fax: 213-381-9989
          Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com


NAT'L ASSOC. OF REALTORS: Motion to Certify Antitrust Suit Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CPI of Competition Policy International reports that US District
Judge Andrea Wood's decision grants class-action status to past
home sellers seeking more than $13 billion in damages and creates a
separate class of current and future sellers who want a court
injunction that bars subsequent violations of U.S. antitrust law.

On March 29, 2023 federal judge ruled that home sellers accusing
the National Association of Realtors and a group of real estate
brokerages of conspiring to inflate commission rates can move
forward as a class action.

The plaintiffs are seven home sellers. The judge's order said
membership in each class "can be expected to number in the
thousands, at minimum."

Designation as a class means the plaintiffs' can pursue large-scale
claims against the National Association of Realtors, RE/MAX LLC,
Long & Foster Inc and other corporate defendants as opposed to
filing individual claims for monetary damages. [GN]

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued in Calif. Over Student Athlete Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was sued in California
federal court on Tuesday in a proposed class action that alleges
thousands of current and former student athletes were denied annual
cash payments for academic achievement in violation of U.S.
antitrust law.

Two former college athletes filed the complaint against the NCAA,
which is the governing body for U.S. intercollegiate sports, and a
group of its member conferences. The lawsuit alleged an unlawful
conspiracy to bar cash awards for academic success.

The lawsuit builds off a U.S. Supreme Court 9-0 ruling in 2021 that
said it was illegal for the NCAA to have blocked schools from
offering education-related benefits, including an award of up to
$5,980 a year to student athletes. More than 50 schools have since
started to offer those payments.

"This is part of the continuing effort to bring justice to the
athletes who have been deprived of the ability to share in the
revenues they generated by the NCAA," a lawyer for the plaintiffs,
Jeffrey Kessler of law firm Winston & Strawn, told Reuters on
Tuesday.

Representatives from the NCAA did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

The suit seeks to represent a class of "thousands" of current and
former student athletes who competed on a Division I team starting
in April 2019, before the academic awards were permitted.

Division I is the top level of college sports in the United States,
including big money makers football and basketball as well as many
other sports. The complaint said the NCAA, its league conferences
and member schools "generate billions of dollars a year in revenues
from Division I sports."

The two named plaintiffs are Chuba Hubbard, who played football at
Oklahoma State University, and Keira McCarrell, a former track and
field runner at the University of Oregon and Auburn University.

The plaintiffs "did not receive the academic achievement awards
that they would have received in a competitive market," the
complaint alleges.

The case is Hubbard et al v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, No. 4:23-cv-01593. [GN]

NCB MANAGEMENT: Suit Filed in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCB Management
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Lindquist, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. NCB Management
Services, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01236 (E.D. Pa., March 30, 2023).

The nature suit is stated as Other Contract.

NCB -- https://www.ncbi.com/ -- is a national accounts receivable
management company and debt buyer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          Nicholas Elia, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 592-1500
          Fax: (215) 592-4663
          Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
                 nelia@lfsblaw.com


NEBRASKA BOOK: Fails to Give 60-Day Layoff Notice, DeGroot Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher DeGroot, on behalf of himself and a putative class of
similarly situated former employees, Plaintiff v. NEBRASKA BOOK
COMPANY, INC.; NEBRASKA BOOK HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-03041-JMG-MDN (D. Neb., March 29, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification  Act.

On or about March 1, 2023, the Defendants made a mass layoff by,
unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff,
terminating approximately 242 employees at their Lincoln, Nebraska
facility, located at 4700 S 19th Street, Lincoln, Nebraska. They
failed to provide 60-day advance written notice to employees or
staff as required by the WARN Act, says the suit.

Nebraska Book Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its
principal place of business at 4700 S 19th Street, Lincoln,
Nebraska.

Nebraska Book Co. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nebraska Book
Holdings, Inc. It provides wholesale textbook distribution, retail
technology, and consulting services to other bookstores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

                  Daniel H. Friedman, Esq.
                  FRIEDMAN LAW OFFICES, PC, LLO
                  3800 Normal Blvd., Suite 200
                  PO Box 82009
                  Lincoln, NE 68501
                  Telephone: (402) 476-1093
                  E-mail: dfriedman@friedmanlaw.com

                          - and -

                  J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
                  Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
                  STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
                  223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
                  Nashville, TN 37203
                  Telephone: 615/254-8801
                  Facsimile: 615/255-5419
                  E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
                          miadevaia@stranchlaw.com

                          - and -

                  Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
                 Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
                 TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
                 613 Williamson St., Suite 201
                 Madison, WI 53703
                 Telephone: (608) 237-1775
                 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
                 E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
                         raina@turkestrauss.com
                              
                         - and -

                 Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
                 Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
                 COHEN & MALAD, LLP
                 One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
                 Indianapolis, IN  46204
                 Telephone: (317) 636-6481
                 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                         athomas@cohenandmalad.com

NEIMAN MARCUS: Shaw Sues to Remedy Unlawful Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Shaw, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, INC., JAMES E MAHABIR, Case No. 706786/2023
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., March 30, 2023), is brought to remedy
unlawful discrimination pursuant to the New York Human Rights Law,
Executive Law (the Human Rights Law of SHRL); and the
Administrative Code of the City of New York (the Administrative
Code or CHRL); and the Civil Rights Law of the State of New York.

On March 31, 2022, the Plaintiff was at Roosevelt Field Mall and
had gone into Defendant Neiman Marcus Group, Inc's store. The
Plaintiff purchased a white Givenchy bag, paid for it, and then
left the store. After walking about 100-150 feet out of the store
into the hallway where there were a lot of shoppers moving back and
forth, she was approached by an Indian man wearing a black suit
later understood by Plaintiff to be James E. Mahabir, Manager, Loss
Prevention Department at Neiman Marcus, with another man. In the
horde of shopper's traffic, he demanded the bag that Plaintiff had.
He stated, "Excuse me ma'am, you were at Neiman Marcus just now,
you took a pink bag and put it in your bag. We need to get the bag
back that you stole, the bag you stole from us."

The Plaintiff asked what bag he was talking about as she was
initially confused and thought she was being robbed. The individual
Defendants blocked Plaintiffs part, prevented her from further
proceeding on her way, and forcefully escorted her back into Neiman
Marcus store. When Plaintiff got into the store, he saw an elderly
white man and asked if the men who took Plaintiff into custody
worked for Neiman Marcus and he stated that they did, that they
were their Security Team and that Plaintiff should follow them into
the Security room and talk to them.

Although Defendants had cameras all over the store and can monitor
every part of the store, they regularly and cavalierly restrain
Black shoppers, accuse of them of stealing, search and humiliate
them, only to let them go, because they can get away with it and
because they get away with it without consequences. The Loss
Prevention Manager the Plaintiff to follow him into the Security
room for questioning but based on what she had already experienced,
Plaintiff refused. The Plaintiff demanded to be searched in the
open where store camera will record the opening of her bag, reveal
its contents, so that there would be no possibility of foreign
objects that she did not have or take being found in her bag.

When Plaintiff demanded that her bag be opened in public where
store camera would record the search, and where Plaintiff would
also record the search, after she turned on her phone recorder,
Defendants abandoned the search and did not search her bag again.
Defendants never asked Plaintiff at any time 30. for the receipt of
the item she bought or to open her bag so that they would see what
was inside it, but publicly accused Plaintiff of stealing although
they could easily have verified whether she had any stolen item by
asking for her receipt.

The Plaintiff was defamed, publicly humiliated, falsely imprisoned
and has been subjected to seriously emotional distress as a result
of Defendants' actions. Defendants' actions were callous,
intentional, reckless and punitive damages is warranted and
deserved to stop them from further cavalierly subjecting other
Blacks/African Americans to such public opprobrium, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a black female and was singled out for difference
in treatment because of her race and color.

Neiman Marcus was and still is a corporation organized and doing
business in New York State under the laws of the State with offices
in various parts of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony C. Ofodile, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY C. OFODILE
          498 Atlantic Ave.
          Brooklyn, NY 11217
          Phone: (718) 852-8300
          Email: ACOfodile@aol.com


NETCREDIT LOAN: Muccio Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE MUCCIO, individually and and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. NETCREDIT LOAN SERVICES, LLC D/B/A NETCREDIT, Case No.
CACE-23-011594 (Fla. State Ct., Broward Cty., March 24, 2023) is a
class action suit alleging that the Defendant violated the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.

On January 18, 2023, the Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to the Plaintiff. The Communication was sent from
collections@netcredit.com and delivered to the Plaintiffs personal
e-mail address. The Communication advised the Plaintiff that
"because you did not pay your past due balance in the amount of
$2,744.63 by by Wednesday, January January 18, 2023, your entire
outstanding balance has been accelerated, and the entire balance
for your line of credit balance is now due."

The Communication was sent by the Defendant at 1:57:18 AM in the
Plaintiff's zone, and was received by the Plaintiff at 1:57:18 zone
AM in the Plaintiffs zone. The Defendant did not have the consent
of the Plaintiff to communicate with the Plaintiff between the
hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered a
legal injury as a result of the Defendant's violations of the
FCCPA, says the suit.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of
Florida, residing in Broward County, Florida.

NetCredit is an online lender that offers personal loans to
borrowers with damaged credit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  jen@jibraellaw.com
                  shannon@jibraellaw.com

NEUHAUS INC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neuhaus Inc. The case
is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Neuhaus Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02517
(E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2023).

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

Neuhaus Inc. -- https://www.neuhauschocolates.com/en_BE/home -- is
an inventor of the Belgian praline.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NEW YORK: Court Narrows Civil Rights Claims in Bruno v. DOCCS
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as ANTONIO BRUNO, Plaintiff v. ANTHONY J.
ANNUCCI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-686-LJV (W.D.N.Y.),
Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York has dismissed several claims of the
Plaintiff under section 1915A, and several of his claims may
proceed.

The pro se plaintiff, Antonio Bruno, was a prisoner confined at the
Attica Correctional Facility when he filed this action. Bruno has
sued four supervisory officials in their individual capacities:
Anthony J. Annucci, Acting Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; S. Beck,
Superintendent of the Attica Medical Department; Mr. White, Attica
Deputy of Security; and J. Wolcott, Attica Superintendent. He also
has sued two groups of "John Doe" Defendants in their individual
capacities: investigators of DOCCS's Office of Special
Investigation who were present during the lockdown at Attica; and
correction officers who were part of the Hostage Rescue Team called
in during the lockdown.

Judge Vilardo denies Bruno's motion for appointment of counsel as
premature. He also denies Bruno's motion for class certification
because Bruno -- a pro se litigant -- cannot represent the rights
of others, including other inmates. It is well established that a
pro se class representative cannot adequately the interests of
other class members.

Bruno alleges that the Defendants violated his rights to both
substantive and procedural due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Judge Vilardo finds that "those claims fail and are
dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A(b)(1) . . .
Because Bruno is a convicted prisoner, any protection that
substantive due process affords him is 'at best redundant of that
provided by the Eighth Amendment.'"

Bruno alleges that Hostage Team members subjected him to excessive
force and assaulted him in violation of his Eighth Amendment
rights. Judge Vilardo finds that those allegations raise a viable
Eighth Amendment claim.

Bruno asserts inadequate-medical-care claims related to three
conditions: his knee pain, his PTSD, and the symptoms he
experienced because of the lockdown. The complaint, however, does
not allege that any defendant was deliberately indifferent to
Bruno's knee pain -- Bruno has failed to state a claim based on the
lack of medical care for his knee and the confiscation of his knee
brace.

Next, Bruno alleges that during lockdown, the Hostage Team members
were deliberately indifferent to his (PTSD) medical need: he says
that when he told them that he was on medication for PTSD and
urgently needed to see a mental health provider, the Hostage Team
members told him to "shut the f*** up" and threatened to kill him
if he did not." Bruno's inadequate-medical-care claim against the
Hostage Team members related to his mental healthcare may proceed
to service once those defendants are identified. However, any claim
against Beck related to the lack of treatment for Bruno's PTSD
fails because he has not alleged her personal involvement in -- or
even awareness of -- the denial of his care.

Finally, Bruno alleges that during the lockdown, the Attica Medical
Department did not provide medical care while he was in lockdown.
But Bruno has not alleged that any of the defendants were aware of
his lockdown-specific ailments or were deliberately indifferent to
his condition.

Judge Vilardo interprets Bruno's allegations about the OSI
investigators, Annucci, Wolcott, and White as asserting an Eighth
Amendment violation based on those defendants' failure to intervene
when Bruno was assaulted by the Hostage Team members. However, the
complaint does not plausibly allege that those defendants were
personally involved in the deprivation of Bruno's rights or that
they acted with deliberate indifference.

The complaint further alleges that Ammerman, Davis, Olson, and
Kennedy were deliberately indifferent to the serious risk faced by
Bruno when they were present for -- and thus aware of -- the
violent assault and failed to stop it. Judge Vilardo holds that
Bruno's failure-to-intervene claim against Ammerman, Davis, Olson,
and Kennedy may proceed to service.

Finally, Bruno's complaint asserts a conditions-of-confinement
claim regarding the lockdown conditions. But Bruno has not alleged
that any Defendant "possessed a 'sufficiently culpable state of
mind' associated with 'the unnecessary and wanton infliction of
pain'" regarding the lockdown conditions. Bruno therefore has not
raised a viable conditions-of-confinement claim.

But in light of his pro se status, Bruno may amend his complaint to
add allegations correcting the deficiencies on following claims:
(1) the inadequate-medical-care claim related to Bruno's knee pain;
(2) the inadequate-medical-care claim related to the symptoms Bruno
developed because of the lockdown; (3) all inadequate-medical-care
claims against Beck; (4) the failure-to-protect claims against
Annucci, White, and Wolcott; and (5) the conditions-of-confinement
claim. If Bruno does not file an amended, these claims will be
dismissed without further order from the Court.

A full-text copy of the Order dated March 22, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/yc74u8rx from Leagle.com.


NISSAN SHAPIRO: Faces Huebner Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEVI HUEBNER, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiff v. NISSAN SHAPIRO LAW P.C., Defendant, Case
No. 509438/2023 (N.Y., March 28, 2023) alleges that the Defendant
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated FDCPA by seeking
$200 of legal fees in its three-day notice served on Oct. 12, 2018.
The Defendant was also threatening eviction proceedings for
non-payment of an alleged debt. The threat of nonpayment came about
as a result of the landlord not depositing the payment that
Plaintiff made on Oct. 3, 2018. Immediately, after receiving the
said letter Plaintiff arranged a new payment. Despite having made
payment, on Nov. 21, 2018, Plaintiff was subjected to a holdover
proceeding filed by Defendant, says the suit.

Nissan Shapiro Law P.C. is a law firm engaged in debt collection.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

                Lawernce Katz, Esq.
                LAW OFFICES OFLAWRENCE KATZ
                488 Empire Blvd. Suite 101
                Brooklyn, NY 11225
                Telephone: (516) 374-2118

NOOWORKS LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nooworks, LLC. The
case is styled as Janelys Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Nooworks, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-02657
(S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2023).

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

Nooworks, LLC -- https://nooworks.com/ -- offers American made
apparel for men and women featuring custom textiles by rotating
artists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Chester, Penn. to Join Train Derailment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Ujhelyi, writing for The Review, reports that council
members agreed Monday that the City of Chester would join a class
action lawsuit with other Hancock County municipalities with law
firm, Morgan and Morgan, of Pittsburgh, resulting from the East
Palestine train derailment. Their stance cites possible
environmental contamination to neighboring communities due to
Norfolk Southern's inability to satisfactorily control the chemical
release into the air and water with their "controlled burn."

According to the law firm's dedicated website to disaster victims,
www.forthepeople.com, they allege that the railroad giant was
concerned about the cheapest option instead of the safest.

While "Norfolk Southern created a $2 million fund to help with
evacuation costs (and another) $1,000 (in) individual payments to
affected residents of East Palestine," they insist the amount
doesn't even come "close enough to pay for the losses that many
residents have already experienced or will experience," the website
reads.

Earlier this month, the city of New Cumberland signed on the class
action lawsuit, after their city solicitor suggested it as his firm
is partnering with Morgan and Morgan on the case.

New Cumberland city solicitor Kevin Pearl explained at that time
that the potential action was similar to the opioid crisis
litigation, which could result in funds if a settlement or court
ruling is reached in the case; however, he was unable to guarantee
when or if that would happen.

In other action, council:

   -- Passed legislation to bid out work for installation of a
catch basin on Lycia Avenue before it be paved.

   -- Agreed to a conditional hire of Jonathan Creese, as long as
he passes the medical screening, polygraph and psychological
evaluation as well as gets accepted for the schooling to get
certification in the June West Virginia police training. He was one
of the four remaining candidates who passed the written exam, also
qualifying through the physical fitness test portion, explained
Police Chief Chuck Stanley.

   -- Approved police enforcement of a formal loading/unloading
area near Westminster Apartments and Chester City Park, after
hearing from Dave Smith.

   -- Accepted receipts totaling $68,520.20 into the general and
building funds and paid $79,517,96 in bills for the funds as well.

   -- Conditionally approved payment of the Biztec bill for access
control to the municipal building after verification by the police
department and building manager verify all the requested
corrections have been made.

Municipal Judge Curvis Parkins was on hand to swear in the city's
latest full-time police hire, David Polger. The former Hancock
County sheriff's deputy was administered his oath amid some other
police-related activity before he was scheduled to hit the road
later in the evening. Police Chief Chuck Stanley explained to
members that he was the highest performer in the recently
administered written civil service exam as well as performing well
in the other areas. He already is certified in West Virginia,
making him road ready.

Council next is scheduled to meet at 5 p.m. Monday, May 1, in
regular session in their chambers within the Chester Municipal
Building. [GN]

OLYMPIC CLUB: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Olympic Club, et
al. The case is styled as Alejandro Rodriguez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Olympic Club, Does 1
Through 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23605523 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., March 30, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

The Olympic Club -- https://www.olyclub.com/ -- is an athletic club
and private social club in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Molly Munson Cherala, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          555 12th Street, Suite 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Phone: (510) 891-9800


PARTYLITE GIFTS INC: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Partylite Gifts, Inc.
The case is styled as Iliana Lopez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Partylite Gifts, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02664 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2023).

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

PartyLite Gifts, Inc. -- https://www.partylite.com/ -- is a company
that make decorative, sweet and fragrant candles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PHARMERICA LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Overtime, Berner Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Berner, individually and for others similarly situated v.
PharMerica Logistics Services, LLC, Case No. 3:23CV-142-CRS (W.D.
Ky., March 23, 2023) alleges that PharMerica violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Act for failing
to pay him overtime pay for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek.

Allegedly, Berner was only paid at the same hourly rate for all
hours worked, including those over 40 in a workweek. Moreover,
Berner seeks to recover the unpaid overtime and other damages owed
to PharMerica's pharmacists under the FLSA and OWA, says the suit.

PharMerica Logistics offers healthcare facilities, pharmacy
management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. Burch, Esq.
          David Moulton , Esq.
          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          11 Greenway Plaza #3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788


POLAR CORP: N.D. Illinois Dismisses Matthews' Consumer Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Steven C. Seeger of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case captioned as JEANNE MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POLAR CORP., Defendant,
Case No. 22-cv-649 (N.D. Ill.).

Polar Corp. "manufactures, labels, markets, and sells carbonated
water." Specifically, it makes and sells a lemon carbonated water
(or seltzer water, or bubble water, depending on where you live).

Plaintiff Jeanne Matthews bought Polar's lemon seltzer water on
more than one occasion between July and September 2021. She
purchased the seltzer water from her local grocery store in
Evanston, Illinois. But Matthews apparently was none too pleased to
discover that the 12-pack of carbonated water contained a 12-pack
of carbonated water. She apparently wanted the cans of water to
contain a bunch of juice. Not just a little juice -- a big squeeze
of lemon juice, right in each can.

Matthews was so troubled that she marched to the federal
courthouse. She believes that the packaging is misleading because
it uses the word "lemon." She invokes the Illinois consumer fraud
statute, and comparable statutes from other states. She alleges a
breach of express and implied warranties of merchantability, and a
violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. She adds to the tab by
alleging tortious negligent misrepresentation, common-law fraud,
and unjust enrichment.

Judge Seeger holds that "Polar did not make any representations
about how much lemon is in each can, so Matthews cannot state a
claim about the amount of lemon in each can. Without a
representation, there is no misrepresentation. . . the complaint. .
. is attempting to put words into the manufacturer's mouth.
Consumers cannot impose content that isn't there, and impute
meaning that is not fairly derived from the labeling itself. . . A
plaintiff cannot sue based on every fanciful idea that springs to
mind after reading the label."

Matthews also brings state law claims about express and implied
warranties of merchantability, a warranty claim under the Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act, tortious negligent misrepresentation, common-law
fraud, and unjust enrichment. Since those claims depend on the
allegation that the seltzer's labeling is false, deceptive, or
misleading, the remaining claims share the same vulnerability.
Accordingly, Judge Seeger dismisses them, too.

Next, Matthews alleges an economic injury -- which is not
compensable under the economic loss doctrine. Judge Seeger finds
that Matthews has failed to allege that she suffered physical
injury from the seltzer. . . it is not clear how she could. . .
water doesn't hurt you if it's light on lemon.

Polar argues that Matthews lacks standing to seek injunctive
relief. But because the complaint has failed to state a claim,
Judge Seeger does not need to address this argument: "Without any
viable claim for relief, there are no claims for which [Matthews]
can seek injunctive relief as a remedy."

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March
22, 2023, is available https://tinyurl.com/5cyrfec3 from
Leagle.com.


PROTECTIVE LIFE: E.D. California Narrows Allen's Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as BEVERLY ALLEN, Individually and on Behalf
of the Class, Plaintiff v. PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Tennessee Corporation; EMPIRE GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an
Alabama Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-530-JLT-CDB (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California grants in part the Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Protective Life Insurance
Company.

In or around 1998, Beverly Allen's husband purchased a life
insurance policy for himself from the Defendant Protective Life
Insurance Company. The purpose of this policy, valued at $400,000,
was to "insure the life of Danny K. Allen and provide protection to
beneficiary Beverly Allen." After the Allens made payments on the
policy for 20 years, Mr. Allen fell ill. The Plaintiff and her
husband missed one payment on the policy in or around September
2018. As a result, the policy lapsed in November 2018, and the
Defendant refused to reinstate the policy when plaintiff attempted
to make another payment. Mr. Allen passed away in January 2019.

Plaintiff Beverly Allen filed the instant action on April 13, 2020,
as the named plaintiff representing a class of others that also
allege, they have been harmed by Protective Life Insurance
Company's failure to comply with California Insurance Code Sections
10113.71 and 10113.72 -- both sections require proper notice of and
grace periods for pending lapses or terminations of life
insurance.

Now, Protective has filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as
to four of Plaintiff's six causes of action. First, Protective
argues that Allen's request for declaratory judgment(s) is moot in
light of the California Supreme Court's decision in McHugh v.
Protective Life Insurance Co., 494 P.3d 24 (Cal. 2021) and is
otherwise duplicative of Allen's breach of contract claim.

Judge Thurston denies Protective's motion for judgment on the
pleadings as to Counts I & II -- Requests for Declaratory Relief.
Although Judge Thurston agrees with Protective that "Allen's
complaint, in part, requests declaratory relief to resolve a
question that was addressed by McHugh after the filing of this
lawsuit. . . however, by the plain terms of the complaint, Allen
also requests a judicial determination as to 'whether policies were
legally in force at the times of deaths of insureds, and to
determine whether beneficiaries were wrongfully denied payment of
benefits under their policies.'" Judge Thurston notes that "a
breach of contract claim provides relief for violation of a
contract term, not a statute. . . Protective's duplicity argument
ignores that damages for breach of contract would not remedy the
alleged future uncertainty that a declaratory judgment would
address. . . the existence of another adequate remedy does not
preclude a judgment for declaratory relief in cases where it is
appropriate."

Protective further argues that Allen's claim under the California's
Unfair Competition Law fails because she has not alleged facts
establishing that she lacks an adequate remedy at law, because she
does not have standing to pursue the requested injunction, and
because restitution is not an available remedy in this case.

As to Allen's request for an injunction under the UCL, Judge
Thurston grants Protective's motion though she provides Allen leave
to amend this claim as necessary. Judge Thurston reasons that
"though the UCL does permit the entry of an order enjoining a party
from purported unfair business practices, the party seeking
injunctive relief must show a threat of injury that is 'actual and
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical' . . . Though Allen very
clearly pleads an impending future injury as to other class members
who have active policies with Protective, Allen has not alleged
that she herself. . . is at risk of future, imminent injury from
Protective unrelated to the claims in this lawsuit. . . the named
Plaintiff's only policy with the Defendant has lapsed and there is
no allegation that she plans to do further business with
Protective, there is 'no ongoing need for injunctive relief.'"

Protective next argues that Allen cannot pursue restitution. Judge
Thurston grants Protective's motion without leave to amend insofar
as Allen seeks restitution for withheld policy benefits. Citing the
case Bentley I, 2016 WL 7443189, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 22, 2016),
Judge Thurston holds that Allen cannot recover unpaid benefits via
restitution: "courts have expressly found that the payment of
policy benefits are 'damages' and therefore not recoverable under
the UCL."

As to Allen's bad-faith tort claims, Protective argues that the
complaint fails to state a claim either because it does not allege
that Protective terminated the Plaintiff's policy to avoid an
impending claim or because there was a genuine dispute prior to
McHugh as to the application of the Statutes to pre-2013 life
insurance policies.

Judge Thurston notes that "neither the complaint nor Allen's
opposition specifies that her bad faith claim sound exclusively in
tort as opposed to in contract. It is plausible, based on Allen's
repeated claims that Protective breached the Policy, that breach of
contract may form the basis for all or part of Allen's bad faith
claims. . . Protective offers no argument of a 'genuine dispute'
after McHugh resolved the question of the Statutes' applicability
to pre-2013 policies. And Allen clearly alleges that Protective
continues to skirt the Statutes' required protections nearly 18
months after the purported 'genuine dispute' was resolved." Based
on these facts, Judge Thurston declines to make a definitive
finding regarding the applicability of the genuine dispute doctrine
to Allen's claims. Accordingly, she denies Protective's motion in
its entirety as to Allen's bad-faith claim.

A full-text copy of the Order dated March 22, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/39bxhwb5 from Leagle.com.


PUERTO RICO: PRASA Gets Dismissal of Morovis' Section 1983 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Bruce J. McGiverin of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Puerto Rico grants the motion to dismiss filed by
Puerto Rico Aqueducts and Sewer Authority and its Executive
Director, Doriel Pagan, in the case captioned as CARMEN
MALDONADO-GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. PUERTO RICO AQUEDUCT AND
SEWER AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 22-cv-1250 (BJM)
(D.P.R.).

The Plaintiffs: Carmen Maldonado-Gonzalez; the Municipality of
Morovis; and several individual Puerto Rico Aqueducts and Sewer
Authority subscribers who live and work in Morovis -- filed an
amended complaint against PRASA, its Executive Director (Doriel
Pagan Crespo), its Regional Executive Director (Jose A. Rivera
Ortiz), and an unnamed insurance company on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated. The Morovis subscribers allege
PRASA, Pagan, Rivera, and the insurance company are liable under 43
U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of their Fourteenth Amendment
substantive due process and equal protection rights.

Morovis is a municipality consisting of fourteen wards located in
Puerto Rico's central region. Maldonado has served as its mayor
since January 2017. All plaintiffs have valid registered accounts
with PRASA and have made monthly payments for water service. Some
members of Plaintiffs' 1,582-person purported class are elderly,
sick, or have children.

The Morovis subscribers consistently urge the Court to analyze
their claims under the substantive due process framework. They
allege PRASA and its agents' behavior "shocks the conscience," a
hallmark of substantive due process claims.

Judge McGiverin has analyzed the Morovis subscribers' substantive
due process claim and finds they failed to plausibly state such a
claim. He notes that "their political retaliation allegations
should have been brought under the First Amendment. . . the Morovis
subscribers' allegations that PRASA shut off their water to
sabotage Maldonado's political career are deeply troubling. . .
they cite no authority stating such behavior meets the high bar the
First Circuit has set for substantive due process claims." To the
extent the Morovis subscribers rely on charges that Pagan's actions
were driven by political motives, Judge McGiverin finds and
concludes that "they have no substantive due process claim at all.
The First Amendment. . . protects individuals against
state-sponsored acts of political discrimination or retaliation. .
. Plaintiffs may not base their substantive due process claim on
allegations of political retaliation because such behavior is
covered by the First Amendment."

Aside from sabotage, the Plaintiffs' remaining allegations paint a
picture of incompetence and a lack of urgency to fix their city's
water issues. The Morovis subscribers allege PRASA and Pagan
violated their substantive due process right to continuous water
service, which they contend is a property interest.

Judge McGiverin finds, however, that "the Morovis subscribers do
not allege either that PRASA was required by law to provide them
with water or that they were required to take and pay for it. . .
the Morovis subscribers do not allege their water service was
terminated without notice or an opportunity for a hearing. . .
Thus, even if the Morovis subscribers have a property interest in
receiving uninterrupted water service, which it is not clear they
do, PRASA's failure to provide uninterrupted water service would
not suffice to state a substantive due process violation."

The Morovis subscribers further allege in their complaint that they
were deprived of their substantive due process and equal protection
rights established in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.

Judge McGiverin explains that "the mentioned statute immunizing
PRASA from suit for alleged impurity, irregularity, or
insufficiency of water does not treat Morovis subscribers
differently from others similarly situated because it immunizes
PRASA from all suits for this purpose. Further, though the Morovis
subscribers allege PRASA officials shut off their water for
political reasons, their complaint offers no comparison to
similarly situated subscribers who received continuous water
service. . . Thus, even if the Morovis subscribers still alleged an
equal protection violation, they failed to plead facts sufficient
to state a claim." Accordingly, Judge McGiverin has dismissed
Plaintiffs' section 1983 claims against PRASA and Pagan in her
personal capacity with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated March 22, 2023, is
available https://tinyurl.com/y8ua738r from Leagle.com.


QUTEN RESEARCH: Cohen Sues Over False Magnesium Content of Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dalit Cohen and Rosemary Robertson, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Quten Research Institute,
LLC d/b/a Qunol Minerals, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01783
(D.N.J., March 29, 2023) alleges that Qunol breached its written
and implied warranties and violated, inter alia, the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, Qunol misstated the actual magnesium
content of its product, Extra Strength Magnesium 420 Mg
supplements. The Plaintiffs claim that Qunol's representations that
two capsules of the said product contain 420 mg of magnesium as
magnesium glycinate is false.

Quten Research Institute, LLC d/b/a Qunol Minerals is a New Jersey
limited liability company with a principal place of business at 10
Bloomfield Avenue, Pine Brook, New Jersey. From its New Jersey
headquarters Qunol markets, advertises, distributes, and sells a
magnesium nutritional supplement product throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
           LEMBERG LAW, LLC
           43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897
           Telephone: (203) 653-2250
           Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
           E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com

REDWIRE CORP: Court Refuses to Dismiss Lemen securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
case captioned as JED LEMEN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated and JARED THOMPSON, Lead Plaintiff,
Plaintiffs v. REDWIRE CORPORATION, PETER CANNITO, and WILLIAM READ,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-1254-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.).

The lawsuit is a securities fraud class action about the "tone at
the top." In the two-count amended complaint, the Plaintiffs allege
that Redwire Corporation and two of its senior executives, Peter
Cannito and William Read, misled investors by misrepresenting their
commitment and ability to manage Redwire as the company went
public. The Plaintiffs thus seek to lead a proposed class of
plaintiff-investors who allegedly lost money when Redwire missed
reporting targets, its mismanagement was exposed, and the stock
price plummeted.

The Plaintiffs allege that Redwire and the Defendant officers'
misleading statements and omissions violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5.

In the Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants challenge the first two
elements of securities fraud under Section 10(b): (1) material
misrepresentation or omission and (2) scienter.

Underpinning Plaintiffs' overall case is the allegation that
Redwire suffered from an undisclosed "tone at the top" problem with
some of its senior officers. The Court finds that "the amended
complaint meets the pleading requirements for a securities fraud
action while proceeding on a 'tone at the top' theory of liability.
. . with its substantial detail, persuasive timeline, and pertinent
statements from Redwire itself. . . the Plaintiffs' well-pleaded
complaint. . . is sufficient to state a viable claim at this
stage." The Court is confident it will be presented with the
opportunity to revisit this issue later in the case.

Because corporations "have no state of mind of their own,"
Redwire's scienter must be imputed from its agents' states of mind
-- here, Read and Cannito. The Plaintiffs must allege that the
Defendants made any misleading or omissive statements with
scienter: the "intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud, or severe
recklessness."

The Court determines that "the misrepresentations here all share
the same alleged omission: Defendants' failure to disclose
Redwire's deficient tone at the top. . . Beginning with knowledge,
the Plaintiffs allege that Read and Cannito knew about the tone at
the top problems because they were the main perpetrators. As
Redwire eventually disclosed, the tone at the top failures emanated
from "certain members of senior management" who were involved with
"the Company's accounting and finance policies and procedures." Of
the three executives Redwire ever identified as "senior
management," only two -- Read and Cannito -- were involved with
Redwire's accounting and finances. Indeed, as CFO, these were
Read's direct responsibilities -- and Read reported to Cannito, the
CEO." Thus, examining the entire amended complaint and taking as
true all well-pleaded allegations, the Court concludes that the
Plaintiffs allegations of scienter are sufficient at this stage.

Count II is brought against Read and Cannito individually and
alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Section
20(a) liability requires a primary Section 10(b) violation and
further allegations regarding the individual Defendants' control
over the company's business affairs. Because the Plaintiffs have
adequately alleged a primary Section 10(b) violation in Count I and
the Defendants do not contest the Plaintiffs' control allegations,
the Court rules that Count II may move forward.

A full-text copy of the Order dated March 22, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/2txsnupm from Leagle.com.


ROOT INC: Dismissal Bid of Kolominsky's Class Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
Wes Earnhardt of Cravath, Swane, & Moore LLP reports that On March
31, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
granted a motion to dismiss with prejudice all claims brought
against Cravath clients Root, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors (collectively, "Root") in the case - captioned Kolominsky
v. Root, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-1197. Root is an insurance company,
primarily focused on automobile insurance, with a "mobile‑first",
data‑driven business model that makes risk assessments, in part,
based on complex behavioral data, including an individual's actual
driving behavior.

A purported amended class action complaint was filed against Root
and Root's underwriters on behalf of certain Root shareholders
alleging that defendants made false or misleading statements and
omissions in violation of Sections 10(b), 12(a)(2) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b‑5 thereunder, and of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, in connection
with and following Root’s initial public offering by allegedly
misdescribing Root's "customer acquisition costs" ("CAC").

Judge Michael H. Watson dismissed all claims with prejudice. With
respect to the complaint's Section 10(b), 11 and 12(a)(2) claims,
the Court held that they were required to satisfy Rule 9(b)'s
heightened pleading requirements applicable to fraud-based claims
because the "gravamen" of the complaint "sounds in fraud",
notwithstanding the complaint's "express statements disavowing any
fraud". The Court further held that none of the alleged
misstatements or omissions were actionable, including because (i)
the "bespeaks caution" doctrine excused any liability for
forward‑looking statements relating to Root’s CAC that were
accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements; (ii) truthful
statements concerning Root’s past performance could not give rise
to liability and did not create any duty to provide more
up‑to‑date information, especially in light of disclosures that
"explicitly warned investors against relying on Root's past
performance when setting expectations for the future"; (iii) "mere
corporate puffery" is unactionable as a matter of law; and (iv)
with respect to Root’s alleged loss of its competitive advantage,
"the Amended Complaint places Root's fluctuating CAC in a vacuum,
which is insufficient to allege that it no longer possessed a
competitive advantage vis‑a‑vis other channels in the insurance
industry". The Court also rejected any liability under Section 11
based on SEC Item 101, Item 103 or Rule 408 or for scheme liability
under Section 10(b), Rule 10b‑5(a) or Rule 10b‑5(c).

The Cravath team included partner Wes Earnhardt and associates
Nicholas S. Medling and Margaret E. Anderson. Abraham C. Weiss also
worked on the matter. [GN]

RUGBY FOOTBALL: More Than 150 Former Players to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a group of more than 150 former soccer, rugby
league, and rugby union players suffering from neurological
impairments are due to join a class-action lawsuit against their
respective governing bodies, lawyers representing the players
said.

London sports law firm Rylands Garth said it would issue
proceedings in court on behalf of 100 rugby league players, 40
rugby union players, and 15 football players, taking the total
number of claimants to 380.

The players allege that the sports' governing bodies failed to
protect them from concussion and non-concussion injuries that
caused various disorders including early onset dementia, chronic
traumatic encephalopathy, epilepsy, Parkinson's disease and motor
neurone disease.

"Acting on the latest science, evidence and independent expert
guidance, we constantly strive to safeguard and support all our
players' future, current, and former . . .," World Rugby, the Rugby
Football Union (RFU), and the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) said in a
joint statement.

"As has been the position since December 2020 when these claims
were first made, we remain unable to comment on the specifics of
the legal action as we continue to await the full details of the
claims being made against us."

Reuters has contacted RFL and soccer's governing body FIFA for
comment. [GN]

SAM'S WEST: Casella Suit Alleges Mislabeling of Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Casella, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Sam’s West, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00102 (E.D.
Tenn., March 23, 2023), alleges that Sam’s West, Inc. mislabeled
its Member's Mark brand which claims to contain 500 mg of turmeric
and curcumin.

According to the complaint, the Supplement Facts on the back label
of this product specify that "95% Standardized Turmeric (Curcuma
longa) Extract" was used. Combined, these representations give
consumers the impression the said product contains 95% (475mg) of
curcuminoids per serving. However, the lab testing conducted by
ConsumerLab.com in 2019 revealed that instead of the expected 475
mg, it contains only 9.7 mg of curcuminoids per serving.

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
product is sold at a premium price, approximately not less than
$14.88 for 250 capsules, excluding tax and sales. Moreover, the
complaint cites several violations of state and federal consumer
laws including the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, the State
Consumer Fraud Acts, and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, says the
suit.

Sam's West, Inc. is an Arkansas corporation with a principal place
of business in Bentonville, Arkansas, Benton County. It
manufactures and sells joint health supplements. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent S. Snyder, Esq.
          2125 Middlebrook Pike
          Knoxville, TN 37921
          Telephone: (865) 264-3328
          E-mail: brent@brentsnyderlaw.com

               - and -

          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

SHASTA LINEN SUPPLY: Roberts Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shasta Linen Supply,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as David Roberts, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shasta
Linen Supply, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2023-00337179-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., March 30, 2023).

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

Shasta Linen Supply -- https://www.shastalinensupply.com/ -- is the
most experienced contract provider of hospitality linens in the
region with decades of experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (310) 496-5818
          Fax: (310) 510-6429
          Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com


SKULLCANDY INC: Faces Cody Suit Over Website's Live Chat Feature
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE CODY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SKULLCANDY INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 23STCV06828 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 29, 2023)
alleges that the Defendant has violated the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant secretly enabled and
allowed Smoochd and/or Zopim, a third-party spyware company to
eavesdrop on the private conversations of everyone who communicates
through the chat feature at www.skullcandy.com. The spyware company
then exploited and monetized that data by sharing it with other
third parties like Meta, who used the private chat data to bombard
the unsuspecting visitor with targeted marketing, says the suit.

Skullcandy is a Delaware audio electronics company with its
principal place of business in Park City, Utah. With annual sales
of over $200 million, it is one of America's largest specialty
retailers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SONOCO PRODUCTS: Faces Calderon Suit Over Wrongful Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Calderon, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated v. Sonoco Products Company, Case No.
1:23-cv-01834 (N.D. Ill., March 23, 2023) alleges the Sonoco
Products Co's violation of the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993.

According to the complaint, Sonoco terminated Calderon’s
employment in retaliation for his request for FMLA leave on or
about Aug. 2, 2022 because he had accumulated too many points in
violation of Sonoco's points system. However, some or all of the
points were assessed against Calderon in violation of the FMLA.
Now, Calderon seeks damages for his retaliatory discharge,
including but not limited to, lost back and front pay, liquidated
damages, past and future, emotional distress and punitive damages
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, says the suit.

Sonoco is a private for-profit business and private sector employer
has employed over 50 employees. It is a plastic bags manufacturer
that maintains and operates a business in Elk Grove Village,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James M. Dore, Esq.
          Daniel I. Schlade, Esq.
          DORE LAW OFFICES LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski Road, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone:(773) 415-4898
          E-mail: jdore@justicialaboral.com
                  dschlade@justicialaboral.com

STATE FARM: Court Narrows Claims in Sanchez Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMEN DANIELLE MORA
SANCHEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, HIDAY & RICKE,
P.A., JEFF RICKE, an individual, ROBERT HIDAY, an individual, and
JENNIFER REISS, an individual, Case No. 3:21-cv-00372-TJC-LLL (M.D.
Fla.), Hon. Judge Timothy Corrigan entered an class certification
order as follows:

  1. The Court's decision on whether to issue a declaratory
judgment
     is deferred.

  2. The Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted in part
     and denied in part.

     -- The Motions are denied as to Count III.

     -- Counts I and II are dismissed without prejudice. The
Plaintiff
        may file a Second Amended Complaint no later than April 21,

        2023.  If the Plaintiff files a Second Amended Complaint,
        Defendants shall answer the Second Amended Complaint or to

        dismiss only Counts I and II (the RICO counts) no later
than
        May 19, 2023.

     --If Defendants move to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint,

       Plaintiff shall respond no later than June 16, 2023. If
       Plaintiff does not file a Second Amended Complaint,
Defendants
       shall answer the Amended Complaint no later than May 19,
2023.

  3. No later than April 21, 2023, the parties shall jointly file
an
      Amended Case Management Report.

The Defendants have allegedly been threatening to suspend
individuals’
drivers licenses, whether those individuals had the minimum amount
of insurance and were eligible to have their licenses suspended or
not.

Sanchez alleges that Defendants knew Sanchez had the required
insurance at the time of the accident giving rise to the judgment
and allegedly requested suspension "for the exclusive purpose of
abusing and harassing Plaintiff and the Class in order to put
pressure on Plaintiff and the Class to pay money towards their
judgment debt for Defendants' own pecuniary gain."

On April 7, 2021, Sanchez filed her class action complaint, and a
couple of months later, Sanchez voluntarily amended her complaint.
Sanchez brings this action on behalf of:

    "All Florida judgment debtors whose driving privileges were
    suspended or revoked by the DMV after Defendants sent a notice

    and/or request for suspension pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 324.11
and
    section 324.121, and where the judgment debtor had the required

    amount of insurance pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 324.021(7) at the

    time of the accident.

This class action case arises out of a challenge to Defendants’
debt
collection practice of seeking to suspend drivers licenses of
judgment debtors.

Sanchez is a judgment debtor to State Farm as a result of her
liability in an automobile accident. At the time of the accident,
Progressive Insurance Company insured Sanchez and State Farm
insured the other driver.

On March 9, 2018, Sanchez, Progressive, and Hiday & Ricke (on
behalf of State Farm) mediated and entered into a stipulation where
Progressive agreed to pay the $10,000 property damage limit and
Sanchez agreed to pay $4,000 to be made in monthly payments of
$166.67 starting March 15, 2018, until the total sum was paid.

State Farm Insurance is a group of mutual insurance companies
throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in
Bloomington, Illinois.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GcoCAJ at no extra charge.[CC]

STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Winter Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Stronghold Digital Mining Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from Winter class suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On April 14, 2022, the Company, and certain of our current and
former directors, officers and underwriters were named in a
putative class action complaint filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company made
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts in
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §77k and
Section 15 of the Securities Act, about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects in the Company's registration statement
on Form S-1 related to its initial public offering, and when
subsequent disclosures were made regarding these operational issues
when the Company announced its fourth quarter and full year 2021
financial results, the Company's stock price fell, causing
significant losses and damages.

As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
compensatory damages.

On August 4, 2022, co-lead plaintiffs were appointed. O

n October 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On December 19, 2022, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss.

On February 17, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
defendant's motion to dismiss.

On March 20, 2023, the Company filed a reply brief in further
support of its motion to dismiss.

The Company cannot predict when the court will rule on its motion.
The defendants believe the allegations in the complaint are without
merit and intend to defend the suit vigorously.

Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG), a crypto asset
mining company, focuses on mining Bitcoin in the United States. It
also operates coal refuse power generation facility. The company
was incorporated in 2021 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


TABLE 87: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benitez and Chopen Allege
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Cegueda Benitez and Juan Santos Morales Chopen, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Table 87
Gowanus NYC LLC (d/b/a Table 87), Table 87 IC LLC (d/b/a Table 87),
Table 87, Frozen, LLC (d/b/a Table 87), Thomas Cucco aka Tommy,
Thomas Cucco, and Johan Zeron, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02432
(E.D.N.Y., March 29, 2023) alleges that the Defendants violated
several provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New
York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders
of the New York Commissioner of Labor.

Plaintiff Samuel Cegueda Benitez was employed by the Defendants at
Table 87 from approximately 2012 until on or about January 2023. On
the other hand, Plaintiff Juan Santos Morales Chopen was employed
by the Defendants at Table 87 from approximately September 2017
until on or about Jan. 18, 2023.

Allegedly, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40
hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled pizzerias, located at
87 Atlantic Ave, Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
           
           Catalina Sojo, Esq.
           CSM LEGAL, P.C.
           60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
           New York, NY 10165
           Telephone: (212) 317-1200
           Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
           E-mail: catalina@csmlegal.com

TAL EDUCATION: Faces Lewandowski Suit Over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN LEWANDOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAL EDUCATION GROUP; and BANGXIN
ZHANG, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01769 (D.N.J., March 29, 2023)
is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired TAL American
Depository Shares ("ADSs") between June 14, 2022 and March 14,
2023, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendant's violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the reports submitted
by the Defendant 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, operations, and prospects, which were known to
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company was still providing K9 Academic AST
Services; and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. The price
of TAL ADS's fell 10% to close at $6.12 per ADS on March 14, 2023,
says the Plaintiff.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's ADSs,
Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages, the suit alleges.

TAL EDUCATION GROUP is an education and technology enterprise in
China. The Company provides after-school tutoring programs for
primary and secondary school students in the People's Republic of
China ("PRC").

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW
          One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 313-1887
          Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

TAMMY'S NAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hinson Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Celia Hinson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in
the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. Tammys Nail
Utopia LLC, and Tamara Ollivierre, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-02395 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
State Labor Law, and their supporting New York State Department of
Labor regulations.

The Plaintiff was employed as a general worker at Defendants' nail
salon known as "Tammy's Nail Utopia" and bar known as "Hidden Gem
Hideaway" from Sept. 15, 2022 to December 2022. She alleges that
the Defendants failed to pay her and class proper minimum wages and
overtime compensation.

Tammys Nail Utopia LLC is a domestic limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. Its
principal place of business is at 3324 Church Ave, Brooklyn, NY.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TESLA INC: Bose Files Suit Over Antitrust Laws' Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
SEAN BOSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TESLA INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01496 (N.D. Cal., March 29, 2023) arises under Section 2 of
the Sherman Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Act.

The Plaintiff seeks relief for himself and all those similarly
situated who were forced to pay supracompetitive prices and suffer
excessive wait times to maintain and repair their Tesla vehicles.
These harms were caused by Tesla's monopolization, attempted
monopolization, exclusionary conduct, and restraint of the markets
for compatible replacement parts; and maintenance and repair
services for Tesla vehicles.

Historically, consumers of vehicles with internal combustion
engines have had multiple options for maintaining and repairing
their motor vehicles after purchase. Owners of vehicles with
internal combustion engines could perform the work themselves,
bring their vehicles to a dealership, or bring them to an
independent repair shop for maintenance or repair. In addition, the
consumer could choose aftermarket replacement parts, rather than
only original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts manufactured and
sold only by the original manufacturer, or those approved by the
manufacturer, says the suit.

Tesla owners, by comparison, can only obtain Tesla Repair Services
at Tesla-owned service centers or within the limited network of
Tesla-approved service centers, which only offer Tesla’s original
equipment manufacturer parts. Tesla owners cannot repair their
Tesla vehicles themselves because of Tesla's restrictions. Most
independent repair shops are also precluded by Tesla from repairing
Tesla vehicles, the suit further asserts.

Tesla, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Steven N. Williams, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          Christopher K.L. Young, Esq.
          Travis Manfredi, Esq.
          Kathleen J. McMahon, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1000
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                  czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
                  cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
                  tmanfredi@saverilawfirm.com
                  kmcmahon@saverilawfirm.com

TIMES PUBLISHING: Discloses Subscriber’s Personal Info, Darden
Says
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis Darden and Sal Rivera, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Times Publishing Company, Case No. Case
8:23-cv-00661 (M.D. Fla., March 23, 2023) alleges that Times
Publishing violated the Video Privacy Protection Act each time it
knowingly disclosed their personally identifiable information to
Facebook without consent.

Plaintiffs Darden and Rivera are subscribers of Times' website,
tampabay.com, which offers, inter alia, a wide array of prerecorded
video content. However, when they watched videos on this website,
their PII was shared with Facebook without notifying them and
without their consent, says the suit.

Times Publishing Co. is a Florida corporation with its principal
place of business at 490 First Avenue S., Saint Petersburg, FL. It
developed, owns, and/or operates the tampabay.com, which is an
online publication of the Tampa Bay Times. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         James A. Wardell, Esq.
         WARDELL LAW FIRM, P.A.
         805 West Azeele St.
         Tampa, FL 33606
         Telephone: (813) 387-3333
         E-mail: jwardell@jawlaw.net
                 mmallory@jawlaw.net

             - and -

         Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
         Lance Spitzig, Esq.
         LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
         975 East Jefferson Avenue
         Detroit, MI 48207-3101
         Telephone: (313) 392-0015
         E-mail: ncoulson@lsccounsel.com
                 lspitzig@lsccounsel.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Fishkind Class Suit Over RAV4 Roof Leaks
------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Howard and Simon B. Paris report that Class-action lawyers
at Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, P.C., March 28, 2023 filed the first
lawsuit (Fishkind v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA et al. No. Case
2:23-cv-02279) against Toyota Motor Sales, USA, and affiliated
companies including Toyota Motor Corporation (TM:NYSE) alleging the
roof-rail systems on 2019-2021 RAV4 models are defectively designed
and manufactured. The defects result in rampant leaks from the roof
that have caused severe water damage in the cabin, short-circuiting
the SUV's electrical system, rendering the vehicle unsafe and
inoperable. Plaintiffs are filing under consumer protection laws to
hold Toyota responsible for its failures to protect all impacted
RAV4 owners.

Attorney Patrick Howard, of SMB, and counsel to lead plaintiffs
Todd and Judith Fishkind, said following the filing here in federal
court, "Currently active retirees and involved grandparents,
plaintiffs thought they were purchasing the perfect, safe SUV in
their new, white 2019 RAV4. Instead, their 'dream' vehicle turned
out to be undriveable and unsafe all due to the preventable - by
simply using a heavier-duty, water-repellent assembly gasket -
roof-rail defect." Mr. Howard added, "As asserted in the complaint,
Toyota knew about this defect, concealed it from buyers like the
Fishkinds, and has now refused to cover the cost - in the thousands
of dollars - to make it right." "We were so looking forward to car
vacations, driving grandkids to their games on weekends and after
school," explained Mr. Fishkind. "Instead, our RAV4 - with only
28,000 miles - has been sitting on the dealer's lot awaiting
repairs, including to the water-logged air-bag units and electrical
system (law firm photo)- for months, and Toyota's telling us we've
got to pay for their design flaw that caused the damage that has
totally ruined our RAV4. We never even used those roof rails. We
are concerned about other unsuspecting RAV4 owners being injured in
an accident because their air bags don't work or their car
spontaneously shorts out due to a preventable leak. This has got to
be corrected."

The complaint also details how water seeped into the car's
electrical system - and the air bag assemblies - from the factory
original equipment faulty-roof rail channels. On models after 2021,
according to the Complaint, Toyota replaced the thin, porous washer
with a thicker part and the problem seemed to vanish. Besides
ruining crucial safety equipment, water in the 2019-2021 models can
also cause growth of organic material, such as mold, to which the
vehicle's occupants unknowingly may be exposed and could also
result in significant rust damage. Heading the SMB legal team with
Mr. Howard is class-action attorney Simon Paris.

Contacts:
Patrick Howard / phoward@smbb.com / 215-575-3895
Simon Paris /sparis@smbb.com / 215-575 -3986 [GN]

TSC ACQUISITION: Kimberling Sues Over Breach of Customers' Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KIMBERLING, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. TSC ACQUISITION CORP. d/b/a TRUCONNECT,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02290 (C.D. Cal., March 28, 2023)
arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to properly secure
and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it
collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices.
Accordingly, the Defendant's failure to employ reasonable and
appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to
customers' PII or to comply with applicable industry standards
constitutes an unfair act or practice prohibited by Section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission Act, says the suit.

TSC Acquisition Corp. d/b/a TRUCONNECT is a private company,
incorporated in Delaware, with its principal office located in Los
Angeles, CA. It offers phone and other communication services to
its customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           John J. Nelson, Esq.
           MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
           280 S. Beverly Drive
           Beverly Hills, CA 90212
           Telephone: (858) 209-6941
           Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
           E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com

TWITTER INC: Faces Class Suit Over Contract Workers' Layoffs
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Sellers, writing for Human Resources, reports that Twitter
Inc is facing a new lawsuit accusing the social media company of
laying off contract workers without notice following the
acquisition of the company by Elon Musk last year.

The proposed class action, filed in San Francisco federal court,
claims that Twitter laid off numerous workers employed by staffing
firm TEKsystems Inc without providing the 60 days of advance notice
required by U.S. and California law.

"The employees Twitter paid through TEKsystems were not temporary
employees," according to the suit. Instead, they were routinely
told they would have the opportunity to become direct Twitter
employees, and "are part of the same mass layoffs affecting
employees directly employed by Twitter," it continued.

The contract workers concerned argue they were a "contingent
workforce" with the same duties as employees and thus deserved the
same notice period (there is currently a bill being considered that
would extend the notice period substantially.)

This is the latest in a string of lawsuits against Twitter, with
five other cases currently pending in the same court. These
lawsuits allege that the company violated labor laws by targeting
female workers for layoffs and discriminating against employees
with disabilities. Twitter has consistently denied these
allegations.

In November of last year, Twitter laid off approximately 3,700
employees, or half of its workforce, as part of a cost-cutting
measure following its acquisition by Musk, who paid $44 billion for
the social media platform. Since then, hundreds more employees have
resigned.

The case highlights the ongoing legal battles faced by Twitter, as
it contends with a range of accusations regarding its treatment of
employees. Musk himself has also been found to have trigger fingers
when it comes to his personal tweets. The New Orleans-based 5th US
circuit court found he violated federal labor law after tweeting
that employees would lose stock options if they joined a union.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (N.D. Cal.) was established on August 5, 1886, and is
located in the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco.
The court has jurisdiction over the following California counties:
Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino,
Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara,
Santa Cruz, and Sonoma.

The court has 14 judges, with Richard Seeborg serving as the Chief
Judge. The court hears cases in its courtrooms in Eureka, Oakland,
San Francisco, and San Jose. Ismail Ramsey serves as the U.S.
Attorney and Mark Kolc is the acting U.S. Marshal. The court's
official website is www.cand.uscourts.gov. [GN]

UMBRELLA MANAGEMENT: Santiago Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Santiago, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Umbrella Management LLC, Parmod Chadha, and Harsh Seth, Case No.
7:23-cv-02673 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2023), is brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
"NYLL," that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the
required overtime pay of time and one-half for hours worked in
excess of forty hours per week and failed to pay them the required
minimum wage for all hours worked; and to recover from Defendants:
unpaid overtime compensation; unpaid minimum wages; liquidated
damages on those amounts; prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff worked the exact same schedule the following
timesheet week covering August 31, 2022 to September 6, 2022, as
shown on his timesheet , which also totaled 56 hours. Somewhat
confusingly, Defendants required Plaintiff to sign in on timesheets
where each week began on a Wednesday and ended on a Tuesday, but
paid Plaintiff on pay stubs that covered a more traditional Monday
to Sunday pay period. In any case, Defendants required and
scheduled Plaintiff to work 56 hours per week, every week, so for
the purposes of calculating overtime, it's irrelevant on what day
Defendants' timesheets began because they required Plaintiff to
work the same consistent schedule which included 16 hours of
overtime every week.

The Plaintiff was entitled to be paid at the overtime rate of time
and one-half for each hour he worked. Based on Plaintiff's regular
minimum wage rate and his overtime hours alone, the Defendants
should have paid him $960 in gross wages, $600 for 40 hours at his
regular $15 per hour rate and $360 for 16 hours at his overtime
rate of $22.50 each week over 40 hours, or $22.50 per hour., says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked at the front desk of the Defendants' hotel.

The Defendants operate a hotel under the name Umbrella Hotel
located in Bronx, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810,
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 718-669-0714
          Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com


UNITED SERVICES: Coleman, et al., Lose Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EILEEN-GAYLE COLEMAN, et
al., v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION (USAA), et al., Case
No. 3:21-cv-00217-RSH-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie
entered an order:

   -- partially granting and partially denying plaintiffs' motion
and
      amended motion to amend proposed class definitions;

   -- denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   -- denying as moot the defendants' motion to exclude; and

   -- denying the defendants' motion for consolidated oral
argument

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not met their burden to
establish predominance here. This is not a case where the common
evidence -- the publicly available set of rates and relativities
offered by United Services and GIC -- itself establishes any of
the elements of injury or damages.

As proffered by Plaintiffs, those rates and relativities are only
relevant to the extent that they provide inputs that are used by
the Plaintiffs' experts in developing a methodology for determining
injury and damages for each of the putative class members.

The Plaintiffs' briefing seems to suggest that those methodologies
establish predominance and warrant class certification in a way
that is self-evident: "This case fits the paradigm for a suit in
which common issues predominate to a tee."

The Court is not ruling that Plaintiffs are not capable of meeting
the burden of establishing predominance, only that they have not
done so. The Court therefore denies Plaintiffs' class certification
motion.

In their class certification motion, Plaintiffs seek to certify a
"Discrimination Class" and a separate "Good Driver Class. "

The Plaintiffs' proposed Discrimination Class comprises:

    "All (a) "enlisted" persons, (b) who at any time on or after
    February 4, 2018,10 purchased or renewed an automobile
insurance
    policy including collision coverage from GIC, (c) who paid more

    for that policy than they would have paid in USAA, and (d) who,
at
    any time in which clauses (a) through (c) have been satisfied,

    garaged vehicles in the State of California."

The Plaintiff'’ proposed "Good Driver Class" comprises:

    "All (a) enlisted persons, (b) who at any time on or after
    December 28, 2017, purchased or renewed an automobile insurance

    policy including collision coverage from GIC, (c) who qualified
as
    good drivers under Cal. Ins. Code section 1861.025 and were not

    offered a good driver discount from USAA, (d) who paid more for

    that policy than they would have paid in USAA, and (e) who, at
any
    time in which clauses (a) through (d) have been satisfied,
garaged
    vehicles in the State of California."

USAA is an American financial services group of companies including
a Texas Department of Insurance-regulated reciprocal
inter-insurance exchange and subsidiaries offering banking and
insurance to people and families who serve, or served, in the
United States Armed Forces.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G7B3gY at no extra charge.[CC]



UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Denial of Arbitration in Cotzomi Suit Flipped
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The First District of the Court of Appeals of California reverses
the order denying Allied Defendants' motion to compel arbitration
and remands the appealed case captioned as PABLO COTZOMI, Plaintiff
and Respondent v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LP, et al.,
Defendants and Appellants, Case No. A164301 (Cal. App.).

Plaintiff Pablo Cotzomi filed a putative class action against the
Allied Defendants and Point to Point Global Security, Inc. (P2P)
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The lawsuit
arises out of the Defendants' alleged failure to provide the
Plaintiff with proper disclosures and a summary of rights under
FCRA at the time of his hiring. The Allied Defendants are:
Universal Protection Service, LP, Universal Protection Service,
LLC, Allied Universal Security Services, and Allied Universal
Security Services, LLC.

The Allied Defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the
Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any claims he had against them as a
condition of his employment. In support of their motion to compel
arbitration, the Allied Defendants submitted the declaration of UPS
LP's regional human resources director, Peggy Grzywacz, who stated
that "her responsibilities included onboarding employees and
conducting new hire orientations. . . the Plaintiff became employed
with UPS LP in May 2019 following UPS LP's acquisition of the
security firm P2P."

According to Grzywacz, the Plaintiff and other former P2P employees
attended an April 25 orientation, during which human resources
coordinators provided each employee with a laptop computer and
helped them work through an online onboarding packet administered
by Emptech -- a third-party workforce management services provider.
The onboarding packet included the Allied Defendants' "standard
Arbitration Agreement." In addition, the Allied Defendants
submitted the declaration of Lisa Crane, a human resources
coordinator for UPS LP who was present at the April 25
orientation.

After hearing argument, the trial court issued its order denying
the motion to compel arbitration. This appeal followed. The dispute
in this appeal centers around the Allied Defendants' ultimate
burden of persuasion to establish a valid arbitration agreement
between the parties. Here, the Court concludes that the trial court
erroneously declined to consider the circumstantial value of Allied
Defendants' evidence indicating that the Plaintiff executed the
electronic signature on the arbitration agreement.

The Court describes that "on a motion to compel arbitration, an
arbitration agreement may be authenticated by facts reasonably
deduced from the evidence indirectly showing that an electronic
signature on the agreement was the act of the opposing party." The
Court concludes that a trier of fact could reasonably have found
this burden satisfied on the record here. As set forth in Crane's
declaration: "the onboarding documents appeared to be executed
using the same computer and on the same day and around the same
time that the Plaintiff was indisputably at the orientation. During
that session, Crane was seated at the front of the room and saw no
unusual activity."

From this evidence, the Court rules that one could reasonably
deduce that "the Plaintiff filled out the form because it contained
specific information regarding his wife. . . and it bore a date and
time stamp that coincided with the Plaintiff's undisputed presence
at the April 25 orientation. And because the evidence suggests the
emergency contact form was completed using the same computer and on
the same day and around the same time as the arbitration agreement,
the combined evidence had some tendency in reason to suggest that
the electronic signatures on both documents were the acts of the
Plaintiff." In declining to ascribe any relevance to the
circumstantial evidence before it, the Court finds and concludes
that the trial court erroneously restricted the legal scope of its
discretion in evaluating whether the electronic signature was
likely the act of the Plaintiff.

The Court also rejects the sweeping principle Plaintiff seeks --
that a moving party must rule out the possibility that someone else
signed an arbitration agreement in order to authenticate it. The
Court finds that "there was evidence in this case that the Allied
Defendants employed certain precautionary measures regarding the
transmission and execution of the onboarding documents. . . the
Allied Defendants presented circumstantial evidence supporting the
reliability of the onboarding process in order to explain Crane's
belief that it was the Plaintiff who executed the electronic
signature on the arbitration agreement."

Finally, the Plaintiff contends that the IP address evidence does
not assist the Allied Defendants because they "failed to provide
any evidence as to what the IP address is associated with, the
location of its origin, or any identifying information linking the
IP address to [Plaintiff] in any way." Although it is true that the
Allied Defendants did not provide detailed evidence regarding the
IP address, the Court cannot say that the evidence was incapable of
supporting a reasonable inference in the Allied Defendants' favor.

Because the same IP address appeared on all of the onboarding
documents in question, including the arbitration agreement and the
emergency contact form that bore indicia of plaintiff's review and
execution, the Court considers the chain of inferences which was at
least capable of a reasonable conclusion that the Plaintiff
executed all of the onboarding documents, including the arbitration
agreement, from the same computer during the April 25 orientation.

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated March 22, 2023, is available
https://tinyurl.com/tnp8kydj from Leagle.com.


UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Class Action Over Campus Shutdown Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
lawsuit against the University of Delaware over its campus shutdown
and halting of in-person classes because of coronavirus can proceed
as a class action on behalf of thousands of students who were
enrolled and paid tuition in spring 2020, a federal judge has
ruled.

Friday's decision came just days before a scheduled hearing this
week on the university's request for the judge to rule in its favor
without a trial. That hearing has been postponed indefinitely.

In his ruling, Judge Stephanos Bibas rejected the University of
Delaware's argument that the plaintiffs, who accuse the school of
breach of contract and unjust enrichment, lacked standing to sue.
The university also argued unsuccessfully that it is impossible to
know who actually paid tuition because some students may have used
outside sources like scholarships.

"Those students, no less than students who paid out of their own
pockets, were parties to a contract that U. Delaware allegedly
breached," wrote the judge, who noted that the only students
excluded from the class would be those who received full rides.

According to the ruling, more than 17,000 undergraduates were
enrolled at the University of Delaware in spring 2020, and the
university collected more than $160 million in tuition.

The plaintiffs have argued that, before the pandemic, the school
treated in-person and online classes as separate offerings and
charged more for some in-person programs than they did for similar
online classes. They also noted that the university charged them
fees for the gym, student centers, and the health center, sometimes
at higher rates than those paid by online students, and that the
school kept those fees while denying them the services.

The plaintiffs are seeking partial refunds of their spring 2020
tuition, having earlier agreed to dismiss their claims arising from
student fees.

The university claimed that none of the named plaintiffs who
brought the lawsuit paid tuition.

"That is false," Bibas wrote. "The named plaintiffs paid tuition,
through either loans or cash from their parents."

Whether students were part-time or full-time might affect the
damages to which they are entitled but does not affect the school's
liability, the judge added.

Bibas previously ruled that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged
that the school implicitly promised them in-person classes,
activities and services. "I anticipate looking at evidence of how
U. Delaware advertised itself and whether students were attending
classes in person before the pandemic," he said.

The judge previously rejected the university's argument that it
expressly reserved the right to go online, but he noted Friday that
the plaintiffs' right to restitution depends on the school's "net
enrichment."

"If U. Delaware got a greater benefit than the students, then it
was probably unjust for the school to keep the students' money, as
that enrichment has no basis in a valid agreement," Bibas wrote.
"But if an online education in spring 2020 was worth full tuition,
then there was no net enrichment."

The judge said net enrichment will be measured by taking the amount
the university received from each student and subtracting the "fair
market value" of the services it provided to each - a calculation
he acknowledged will be difficult. The fact that some students may
have had better grades in spring 2020 than in previous semesters,
or that some joined more clubs or took more advantage of student
services than others did, is not relevant in that calculation, he
said.

"These services are available to all students for the same fixed
price. And though students may make more or less (or better or
worse) use of them, that does not change their fair market value,"
the judge wrote. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Discloses Personal Info, Edwards Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Audra Edwards, Derek Edwards, and Brian Stonebraker, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. University of
Florida, and the University Athletic Association, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00065-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla., March 23, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants violated the Video Privacy Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to disclose on
the their website, www.floridagators.com, that their subscribers'
personal identifying information would be captured by the Facebook
Pixel utilized by them, and then transferred to Facebook thereby
exposing their subscribers' info to any person of ordinary
technical skill who received that data. In addition, the Defendants
did 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, says the suit.

University of Florida is a Florida public university and member of
the State University System of Florida with its principal place of
business in Gainesville, FL. It operates and promotes an
institution of higher learning and its associated collegiate sports
teams, including through the development of websites and mobile
apps. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
         STEINLAW FLORIDA, PLLC
         433 Plaza Real, Suite 275
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Telephone: (561) 299-1509
         E-mail: jon@SteinLawFlorida.com

              -and-

         Mark S. Reich, Esq.
         Courtney Maccarone, Esq.
         Gary I. Ishimoto, Esq.
         LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
         55 Broadway, 4th Floor, Suite 427
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
         Email: mreich@zlk.com
                cmaccarone@zlk.com
                gishimoto@zlk.com

UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK: Sexual Assault Lawsuit Discontinued
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Cox, writing for CBC News, reports that lawyers have
discontinued a class-action lawsuit alleging sexual assault by a
former University of New Brunswick psychiatrist toward his patients
and say they'll instead file a mass-tort lawsuit.

During a case management conference in Fredericton Court of King's
Bench Tuesday afternoon, lawyer Mike Dull requested a class-action
lawsuit naming Dr. Manoj Bhargava and UNB be withdrawn.

Representing the class members, Dull said he was originally
scheduled to make submissions to have the class suit certified, but
instead wished to abandon that request.

"It's not a reflection of how we feel about the merits of the
allegations, but rather, it comes about on our full reflection of
whether a class proceeding is the preferable procedure in which to
advance those merits," Dull said.

Lawyers present for Bhargava and UNB consented to the class action
being withdrawn.

Bhargava and UNB were originally named in the lawsuit filed in
April 2021.

It alleged that while he worked as a psychiatrist at UNB
Fredericton's Student Health Centre, he touched patients' breasts
while checking their blood pressure and heart rate.

The class-action lawsuit also alleged that UNB didn't take
appropriate steps to ensure the plaintiffs were not subjected to
such acts, and that UNB was vicariously liable for the sexual
assaults allegedly perpetrated by Bhargava.

The university terminated Bhargav's contract in November 2020. The
termination and lawsuit came after Bhargava's licence was suspended
by the New Brunswick College of Physicians and Surgeons.

More defendants could be named: lawyer
Erika Hachey, another lawyer for the plaintiffs in the class
action, said in an interview a mass-tort lawsuit is being pursued
as it better reflects the varied experiences of each complainant.

Hachey said some class members alleged Bhargava assaulted them
while he was working at other health clinics.

A mass tort will allow plaintiffs to include those varying claims
about where Bhargava allegedly assaulted them, Hachey said.

"So we are going to include those . . . new defendants, as well as
… the former class members and the new people that had contacted
us, and they will all be considered plaintiffs in our new mass tort
action," Hachey said.

Hachey said a mass tort is also expected to bring a quicker
resolution to the case, as there's no need to get the lawsuit
certified as is the case with a class action.

18 complaints: College of Physicians and Surgeons
The class-action lawsuit originally included 14 members, however,
Hachey said she can't say how many people will be named in the new
mass-tort lawsuit until they formally provide statements.

"I have been advised by some of my clients that there are still
people out there that are waiting and have not stepped forward to
contact us," she said. "I just want those people to know that this
is the time to contact us."

In 2021, New Brunswick College of Physicians and Surgeons registrar
Dr. Ed Schollenberg said the college had received 18 sexual assault
complaints against Bhargava from individual patients.

A lawyer for UNB declined an interview request, and Bhargava's
lawyer did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday afternoon.
[GN]

US TRAFFIC: Johns Suit Seeks Flaggers' Proper Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
RYON JOHNS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. TRAFFIC CONTROL, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. (N.D. Ga., March 29, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ryon Johns was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid flagger from
approximately July 2022 to February 2023. The Defendant allegedly
failed to compensate Johns at an overtime premium rate of not less
than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek as required by the FLSA, says
the Plaintiff.

U.S. Traffic Control, LLC is a company headquartered in Athens,
Georgia that provides traffic safety personnel and services
including two-way flaggers, pavement technicians, traffic control
supervisors and traffic control technicians for road closures and
detours, crowd control management and equipment rental. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

                Roger Orlando, Esq.
                THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
                315 West Ponce De Leon Avenue, Suite 400
                Decatur, GA 30030
                Telephone: (404) 373-1800
                Facsimile: (404) 373-6999
                E-mail: roger@orlandofirm.com

                        - and -
                
                Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
                BROWN, LLC
                111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
                Jersey City, NJ 07310
                Telephone: (877) 561-0000
                Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
                E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

VIVA ITALIA: Filing of Conditional Class Cert Bid Due July 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAURA HEALY, et al., v.
VIVA ITALIA! LLC d/b/a Va Bene, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-02397-TC-RES (D. Kan.), Hon. Judge Rachel E. Schwartz
entered a scheduling order as follows

            Event                                     Deadline

-- Exchange of documents identified in             April 12, 2023
    Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures:

-- Defendants' Responsive Pleading:                April 25, 2023

-- Motions to amend:                               May 5, 2023

-- All Phase I discovery complete:                 June 28, 2023

-- Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional              July 28, 2023
   Class Certification:

On March 15, 2023, U.S. Magistrate Judge Schwartz conducted a
scheduling conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16. The
Plaintiffs Maura Healy, John Luongo, Scott Riggs, and Jessica Coen,
on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, appeared
through counsel John Ziegelmeyer and Mike Hodgson, by phone.

The case involves collective action claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). Because of this, and per the parties'
request, the court will bifurcate the discovery into two phases.
The first phase covered by this Scheduling Order will be focused on
issues related to conditional certification under the FLSA. After
the court rules on Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional
certification, the parties will meet and present a second
Scheduling Order for Phase 2 covering factual discovery related to
Plaintiffs' FLSA claims and class issues regarding their Rule 23
claims.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nCe33k at no extra charge.[CC]

WALMART INC: Toledo Sues Over Deceptive Marketing and Sales
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grace Toledo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WALMART INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-10694 (D. Mass., March
30, 2023), is brought arising out of the Defendant's marketing and
sales of textile fiber products that Defendant deceptively claims
are "bamboo" or provide an environmental benefit (the "Products").

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells textile fiber
products under its own private labels. The Defendant also markets
and resells textile products, which it purchases from vendors
and/or suppliers ("non-private label products"). In advertisements
for textile products marketed and sold on Defendant's website,
www.walmart.com and www.samsclub.com, and on the labeling of the
products themselves in store, Defendant makes or has made various
claims concerning the bamboo content of those textile products.

The Defendant has made environmental benefit claims about the
products it advertises as bamboo or rayon made from bamboo.
Defendant has marketed and sold the non-private label "Pine & River
Chilled Bamboo Cooling Weighted Blanket," claiming that it is
"eco-friendly & sustainable" because it is made from bamboo. The
Defendant also has marketed and sold the non-private label "LUXE
Life 100% Organic Bamboo Washcloths for Babies and Adults,"
claiming they are "renewable and environmentally sustainable"
because they are made from bamboo.

As defined by the Textile Act and Rules, many textile fiber
products marketed and sold by Defendant as "bamboo," including all
of the products shown and described above, are rayon, not actual
bamboo fiber woven into fabric. Since at least 2015, despite the
FTC's public announcements and the Warning Letter, Defendant has
sold rayon textile fiber products marketed and advertised as
"bamboo," including by engaging in practices.

The Plaintiff purchased a pillow Product (the "Product," or
together with all similarly marked products, the "Products")
marketed as being made "with Bamboo" from a Walmart Supercenter in
Avon, Massachusetts, reasonably believing that it was made from
fibers taken directly from the bamboo plant. However, the Product
the Plaintiff purchased was not made with fibers taken directly
from the bamboo plant. Instead, the Product was made with rayon.
The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product, or would have
paid significantly less for the Product, had she known that the
Product was not made with bamboo fibers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a pillow Product.

The Defendant markets and sells textile fiber products throughout
the United States on its websites and through brick-and-mortar
stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
          REARDON SCANLON LLP
          45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Phone: (860) 955-9455
          Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
          Email: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com

               - and -

          Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
          Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: jdiamond@bursor.com
                 mgirardi@bursor.com


WELLS FARGO: Filing of Class Certification Bid Extended to July 11
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Henzel v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:22-cv-00529-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), Hon. Judge
Nancy J. Koppe entered an order regarding case schedule:
                                         Current         New
                                         Deadline        Deadline

  Fact Discovery Cutoff:              May 31, 2023     Aug. 29,
2023

  Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)            May 1, 2023      July 31,
2023
  Expert Disclosures:

  Rebuttal Expert Disclosures:        May 31, 2023     Aug. 29,
2023

  Expert Discovery Cut-off:           June 30, 2023    Sept. 28,
2023

  Plaintiffs' Motion for Class        July 11, 2023    Oct. 9,
2023
  Certification Deadline:

A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40zL3bb at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Makenna Cox, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
                  apolk@girardsharp.com
                  jelias@girardsharp.com
                  mcox@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Eric Gibbs, Esq.
          David K. Stein, Esq.
          Emily Beale, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ds@classlawgroup.com
                  eg@classlawgroup.com
                  eb@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Schneider, Esq.
          Jason K. Kellogg, Esq.
          Marcelo Diaz-Cortes, Esq.
          LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN
          SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP
          100 SE 2nd Street, Miami Tower, 36th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 403-8788
          Facsimile: (305) 403-8789
          E-mail: jcs@lklsg.com
                  jk@lklsg.com
                  md@lklsg.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Brace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. BRACE
          1807 Santa Barbara St.
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 886-8458
          E-mail: rlbrace@rusty.lawyer
          Interim Co-Lead Counsel

               - and -

          Miles N. Clark, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK, LLC
          5510 S. Fort Apache Rd., Suite 30
          Las Vegas, NV 89148-7700
          Telephone: (702) 856-7430
          E-mail: miles@milesclarklaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Went, Esq.
          Sydney R. Gambee , Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89134
          Telephone: (702) 669-4600
          Facsimile: (702) 669-4650
          E-mail: jgwent@hollandhart.com
                  srgambee@hollandhart.com

               - and -

          K. Issac deVyver, Esq.
          Alicia A. Baiardo, Esq.
          Anthony Q. Le, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315.8210
          E-mail: KdeVyver@mcguirewoods.com
                  ABaiardo@mcguirewoods.com
                  ALe@mcguirewoods.com

WESSON OIL: Mislabeling Settlement Claims Filing Due Set May 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Cristiano, writing for Narcity, reports that there are
several ongoing class-action lawsuits in the United States right
now, with some famous brands shelling out thousands in cash to
Americans who qualify.

Some of these brands are used by consumers every day, like
streaming websites, phone apps, and cooking products, so you could
score some serious cash in your future for doing nothing but
signing up.

These cash payouts vary and aren't always guaranteed, but you could
make anywhere from $200 up to $2,500 with some of them.

So, here are various companies with some pretty hefty settlements
taking place in the U.S. that you just might be entitled to:

Wesson Oil
Residents of California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, or Texas that
purchased Wesson Cooking Oil between 2006 and 2017 qualify as class
members in the $3 million lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, Wesson Oil's parent brand, Conagra,
illegally marketed and sold their cooking oil product as "natural"
when it was actually found to contain genetically modified
ingredients.

If you submit your form by May 22, 2023, you might qualify to get
back $0.15 per unit of Wesson Oil Products you purchased.

Spotify
If you use the Spotify app and have a Facebook account, you might
qualify for up to $2,500 if you ever watched any form of video
content on the music app. There are claims that Spotify violated
the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by sharing user
data with Facebook without the user's knowledge.

Now, this isn't your typical class-action lawsuit. This one is a
mass arbitration where attorneys are looking for a significant
number of people to file a claim against Spotify.

There's no guarantee of a payout just yet, but it's free to sign
up, and attorneys claim you could get up to $2,500.

GoodRx
Another mass arbitration is underway, and this one's against
healthcare company GoodRx, according to ClassAction.org.

If you use GoodRx and have received an email that said your
information was shared with third parties, you qualify to sign up
for the suit that attorneys say could give you $200 or more.

The telemedicine platform is accused of sharing and tracking users'
personal and medical information.

JUUL
If you bought any JUUL products in the United States before
December 7, 2022, you could see some cash from the company's $255
million false advertising lawsuit.

The settlement comes after the lawsuit that claimed JUUL failed to
advertise the "addictiveness" of its products.

The payout amount is entirely based on the number of JUUL products
you paid for during the previously mentioned dates, and you don't
even need a receipt (unless you bought more than $300 in products).
[GN]

WESTERN SKY DAIRY: Galvan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Sky Dairy,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jesus Galvan, on behalf of all
employees similarly situated v. Western Sky Dairy, LLC, Case No.
BCV-23-100992 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March 30, 2023).

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

Western Sky Dairy, LLC is a dairy farm in California.[BN]


WESTRUX INTERNATIONAL: San Miguel Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA SAN MIGUEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTRUX INTERNATIONAL INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2 3STCV06690 (Cal. Super., March 28, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code
by implementing policies and practices which led to, among other
things, failure to pay wages including overtime and failure to
provide meal periods for every work period exceeding more than 10
hours per day and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or
accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a
meal period.

San Miguel was employed by Defendants in approximately August 2021
as a non-exempt employee with the title of Driver and worked during
the liability period for Defendants until Plaintiff's separation
from Defendants' employment in approximately February 2022. The
Plaintiff's duties included, but were not limited to, pick up,
check, and deliver parts.

Westrux International Inc. operates as a transportation, trucking,
and railroad company based in Southern California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

                James R. Hawkins, Esq.
                Gregory Mauro, Esq.
                Michael Calvo, Esq.
                Lauren Falk, Esq.
                Ava Issary, Esq.
                JAMES HAWKINS APLC
                9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
                Irvine, CA 92618
                Telephone: (949) 387-7200
                Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
                E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                        Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                        Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                        Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                        Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com

YOUTH ON THE MOVE: Court Partly OK's Burgos Conditional Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADIANEL BURGOS and HECTOR
MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. YOUTH ON THE MOVE, INC. (YOTM), and JANICE BROWN, Case
No. 3:22-cv-30031-MGM (D. Mass.), Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni
entered an order:

   -- allowing the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
      certification, insofar as it requests conditional
certification
      of a class that includes those employed as drivers and
approval
      of notice procedures;

   -- deferring ruling as to that portion of the motion seeking
      approval of specific notices; and

   -- denying the motion to the extent it seeks conditional
certification of a class that includes those employed as monitors.

The Plaintiffs, Adianel Burgos and Hector Martinez, are former
employees of YOTM. Both worked as drivers providing non-emergency
medical transportation services; Burgos only worked as a driver,
while Martinez sometimes worked as a driver and other times worked
in a different capacity. They allege, on behalf of themselves and
others who worked for Defendant as drivers or monitors who
accompanied drivers, that YOTM fails to pay its drivers and
monitors for all the hours they work in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA, they have moved for
conditional certification of a putative class consisting of:

    "All individuals employed by Youth on the Move, Inc. as drivers
or
    monitors within the three years preceding the filing of the
    complaint in this matter, with the exception of any such
    individuals who were class members in the matter of Michalczyk
v.
    Youth on the Move, Inc. et al, Hampden County Superior Court
Civil
    Action No. 1979cv00860, and who did not work for the Defendants
as
    a driver or monitor after April 10, 2020."

YOTM offers safe transportation services for clients across
Springfield, Massachusetts.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZJ6CF2 at no extra charge.[CC]

[*] Class Action Against Cos. Over ESG-Related Issues Inevitable
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., of Duane Morris LLP, in an article
for Lexology, disclosed that the plaintiffs' class action bar is
exceedingly innovative and in constant pursuit of "the next big
then" insofar as potential liability is concerned for acts and
omissions of Corporate America. Environmental, Social, and
Governance - known as "ESG" -- each of the verticals within ESG are
surely are topics on the mind of leading plaintiffs' class action
litigators. As ESG-related issues evolve and become increasingly
more important to corporate stakeholders, class action litigation
against companies is inevitable and has already begun to take
shape. This blog post reviews the current landscape of litigation
risks, and underscores how good corporate compliance programs and
corporate citizenship are prerequisites to minimizing risk.

The Class Action Context

In 2022, the plaintiffs' class action bar filed, litigated, and
settled class actions at a breathtaking pace. The aggregate totals
of the top ten class action settlements – in areas as diverse as
mass torts, consumer fraud, antitrust, civil rights, securities
fraud, privacy, and employment-related claims – reached the
highest historical totals in the history of American jurisprudence.
Class actions and government enforcement litigation spiked to over
$63 billion in settlement totals. As analyzed in our Duane Morris
Class Action Review, the totals included $50.32 billion for
products liability and mass tort, $8.5 billion for consumer fraud,
$3.7 billion for antitrust, $3.25 billion for securities fraud, and
$1.3 billion for civil rights.

As "success begets success' in this litigation space, the
plaintiffs' bar is loaded for bear in 2023, and focused on areas of
opportunity for litigation targets. ESG-related areas are a prime
area of risk.

The ESG Context

Corporate ESG programs is in a state of constant evolution. Early
iterations were heavily focused on corporate social responsibility
(or "CSR"), with companies sponsoring initiatives that were
intended to benefit their communities. They entailed things like
employee volunteering, youth training, and charitable contributions
as well as internal programs like recycling and employee affinity
groups. These efforts were not particularly controversial.

In recent years, ESG programs have become more extensive and more
deeply integrated with companies' core business strategies,
including strategies for avoiding risks, such as those presented by
employment discrimination claims, the impacts of climate change,
supply chain accountability, and cybersecurity and privacy.
Companies and studies have increasingly framed ESG programs as
contributing to shareholder value.

As ESG programs become larger and more integrated into a company's
business, so do the risks of attracting attention from regulators
and private litigants.

And The Lawsuits Begin From All Quarters

While class action litigation can emanate from many sources, four
areas in particular are of importance in the ESG space.

Shareholders: Lawsuits by shareholders regarding ESG matters are
accelerating. Examples include claims that their stock holdings
have lost value as a result of false disclosures about issues like
sexual harassment allegations involving key executives,
cybersecurity incidents, or environmental disasters. Even absent a
stock drop, some shareholders have brought successful derivative
suits focused on ESG issues. Of recent note, employees of
corporations incorporated in Delaware who serve in officer roles
may be sued for breach of the duty of oversight in the particular
area over which they have responsibility, including oversight over
workplace harassment policies. In its ruling in In Re McDonald's
Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 2021-CV-324 (Del. Ch.
Jan. 25, 2023), the Delaware Court of Chancery determined that like
directors, officers are subject to oversight claims. The ruling
expands the scope of the rule established in the case of In Re
Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959
(Del. Ch. 1996), which recognized the duty of oversight for
directors. The decision will likely result in a flurry of
litigation activity by the plaintiffs' bar, as new cases will be
filed alleging that officers in corporations who were responsible
for overseeing human resource functions can be held liable for
failing to properly oversee investigations of workplace misconduct
such as sexual harassment.

Vendors and Business Partners: As companies face increasing demands
to address ESG issues in their operations and throughout their
supply chains, ESG requirements in commercial contracts are
increasing in prevalence. Requirements imposed on vendors,
suppliers, and partners -- to ensure their operations do not
introduce ESG risks (e.g., by using forced or child labor or
employing unsustainable environmental practices) are becoming
regular staples in a commercial context. In addition, as more
companies report greenhouse gas emissions -- and may soon be
required by the SEC to report on them -- they increasingly require
companies in their supply chain to provide information about their
own emissions. Furthermore, if the SEC's proposed cybersecurity
disclosure rules are enacted, companies also may require increased
reporting regarding cybersecurity from vendors and others. These
actions -- and disclosures -- provide fodder for "greenwashing"
claims, where consumers claim that company statements about
environmental or social aspects of their products are false and
misleading. The theories in these class actions are expanding by
encompassing allegations involving product statements as well as a
company's general statements about its commitment to
sustainability.

State Consumer Protection and Employment Laws: The patchwork quilt
of state laws create myriad causes of action for alleged false
advertising and other misleading marketing statements. The
plaintiffs' bar also has invoked statutes like the Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to bring claims against
companies for alleged failures to stop alleged human rights
violations in their supply chains. These claims typically allege
that the existence of company policies and programs aimed at
helping end human rights violations are themselves a basis for
liability. In making human capital management disclosures a part of
ESG efforts (including whether to disclose numeric metrics or
targets based on race or gender), companies may find themselves in
a difficult place with respect to potential liability stemming from
stated commitments to diversity and inclusion. On the one hand,
companies that fail to achieve numeric targets they articulate
(e.g., a certain percent or increase in diversity among management)
may subject themselves to claims of having overpromised when
discussing their future plans. Conversely, employers that achieve
such targets may face "reverse discrimination" claims alleging that
they abandoned race-based or gender-neutral employment practices to
hit numbers set forth in their public statements.

Government Enforcement Litigation: Federal, state and local
government regulators have taken multiple actions against companies
based on their alleged contributions to climate change or alleged
illegal activities. For instance, in 2019, the U.S. Department of
Justice investigated auto companies for possible antitrust
violations for agreeing with California to adopt emissions
standards more restrictive than those established by federal law.
While the investigation did not reveal wrongdoing, it underscores
the creativity that proponents and opponents of ESG efforts can
employ.

Implications For Corporate America

The creation, content, and implementation of ESG programs carries
increasing litigation risks for corporations but it is unlikely
that ESG programs will diminish is size or scale in the coming
years given increased focus by Fortune 100s and 500s and increased
regulation at the federal and state levels.

Sound planning, comprehensive legal compliance, and systematic
auditing of ESG programs should be a key focus and process of all
entities beginning or continuing their ESG journey. As more and
more companies adopt some level of corporative ESG strategy
planning, compliance and auditing are some of the key imperatives
in this new world of exposure to diminish and limit one's exposure.
[GN]

[*] Morgan Lewis Attorneys Discuss Automotive Class Action Trends
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa R. Weddle, Esq., and Brian M. Ercole, Esq., of Morgan Lewis,
disclosed that as the types of automotive class actions continue to
evolve, so too do class action trends and developments. Morgan
Lewis lawyers detail below some of the hot topics in automobile
class action litigation, such as personal jurisdiction challenges;
whether, when, and how the actual manifestation of an alleged
defect matters; the importance of affirmative defenses at all
stages of the case; plaintiffs' popular damages theories and
challenges to these; and why class certification does not and
should not automatically trigger settlement.

Types of Claims. Automotive class actions often assert claims for
purely economic damages due to overpayment at the point of sale.
This theory avoids individual issues associated with having to
prove physical injury or property damage, as is often required with
traditional product liability claims. In class actions, plaintiffs
will often assert that automobile manufacturers wrongfully induced
the vehicle purchases by misrepresenting or concealing the alleged
defects and that plaintiffs would have paid less for their vehicles
had they known of the alleged defect.  

Key Issues in Automobile Defect Class Actions. There are a number
of key defenses that can be raised in automobile defect class
actions—at the motion to dismiss or summary judgment stage, at
class certification, and even at trial. These defenses include (1)
requiring plaintiffs to prove an actual design defect under
applicable state law, (2) challenging personal jurisdiction with
respect to the claims of named plaintiffs and absent class members,
(3) requiring plaintiffs to show that all class members have been
harmed by the alleged defect, (4) challenging claims where the
alleged problem is not going to be experienced by the vast majority
of class members, and (5) using affirmative defenses, such as the
statute of limitations, to show why any class claim cannot proceed
and any class trial would be overrun with individual issues. Case
law is continuously evolving on all of these issues. The success of
these arguments often will hinge on the nature of the alleged
problem at issue, applicable law, and the particular forum for the
case.

Classwide Damages. Plaintiffs turn to a variety of theoretical
models to attempt to show damages and injury for all class members.
These models can lead to large certified classes and high exposure,
but they can also lead to absurd results when models are actually
run. Some of the key models include conjoint analysis, average cost
of repair or replacement, and depreciation of vehicle value.
Whether plaintiffs' proposed model will be accepted depends on the
type of claim, applicable state law, and where the case is brought.
There are many ways of attacking these damages models, and such
challenges should not lose sight of common sense principles.  

Beyond Class Certification. Just because a class has been certified
does not mean that a case must settle. Certified classes can be
decertified or narrowed in advance of trial. Class claims also can
be tried. Even if a class is certified, it is important to address
with the court whether and how the class claims, along with any
individual issues and defenses, can be tried in a manageable way.
It is also critical to hold plaintiffs to their classwide burden at
trial. [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***