---

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

              Wednesday, April 12, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 74

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Hiott PFAS Class Suit Removed to D.S.C.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bid to Dismiss Connor Claims Granted in Part
AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Schedule Stricken in Kowarsky Suit
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Extension to Respond to Class Cert OK'd in Lazaar
AVEO GROUP: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Unlawful Scheme for $11-M

BAYER HEALTHCARE: Seeks to Dismiss Sidhu Suit or Strike Allegations
BEANSNAPPERS INC: Miller Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers
BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Castro Says
BUZHUKOV PAYROLL: Fails to Timely Provide COBRA Notice, Suit Says
C-T-H GROUP: Urbina Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime

C3.AI INC: Faces Rabasca Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: Dismissal of Remprex Suit Reversed in Part
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Court Narrows Claims in First Amended Vance Suit
CHURCHOME: Required Tithing Policy Leads to Lawsuit by Employees
CLARKE MOYNIHAN: Underpays Construction Workers, Medina Alleges

COMMUNITY.COM INC: McGinnis Sues Over Illegal Access to Messages
COTY INC: Court Dismisses Brown Class Suit With Leave to Amend
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Faces Zafir Suit Over Improper Debt Collection
DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Daves Suit Remanded With Instructions to Dismiss
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action for $1-Mil.

DIVERSIFIED CHILDREN: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, Anderson Claims
DOLLAR GENERAL: Bid to Remand Williams Suit to State Court Denied
DUNKIN' BRANDS: App Overcharges Customers, Class Action Claims
ELDERLY HEALTH: Cabrejo Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
FCTI INC: Faces Suit Over Out-of-Network ATM Balance Inquiries

GOOGLE INC: Rival Lawsuits Vie to Represent UK Publishers
GORES SPONSOR: Farzad Sues Over Misleading Stockholder Disclosures
HASBRO INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Toro Class Suit Says
HUANG'S MEAT: Faces Zhu Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Requested 10th Stay in Suit to Extend Mediation

INDEPENDENT LIVING: Fails to Protect Patients Info, Berg Alleges
INTEGON NATIONAL: E.D. Pennsylvania Dismisses Moors Class Suit
INTEL CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Suit With Leave to Amend
IRVING K: Williamson TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
K & T PROFESSIONAL: Ramos Sues Over Installers' Unpaid Overtime

KEYSTONE CLEARWATER: Zinck Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KRYSTAL KLEAR: Underpays Construction Workers, Rocha Suit Claims
LEAFFILTER NORTH: $5.2MM Class Deal in Zilinsky Suit Wins Final Nod
LG ELECTRONICS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Brito Suit Granted
LIDL US: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Lopez FLSA-NYLL Suit Granted

LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Choco Products Have Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Davis Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
MCBC MEDICAL: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Moore Says
MDL 2843: Deal in Facebook Consumer Privacy Suit Gets Prelim. Nod
MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Faces 2nd Class Action Suit Over Cyber Breach

MINNESOTA: MSOP Appeals Prelim. Injunction Ruling in Rud Suit
MISSISSIPPI: Court Dismisses Gayles v. Cain & MSP With Prejudice
MISSISSIPPI: District Court Enters Final Judgment in Gayles v. Cain
MONTREAL, QC: St-Leonard Homeowners Sue Over Repeated Floodings
MOTA PIZZA: Denial of SC Mota's Bids for Sanctions Upheld in Part

MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 23
NAT'L ASSOC. OF REALTORS: Suit Over Conspiracy Can Be Class Action
NATIONAL BANK: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Hubbard Suit Over Antitrust Violations
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Sweeney Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply

NEW JERSEY STATE: Galicki Seeks Reconsideration of March 13 Order
NEXO CAPITAL: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Jeong Suit Granted
NORTH COAST: Bryant, et al., Seek to Certify FLSA Collective Action
OHIO REPRODUCTIVE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Kamppi Says
OKTA INC: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit

PEOPLECONNECT INC: Filing of Amended Class Cert Bid Due June 8
PRODUCERS SERVICE: Jones Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Weiss Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
ROADRUNNER FREIGHT: Padilla Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Gilburd Seeks to Conditionally Certify Action

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Medical Monitoring Part of Suit Nixed
SEQUEL YOUTH: Abused Children Can File Lawsuit to Get Help
SIMONE MARSTILLER: Meza, et al., Win Class Certification Bid
SIRIUS XM: Potts Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Labor Suit
SMITHFIELD FRESH: Franklin Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA, IMWL

SURGICAL CARE: Sheikh Suit Removed to C.D. California
SVB FINANCIAL: Response Dates & Hearing in Siddiqui Suit Continued
TARGET CORP: Kelly Employment Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
TH EXPLORATION: Tug Hill Files 4th Cir. Appeal in Royalties Suit
TORY BURCH: Overcharges Tax Monies, Wilkins Class Suit Alleges

TOYOTA MOTORS: Rampant RAV4 Roof Leaks Lead to First Class-Action
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Metcalf May File 3rd Amended Complaint
TRUCK WORLD: Faces Rubiales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla.
TRUSTED MEDIA: S.D. New York Dismisses First Amended Bohnak Suit
TWITTER INC: Violates WARN Act, Gadala Class Action Suit Alleges

US XPRESS: $13 Million Class Action Settlement Granted Final OK
USA TRUCK: Perez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Salaried Employees
VMWARE INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Lamartina Suit Granted in Part
WHITING SOLUTIONS: Faces Lovette Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
YASAR LLC: Austin Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA

ZAHARA CORP: Faces Vasquez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Hiott PFAS Class Suit Removed to D.S.C.
---------------------------------------------------
The class action styled SAMUEL EDWARD HIOTT, et al. v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case
No. (Filed Feb. 17, 2023), was removed from the Circuit Court for
the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Colleton County, South Carolina,
to the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina on April 3, 2023.

The District of South Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-01345-RMG to the proceedings.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable
based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or
selling aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and/or firefighter
turnout gear (TOG) that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting
activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.

In relevant part, the Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other
Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid (PFOS).

Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that 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" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products."

AFFF sold to and used by the U.S. military must appear on the
Department of Defense (DoD) Qualified Products List and comply with
the military’s rigorous specifications (MilSpec). Thus, to the
extent that the Plaintiffs allegedly were exposed in military
settings to PFAS from AFFF manufactured by 3M, those PFAS derived
from MilSpec AFFF. Under the federal "government contractor"
defense recognized in Boyle v. United Technologies. Corp., 487 U.S.
500 (1988), 3M is immune to tort liability for its design and
manufacture of MilSpec AFFF and its provision of warnings for the
product. Under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C.
section 1442(a)(1), 3M is entitled to remove this action in order
to have its federal defense adjudicated in a federal forum. Such
removal "fulfills the federal officer removal statute's purpose of
protecting persons who, through contractual relationships with the
Government, perform jobs that the Government otherwise would have
performed."

The Plaintiffs include RICK BURNELL HANSON, DOMINICK LAROCCA, DARIN
JAMES LEEDY, JOHN HERMAN HANSEN, JEROME ALEXANDER MASON, JOSEPH
ARTHUR GUTIERREZ, JOSEPH D KAMMER, ROBERT JOHN HARACKIEWICZ, ROBERT
LEE GREEN, ROBERT RUSSELL JOHNSON, EDDIE DWIGHT MAYNOR, ROBERT GENE
KALANDER, MARK BRIAN KATZ, DAVID ROSS HOLLER, BART EUGENE LYONS,
EARL JOHN MENDEL JR, LEONARD BRUCE LLOYD, GEORGE JOSEPH KAIN III,
JOHN FRANCIS LIPARITO, NATHANIEL HENRY, DONALD WARREN MAIRE JR,
JORDAN MARC LEMIEUX, JOSEPH RAYMOND MCKEON, MICHAEL JOSEPH HORTON,
WILLIAM ZANE MCCARTER, ROBERT DONALD LEMKE, RICHARD GEORGE
HENNEBERRY, CHARLES FRANCIS HEMPHILL, ALBERTO MENDOZA, DAVID
CHANDLER MATHIS, LAWRENCE ANTHONY MARTIN, RALPH ELLSWORTH GREENE
JR, CLARENCE EDWARD HAWKINS, MOZELL GIPSON, WILLIAM EVERETT HAYNES,
JOHN DEWALT HAMILTON, MARK GOODE SR, RICHARD DENVER MCCONNELL,
ROBERT LEVON HILL, MARK JAMES HERZBERGER, RALPH LEE JOSEPH, ROGER
ALLEN GROVES, KNUD ANDRES KNUDSON, JAMES ERNEST HUNTER, DAVID FRANK
JORGENSEN SR, ROBERT ALLAN HANSCOM, ROBERT J KUTCH, ZANE ANTHONY
HOWE SR, JAMES DAVID MILHOUSE, ARNOLD CHANG LIU, DARRELL VENTON
MALLERY, NORMAN REED GUSTAFSON, THEODORE FREEMAN GRANT JR, DAVID
ANTHONY GUARDADO, ALAN LANDES LANE, ROBERT
LEE JETT, KENNETH FRANCIS MELVOEN, DAVID YOUNG HIGGINS, THOMAS MONT
HOCKING, DON CHARLES HUST, JOHN EDWARD LAPOINTE, WESLEY LEAR
MATHANY, ROBERT GEORGE KINGREA, DANIEL PATRICK HIGGINS, TERRY LEE
HULEN, TERRY RENCELLIERE IRION, KIM ARROL JENSEN, ROBERT JUDE
JOBIN, ROBERT STEVEN KIDNEY, STANLEY CHARLES MARCIESKI, THOMAS
BENJAMIN MCELVEEN, WALTER DONALD MAHONEY JR, JAMES ALBERT MANNING,
JAMES KEVIN MCNEILL, JAMES RICHARD JANECKE, RANDALL ALAN KING,
BOBBY KING KELLY SR, KARRY WADE JACKSON, DONALD EARL MCCLINTOCK,
ISAAC GREEN, DAVID MEDRANO, ROBERT DEAN LUDLUM, MONTY ROGER HUNT,
WILLIAM BRITT HOLMES, LARRY DEAN HOOPER, DERRICK WILFRED HOLMES,
DELAS JOSEPH LANCELIN, DALE VERNON MATHIS, GREGORY SCOTT LEACH,
JOSEPH JOHN LAFIRENZA SR, ROBERT EDWIN JOHNSEN JR, NICHOLAS JOSEPH
MATT, JOHN WESLEY LEWIS, JOHN BENJAMIN HERROD, STANLEY CHARLES
KOCI, LARON SHARRARD GRAHAM, KEVIN MCGAVOCK, DOUGLAS ANTHONY
LUNNING, BERNARD HARRY MAURER III, NORMAN MICHAEL LESMERISES, JAMES
PATRICK MERRIMAN, DONNIE MARSHALL GOLDEN, WILLIAM HENRY HALL,
GERALD MCLEOD GLASS, LEO LON MALLORY, ANTHONY LORDO, SHAWN ANTONIE
LEWIS, GARY ARTHUR LARSEN, JAMES DERRELL JACKSON, DALE R LUNDQUIST,
WILLIAM JOHN HEITMAN JR, LINDSAY DOUGLAS KEITH, JAMES DON JACKSON,
DAVID HARRIS MCCARTY, DAVID WAYNE HOWARD, HENRY W KNOX, HAROLD
RIDDELL LATTING, FRED DONOVAN GRINNELL, WILLIAM EARL KOONS, DAVID
ALAN MCKALPAIN, MICHAEL J JOY, JAMES MARTINDALE, ALEXANDER
LONERGAN, and DAN JOSEPH HOLBROOK.

The Defendants include 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC, AMEREX
CORPORATION, ARCHROMA US INC, ARKEMA INC, BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC,
CHEMGUARD INC, CHEMICALS INC, CHEMOURS COMPANY FC LLC, CLARIANT
CORP, CORTEVA INC, DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC, DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC), DYNAX CORPORATION, EI 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), ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, FIRE DEX LLC, GLOBE
MANUFACTURING
COMPANY LLC, HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA INC, LION GROUP INC,
MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC, MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO LLC,
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES INC, PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS INC,
SOUTHERN MILLS INC, STEDFAST USA INC., and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES
INC.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian C. Duffy, Esq.
          DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC
          96 Broad Street
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 720-2044
          Facsimile: (843) 720-2047
          E-mail: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com

               - and -

          Nathan Rice, Esq.
          Mayer Brown LLP
          61 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-7727
          E-mail: nrice@mayerbrown.com

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Bid to Dismiss Connor Claims Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARAH CONNOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-1463-SMY (S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci M.
Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois grants in part and denies in part Abbott's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim without Leave to Amend
Plaintiff's non-Illinois claims and Claims for Injunctive Relief.

In this putative class action, Connor alleges that the Defendant
misrepresented to consumers that its product "Similac Pro-Advance
infant formula" is comparable to breast milk. In the Complaint,
Connor asserts violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.; breaches
of express warranty, implied warranty, and the Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2301, et seq.; negligent
misrepresentation; fraud; and unjust enrichment. She seeks
injunctive relief as well.

Abbott manufactures, labels, markets, and sells infant formula
under the Similac brand identified as the Product. The
representations that the Product contains lutein, vitamin E, DHA,
and HMO - Human Milk Oligosaccharide, along with the claim, "Our
Closest Formula to Breast Milk," implies that the inclusion of
these can approach the benefits from breast milk.

Despite the disclaimer about "Breast milk is recommended," the
Product's label is misleading because the Product's comparisons to
breast milk expressly and impliedly claim that it can confer the
structure/function benefits of breast milk. The marketing of the
Product is misleading because (1) purchasers are dissuaded from
breastfeeding, even though it is the option for infant nutrition
recommended by pediatricians and global health bodies, and (2)
purchasers will wrongly believe that the Product is almost
equivalent to breast milk, when this is not true.

Connor purchased the Product on one or more occasions between May
and July 2021. She expected that it was similar to breastmilk in
its effect on immunity and brain and eye development. She would not
have purchased the Product absent Abbott's false and misleading
statements and omissions, or would have paid less for it. She
intends to, seeks to, and will purchase the Product again when she
can do so with the assurance that the Product's representations are
consistent with its abilities and/or composition.

Connor requests compensatory and injunctive relief and seeks to
represent an Illinois class including: All persons in the State of
Illinois who purchased the Product during the statutes of
limitations for each cause of action alleged. She further seeks
certification of a consumer fraud multi-state class of: All persons
in the States of North Dakota, Rhode Island, Michigan, Virginia,
Kansas, Wyoming, and Delaware, who purchased the Product during the
statutes of limitation for each cause of action alleged.

Abbott argues that Connor's claims must be dismissed on numerous
grounds: (1) she fails to state a claim under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act because has not plausibly alleged
that the label misleads reasonable consumers; (2) her warranty
claims fail because she cannot plausibly allege deception; (3) her
warranty claims independently fail; (4) her common-law claims
suffer additional defects; (5) she lacks standing to sue under the
laws of states outside Illinois; and (6) she lacks standing to seek
injunctive relief.

Judge Yandle holds that the allegations of the Complaint are
sufficient to state a viable claim for deceptive practices under
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. She finds
that a significant portion of the general consuming public could
reasonably be misled by the Product's labeling. Reasonable
consumers could also be left with the impression that the Product
is almost equivalent to the benefits of breast milk. Moreover,
comparisons may be deceptive under the ICFA where two products are
too different in composition and effects. Therefore, the
Defendant's motion is denied on this point.

Next, Judge Yandle finds that Connor fails to state a viable breach
of warranty claim under the MMWA. She finds that with respect to
the notice requirement, under Illinois law, a buyer must within a
reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any
breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy.
Given that Connor does not allege any particular personal injury to
her or an infant, the section 2-607 notice requirement was not
fulfilled by her filing the Complaint.

Judge Yandle then finds that Connor fails to sufficiently allege
that Abbot had the requisite scienter to defraud. In that regard,
she alleges only that Abbott misrepresented and/or omitted the
attributes of the qualities of the Product, that it was similar to
breastmilk in its effect on immunity and brain and eye development
and Abbott's fraudulent intent is evinced by its knowledge that the
Product was not consistent with its representations. According to
Judge Yandle, these conclusory allegations fall short of the
requirements of Rule 9(b). Accordingly, Abbott's motion is granted
with respect to the fraud claim.

Connor's negligent misrepresentation claim is dismissed. Citing
Congregation of the Passion, Holy Cross Province v. Touche Ross &
Co., 636 N.E.2d 503, 515 (1994), Connor argues that her claim
against Abbott, one of the oldest infant formula makers in the
world with supposedly specialized knowledge, satisfies a recognized
exception to the Moorman doctrine: where a defendant made negligent
misrepresentations while in the business of supplying information
for the guidance of others in their business transactions.

Judge Yandle finds that Illinois courts have applied this exception
to a variety of commercial information providers, such as
accountants, banks that provide credit information, product and
real-estate inspectors, title insurers, and stockbrokers. However,
it applies only to businesses dealing in commercial information,
not tangible products such as infant formula.

Connor's unjust enrichment claim, which is based on the same
conduct underlying her ICFA claim, is viable as pled. Hence,
Abbott's motion to dismiss Connor's unjust enrichment claim is
denied.

Judge Yandle further holds that merely purchasing the Product does
not trigger Connor's injury. Because Connor does not set forth any
facts showing she faces a real and immediate threat of future harm,
she does not have Article III standing to obtain an injunction
against Defendant. Therefore, Connor lacks standing to pursue
prospective injunctive relief; Abbot's motion is granted on this
point.

Finally, Abbott argues that Connor lacks standing to sue under the
laws of states other than Illinois. This argument is premature.
Judge Yandle holds that any standing issues arising from Connor's
attempt to represent the proposed multi-state class are class
certification issues that will be addressed during the class
certification stage of this litigation.

For the foregoing reasons, Abbott's motion to dismiss is granted
with respect to Connor's claims for breach of express warranty,
implied warranty, and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; negligent
misrepresentation; fraud; and her request for injunctive relief.
Connor may proceed on her claims under the ICFA and for unjust
enrichment.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8kaea5 from Leagle.com.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Class Cert Schedule Stricken in Kowarsky Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kowarsky v. American
Family Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-00377 (W.D.Wisc.),
Hon. Judge Stephen L. Crocker entered an order that in light of the
parties' stipulation to extend the class certification motion
deadline because the dismissal motion still is pending, all dates
in the existing scheduled are struck except for the June 10, 2024
trial date, which remains in place for now.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.

American Family operates as an insurance company.[CC]

ANTHEM COMPANIES: Extension to Respond to Class Cert OK'd in Lazaar
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leslie Lazaar v. The
Anthem Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1 :22-cv-03075-JGK
(S.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge John G. Koeltl entered an order granting the
Defendants' request for a three-week extension of time to respond
to the Plaintiffs Motion for Court-Authorized Notice Under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which Plaintiff Lazaar filed on March
17, 2023.

The Plaintiff does not oppose this request Defendants' response is
currently due on March 31, 2023.

Additionally, the Defendants are working to evaluate the
allegations in the three declarations submitted on March 17 with
Lazaar's motion. The Defendants' request is motivated by external
factors as well.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KhUMf6 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brett C. Bartlet, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          1075 Peacthree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3958
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
          E-mail: www.seyfarth.com

AVEO GROUP: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Unlawful Scheme for $11-M
----------------------------------------------------------------
afr.com reports that there could be an interesting sequel to the
gob-smacking surrender of law firm Levitt Robinson in the class
action it was running against retirement village operator Aveo.

Aveo agreed to pay $11 million - inclusive of costs - to settle a
claim against it over contracts offered to incoming residents at
some of its 60 properties.

However, the settlement still has to be approved by the Federal
Court. And that's where it could get really tricky for Stewart
Levitt, the self-styled "lawyer, activist, poet" who is a principal
of Levitt Robinson.

Levitt is no novice and has a resume that includes a claim against
7-Eleven that settled in April 2022 with a $98 million payout for
franchisees.

But as part of the Aveo settlement, Levitt agreed to a public
statement, signed by him, which concedes the scheme is lawful and
that his firm stuffed up. Big time.

It read in part: "Levitt Robinson acknowledges that the
introduction and implementation by Aveo and its related entities of
Aveo Way contracts were lawful, in accordance with industry
standards and that we are now satisfied that the Federal Court is
not likely to find that its introduction has caused current or
former residents of Aveo to suffer any loss.

                              'Regret'

"We express regret for any distress or anxiety which Aveo residents
and staff have experienced as a result of or incidental to the Aveo
class action litigation."

If there has ever been a statement like that by a plaintiff, none
of the class action experts we spoke to could remember it. As one
said: "Apologising to group members for distressing them! I have
never seen that. It's an utter shellacking."

The claim was based on "Aveo Way" residential contracts, through
which freehold property held by residents is later bought on
leasehold for incoming residents.

The claim argued that residents receive less from the sale of their
units as leasehold property when they leave an Aveo village because
of exit fees and other charges.

We suspected there would be little or nothing for the class members
after the legal costs were deducted. The legal bill alone for a big
class action is usually $10 million for each side before you even
get to court.

However, it has been suggested to Hearsay that the court might
think the residents deserve something more tangible than an
expression of regret. Perhaps something for the pain and suffering
referred to in the agreed statement.

When lawyers commence litigation, they are required to sign a
certificate that the claim has merit. The Federal Court rules say
that it should contain an undertaking that "any factual and legal
material available to the lawyer provides a proper basis for each
allegation or denial in the pleadings".

As Justice Stewart Anderson made clear during the hearing, it was
going to be a hard road to prove actual loss without some
convincing expert testimony. And if there was no loss, any finding
of liability was irrelevant – at least to the group members.

In pre-trial manoeuvrings, Anderson even appointed an amicus curiae
(friend of the court) to test the strength of the case. It led to
the case shrinking from 6200 to 2400 people as many opted out amid
warnings they could be forced to contribute to a costs bill should
the claim fail. (At one point, it was suggested to group members
that they consider a mortgage over their properties to back the
claim.)

It's perhaps worth noting that market leader Maurice Blackburn
walked away from its own claim against Aveo in 2019.

MB said it "became clear that people's experiences with Aveo varied
considerably". It cited the wide variety of contracts, contracting
parties and relevant terms" which it said would make it "difficult
to run these cases effectively and efficiently as a class action".

$500m estimate
Interestingly, there was no reference in the agreed statement to
Galactic, a New York-based litigation funder that bankrolled the
claim in return for a 30 per cent cut of any payout. Levitt
estimated that it could reach $500 million.

Under the settlement, the statement must be posted on the firm's
website and its social media for 60 days. Levitt is prohibited from
speaking about the case; the same applies to Galactic and Class PR,
which promotes Levitt Robinson class actions and works out of the
same building in Goulburn Street, Sydney.

Levitt is also banned from contacting any of the group members, or
even visiting an Aveo village unless he gives 60 days' notice (a
request that can be refused without reasons).

Which probably means no poetry readings from Levitt at Aveo
villages.

Still, the residents could always visit the Levitt Robinson website
and watch YouTube videos of the "lawyer, activist, poet" with the
flashy pocket squares and funky specs.

They could also buy We Mortals, "an anthology of poetry on
political, religious, social and personal themes" published in 2020
($41.14 at Amazon). It supposedly "ranges over 30 years, penned in
pubs and bars, on planes and looking across the marina from
Sydney's Elizabeth Bay, where the poet resides".

But not in a retirement village.[GN]

BAYER HEALTHCARE: Seeks to Dismiss Sidhu Suit or Strike Allegations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRIYA SIDHU, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-01603-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order dismissing the Sidhu
Complaint in its entirety or, in the alternative, dismiss or strike
Plaintiff's class allegations.

Bayer brings this motion pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
because Plaintiff lacks Article III standing and fails to state a
claim for relief. In the alternative, Bayer moves to dismiss or
strike the class allegations pursuant to Rule 12(f) because
individual questions predominate over common questions as to the
learned intermediary doctrine.

The Amended Complaint must be dismissed because it continues to
assert "no-injury" product liability claims disguised as a consumer
class action and fails to remedy the deficiencies the N.D. Cal.
Court identified in the original Complaint. The Plaintiff's claims
rest on the faulty theory that Bayer should have warned of a risk
for which there is no scientific basis.

Bayer manufactures, markets and/or distributes more than 25 drugs
in the United States.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43dn8Qz at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Isabelle L. Ord, Esq.
          Tia Q. Nguyen, Esq.
          Christopher G. Campbell, Esq.
          Ilana H. Eisenstein, Esq.
          Rachel A.H. Horton, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
          Telephone: (415) 836-2500
          Facsimile: (415) 836-2501
          E-mail: isabelle.ord@us.dlapiper.com
                  tia.nguyen@us.dlapiper.com
                  christopher.campbell@us.dlapiper.com
                  ilana.eisenstein@us.dlapiper.com
                  rachel.horton@us.dlapiper.com

BEANSNAPPERS INC: Miller Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEANSNAPPERS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00424-WCG (E.D. Wis., March 31, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
wages, and illegal tip retention in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Wisconsin wage and hour law.

The Plaintiff and the Class worked as exotic dancers for the
Defendant at times since March 31, 2020.

Beansnappers, Inc., is an operator of a gentleman's club named
Beansnappers, with its principal place of business in Appleton,
Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
         Connor J. Clegg, Esq.
         HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
         5150 North Port Washington Road, Suite 243
         Milwaukee, WI 53217
         Telephone: (414) 271-8650
         Facsimile: (414) 207-6079
         E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                 cclegg@hq-law.com

BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Castro Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHELIPE CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 8:23-cv-00733 (M.D. Fla., April 3, 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 Castro was employed by the Defendant as a medicare sales
agent.

BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. provides software and insurance
solutions. The Company specializes in cloud-based technology
platform and distributes innovative health insurance products, as
well as assists in the development of insurance products through
our relationships with best-in-class insurance companies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI, P.A
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Email: Jeggnatz@justiceearned.com

              - and -

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          JORDAN RICHARD, PLLC
          1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          Email: Jodan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                 Jake@@jordanrichardspllc.com
                 Mike@usaemploymentlawyers.com

BUZHUKOV PAYROLL: Fails to Timely Provide COBRA Notice, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel W. Higginbotham, individually and on behalf Of all others
similarly situated v. Buzhukov Payroll LLC, Spiegelworld Buzhukov
LLC, and Spiegelworld Holding Company LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00498
(D. Nev., April 4, 2023) is a class action complaint against the
Defendants, for violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended by the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), by failing to
timely provide Plaintiff and similarly situated persons with a
COBRA notice.

The failure to provide a timely COBRA notice misled Plaintiff and
similarly situated persons and caused Plaintiff and those similarly
situated economic injuries in the form of lost health insurance as
well as informational injuries, says the suit.

The Defendants are the plan sponsor and/or plan administrator of
the Spiegelworld Holding Company Employee Benefits Plan (the
"Plan") and/orsimilar employer-sponsored health and welfare plans
that provided medicalinsurance for certain of Defendants'
employees, including Plaintiff, during the proposed Class
Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Kind, Esq.
          KIND LAW
          8860 S. Maryland Parkway, Suite 106
          Las Vegas, NV 89123
          Telephone: (702) 337-2322
          Facsimile: (702) 329-5881
          E-mail: mk@kindlaw.com

               - and -

          Eric Lechtzin
          EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
          411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867-2399
          Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
          E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com

C-T-H GROUP: Urbina Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose F. Urbina, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s) v. C-T-H Group Corp, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-21237
(S.D. Fla., March 30, 2023) is brought by the Plaintiff as a
collective action to recover from Defendant overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of himself
and all other current and former employees similarly situated and
who worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after
April 2022 without being adequately compensated.

Plaintiff Urbina was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempted,
full-time construction employee from approximately April 15, 2022
to February 14, 2023, or 43 weeks.

C-T-H Group Corp. is a construction company that provides services
to commercial and residential clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

C3.AI INC: Faces Rabasca Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
GIUSEPPE RABASCA, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant
C3.AI, INC. v. THOMAS M. SIEBEL, PATRICIA A. HOUSE, CONDOLEEZZA
RICE, RICHARD C. LEVIN, MICHAEL G. MCCAFFERY, S. SHANKAR SASTRY,
BRUCE SEWELL, LISA A. DAVIS, JIM H. SNABE, AND STEPHEN M. WARD,
JR., Case No. 3:23-cv-01566 (N.D. Cal., April 3, 2023) is a
derivative class complaint for the benefit of nominal defendant
C3.ai, Inc. against its Board of Directors and certain of its
executive officers seeking to remedy the Individual Defendants'
breaches of fiduciary duties and violations of federal law.

According to its public filings, C3 delivers a family of fully
integrated products including the C3 AI Platform, an end-to-end
platform for developing, deploying, and operating enterprise AI
applications; C3 AI applications, a portfolio of industry-specific
software-as-a service ("SaaS") enterprise AI applications that
enable the digital transformation of organizations globally; and C3
Generative AI, a suite of large AI transformer models for the
enterprise.

As alleged, the Registration Statement filed in connection with
C3’s initial public offering conducted on December 9, 2020,
represented that C3 had access to and was leveraging the extensive
marketing, sales, and services resources of oil and gas monolith
Baker Hughes Company, including Baker Hughes' "12,000-person sales
organization." The Registration Statement also stated that Baker
Hughes had already  brought in deals generating revenue for C3.
These representations allowed the Company to go public, raising
over $610 million in proceeds in the IPO.

However, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that C3 did
not have access to, and was not able to utilize, the 12,000-person
salesforce, but instead set up a separate sales division that
relied on salespeople that did not have the industry connections,
expertise, support, or mandatory sales quotas of Baker Hughes’
typical salesforce. Moreover, contrary to the representations in
the Registration Statement, at the time of the IPO, Baker Hughes
had brought in no deals through its reseller agreement with C3, so
it was impossible for C3 to have recognized revenue through the
arrangement, says the suit.

Last, after the IPO, Defendants continued to falsely tout the
Company's access to and use of Baker Hughes' full 12,000-person
salesforce, while also concealing a massive reorganization of C3's
own salesforce that had begun at least by July 2021. These post-IPO
representations and omissions further inflated the price of C3’s
Class A common stock until the Company's lack of access to Baker
Hughes' true salesforce and the undisclosed risks posed by C3's
ultimately massive salesforce reorganization materialized when C3
would go on to report decreasing key financial metrics, massive
insider selling, and ultimately the truth, thereby causing the
stock price to plummet, the suit added.

The Plaintiff is, and has been at all relevant times, a shareholder
of C3.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
          Alex J. Tramontano, Esq.
          Ferdeza Zekiri, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
                  byrd@whafh.com
                  tramontano@whafh.com
                  zekiri@whafh.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. MacFall
          RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
          825 East Gate Blvd., Suite 300
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 683-3516
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: tjm@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
          GRABAR LAW OFFICES
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 507-6085
          E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: Dismissal of Remprex Suit Reversed in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Remprex, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CERTAIN
UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, SYNDICATES 2623/623,
Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 1-21-1097 & 1-22-0308 (cons.) (Ill.
App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth
Division, affirms in part and reverses in part the circuit court's
order granting Lloyd's section 2-615 motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.

The appeal stems from a declaratory judgment action filed by
Remprex against Defendants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London,
Syndicates 2623/623, in which the Plaintiff sought a declaration
that Lloyd's had a duty to defend it with regard to alleged
violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
(740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. (West 2018)). Remprex's complaint also
alleged breach of contract, bad-faith claims practices, vexatious
and unreasonable conduct, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West
2018)), and common law fraud.

The case concerns a dispute over whether Remprex had insurance
coverage for costs sustained by it with regard to two class action
lawsuits involving alleged violations of BIPA. The facts are taken
from the parties' pleadings filed during the course of Remprex's
declaratory judgment action, which was initially filed on Aug. 24,
2020.

According to Remprex, it was implicated by BNSF Railway Co. in a
class action suit initiated by truck driver Richard Rogers against
BNSF in April 2019. The suit alleged that BNSF violated his privacy
rights by collecting, capturing, storing, transferring, using, or
otherwise obtaining his biometric information in a negligent or
reckless manner. Remprex was never a named defendant in the BNSF
suit, however, BNSF's answer and affirmative defenses alleged that
it contracted with Remprex to provide a number of services at BNSF
facilities, including automated gate systems, since July 1, 2007.
Remprex's letter to Lloyd's requesting coverage for this matter
indicated that BNSF sought indemnification pursuant to the terms of
a contract between Remprex and BNSF.

The Appellate Court takes judicial notice that the BNSF lawsuit
went to trial and resulted in a jury award in favor of the class
and against BNSF on Oct. 12, 2022. Beyond the actions mentioned,
Remprex was never otherwise involved in the BNSF lawsuit.

On July 26, 2019, Rogers filed a second class action lawsuit for
alleged violations of BIPA against Remprex, Illinois Central
Railroad Co. (ICRC) and CN Transportation, Ltd., an affiliate of
the Canadian National Railway Co. The CN lawsuit raised similar
allegations to those raised in the BNSF lawsuit. Remprex moved to
dismiss Rogers' complaint on Aug. 30, 2019, and on Nov. 14, 2019,
Rogers voluntarily dismissed Remprex from the case.

Remprex maintained a "Beazley Breach Response" (BBR) policy,
underwritten by Lloyd's that covered a policy period of July 30,
2018, to July 30, 2019. In June 2019, Remprex notified Lloyd's of
its claims under its policy, namely under the Data & Network
Liability and Media Liability provisions, which Remprex contended
were applicable to the BNSF and CN lawsuits. Lloyd's responded in
writing on Nov. 19, 2019, denying coverage because it determined
that neither the CN lawsuit nor the BNSF lawsuit implicated the
policy's coverage.

Remprex filed suit against Lloyd's on Aug. 24, 2020. Lloyd's
responded by filing its appearance on Nov. 20, 2020, and a section
2-615 (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2020)) motion to dismiss on Dec. 21,
2020. Remprex subsequently filed its six-count, first amended
complaint on April 19, 2021. Count I sought a declaration that
Lloyd's had a duty to defend and indemnity it in the CN and BNSF
lawsuits; count II alleged breach of contract; count III alleged
bad faith; count IV alleged vexatious and unreasonable conduct;
count V alleged a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (815
ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2020)); and count VI alleged common law
fraud. Remprex based the allegations of its complaint on the
underlying CN and BNSF complaints, the BNSF answer and subpoena,
and Lloyd's written denials of its claims for coverage. Lloyd's
responded with a second section 2-615 motion to dismiss.

The circuit court subsequently entered its written order on Aug.
12, 2021, granting Lloyd's motion to dismiss. Remprex filed its
timely notice of appeal on Sept. 2, 2021. However, on Feb. 2, 2022,
Rempex filed a motion to remand to the circuit court for entry of a
final order. On Feb. 16, 2022, the Appellate Court granted the
motion to remand for the limited purpose of having the circuit
court clarify whether its order of Aug. 12, 2021, was intended as a
final order disposing of the case. In response, the circuit court
entered a subsequent order on Lloyd's motion to dismiss on Feb. 28,
2022, which dismissed counts I and II with prejudice as related to
the BNSF lawsuit because Remprex was not named as a defendant in
that lawsuit. All other relief remained the same. Remprex filed a
second notice of appeal on March 3, 2022, which was subsequently
consolidated with the earlier appeal.

On appeal, Remprex contends that Lloyd's had a duty to defend it in
the two underlying lawsuits that alleged BIPA violations pursuant
to two provisions of the policy. Specifically, it argues that: (1)
it stated valid claims for declaratory judgment and breach of
contract because Lloyd's had a duty to defend under the insurance
policy; (2) the circuit court erred in dismissing its claims merely
because Remprex was not named as a defendant in the BNSF lawsuit;
and (3) the circuit court erred in dismissing Remprex's remaining
claims for breach of contract, violation of the Consumer Fraud Act
and common law fraud.

The Appellate Court applies the parties' chosen law, New York, in
interpreting the insurance policy. First, it concludes that,
despite Remprex's efforts to persuade the Court to the contrary,
the policy did not cover any aspect of the BNSF lawsuit as Remprex
was not a party to it and there was no claim for damages or demand
for services made against Remprex in the BNSF lawsuit. It declines
to discuss any other aspects of the policy specifics in reference
to the BNSF lawsuit as we believe our conclusion fully disposes of
the issue.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court finds that Lloyd's section 2-615
motion was properly granted with respect to the BNSF lawsuit
because, even assuming that all well-pleaded facts in the
declaratory judgment complaint are true, Remprex's complaint fails
to state a cause of action against Lloyd's for coverage as there
was no duty to defend in the BNSF lawsuit. The circuit court thus
properly dismissed counts I and II as they pertain to the BNSF
lawsuit.

Second, the Appellate Court examines whether Remprex's claim was
caused by a covered event so as to bring its losses within the
ambit of the policy. It notes again that while Remprex was
initially named in the CN complaint, Remprex filed a successful
motion to dismiss, and the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Remprex
from the suit in November 2019, approximately four months after
filing the complaint.

Third, with respect to the media liability coverage, the Appellate
Court opines that the trial court erred in denying coverage for the
claims expenses that Remprex incurred in defending against the CN
lawsuit based on its allegations that it unlawfully collected the
CN plaintiffs' fingerprints. It therefore remands to the circuit
court for a determination of those claims expenses due to Remprex.

Fourth, with respect to its claim for coverage under the data and
network liability provisions of the policy, the Appellate Court
finds that Remprex's attempts to bring the allegations of the CN
complaint under the data and network coverage of the policy, while
certainly creative, are without merit. The CN complaint contained
no allegations that an unauthorized third party accessed
individuals' personal information and shared it with the public.
The Appellate Court therefore concludes that Lloyd's had no duty to
defend pursuant to the data & network provision of the policy.

Fifth, regarding Lloyd's alleged breach of contract of insurance by
refusing to provide coverage for the CN and BNSF lawsuits, the
Appellate Court holds that there was no coverage for the BNSF
lawsuit means that Lloyd's had no duty to defend it and thus there
was no breach of contract by its failure to do so. Consequently,
the section 2-615 motion to dismiss was properly granted as to
count II regarding the BNSF lawsuit. With respect to the CN
lawsuit, in the context of insurance liability litigation,
Remprex's damages related to a breach of the duty to defend are
limited to the cost to the insured of defending itself.

Sixth, as to Counts III and IV, the Appellate Court says Remprex's
claims of bad faith and vexatious and unreasonable conduct go hand
in hand. Thus, the key question in a section 155 claim is whether
an insurer's conduct is vexatious and unreasonable. The Appellate
Court finds that Remprex has not sufficiently alleged that Lloyd's
actions were vexatious and unreasonable. Lloyd's denial of coverage
was based on a bona fide dispute as to coverage. Such bona fide
dispute cannot support Remprex's claims of bad faith and vexatious
and unreasonable behavior that would entitle it to section 155
attorney fees. Accordingly, Remprex's claims of bad faith and
vexatious and unreasonable conduct were properly dismissed.

Seventh, the record does not support Remprex's allegations --
Lloyd's policy did provide coverage for media liability as defined
within the policy purchased by Remprex and Remprex's claims were
not arbitrarily denied without a basis. The Appellate Court has
determined that the policy provided no coverage for Remprex's claim
for the BNSF lawsuit, and further that the policy provided limited
coverage for Remprex's claim for the CN lawsuit. It has also
determined that there was no bad faith or vexatious and
unreasonable conduct in Lloyd's handling of the claims as there was
a bona fide dispute as to coverage. It finds that Remprex has not
sustained its burden in raising a claim under the Consumer Fraud
Act. Thus, its claim was properly dismissed.

Lastly, Remprex fails to satisfy the requirement that there must be
a false statement of material fact, the Appellate Court holds. The
fact that Lloyd's provided coverage for media liability in its
policy was not a false statement; there was no issue raised as to
whether Lloyd's provided that type of coverage. Remprex does not
allege any additional facts and such failure is fatal to its common
law fraud claim. Dismissal of Count VI is therefore affirmed.

In conclusion, the Appellate Court affirms the portion of the
circuit court's 2-615 dismissal as to all claims related to the
BNSF lawsuit and Counts III through VI. It reverses the circuit
court's finding that there was no coverage under the CN lawsuit,
finding that there was coverage for Remprex's claims expenses
incurred in defending the CN lawsuit. It, therefore, remands for a
calculation of Remprex's claims expenses due under the policy's
coverage.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/32h53wx8 from Leagle.com.


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Court Narrows Claims in First Amended Vance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHARI VANCE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00044-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Morrison C. England, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California grants in part and denies in part
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint.

Through the class action, Plaintiff Vance, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks relief from the
Defendant arising from the labeling and sale of Zicam Pre-Cold
Products.

The Plaintiff's FAC lists the following causes of action: (1)
breach of express warranty; (2) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability; (3) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose; (4) violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750 et seq. ("CLRA");
(5) violation of California's False Advertising Law, California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17500 et seq. ("FAL"); (6)
violation of the "unlawful prong" of California's Unfair
Competition Law, id. Sections 17200 et seq. ("UCL"); (7) violation
of the "fraudulent prong" of the UCL; (8) violation of the "unfair
prong" of the UCL; and (9) unjust enrichment.

The Zicam Pre-Cold Products at issue include Zicam brand Original
RapidMelts, Ultra RapidMelts, Oral Mist, Wild Cherry Lozenges,
Medicated Fruit Drops, Elderberry Citrus RapidMelts, and Elderberry
Medicated Fruit Drops, all of which are allegedly substantially
similar as they each claim to be homeopathic remedies with the
active ingredients zincum aceticum and zincum gluconicum. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Zicam Cold Reduction Statements are
misrepresentations that have the tendency or capacity to deceive or
confuse reasonable consumers into believing that the Zicam Pre-Cold
Products will reduce the duration and severity of the common cold,
or otherwise provide medicinal benefits with respect to colds, when
in fact, they are no more effective than a placebo.

According to the FAC, studies show that zinc lozenges are no more
effective than a placebo. Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleges that,
in a consumer guide to effective cold treatments, the Mayo Clinic
includes zinc in a long list of ineffective cold remedies. The FAC
also states that the Plaintiff can affirmatively prove that the
Defendant's products are no more effective than a placebo.

In approximately mid-June or early July 2021, the Plaintiff was
specifically looking for a product that would help reduce the
duration or severity of her cold symptoms and subsequently
purchased Zicam RapidMelts from a Rite Aid store in or near
Roseville, California. After a careful reading of the label on the
product packaging, she allegedly relied upon the Zicam Cold
Reduction Statements provided on the RapidMelts' label in addition
to the statement that taking it would help her "go from pre-cold to
no cold faster."

According to her, she used the entire package of RapidMelts as
directed but did not obtain the advertised relief from cold
symptoms, nor any benefits. To the best of her recollection, she
purchased RapidMelts for approximately $12, which was purportedly
more expensive than other cold remedies available at the store;
however, the aforementioned statements on the product packaging
persuaded her to spend more on RapidMelts than on the other
alternative cold remedies.

The Defendant moves to dismiss the FAC on the following grounds:
(1) the Plaintiff's lack-of-substantiation claims fail as a matter
of law; (2) the Plaintiff fails to state claims for equitable
restitution and unjust enrichment; (3) the Plaintiff lacks standing
to seek injunctive relief; and (4) the Plaintiff lacks standing to
sue under the laws of states other than California.

First, Judge England finds that the FAC does not assert a lack of
substantiation theory and that the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded
that the Zicam Cold Reduction Statements are false based on her
anecdotal experience. Thus, he denies the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss on these grounds.

Second, Judge England finds that in the FAC, the Plaintiff
explicitly alleges that the putative class members lack an adequate
remedy at law with respect to this claim and are entitled to
non-restitutionary disgorgement of the financial profits that the
Defendant obtained as a result of its unjust conduct. Unlike her
UCL and CLRA claims, the Plaintiff affirmatively alleges that there
is no alternative legal remedy, and thus Sonner does not foreclose
this claim. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
unjust enrichment claim on this basis is denied.

Third, construing the allegations in a light most favorable to
Plaintiff, Judge England finds that the Plaintiff has adequately
alleged a likelihood of future harm. He says the Plaintiff alleges
that she would purchase Zicam Pre-Cold Products again if they in
fact reduced the severity and duration of the common cold, or
otherwise "function" as advertised. Thus, the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief is also denied.

Lastly, Judge England agrees with the Plaintiff that the question
of whether she can bring claims under the laws of non-California
states is better suited for a motion for class certification. The
Plaintiff claims that she chose ten states for the express warranty
subclass because the express warranty laws of those states are
sufficiently similar to support the predominance requirement.
Indeed, the Court previously approved the same multistate subclass
in Melgar. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on this
ground is denied.

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiff's claims for
equitable restitution under the CLRA and UCL are dismissed with
leave to amend. Otherwise, its Motion to Dismiss is denied.

Not later than 20 days from the date the Memorandum and Order is
electronically filed, the Plaintiff may, but is not required to,
file an amended complaint. If no amended pleading is timely filed,
the claims dismissed by virtue of the Order will be deemed
dismissed with prejudice upon no further notice to the parties and
the action will proceed on the remaining causes of action only.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9dkkyz from Leagle.com.


CHURCHOME: Required Tithing Policy Leads to Lawsuit by Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Martin at churchleaders.com reports that Churchome, the
Washington state megachurch led by Judah and Chelsea Smith, is at
the center of a class-action lawsuit brought by more than 100
current and former employees. They allege that the church and its
leaders, including the Smiths and CEO David Kroll, violated two
state laws by requiring employees to tithe from their salaries.

According to the claim, previous church employees have been fired
for not giving at least 10% of their earnings directly back to the
ministry.

Lead plaintiff Rachel Kellogg, a current Churchome employee,
described discussions of tithing mandates during staff meetings.
She also provided communications from church officials warning that
her job was in jeopardy if she failed to comply. Her attorney
argues that Churchome is violating Washington state's Wage Rebate
Act as well as its Consumer Protection Act.

Tithing 'More Important' Than Communion
Kellogg, who began working for Churchome in late 2019, alleges that
neither the job listing nor the orientation process addressed the
giving requirement. Not until April 2020, in a virtual staff
meeting, she claims, did leaders emphasize the importance of
tithing.

During that meeting, the complaint alleges, Judah Smith told
Churchome employees, "I'll be very honest: People have already been
transitioned and moved on and fired because they were not tithing."
Smith also reportedly told staff members that donating 10% of their
paychecks back to the church was a "black-and-white" issue and
"even more important than the religious rite of taking communion."

The lawsuit claims Smith defended those beliefs by quoting a
tithing-related Scripture verse he received from NFL quarterback
Russell Wilson, who serves on Churchome's board of directors. Smith
also reportedly used the Bible to show that employees should "sell
their 'possessions and belongings' rather than fail to rebate 10%
of their paychecks back to Churchome," according to the suit.

Despite Financial Strain, Plaintiff Was Warned to Resume Tithing
Fearful of losing her job, Kellogg said she set up automatic bank
withdrawals to give 10% of her salary back to Churchome. Soon
afterward, she was injured in a car accident that left her vehicle
totaled. The resulting financial hardships, including the loss of
her rental home, forced her to not tithe during 2021.

Included with the legal filing are messages from Churchome
officials to Kellogg, the church's post-production producer. Wes
Halliburton, chief creative officer, wrote that she needed to
resume her tithing "asap."

Ben Sorte, Kellogg's boss, wrote to her in a 2022 reprimand: "It is
my expectation that you get in rhythm with our company policy on
tithing. While I understand the complexities of finances, this is
an expectation for all Churchome employees and you need to correct
this pattern immediately." Otherwise, Sorte wrote, Kellogg faced
"more serious disciplinary action, up to and including
termination."

In early 2023, when Kellogg reportedly told Churchome content
director Joe Goods she couldn't afford to tithe, he indicated he'd
once sold his house instead of violating the church's tithing
requirement. [GN]

CLARKE MOYNIHAN: Underpays Construction Workers, Medina Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLARKE MOYNIHAN LANDSCAPING AND CONSTRUCTION
LLC and CLARKE MOYNIHAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01838
(D.N.J., April 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Mr. Medina was employed as a construction worker in Andover, New
Jersey from in or about March 2021 until April 2022, and then
again, from August 2022 until January 2023.

Clarke Moynihan Landscaping and Construction LLC is a construction
firm, with a principal place of business located at 229 Main Street
Andover, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Lina Stillman, Esq.
         STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
         42 Broadway, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 203-2417

COMMUNITY.COM INC: McGinnis Sues Over Illegal Access to Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MCGINNIS and CYNDY BOULTON, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY.COM, INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-02426 (C.D. Cal., April 1, 2023) arises out Community.com's
practice of intercepting, holding hostage, and accessing text
messages intended for third parties, without the consent of all
parties to those text messages in violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code, and the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act.

The Defendant provides telephone numbers to "celebrities" ranging
from influencers to television stars to professional athletes.
These celebrities then, in conjunction with Defendant, hold these
telephone numbers out as their direct phone numbers—in other
words, if a person texts the number, they are directly reaching
that celebrity. This is not true. Instead, when one texts a
celebrity at one of Defendant's provided numbers, they are sent a
link to Defendant's social media platform (Community.com) and
required to sign up for that platform before they can have any
possible communication with that celebrity, says the suit.

Specifically, when one sends a text to a celebrity's Community
number, they receive two immediate automated texts back. The first
message contains a link to Defendant's Community.com service which,
when clicked, requires the texting party to sign up with Community
to proceed  further, the suit asserts.

Community operates a social engagement platform that makes two-way
communication between influencers and their followers simple,
effective, and scalable.[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 -

          Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
          GLAPION LAW FIRM
          1704 Maxwell Drive
          Wall, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 455-9737
          Facsimile: (732) 965-8006
          E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          Seattle, WA 98101-3147
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992     
          E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com
                  kboyd@tousley.com

COTY INC: Court Dismisses Brown Class Suit With Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBORAH BROWN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COTY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 22 Civ. 2696 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York grants Coty's
motion to dismiss the complaint.

Brown brings the putative class action against Coty, alleging
violations of the New York Consumer Law for Deceptive Acts and
Practices, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Sections 349 and 350, breach of an
express warranty, breach of an implied warranty, and unjust
enrichment.

Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances ("PFAS") are synthetic chemicals
used in consumer, household, and commercial products. They can have
a variety of adverse effects on human health, even at low levels of
exposure. Some PFAS, such as perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS"), may be carcinogenic. PFAS
differ in the types of adverse health consequences they may produce
and the level of exposure at which they can be harmful to humans.
They can be ingested, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin.

PFAS are used in some cosmetics which are applied to the skin. They
may be intentionally added to cosmetics as emulsifiers,
stabilizers, surfactants, viscosity regulators, and solvents. These
may be disclosed on a product's ingredient list. PFAS may also be
found in cosmetics as a result of degradation, impurities, or the
use of ingredients treated with PFAS. Some cosmetics retailers are
dedicated to carrying only products designated as "clean."
Consumers perceive products designated as "clean" to be safer and
healthier than traditional cosmetics.

Brown purchased "one or more" tubes of CoverGirl Lash Blast Volume
Waterproof Mascara within the last three years. She relied on the
packaging, labeling, and ingredient list when purchasing the
product. Brown determined through independent, third-party
laboratory testing that several popular CoverGirl waterproof
mascara products, including Lash Blast and CoverGirl Clump Crusher
Waterproof Mascara contained certain PFAS like PFOA.

Brown states that Lash Blast and Clump Crusher contain detectable
levels of PFAS, including PFOA, PFHxA, PFDoS, and NEtFOSE. Neither
the Lash Blast nor the Clump Crusher packaging discloses that the
product contains PFAS. Brown reasonably believed that Lash Blast
was safe for use around, adjacent to, and near her eyes. If Brown
had known at the time of purchase that Lash Blast contained PFAS,
she would not have purchased the product or would have paid less
for the product.

Coty is a cosmetics company that sells, inter alia, waterproof
mascara products under the "CoverGirl" brand name. It formulated,
developed, manufactured, labeled, distributed, marketed,
advertised, and sold Lash Blast and Clump Crusher throughout the
United States.

On April 1, 2022, Brown brought the action on behalf of herself and
all others in the United States who purchased Lash Blast or Clump
Crusher between 2018 and the present. She has not yet moved for
class certification.

Coty moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under
Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b).

First, Coty argues that Brown has failed to establish standing
because she has failed to allege a concrete and particularized
injury. It contends that, because Brown alleges only economic
injury, Brown has not alleged an injury in fact that would confer
standing.

Judge Torres disagrees. She finds that Brown alleges that, but for
Coty's alleged material omission -- the failure to disclose that
Lash Blast contains PFAS -- she would not have purchased the
product or would not have paid the price she did. Such economic
injury, including the payment of a "price premium" that the
Plaintiff otherwise would not have paid, is sufficient to confer
standing.

Coty also argues that Brown has not established that she has
standing to bring claims on behalf of putative class members with
respect to Clump Crusher.

Judge Torres agrees. Brown does not allege that Lash Blast and
Clump Crusher are sufficiently similar. She claims that the two
products are "CoverGirl waterproof mascara products" that contain
undisclosed PFAS. She does not allege that they contain the same
PFAS at the same levels. She acknowledges that PFAS differ in the
type and severity of harm they may produce and the level of
exposure at which they are harmful. Brown, therefore, has not
alleged that the two products are sufficiently similar in that they
raise nearly identical issues as to whether they are unsafe or
unfit for ordinary use and whether Coty's omission was misleading.
Accordingly, Coty's motion is granted as to Brown's class claims
regarding Clump Crusher.

Second, Coty argues that Brown has not plausibly alleged that
reasonable consumers are likely to be misled by Coty's omission,
which is fatal to her claims under New York General Business Law
Sections 349 or 350, as well as her breach of express warranty and
unjust enrichment claims.

Judge Torres agrees. Because Brown does not identify any particular
statements on which she relied, she cannot state a claim for breach
of an express warranty. Therefore, Coty's motion is granted as to
Brown's breach of express warranty claim. Further, even reading the
complaint in the light most favorable to Brown, Brown has not
sufficiently pleaded that she and the putative class members have
been misled by Coty's omission. As a result, she has not
sufficiently pleaded that Lash Blast is actually unsafe such that
it is not of the "quality and safety promised" at the time of
purchase. For the same reason, Brown has not adequately pleaded
that Lash Blast is not fit for its ordinary use.

The complaint may also be read as claiming that Lash Blast contains
PFAS as a result of product degradation, impurities, or the
treatment of certain ingredients with PFAS. But, Brown does not
plead such a claim with a level of specificity sufficient to permit
Coty to have a fair understanding of what the Plaintiff is
complaining about and to know whether there is a legal basis for
recovery. Thus, on any fair reading of the complaint, Judge Torres
holds that Brown has failed to state a claim under New York General
Business Law Sections 349 and 350 and has failed to state a claim
for unjust enrichment. Accordingly, Coty's motion is granted as to
these claims.

Finally, Coty argues that Brown's implied warranty claims must be
dismissed because she does not allege that she is in privity with
Coty.

Judge Torres agrees. Brown does not allege that she purchased Lash
Blast directly from Coty. She also fails to adequately plead that
she was an intended third-party beneficiary of a contract between
Coty and the retailer from which she purchased Lash Blast. And,
because Brown, individually, does not state a claim as to Lash
Blast, no such claims can be maintained on behalf of the putative
class. For these reasons, Coty's motion is granted in its
entirety.

Leave to amend a complaint should be freely given "when justice so
requires." Granting leave is within the sound discretion of the
district court. Accordingly, Brown's request for leave to amend her
complaint is granted.

For the foregoing reasons, Coty's motion to dismiss is granted.
Brown's request for leave to amend her complaint is granted. By
April 12, 2023, Brown will file her amended complaint. Because
Brown's complaint is dismissed in its entirety, her pending motion
to appoint interim class counsel is denied without prejudice to
renewal, and the case management conference scheduled for June 20,
2023, is adjourned sine die.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos.
35 and 52.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8fp5hy from Leagle.com.


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Faces Zafir Suit Over Improper Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MENASHE ZAFIR, as parent and legal guardian of I.Z., a minor,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CREDIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, PA, Defendant, Case No.
509844/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., March 31, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FDCPA by
attempting to collect a debt from the Plaintiff, a minor, who was
not the proper responsible party for the debt. Furthermore, the
Defendant attempted to collect a consumer debt from a minor by
providing calculations without reference to provided medical
insurance coverage. The Defendant's improper acts caused the
Plaintiff to suffer reputational, financial, and emotional harm
with physical manifestations, the suit alleges.

Credit Management Company, PA is a debt collector based in New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Robert T. Yusko, Esq.
         STEIN SAKS, PLLC
         One University Plaza, Suite 620
         Hackensack, NJ 07601
         Telephone: (201) 282-6500
         E-mail: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com

DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Daves Suit Remanded With Instructions to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remands the case,
SHANNON DAVES; SHAKENA WALSTON; ERRIYAH BANKS; DESTINEE TOVAR;
PATROBA MICHIEKA; JAMES THOMPSON, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; FAITH IN TEXAS; TEXAS ORGANIZING PROJECT
EDUCATION FUND, Plaintiffs—Appellants Cross-Appellees, v. DALLAS
COUNTY, TEXAS; ERNEST WHITE, 194TH; HECTOR GARZA, 195TH; RAQUEL
JONES, 203RD; TAMMY KEMP, 204TH; JENNIFER BENNETT, 265TH; AMBER
GIVENS-DAVIS, 282ND; LELA MAYS, 283RD; STEPHANIE MITCHELL, 291ST;
BRANDON BIRMINGHAM, 292ND; TRACY HOLMES, 363RD; TINA YOO CLINTON,
NUMBER 1; NANCY KENNEDY, NUMBER 2; GRACIE LEWIS, NUMBER 3;
DOMINIQUE COLLINS, NUMBER 4; CARTER THOMPSON, NUMBER 5; JEANINE
HOWARD, NUMBER 6; CHIKA ANYIAM, NUMBER 7 JUDGES OF DALLAS COUNTY,
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURTS, Defendants—Appellees Cross-Appellants,
MARIAN BROWN; TERRIE McVEA; LISA BRONCHETTI; STEVEN AUTRY; ANTHONY
RANDALL; JANET LUSK; HAL TURLEY, DALLAS COUNTY MAGISTRATES; DAN
PATTERSON, NUMBER 1; JULIA HAYES, NUMBER 2; DOUG SKEMP, NUMBER 3;
NANCY MULDER, NUMBER 4; LISA GREEN, NUMBER 5; ANGELA KING, NUMBER
6; ELIZABETH CROWDER, NUMBER 7; CARMEN WHITE, NUMBER 8; PEGGY
HOFFMAN, NUMBER 9; ROBERTO CANAS, JR., NUMBER 10; SHEQUITTA KELLY,
NUMBER 11 JUDGES OF DALLAS COUNTY, CRIMINAL COURTS AT LAW,
Defendants—Appellees, Case No. 18-11368 (5th Cir.), with
instructions to dismiss.

In a second round of en banc review, the Fifth Circuit concludes
that the case, whose aim was to revise by federal decree the Texas
state court procedures for felony and misdemeanor pretrial bail,
should never have been brought in federal court. It holds that a
string of consistent Supreme Court authority commencing with
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971), requires
federal courts to abstain from revising state bail bond procedures
on behalf of those being criminally prosecuted, when state
procedures allow the accused adequate opportunities to raise their
federal claims.

Recent years saw a surge of interest in criminal procedure reform.
Lawsuits have been filed nationwide seeking to mitigate state and
local bail bonding requirements. One such suit resulted in a
decision by this court that approved broad changes to misdemeanor
bail bond procedures in Harris County, Texas. Compare ODonnell v.
Harris Cnty., 882 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2018), withdrawn and
superseded on panel reh'g, 892 F.3d 147 (5th Cir. 2018) (ODonnell
I), with ODonnell v. Goodhart, 900 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2018)
(ODonnell II) (trimming terms of original remedial order).

The instant case followed in its wake. But ODonnell's analysis was
debatable, though it bound the district court and our initial
three-judge appellate panel in regard to Dallas County procedures.
The panel decision of the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part
preliminary injunctive relief mirroring that in ODonnell and
remanded for further proceedings.

In due course, the Fifth Circuit voted to reconsider the case en
banc. While the en banc case was pending, the Texas legislature
passed a new law (Act of Aug. 31, 2021, 87th Tex. Leg. 2d C.S.,
S.B. 6) that adopted some of ODonnell's innovations while
tightening other bonding requirements. With this complex backdrop,
the en banc court resolved several issues raised by ODonnell,
deferred deciding others, and remanded for the district court to
consider two issues: whether the case has been mooted by the new
law's taking effect, and whether the federal courts should have
abstained pursuant to the body of caselaw rooted in Younger v.
Harris. The district court then declared moot the Plaintiffs'
challenge to Dallas County bail procedures, but it concluded the
federal court should not have abstained.

The present Opinion completes the Fifth Circuit's en banc review by
addressing the district court's decisions on the remanded
questions. Although the parties' dispute has become moot in light
of S.B. 6, the antecedent question of federal jurisdiction
remains.

The Plaintiffs, proceeding as a class, comprised people who had
been charged with misdemeanor and felony crimes in Dallas County
and who were allegedly unconstitutionally incarcerated pretrial
solely because they were financially unable to post required bail.
Bail decisions, they claimed, were made via an offense-based
schedule promulgated by the district and county court at law
judges. The schedule allegedly prevented consideration of the
Defendants' ability to pay, and it was rigidly enforced by the
magistrate judges who initially make these decisions. The County
Sheriff correspondingly violated arrestees' constitutional rights
by jailing them for failure to make bail. Thus, the Plaintiffs were
all subject to ongoing state criminal proceedings.

Were the federal court to agree that pretrial incarceration despite
inability to pay for bail is unconstitutional, the Plaintiffs
proposed a variety of fundamental alterations in the pretrial
decisional process, including but not limited to obtaining detailed
financial assessments from each arrestee, strict time limits for
decisionmaking, and the possibility of immediate appeal. As had
happened in the ODonnell case, they sought the appointment of a
federal monitor over the Dallas County criminal justice system.
Among other things, the monitor would receive periodic reports and
be empowered to respond to any Individual Defendant or his counsel
or family member who believed at any time that the federally
installed bail procedures were not being followed. The district
court held a hearing, found the local processes unconstitutional on
the stated basis and ordered a preliminary injunction essentially
in accord with the Plaintiffs' prescription.

After the Fifth Circuit's en banc decision winnowed nonjusticiable
claims and remanded, there remained potential liability of the
Dallas magistrates (for declaratory relief only pursuant to Section
1983(e)), the Sheriff, and the County. The district court
thoroughly considered the two issues the Fifth Circuit remanded.
The district court now declared that the controversy had become
moot by the passage and Dec. 2, 2021, effective date of S.B. 6.
Substantial changes to statewide bail bond procedures had been
wrought, which directly affected the Plaintiffs' claims. Overall,
the court found, it could not assess the impact of the statutory
changes based on a superseded legal regime and proceedings that had
occurred years earlier. S.B. 6 had mooted the controversy.

With respect to Younger abstention, the district court focused on
the doctrine's requirement that a plaintiff must have an "adequate
opportunity" in the state proceedings to raise his constitutional
challenges. It relied on a statement in Gibson v. Berryhill that
"Younger naturally presupposes the opportunity to raise and have
timely decided by a competent state tribunal the federal issues
involved." The district court deduced, for an alternative mechanism
to press federal claims in state court to qualify as adequate, it
must be timely. But state habeas proceedings to challenge bail
amounts would be "inadequate, i.e., too slow." It therefore
declined to abstain based on Younger and its progeny.

Having retained jurisdiction, the en banc court obtained
supplemental briefing from the parties before re-evaluating the
remanded issues. The Plaintiffs continue to contend that Dallas
bail bond hearings fall short under the Constitution because there
is no requirement of adversary procedures to determine bail, no
requirement of fact findings on the record that pretrial detention
is necessary to satisfy a compelling state interest, and no
presumption against cash bail. The district court's decision on
abstention is discretionary, but the Fifth Circuit reviews de novo
whether the prerequisites of abstention have been satisfied. A
ruling on mootness is reviewed de novo.

As to abstention, the Fifth Circuit opines that neither the
Plaintiffs nor the district court nor Judge Leslie H. Southwick
cite a single case in which the alleged untimeliness of state
remedies rendered Younger abstention inapplicable. The reason for
this seems plain: Younger holds that "the cost, anxiety, and
inconvenience of having to defend against a single criminal
prosecution" cannot amount to irreparable injury. The Plaintiffs do
not allege bad faith. And it bears repeating that Texas state court
procedures do not clearly bar the raising of federal claims
regarding bail because Texas requires that bail be set individually
in each case rather than on a mechanical, unalterable basis.

The Plaintiffs' broadside against all the available state remedies
ultimately rests on the incorrect assumption that each moment in
erroneous pretrial detention is a constitutional violation. An
order for cash bail accompanies a judicial determination of
probable cause, which means that the defendant has presumably
violated the criminal law. At that point, the question becomes how
to balance the interests of the defendant in being released pending
trial against society's need to enforce the law, protect innocent
citizens, and secure attendance at court proceedings.

Certainly, any kind of error in assessing excessive bail is
lamentable, whether it pertains to the defendant's criminal
history, the nature of the instant charge, the protection of
potential victims, or his ability to pay cash bail. Even more
unfortunate is the plight of a person unconstitutionally convicted
who remains incarcerated pending the outcome of appeal or
postconviction remedies; yet that is precisely what Younger held
despite the "untimeliness" of the state criminal process. The gist
of Younger's test for availability, however, lies in the fact that
errors can be rectified according to state law, not that they must
be rectified virtually immediately.

According to the Plaintiffs, their complaint is not moot because it
is essentially unrelated to the changes made by the Texas
legislature. Dallas County's bail practices allegedly remain
unconstitutional irrespective of S.B. 6 and irrespective of the
existence of bail schedules. The Plaintiffs argue that they seek
relief "beyond what ODonnell held to be required," such that the
legislature's adoption of measures originally required by ODonnell
fails to assuage their demands for on-the-record hearings and
detailed factfindings that prove in each bail proceeding whether
pretrial "detention is necessary to further any state interest."

The Fifth Circuit finds this argument incoherent. It opines that
the overhaul accomplished by S.B. 6 specifically requires, within
48 hours of arrest, a bail decision reflecting individual
consideration of the relevant Article 17.15(a) statutory factors
and "imposition of the least restrictive conditions" that will
"reasonably ensure the defendant's appearance in court as required
and the safety of the community, law enforcement, and the victim of
the alleged offense."

The crux of the case is now whether the new state law, if applied
assiduously by Dallas County magistrates, measures up to the
Plaintiffs' proffered constitutional minima. S.B. 6 is heavily
procedural in nature, just like the alleged claims of these
Plaintiffs. Thus, both the provisions of S.B. 6 and their
implementation are alleged to raise constitutional issues beyond
the scope of the case and the circumstances of the Plaintiffs who
filed it. The case is moot.

In conclusion, exercising its discretion to review both
justiciability issues following remand, the Fifth Circuit holds
that Younger v. Harris and its progeny required the district court
to abstain; that the ODonnell I decision to the contrary is
overruled; and that the case is moot by virtue of intervening state
law. The Fifth Circuit remands with instructions to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mr3d42xs from Leagle.com.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action for $1-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Discover agreed to pay $1 million
to resolve claims it violated the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) with unsolicited phone calls about accounts
the call recipients did not own.

The settlement benefits individuals who were not Discover customers
but received a phone call from Discover that used an artificial or
prerecorded voice between Aug. 25, 2017, and Feb. 7, 2023, where
the subject of the call was a credit card account issued by
Discover.

Plaintiffs in the TCPA class action lawsuit accused Discover of
contacting them with illegal robocalls regarding accounts they
didn't own. According to the class action lawsuit, these calls
violated the TCPA.

Discover is a credit card company that offers home equity loans,
student loans and other lending opportunities.

Under the terms of the Discover TCPA settlement, class members can
receive a cash payment.

According to the settlement website, each claimant is estimated to
receive between $40 and $110. Exact payments will vary depending on
the number of valid claims filed.

No residual funds will revert to Discover after payments are made.
Funds will be used for a second round of payments if there are
enough funds remaining, and then any remaining funds will be
donated to court-approved charities.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 7, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the Discover TCPA settlement is
scheduled for July 25, 2023.

In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by June 7, 2023.

Who's Eligible
Individuals who were not Discover customers but received a phone
call from Discover that used an artificial or prerecorded voice
between Aug. 25, 2017, and Feb. 7, 2023, where the subject of the
call was a credit card account issued by Discover.

Potential Award
$40 to $110

Proof of Purchase
N/A

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

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

Claim Form Deadline
06/07/2023

Case Name
Jackson, et al. v. Discover Financial Services Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04529, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.

Final Hearing
07/25/2023

Settlement Website
JacksonTCPASettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Jackson v. Discover Financial Services, Inc.
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
P.O. Box 5324
New York, NY 10150-5324
833-709-0661 [GN]

DIVERSIFIED CHILDREN: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, Anderson Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SONYA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIVERSIFIED CHILDREN YOUTH & FAMILIES
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM d/b/a DIVERSIFIED DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00317-JM (E.D. Ark., April 3, 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 Anderson was employed by the Defendant as a caregiver.

DEFENDANT DIVERSIFIED CHILDREN YOUTH & FAMILIES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
d/b/a Diversified Developmental Services, Inc. is a provider of
direct care support services to individuals with mental and
physical disabilities, specifically providing assistance with daily
life and personal care activities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stewart Whaley, Esq.
          Chris Burks, Esq.
          WH LAW
          1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Telephone: (501) 891-6000

DOLLAR GENERAL: Bid to Remand Williams Suit to State Court Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LINDA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR GENERAL
CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Case No. 2:22-cv-656-ECM (M.D. Ala.),
Judge Emily C. Marks of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama, Northern Division, denies Williams' Motion to
Remand.

On Sept. 30, 2022, Williams filed the class action complaint in
Barbour County, Alabama, against Dollar General. Williams seeks
damages for injuries she and other similarly situated individuals
sustained as purchasers of allegedly contaminated consumable goods
sold by Dollar General.

Dollar General is a corporation that operates more than 18,000
discount variety stores across the United States. Of those 18,000
stores, 869 are located in Alabama. Dollar General stores sell a
variety of household essentials and consumable goods, such as
groceries, baby products, pet products, cosmetics, over-the-counter
medications, medical devices, and health supplements. To assist
with regional operations, it operates "fresh" distribution centers
throughout the country that store and ship perishable goods for
that center's region. One such distribution center is located in
Bessemer, Alabama. The Bessemer Distribution Center services Dollar
General stores in Alabama and throughout the Southeast.

Williams alleges that the Bessemer Distribution Center suffered
from a significant rodent infestation that potentially contaminated
the consumable goods stored within the facility. Williams claims
that Dollar General became aware of this infestation as early as
2021 but should have become aware of the infestation "far earlier."
Despite this actual or constructive awareness, Dollar General did
not disclose the infestation to the public. Instead, it continued
to operate the Bessemer Distribution Center and profit from the
sale of potentially contaminated consumable goods supplied by that
center. Williams claims that the contaminated consumable products
sold by Dollar General during this period of infestation were
worthless. In July or August of 2022, Dollar General shut down the
Bessemer Distribution Center.

Williams filed a complaint in Barbour County, Alabama, seeking to
certify a class of all Alabama residents that purchased consumable
products from a Dollar General store located in Alabama and
supplied by the Bessemer Distribution Center in the twelve months
preceding the filing of the complaint. The complaint sets forth
five counts against Dollar General: violation of the Alabama
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligence, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent concealment and failure
to disclose. Williams also requests declaratory and injunctive
relief.

On Nov. 7, 2022, Dollar General removed the case to this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2) and the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA"). It argues that, based on the allegations in
Williams' complaint, CAFA's jurisdictional requirements are
satisfied. Williams contends that Dollar General has not met its
burden to prove CAFA's jurisdictional requirements. Williams
subsequently filed a motion to remand to state court, disputing
that Dollar General met its burden to prove CAFA's jurisdictional
requirements.

Williams argues that Dollar General has not established that the
amount in controversy exceeds CAFA's $5 million threshold. In
response, Dollar General provides a declaration from Daren W.
Helton, the Director of Merchandising Analytics and Business
Intelligence for Dollar General. Using Dollar General's sales data
for the time period between Oct. 1, 2021 and Oct. 28, 2022, Helton
estimates that "the total retail sales for consumable products in
Dollar General stores in Alabama serviced by the Bessemer
Distribution Center" significantly exceeded $5 million.

Williams argues that these sales figures cannot wholly be
attributed to the proposed class. Because the sales figures do not
distinguish between Alabama-resident customers and
non-Alabama-resident customers, Williams argues, the sales figures
overestimate the consumable sales that were made to the proposed
class. After the non-Alabama-resident customers are excluded,
Williams argues, the amount in controversy could fall below $5
million.

Judge Marks opines that Williams' argument defies common sense and
other data Dollar General provides. Adjusting Dollar General's
consumable sales figures, the consumable sales during the relevant
class period made to Alabama residents still vastly exceeds CAFA's
$5 million requirement. This conclusion comports with common sense
and conclusions reached by other courts presented with similar
circumstances.

Additionally, Williams seeks punitive damages. Including punitive
damages erases any scintilla of uncertainty whether the amount in
controversy is satisfied. Alabama allows recovery of punitive
damages in fraud claims. Williams raises a fraud claim, so she may
recover punitive damages if she succeeds in her claim. Thus, even
if Dollar General's sales figures are overestimates, the figures
could overestimate by 300% without raising jurisdictional concerns
under CAFA. The potential for punitive damages erases any doubt
that the amount in controversy is satisfied.

Moreover, Williams has placed all consumable products supplied to
Alabama Dollar General stores by the Bessemer Distribution Center
during the class period in controversy because discovery could
theoretically reveal that all such consumable products were
contaminated. If all consumable products were contaminated, Judge
Marks says Dollar General's figures would reflect actual damages.
Dollar General has established beyond a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy is satisfied.

Finally, Williams' complaint alleges that the Class is comprised of
thousands of individuals who were Defendant's customers. This
statement sufficiently establishes the requisite class size;
Williams cannot contest an allegation in her pleadings because it
no longer serves her best interest. CAFA's class size requirement
is satisfied.

Because Dollar General has established that all of CAFA's
jurisdictional requirements have been satisfied, Judge Marks denies
Williams' motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4auh4txx from
Leagle.com.


DUNKIN' BRANDS: App Overcharges Customers, Class Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Murphy at masslawyersweekly.com reports that Dunkin' Donuts
customers are routinely overcharged when placing orders from their
cellphones using the app provided by the national coffee and baked
goods chain, according to a newly filed federal class action.

"[T]he total charged to a customer, as calculated by the Mobile
Application, systematically exceeded the displayed prices for
individual items when specific purchases were made at the Affected
Stores," states the March 22 complaint filed in Kelledy v. Dunkin
Brands, Inc. in U.S. District Court. "Because of this, many
thousands of Dunkin' consumers have been unfairly and deceptively
overcharged through their use of the Mobile Application for
purchases made at many hundreds of Dunkin' locations throughout the
United States."

The lead plaintiff in the case, Martin Kelledy, is a resident of
Dorchester. According to the complaint, in 2022 Kelledy began
noticing undisclosed charges to purchases he made using the Dunkin'
mobile app he had downloaded to his cellphone.

For example, the plaintiff alleged that on April 23, 2022, he
purchased a "Large Original Blend Iced Coffee" for $3.69 and an
"Everything Bagel" (with plain cream cheese) for $3.09. While the
app should have charged a sub-total of $6.78, the app calculated a
sub-total of $8.03. According to Kelledy, in placing his order the
app failed to indicate that he would be paying extra for the cream
cheese on his bagel.

"Tax was then additionally calculated on top of that incorrect
Sub-Total, meaning that Mr. Kelledy not only paid an overcharge of
$1.25, but also paid tax on the $1.25 overcharge," the complaint
states.

In addition to Massachusetts, the plaintiff alleges that he has
made purchases at Dunkin' Donut stores in Rhode Island, New York,
New Hampshire, Maine and Connecticut.

"The imposition of this Undisclosed Charge has resulted in Mr.
Kelledy paying an unknown extra amount of money, through the
Dunkin' Mobile Application, to an unknown number of Dunkin' stores,
on an unknown number of occasions," the plaintiff alleges.

According to the complaint, customers can download the Dunkin'
mobile app after agreeing to the company's terms and conditions.
The app allows customers to make online purchases at participating
Dunkin' Donuts locations, providing customers with the menu of
items available at the particular store as well as the prices of
those items. Orders can be modified through drop-down menus
offering specific flavors, sweeteners and add-ons.

Customers pay for their purchases electronically, picking up their
order at the selected location.

Kelledy alleges that the Dunkin' app "routinely" fails to disclose
charges for add-ons such as cream cheese, butter, and whipped
cream.

The terms and conditions for the Dunkin' app include a mandatory
arbitration clause and a Massachusetts choice-of-law clause
favoring Canton-based Dunkin' Brand Group.

The complaint explains that while the terms for the app require
arbitration, the American Arbitration Association referred the
parties to the "appropriate court" after declining to arbitrate the
matter on the ground that the Dunkin' arbitration provision
"materially deviates from an acceptable provision."

In observance of the choice-of-law provision, the class complaint
seeks statutory damages, compensatory damages, and injunctive
relief pursuant to G.L.c. 93A, the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act. The plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of a "national
class of affected customers" or, in the alternative, a class of
customers having made purchases in Massachusetts.

The plaintiff is represented by attorney Jeffrey G. Thorn of
Boston. The case has been assigned to Judge Richard G. Stearns [GN]

ELDERLY HEALTH: Cabrejo Class Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRA P. CABREJO v. ELDERLY HEALTH CARE LLC, and GLORIA LECARO,
individually, Case No. 8:23-cv-00715 (M.D. Fla., April 1, 2023) is
a class action seeking to recover monetary damages for unpaid
overtime hours and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly
situated to Plaintiff and who worked in excess of 40 hours during
one or more weeks on or after October 30, 2022, without being
adequately compensated.

Elderly Health is a home healthcare service agency providing daily
living assistance, live-in care, companionship, and other
healthcare-related services to the elderly and infirm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FCTI INC: Faces Suit Over Out-of-Network ATM Balance Inquiries
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA DURKEE, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. FCTI, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case
No. 2:23-cv-02537 (C.D. Cal., April 4, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's alleged deceptive and unlawful practice of
systematically doubling the number of out-of-network ATM balance
inquiries at its machines.

The Defendant has a monetary incentive to generate as many balance
inquires as possible. This has led Defendant to concoct a scheme in
which it presents a non-balance inquiry screen prompt at the
machine, but transmits a balance inquiry request to the bank
anyway, resulting in the customers' banks assessing the customers
unwarranted out-of-network balance inquiry fees, with the Defendant
receiving a portion of it in the form of the interchange fee for
each such instance, the lawsuit says.

Specifically, FCTI's ATM machine interface first shows a prompt
asking if the customer would like to check their balance and
continue with the transaction. If the customer presses the "yes"
button, then FCTI transmits a balance inquiry request to the
customer’s bank, which results in both the display of the balance
information on the ATM machines, and the bank's assessment of an
out-network balance inquiry fee on the customer's account.
Plaintiff does not challenge this first balance inquiry. However,
after the customer has inquired, received, and paid for the balance
information, FCTI's interface then presents a second prompt which
asks: "Would you like to print your Balance and continue the
Transaction?" This second question presented to customers is simply
not a balance inquiry prompt. It instead asks customers whether
they would like to print the balance information the customers
already inquired, paid for, and is displayed on the screen while
continuing to make a cash withdrawal, the lawsuit adds.

Customers, including Plaintiff, have been charged two fees—and
FCTI received a portion of each fee in the form of interchange
fees—despite making only one balance inquiry at Defendant’s
ATMs. Plaintiff and members of the Class seek to recover wrongfully
attained funds from Defendant pursuant to the Unfair Competition
Law. The Plaintiff and members of the putative Class have been
injured by Defendant and bring a claim for violation of the UCL
against Defendant, seeking restitution, injunction, and other
appropriate relief.

The Defendant is one of the largest deployers of automated teller
machines (ATM) in the country. The Defendant supplies ATMs to some
of the most prominent convenience stores (7-Eleven) nationwide.
Cash withdrawals, funds transfers, and (most relevant here) account
balance inquiries are available transactions at ATMs. Banks deem
these ATM activities, conducted by their accountholders, as "out of
network" if they are conducted at the Defendant's machines, the
suit asserts.

Plaintiff Andrea Durkee is a citizen and resident of San Diego,
California.

FCTI is one of the independent operators of stand-alone ATM
machines with over 30,000 such machines in service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Jae K. Kim, Esq.
          James Drimmer, Esq.
          Tiffine E. Malamphy, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1900
          E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
                  ekim@lcllp.com
                  jim@lcllp.com
                  tiffine@lcllp.com

GOOGLE INC: Rival Lawsuits Vie to Represent UK Publishers
---------------------------------------------------------
pressgazette.co.uk at Bron Maher reports that a second collective
lawsuit seeking to claim damages from Google on behalf of UK online
publishers has launched - apparently in direct competition with the
first.

The new lawsuit, filed by former Guardian technology editor Charles
Arthur and law firm Hausfeld, claims publishers are collectively
entitled to compensation of up to £3.4bn.

Both claims want to be opt-out - meaning relevant publishers will
be automatically represented in the suit.

But first the Competition Appeal Tribunal will need to choose a
class representative and certify the suit as opt-out.

The first claim was filed in November by law firms Geradin Partners
and Humphries Kerstetter and has former Ofcom director Claudio
Pollack as the class representative.

That claim alleges that Google's dominance and abuse of each part
of the online ad market diminished digital ad revenue for UK
publishers since 2014 by up to 40%. It is seeking up to £13.6bn in
damages from the tech giant.

The details of the Humphries Kerstetter claim are not yet public,
but a partner there, Toby Starr, told Press Gazette earlier in
March that a certification hearing - at which the CAT decided
whether the claim could proceed as opt-out - would likely happen
"towards the end of this year".

"After that, there will be a process which is more familiar to most
litigation lawyers: going through exchanges of documents, exchanges
of witness statements and expert reports. And then a trial and
those steps are expected to take another two to three years after
the certification hearing."
Some details of Arthur and Hausfeld's new claim have been
published, and make similar allegations to those made by the US
Department of Justice in its lawsuit against Google filed in
January.

The claimants in both those cases argue that Google has engaged in
anti-competitive behaviour through its control of each part of the
market for display advertising. The trillion-dollar company
provides technology to both advertisers and publishers (through
products such as Google Adsense and Doubleclick for Publishers) and
runs AdX, an ad exchange that mediates advertising auctions.

In a briefing note Arthur wrote that "this is not necessarily an
issue provided Google does not conduct itself in a way which abuses
its dominant position and prevents its competitors from competing
with it on the merits. However, this is exactly what Google has
done".

The Department of Justice's suit similarly alleges that Google
actively used its dominant market position to acquire or edge out
competition or attempts to make the market dynamic more favourable
to publishers.

Arthur wrote that "there is a very real danger that the kind of
innovation which made it possible for Google itself to grow will be
lost as the current system stifles new talent, new entrepreneurs
and new ways of working" but also that "we can't be certain what
publishers might have done with extra revenues from advertising".

The French Competition Authority has already levied a €220m fine
against Google because it deprived publishers "of the ability to
benefit from undistorted competition between ad exchanges".

The briefing note also addressed the Pollack and Humphries
Kerstetter claim, saying that because few details are yet available
about the earlier suit "it is not possible to comment at this time"
on how far they overlap. The second claim was in an advanced stage
of preparation when the first was announced, so they decided to
continue putting forward their own plan in the interests of
publishers - especially as they still do not know whether they
cover all the same issues.

However unless Arthur and Pollack decide to join their claims
together the CAT will be required to decide who the class
representative will be. Either one claim could be chosen to go
forward, or the pair could decide to collaborate.

Arthur wrote that he had decided to apply to be the representative
because "as a journalist, my focus was always to highlight
practices that were unjust, needed fixing or were just plain wrong
. . . .

"Publishers have suffered losses running into the billions of
pounds - this is what my claim is seeking compensation for, in
addition to getting Google implement behavioural changes in the
future."

Both cases are looking to represent UK-based publishers who have
sold ad space online since 1 January 2014. Both cases are also
already funded, so publishers do not need to pay costs toward the
litigation and won't bear any financial risk.

And because they seek to be opt-out, publishers do not need to do
anything at this stage. Any publishers interested in following
developments in either case, however, can follow the first claim at
adtechclaim.co.uk and the second at googleadclaim.co.uk. [GN]

GORES SPONSOR: Farzad Sues Over Misleading Stockholder Disclosures
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FARZAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GORES SPONSOR IV LLC, AEG HOLDINGS, LLC,
ALEC GORES, MARK STONE, ANDREW MCBRIDE, WILLIAM PATTON, JEFFREY
REA, and RANDALL BORT, Defendants, Case No. 2023-0386 (Del. Ch.,
March 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants filed materially false
and misleading statements in connection with the January 2021
merger between Gores IV, then a publicly traded special purpose
acquisition company ("SPAC"), and Legacy UWM, then a collection of
privately held companies. Critically, once a merger target had been
identified, investors had the right, to either invest in any newly
formed company following a business combination involving Gores IV
or to redeem their pro rata share of the trust assets. The
Defendants hastily negotiated the merger through a flawed and
unfair process. They then obtained stockholder approval based on
severely misleading disclosures, precluding the Class from
effectively exercising their voting and redemption rights. The
Defendants did so because the merger would provide them with tens
of millions of dollars of profit despite wiping out the value held
by the investing public. As a result of the unique and unfair
benefits they obtained through the merger, the Defendants will be
unable to meet their burden of showing the merger was entirely fair
to the Class, the suit says. This action seeks monetary damages
against the Defendants for their breaches of fiduciary duty owed to
Gores IV stockholders arising out of the deprivation of their right
to a fully informed decision whether to redeem their Gores IV
shares in the merger, says the suit.

Gores Sponsor IV LLC is a limited liability company based in
Beverly Hills, California.

AEG Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company based in Beverly
Hills, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Michael J. Barry, Esq.
         Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
         Jason M. Avellino, Esq.
         GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
         123 Justison Street
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 622-7000

                 - and -

         Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
         Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
         ROBBINS LLP
         5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Telephone: (619) 525-3990

                 - and -

         Randall J. Baron, Esq.
         Benny C. Goodman III, Esq.
         Erik W. Luedeke, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 231-1058

HASBRO INC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Toro Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS TORO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Hasbro, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02800 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2023)
alleges that Hasbro failed to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Hasbro provides to their
non-disabled customers through https://www.hasbropulse.com. The
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision;
others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

Hasbro provides to the public a website known as Hasbropulse.com
which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and
services, including, the ability to view Transformers, Marvel, GI
Joe and Star Wars toys and figurines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
          Telephone: (929) 324-0717
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          108-26 64th avenue, Second Floor
          E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com

HUANG'S MEAT: Faces Zhu Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Yuyuan Zhu, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Huang's Meat Trading Inc., New
Huang's Meat Trading Inc., Su Fong Li, and Wei Hua Huang a.k.a.
Awei, Defendants, Case No. 509767/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty.,
March 30, 2023) is an action brought by Plaintiff on his own behalf
and on and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human
Rights Law, arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful
employment policies, patterns and/or practices.

The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
minimum wages for all hours worked during the whole period of his
employment; failed to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over
40 a week; failed to pay proper "spread of hours" compensation;
failed to provide wage notice and wage statement; failed to timely
pay wages; and engaged in discrimination against Plaintiff based on
his disability.

The Plaintiff was employed as a laborer and deliveryman by
Defendants' company in Defendants' store in Brooklyn, New York from
June 5, 2022 to July 1, 2022.

Huang's Meat Trading Inc. operates a meat selling and delivery shop
based in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Guofeng Li, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718)353-8588
          E-mail: gli@hanglaw.com

IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Requested 10th Stay in Suit to Extend Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
newswire.ca reports that an Ontario court heard the three biggest
Canadian tobacco companies reapply for another stay under the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), which would be the
tenth such renewal since the original March 8, 2019 order allowing
them to attempt to settle all major litigation (and related
penalties) that they are facing across the country in a single
manoeuvre, while pursuing business as usual. Justice McEwen, who
presided at the hearing, said he would issue his decision.

The stay requested by Imperial Tobacco and the other manufacturers
would extend the mediation for another six month until September
29, 2023. Meanwhile, lawyers representing Quebec class-action
victims asked the court to limit the extension to three months
(until June 30, 2023) arguing that a shorter period would act as a
"catalyst" and would maintain the "momentum". Back in September
2022, they had raised the fact that no less than 670 of the
registered victims suffering from lung cancer, throat cancer or
emphysema had died in the three and a half years since the start of
the mediation process. At the hearing, their lawyer Bruce Johnston
added that the death toll continues to rise.

According to Flory Doucas, spokesperson of the Quebec Coalition for
Tobacco Control (CQCT): "The plight of sick and dying smokers has
not diminished with their victory before Quebec's highest court
four years ago. The same tobacco companies that were found guilty
of hiding for decades the truth about the harmfulness of their
products - to the detriment of countless victims - are now carrying
on with their business as if nothing has changed."

Indeed, having obtained the protection conferred by the CCAA, the
tobacco companies are carrying on with their business as usual.
Service agreements (para 112) with entities belonging to their
respective parent companies, ultimately enriching the
multinationals, and allow for funds to be diverted away from
creditors instead of being deposited into the compensation fund
associated with the CCAA process. The fund which amounted to just
over $7.5 billion in March 2022, received $684 ($309.9 million/ITC
+ $222.4 million/RBH + $151.5 million/JTI) by Sept. 2022 and
another $610 million since then ($199 million/ITC + $321.1
million/RBH + $89.5 million/JTI), bringing the total to some $9
billion - a small fraction of the over $500 billion claimed by all
parties including $15 billion that the Quebec Court of Appeal
ordered the tobacco companies in 2019 to pay to the victims of the
Quebec class actions.

Stay after stay, Quebec tobacco victims who have won their case
after a 20-year battle have seen another four years go by without
any financial compensation. "Justice delayed is justice denied",
reminded Bruce Johnston. As detailed in its motion to the court,
his law firm reports that following each stay, especially the one
from last spring, people registered in the class actions express
their extreme frustration with the delays as well as their loss of
confidence and their feeling of powerlessness within the CCAA
process. These include the late Émile Rioux who wrote to them a
few weeks before receiving medical assistance in dying.

Here are some excerpts:

« February 18, 2023 email (translated from the original French):
Just to clarify the subject and the reality, yes tobacco killed me
and this after several years of cessation, since autumn 2022
pneumonia without end, water in the lungs at the same time and
recently I asked for medical assistance in dying which will take
place at the beginning of March at the Laval hospital. The family
is aware and all my children as well as my wife respect my choice
and I will stop suffering. I am enjoying these last moments with my
family and friends and I feel at peace with myself. Yes tobacco
killed me.  Thank you for your understanding and especially for
your collaboration to the members. . . ."

"November 24, 2022 email (translated from the original French):
Really it is disappointing every time we receive information
regarding this class action. [. . . .] How is it possible that
nothing is happening in this file. My mother who died recently,
will unfortunately never be able to know the end of this action.
Let's hope that us her kids will one day be able to see the end of
it."

"September 27, 2022 email (translated from the original French):
This is really a farce, pure cynicism, arrogance, contempt . . .
Who are the person or persons responsible for this delay. Are the
dice played out in advance? These killer companies, supposedly
bankrupt, are now happily vaping and don't give a damn about their
victims . . . It's really infuriating."

"From a justice perspective, this is an incredibly sad state of
affairs," says the CQCT spokesperson. With the exceptions of Quebec
and Ontario, all other eight provincial governments have chosen to
be represented by a consortium of lawyers on a contingency fee
basis - which precludes structural outcomes that would force
tobacco companies to change their harmful behaviour. Moreover, the
process puts tobacco victims who have a judgment in hand after two
decades in court on the same footing as all other creditors,
including the provinces whose health care cost recovery lawsuits
were barely underway.

"What's most shocking right now is that nine out of ten provincial
governments haven't objected to the consecutive stays sought by the
tobacco companies. Is it because they prefer to see the pot grow by
some $650 million every six months?" asks Ms. Doucas. "Quebec was
the only province that showed some solidarity with the victims, by
asking the Court to reject industry's request and instead limit the
next stay to three months."

What about game-changing measures?

"All indications point to provinces and other parties are not
seeking to use the process and the limited funds at hand to address
the tobacco epidemic or nicotine addiction. Indeed, there's no
indication that the provinces are working together to impose
binding measures on the industry in order to change its harmful
business model. For example, provinces could be asking for measures
that would force manufacturers to phase-out cigarette sales under
predetermined, court-monitored targets. Should the provinces decide
to use the settlement process primarily for financial outcomes, not
only would the victims lose out, but this would set the path for
creating future victims. Big Tobacco chose the CCAA path for a
reason: they are undoubtedly banking on the provinces'
short-sighted motivation for a simplistic and superficial payout
based on future revenues, even if this is achieved by the
industry's recruitment of future nicotine addicts," explains Ms.
Doucas.  

In fact, since the March 2019 order, the industry has continued to
addict new customers to its products, including electronic
cigarettes, as one class member complained: "These killer
companies, supposedly bankrupt, are now happily vaping and don't
give a damn about their victims . . . It's really infuriating." In
a recent BAT presentation (published in February 2023), Imperial
Tobacco's parent company points out that Canada is now among its
five largest markets for vaping products, and that its VUSE brand
accounts for 92% of the Canadian market for closed devices, those
most used by youth and growing in popularity.

"How is it that provincial governments tolerate the creation of new
markets by Canada's three largest tobacco manufacturers - as well
as the collateral damage that comes with this - when these same
manufacturers are facing insolvency before an array of creditors,
including the victims of their own products? This is not in the
public's interest," concludes the CQCT spokesperson. [GN]

INDEPENDENT LIVING: Fails to Protect Patients Info, Berg Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. INDEPENDENT LIVING SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-21286-RNS (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data.

The Defendant is a Florida LLC that sells health-focused services.
In Defendant's words, it "offers a comprehensive range of turnkey
payer services including clinical and third party administrative
services to managed care organizations and providers." In
particular, Independent Living Systems, INDEPENDENT LIVING SYSTEMS,
https://ilshealth.com/ (last visited Mar. 23, 2023).

The Defendant works with "health plans, providers, hospitals, and
pharmaceutical and medical device companies" as to "provide
tailored integrated solutions."

As part of its business, Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected
health information ("PHI") about its current and former patients.
But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals
infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data
breach (the "Data Breach"), says the suit.

The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, receiving a breach notice on
March 20, 2023. He brings this class action on behalf of himself,
and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct.

The exposure of one's PII/PHI to cybercriminals is a bell that
cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, patients' private
information was exactly that—private. Not anymore. Now, patients'
private information is forever exposed and unsecure, the suit
asserts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

               - and -

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

INTEGON NATIONAL: E.D. Pennsylvania Dismisses Moors Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTORIA MOORS, Individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. INTEGON NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-1516 (E.D. Pa.),
Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the complaint.

Moors filed a purported class action complaint against the
Defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The
Defendant removed the case to this Court based on federal
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The
Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint.

The Defendant issued the Plaintiff a Personal Auto Policy that
included stacked uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages for
one vehicle. Before issuing the Auto Policy, the Defendant
conducted an underwriting process, and should have obtained
information regarding all policies and vehicles in the Plaintiff's
household.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant should have learned from
the underwriting process that she only owned one vehicle and that
there were no other vehicles or policies in her household. She
alleges that despite not qualifying for stacked UM/UIM coverage
benefits, the Defendant issued a policy that provided stacked
uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, charged her an
additional premium, and never told her that the policy did not
provide a stacking coverage benefit.

The question before the Court is whether, under Pennsylvania law,
the Plaintiff can allege that she could receive no benefit from the
stacking coverage.

The Court has jurisdiction over the case under CAFA, as the
Plaintiff alleges (1) an amount in controversy that exceeds $5
million, as aggregated across all individual claims; (2) minimally
diverse parties; and (3) a class that consists of at least 100 or
more members. The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), common
law fraud, and unjust enrichment. The Complaint seeks declaratory
relief, return of premiums, and injunctive relief.

In two recent cases, Berardi v. USAA General Indemnity Company and
Jones v. GEICO Choice Insurance Company, courts in this District
have dismissed cases bringing the same claims against other
insurers.

The District Court in Jones held that the plaintiffs "read the
statement of the insurance commissioner too strictly" because it
identified 'at least two situations' in which a single-vehicle
policyholder would recover stacked benefits. Therefore, the
decision in Jones concluded that stacking UM/UIM coverage for
single-vehicle owners without another household policy was not
illusory coverage.

The District Court in Berardi holds that the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court did not distinguish between household and non-household
policies. It further held that no cases in the fourteen years since
Generette v. Donegal Mutual Insurance Company was decided had
endorsed the Plaintiffs' interpretation that stacking is limited to
multiple policies within a single household.

Upon full consideration of the Plaintiff's arguments, Judge Rufe
agrees with the reasoning of the decisions in Jones and Berardi,
which apply with equal force to the claims raised by the Plaintiff
in the case. Because the Plaintiff has failed to plead facts
demonstrating that she was overcharged for the Auto Policy, the
motion to dismiss is granted. An order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/4rm79hnn from Leagle.com.


INTEL CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Suit With Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: INTEL CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
5:20-cv-05194-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to
amend.

Lead Plaintiffs KBC Asset Management NV and SEB Investment
Management AB bring the putative class action against Defendants
Intel, former Intel CEO Robert H. Swan, Intel CFO George S. Davis,
and former Intel Chief Engineering Officer Dr. Venkata S.M.
Renduchintala, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The Lead Plaintiffs bring the action individually and
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Intel common stock
from Oct. 25, 2019 through Oct. 23, 2020.

Intel is a semiconductor company that designs and manufactures
microprocessors and other semiconductor products for use in
computers, data center servers, communications devices, and other
digital electronic devices. It is headquartered in Santa Clara,
California, and its stock trades on NASDAQ under the symbol
"INTC."

The semiconductor industry is marked by two features relevant to
the case. First, semiconductor companies can broadly be
characterized as occupying one of two roles: design or fabrication.
For its leading-edge chips -- those based on the most current,
advanced technology -- Intel both designs and fabricates the chips
in-house. The second key feature is that expectations and industry
economics are closely tied to an assumption known as Moore's Law,
which stems from an observation by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore.

Although Intel matched the pace of Moore's Law through 2011, it
encountered challenges when moving from the 22nm node to the 14nm
node. By 2018, one of its foundry competitors, TSMC, introduced its
7nm process as Intel continued to work on its 10nm process. TSMC
also formed an alliance with AMD, one of Intel's fabless chip
design competitors, allowing AMD to develop increasingly
sophisticated chips and seize market share from Intel. In an effort
to regain ground, Intel hired Jim Keller, a well-regarded
microprocessor architect, in April 2018.

It was against this backdrop of increased competition that Intel
began to discuss its upcoming 7nm process with the market.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants repeatedly affirmed
that Intel's 7nm process was "on track," reassuring markets that it
would meet its 2021 timeline by implementing lessons learned from
the 10nm process. But, according to the Lead Plaintiffs, the 7nm
process was not "on track" and had fallen behind schedule while the
Defendants were making those statements.

Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 9(b), and 12(b)(6) and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. It finds the matter
suitable for decision without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b).

Judge Davila first examines the request for judicial notice. The
Defendants request judicial notice and incorporation by reference
of Exhibits 1 through 26 to the Declaration of Gina F. Elliott.
Req. for Judicial Notice ("RJN"). The Lead Plaintiffs do not object
to the Court's consideration of Exhibits 1, 7-9, 11-13, 19, 20, and
24-26. However, they object to Exhibits 2-6, 10, 14-18, and 21-23,
acknowledging that the Court may take notice of the existence and
contents of those exhibits but challenging the Defendants' use of
those exhibits as improper.

Exhibits 2-6 are certain of Intel's SEC filings, which courts
routinely take notice of in federal securities actions. Judge
Davila therefore considers Exhibits 2-6 but will not take notice of
any disputed facts.

Exhibits 14-16 are articles from SemiAccurate that the Lead
Plaintiffs cite in their complaint to establish the falsity of
several challenged statements. These exhibits are both judicially
noticeable as publicly available articles and incorporated by
reference as the basis for the Lead Plaintiffs' allegations of
falsity. Judge Davila considers Exhibits 14-16 for the purpose of
determining the reliability of the SemiAccurate articles, but he
does not assume the truth of facts within those exhibits.

Exhibit 17, which contains pages from the SemiAccurate website that
the Lead Plaintiffs do not cite in their complaint, does not serve
the same purpose. Judge Davila will not consider it.

Exhibits 10, 18, and 21-23 are the remaining exhibits which the
Lead Plaintiffs object to. They consist of a conference transcript,
online article, and analyst reports, all of which are subject to
judicial notice. Judge Davila considers these Exhibits for the
purpose of showing what information was available to the stock
market, but not for the truth of any fact asserted.

Accordingly, Judge Davila takes notice of and/or incorporates by
reference all exhibits attached to the Elliott Declaration except
for Exhibit 17.

Judge Davila then turns to the motion to dismiss. In their motion
to dismiss, the Defendants argue that many of the challenged
statements fall under the PSLRA safe harbor, and that the Lead
Plaintiffs have failed to plead actionable misstatements or
omissions, a strong inference of scienter, and loss causation.

First, on claims under PSLRA safeharbor, Judge Davila holds that
Statements 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24-27, 29, and 30 are
each protected by the PSRLA safe harbor to the extent they are
about Intel's 7nm timeline or product development cadence. He also
holds that Statements 2, 3, 9, and 11-17 are forward-looking while
Statement 10 is not. Statements 13-17 also are not accompanied by
cautionary language. Nonetheless, the Lead Plaintiffs have not
pleaded actual knowledge, so the statements are protected by the
safe harbor. Lastly, because Statements 8, 19, and 20 are
forward-looking and the Lead Plaintiffs have not pleaded actual
knowledge, the statements are protected by the PSLRA safe harbor.

Second, on claims of misrepresentation and omissions, Judge Davila
holds that (i) the Lead Plaintiffs have failed to plead actionable
omissions related to statements about Intel's 7nm development
timeline; the Lead Plaintiffs have failed to plead that the
"lessons learned" statements are actionable misstatements or
omissions; (iii) just as it was not misleading for the Defendants
to omit those contingency plans, it was not misleading for
Defendants to omit their preparations for those plans; and (iv) the
Statement 28 about Keller's departure is not actionable.

Third, on scienter, Judge Davila holds that (i) absent any
suggestion that information about delays was passed upwards or made
available to Individual Defendants, he cannot conclude that they
had actual knowledge or were deliberately reckless in ignoring the
delays; (ii) the Lead Plaintiffs' confidential witness allegations
support neither actual knowledge nor deliberate recklessness; (iii)
allegations that Swan and Renduchintala monitored 7nm progress
provide no particularized details about what information they would
have been privy to or why access to that information supports
scienter; (iv) the inference that Swan and Renduchintala were
terminated for performance failures to be more compelling than the
inference of scienter urged by the Lead Plaintiffs; and (v) even on
a holistic review, the Lead Plaintiffs have failed to plead a
strong inference of scienter.

Moreover, the Lead Plaintiffs' assumptions about timing do not hold
up, so their theory of scienter likewise fails. They have also
failed to plead a strong inference of scienter as to Keller's
departure.

Fourth, on loss causation, Judge Davila holds that because the Lead
Plaintiffs have failed to plead any actionable misstatements or
omissions, the Court declines to perform a loss causation
analysis.

In sum, the Lead Plaintiffs have failed to plead actionable
misstatements or omissions and have failed to plead scienter. Many
of the challenged statements are also immunized under the PSLRA
safe harbor. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims.

Lastly, the Defendants argue that dismissal should be with
prejudice because Wochos v. Tesla, Inc., 985 F.3d 1180, 1190 (9th
Cir. 2021) forecloses any possibility of successful amendment. But
Judge Davila cannot determine that issues surrounding the
non-forward-looking statements are unable to be cured by amendment.
Nor can he conclude that, as to the forward-looking statements, the
Lead Plaintiffs will be unable to plead facts showing that Intel's
cautionary language was not meaningful or that Defendants had
actual knowledge of falsity. Because he cannot determine that
amendment would be futile, Judge Davila grants leave to amend.

In light the foregoing, Judge Davila grants the Defendants' motion
to dismiss with leave to amend to cure the deficiencies identified
in the Order. The Lead Plaintiffs will file their amended
consolidated complaint by May 3, 2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p92drw5 from Leagle.com.


IRVING K: Williamson TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE WILLIAMSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
IRVING K MOTOR COMPANY LLC D/B/A CLAY COOLEY KIA, Case No.
3:21-cv-01599-BH (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:

    1. certifying a class with respect to her claims for the
       Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection

       Act (TCPA);

    2. designating her as class representative; and

    3. designating the Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiff moves to certify the following proposed Class:

    "All persons in the United States (1) who during the four years

    prior to the filing of this lawsuit, (2) were sent a
prerecorded
    or artificial voice call, (3) regarding Defendant’s vehicle
    maintenance services, (4) by Affinitiv, Inc., (5) to their
    cellular telephone number, and (6) who serviced their vehicle
with
    Defendant but who did not purchase a vehicle from Defendant.

The proposed class definition is not vague. Instead, it identifies
a particular group of individuals (a subset of customers of
Defendant who serviced a vehicle with Defendant but did not
purchase a vehicle from Defendant) that were harmed in a particular
way (they were successfully sent a discrete universe of prerecorded
voice messages), the lawsuit says.

The proposed class definition does not contain subjective criteria.
And the proposed class is not defined in a manner that would create
a fail-safe class, meaning that if Defendant prevails on the
merits, res judicata will bar Class members from re-litigating
their claims against Defendant.

Accordingly, the proposed class is ascertainable. Moreover, courts
have made clear in the context of TCPA class actions that call logs
identifying telephone numbers to which the calls in question were
placed constitute objective criteria that make a class
ascertainable.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ke6o2P at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 496-4469
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

K & T PROFESSIONAL: Ramos Sues Over Installers' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE I. RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. K & T PROFESSIONAL STONE INSTALLATION LLC,
ESTEBAN T. LOBOS, and KAREN O. CARCAMO, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00369 (M.D. Fla., March 30, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a stone cutter and
installer from July 01, 2018, to approximately March 01, 2023.

K & T Professional Stone Installation LLC is a construction company
doing business in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

KEYSTONE CLEARWATER: Zinck Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
EARL ZINCK, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KEYSTONE CLEARWATER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-00549-AJS (W.D. Pa., March 30, 2023) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages of Plaintiff, including overtimes
wages, and all other available relief, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt
employee within the past three years. He asserts that Defendant
failed to compensate him and the Collective Members at the required
overtime rate for all overtime hours worked, and by systematically
failing to maintain records of hours worked.

Keystone Clearwater Solutions, LLC provides customized water and
wastewater management solutions to natural gas, municipal, and
industrial customers throughout the Eastern United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

KRYSTAL KLEAR: Underpays Construction Workers, Rocha Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO A. ROCHA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRYSTAL KLEAR WINDOWS CLEANING
CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-21238 (S.D. Fla., March 30,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime
wages and retaliatory discharge in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a construction worker
from approximately September 01, 2022, to November 15, 2022.

Krystal Klear Windows Cleaning Corp. is a cleaning and remodeling
company in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

LEAFFILTER NORTH: $5.2MM Class Deal in Zilinsky Suit Wins Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, James Zilinsky, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. LeafFilter North,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-6229 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Michael H.
Watson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the Parties' class action Settlement and for an award
of attorney's fees and service awards.

James Zilinsky, Geraldine Zilinsky, Cory Simpson, Brian Dering,
Theresa Dering, Meagan McGinley, Sandy Armstrong, Sandra
GarrettDorsey, and Alan Armstrong filed a Class Action Complaint
against the Defendant in December 2020, alleging that it materially
misrepresented that its gutter protection system would not clog or
overflow when, in fact, the system was defective and allowed debris
to accumulate on top of the gutters. The Plaintiffs assert consumer
protection and common law tort claims under various states' laws.
They later filed an Amended Complaint with substantially the same
allegations.

The Parties fully briefed a motion to dismiss. Before the Court
ruled on the motion, the Parties moved for a stay pending
mediation, which the Court granted. Subsequently, the Parties
notified the Court that they reached a settlement. They moved for
preliminary approval of their Settlement Agreement, which the Court
granted. Judge Watson held a fairness hearing on March 24, 2023,
and now turns to the Plaintiffs' unopposed motions for final
approval of the Settlement and for an award of attorney's fees,
costs, and service awards.

Per the Parties' representations at the Fairness Hearing, the
Settlement Agreement creates a $5.2 million Settlement Fund for the
benefit of the Class. The Settlement Fund will cover settlement
payments to the Class Members, costs of notice to the Class and
administration of the settlement, reimbursement of the Class
Counsel's reasonable costs and expenses, attorney's fees for Class
Counsel, and service awards to named Plaintiffs. The Class Members
had the opportunity to submit a claim form to receive one of four
benefits: (1) vouchers for future gutter cleanings; (2)
reimbursement for past gutter cleaning; (3) a combination of
vouchers and reimbursement; and (4) partial reimbursement for
removal of the gutter protection system.

The Settlement Class is defined as follows: All LeafFilter
customers in the United States who appear in LeafFilter's customer
care database with a Debris-Related Final Issue Code for their
service request. The Class Period will mean the time period from
Jan. 1, 2016 through the date that the Settlement Agreement is
fully executed. The Parties represent that there are nearly 58,000
Class Members.

The Court appointed KCC Class Action Services, LLC to be the
Settlement Administrator. KCC was responsible for providing Notice
to Class Members. KCC reviewed the records provided by the Class
Counsel, obtained updated mailing addresses and email addresses,
and sent the Notice via mail to 57,704 Class Members and via email
to 39,855 Class Members. Although over 1,000 notices initially came
back as undeliverable, KCC was ultimately able to send notices to
all but 354 Class Members.

To grant final approval of a settlement class, the Rule 23
requirements must be satisfied. Judge Watson has already
preliminarily approved the Class for settlement purposes and now
finds that the standards required for final approval are satisfied.
Therefore, the Class is certified for purposes of the Settlement,
and Judge Watson appoints Varnell & Warwick, P.A. and Goldenberg
Schneider, LPA as the Class Counsel.

Judge Watson then concludes that the Settlement provides a
substantial benefit to the Parties and is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.

The Class Counsel seeks an award of one-third of the total
Settlement Fund in the amount of $1,749,416.31. The Defendant has
not opposed this request for fees nor have any Class Members.

Judge Watson approves the fee award of $1,749,416.31 to the Class
Counsel. He finds that the Class Counsel have extensive experience
in class action litigation similar to the action. The hours
expended and time records submitted by the Class Counsel further
underscore their competency and efficient handling of the matter,
favoring approval.

The Class Counsel avers that out-of-pocket expenses, which
currently amount to $25,583.69, were necessary and directly related
to this litigation. Judge Watson finds that all of these costs are
reasonable and necessary to litigate and settle the case and
therefore approves the request of $25,583.69 for out-of-pocket
expenses.

Finally, the Settlement Agreement proposes to award each Plaintiff
"household" up to $3,500. Each Plaintiff assisted in the
prosecuting and settling of the litigation, including communication
with counsel and participating in discovery. In light of this
service, Judge Watson approves the service award of up to $3,500
per household to the Plaintiffs.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Watson grants final approval of
the Settlement and enters final judgment. He grants final approval
to the Settlement as it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Class approved by this Court, and for which final approval is
given, is as follows: All LeafFilter customers in the United States
who appear in LeafFilter's customer care database with a
Debris-Related Final Issue Code for their service request during
the time period from Jan. 1, 2016 through June 24, 2022. Excluded
from the Settlement Class are: (1) LeafFilter; (2) any affiliate,
parent, or subsidiary of LeafFilter; (3) any entity in which
LeafFilter has a controlling interest; (4) any officer, director,
or employee of LeafFilter; (5) any successor or assign of
LeafFilter; (6) any Judge to whom the Litigation is assigned; (7)
any person who has resolved or otherwise released their claims as
of the date of the settlement; and (8) any Settlement Class Member
who opts-out of the settlement.

The Action and every Released Claim (including all individual
claims and Class-wide claims presented thereby) is dismissed on the
merits and with prejudice, without fees or costs to any Party
except as provided in the Settlement Agreement and as adopted and
ordered by the Court in the Order.

The Order adjudicates all of the claims, rights and liabilities of
the Parties to the Settlement, and is intended to be final and
immediately appealable.

Without affecting the finality of this Order for purposes of
appeal, the Court retains jurisdiction as to all matters relating
to the administration, implementation, consummation, enforcement,
and interpretation of this Settlement Agreement and this Order, and
for any other necessary purpose.

The Clerk will close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mw9te6nw from Leagle.com.


LG ELECTRONICS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Brito Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PEDRO BRITO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC. AND LG
ELECTRONICS INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 22-5777 (D.N.J.),
Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey grants LG's motion to compel arbitration and
stays the matter pending arbitration.

The class action lawsuit alleges that the Defendants knew, but
failed to disclose, that the control knobs on some of their gas and
electric ranges were defective.

The Plaintiff, a Florida resident, purchased an LG electric range
with front-mounted burner knobs from a Best Buy store in Miami,
Florida on Nov. 6, 2021. Before purchasing the Range, he reviewed
the marketing materials and was informed by the Best Buy
salesperson that the Range was covered by a one-year warranty (the
"Limited Warranty"). The warranty was included in the Range's
Owner's Manual that came with the Plaintiff's Range, and it
provides that LG warrants against defects in materials and
workmanship for one year.

After purchasing the Range, the Plaintiff began noticing that his
Range would turn on inadvertently and without warning. On Aug. 5,
2022, the Range actuated without the Plaintiff's knowledge, and
after smelling smoke, the Plaintiff returned to his kitchen to find
a bag, which was left adjacent to the Range's cooktop, on fire. He
contacted LG to address the issue. In August or September 2022, a
service technician made two trips to his home. During the first
visit, the technician allegedly placed an order for parts that were
supposed to address the issue, but during the second visit, the
technician informed him that LG did not have any fixes for the
Defect and recommended that he remove the Range knobs when the
appliance was not in use.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Range is defective because the
control knobs are prone to, and do, rotate as a result of minor,
inadvertent contact, which causes the Range to actuate without
warning. As a result, the Plaintiff continues, gas Range burners
ignite and electric Range cooktops heat up without warning. He
further alleges that LG knew of the defect since at least 2016,
failed to disclose the defect, and continues to manufacture and
sell ranges with the defective knobs. Had he known of the defect,
he would not have purchased the Range or would have paid a
significantly lower price.

The Limited Warranty provides a one-year warranty from the date of
purchase should the Range fail due to a defect in materials or
workmanship under normal and proper use. It also states, directly
below the "Terms and Conditions" header at the top of the page, the
Arbitration Notice. The Limited Warranty was included in the
Owner's Manual for the model Range purchased by the Plaintiff. In
addition, since at least 2018, the Arbitration Notice has been
printed on the outside of each electric range box and taped to the
front of each electric range.

The Plaintiff filed the class action on Sept. 29, 2022. On Nov. 14,
2022, LG moved to dismiss and to compel arbitration. The Plaintiff
then amended its Complaint ("FAC") and the motion to dismiss was
denied as moot. The parties then stipulated to a revised briefing
schedule for the motion to compel and the response to the
Plaintiff's FAC.

The Plaintiff brings allegations individually and on behalf of a
nationwide class and/or Florida sub-class (collectively, the
"Class"). The FAC asserts violations of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Action and Magnum-Moss Warranty Act on behalf of the
nationwide class (Counts I and II, respectively), and the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act on behalf of the Florida
subclass (Count VI). The FAC also asserts claims of fraud by
omission (Count III), unjust enrichment (Count VII), and breach of
express and implied warranty of merchantability (Counts IV and V,
respectively) on behalf of the nationwide class, or in the
alternate, the Florida subclass.

The parties dispute whether the Court should apply New Jersey law
or Florida law to determine the enforceability of the arbitration
provision. LG argues that pursuant to the choice-of-law section of
the Limited Warranty, Florida law applies because the Plaintiff is
a resident of Florida. The Plaintiff counters that a traditional
choice-of-law analysis is warranted to determine "whether, as a
threshold matter, there was a contract in the first place," because
if there was not, the choice-of-law provision contained within the
document does not control.

Judge Vazquez determines the arbitrability of the claims under
Florida law. He reviews (1) whether the parties seeking or
resisting arbitration entered into a valid arbitration agreement;
and (2) whether the dispute between those parties falls within the
language of the arbitration agreement. He must also determine
whether the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss standard or the Rule 56
summary judgment standard is appropriate. Because the affirmative
defense of arbitrability is apparent on "the face of the Complaint"
or "documents relied upon in the Complaint," the motion to dismiss
standard applies.

The numerous references to the arbitration clause (including the
in-the-box and on-the-box Arbitration Notice), and the
opportunities provided to review and opt out of the agreement to
arbitrate, support a finding that Plaintiff had reasonable notice
of, and assented to, the provision, Judge Vazquez opines. Indeed,
the conduct alleged by the Plaintiff further support a finding of
reasonable notice. Thus, a valid agreement to arbitrate exists.

Judge Vazquez further opines that the "Definitions" section of the
agreement does make explicit that statutory claims fall within the
scope of the agreement to arbitrate. Furthermore, he says Florida
law applies, and under Florida law, a broad arbitration clause may
waive statutory claims where they arise from or relate to a
contract containing an arbitration clause. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the arbitration
agreement.

For these reasons, Judge Vazquez grants LG's motion to compel
arbitration, denies as moot its motion to dismiss, and stays the
matter pending arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mvex6bdm from Leagle.com.


LIDL US: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Lopez FLSA-NYLL Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMANTHA LOPEZ, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. LIDL US, LLC d/b/a Lidl,
Defendant, Case No. 22-CV-4271 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Andrew L.
Carter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York grants Lidl's motion to compel arbitration of the
Plaintiff's claims on an individual basis.

Lopez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, brings
the suit against Lidl for unpaid wages, including overtime premiums
due to time-shaving pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law
("NYLL").

Lidl owns and operates a chain of supermarkets and operates
approximately 24 stores in New York. In December 2018, Lopez was
hired by the Defendant as a store associate at a Lidl store located
at 283 Platinum Ave. on Staten Island.  She worked at this location
until approximately mid-2019. She was subsequently rehired in the
same position at the same Staten Island store in November 2020.

The Plaintiff maintains that she also worked at other Lidl
locations, until she was terminated by Defendant in January 2021.
She alleges that she, and other similarly situated employees, were
forced to work through lunch and past their regularly scheduled
shifts. She alleges that her weekly paycheck was "shaved" by
approximately two hours per week.

As evidence of the parties' agreement to arbitrate, the Defendant
has proffered two offer letters, which it contends constitute
enforceable arbitration agreements governing the Plaintiff's
claims. The first offer letter was extended to Lopez electronically
through Lidl's human resources portal on Nov. 8, 2018. The offer
letter invites the Plaintiff to work for Lidl as a part-time
employee, paid at a rate of $15.25 per hour. It indicates that the
Plaintiff was being offered employment as an "at will" employee and
states that it "summarizes some of the important aspects of your
proposed employment with Lidl US Operations." Germane to the
dispute at issue, the letter outlines Lidl's arbitration policy.
The Plaintiff electronically accepted the terms of the offer letter
on Nov. 9, 2018.

A second offer letter was extended to Lopez on Oct. 7, 2019, which
contains the same language regarding the agreement to arbitrate as
the first offer letter. Lopez electronically accepted the terms of
the offer letter on Oct. 7, 2019.

The Defendant filed the instant motion to compel arbitration on
July 22, 2022, arguing that the arbitration clauses in the offer
letters constitute valid and enforceable arbitration agreements.
The Plaintiff filed her opposition on Aug. 5, 2022, arguing that
(1) the offer letters do not contain a clear and unequivocal
arbitration agreement; (2) the offer letters are merely
informational and disclaim any contractual nature; (3) the
arbitration agreement requires written acceptance; (4) any
agreement to arbitrate would not cover the Plaintiff's claims; and
(5) the Defendant does not meet its burden of proof. The Defendant
filed a reply memorandum on Aug. 19, 2022.

Judge Carter finds that the arbitration clauses contained in the
offer letters constitute valid agreements to arbitrate. The offer
letters clearly state that Plaintiff's employment was conditioned
on her acceptance of the Lidl's arbitration agreement. The burden
thus shifts to the Plaintiff to show that the agreement is invalid
or unenforceable.

The Plaintiffs' primary argument is that the language in the offer
letter suggests that the "Company's Arbitration Agreement" is in
fact a separate agreement from the offer letter, which was never
provided to her and which she never signed. She argues that the
Defendant's failure to supply her with the separate arbitration
agreement for her written signature, indicates its abandonment of
the supposed prerequisite of employment.

Although Judge Carter agrees that the wording of the arbitration
language suggests the existence of a separate arbitration
agreement, he says the language contained in the offer letters
themselves is sufficient to evince the parties' agreement to
arbitrate claims. Additionally, the fact that the Plaintiff never
signed the arbitration agreement is also not dispositive.

For these reasons, Judge Carter finds that the parties entered into
a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate.

Next, Judge Carter turns to whether the claims in the instant
dispute fall within the scope of the parties' agreement to
arbitrate. The Defendant argues that the arbitration clauses are
broad, giving rise to a presumption of arbitrability. The
Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that the arbitration clauses
are narrow and apply only to disputes arising from the offer
letters themselves.

Judge Carter finds that under either a broad or narrow reading of
the arbitration clauses, the Plaintiff's claims fall within the
scope of the agreement. The Plaintiff has brought wage and hour
claims pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL, alleging, inter alia, that
Defendant failed to pay her for all wages and overtime due because
of Defendant's alleged time-shaving practices. The offer letters
expressly notify the Plaintiff of her hourly pay rate of $15.25 per
hour and notify her that she would be subject to the overtime
provisions of the FLSA.

In other words, even if the arbitration clauses are cabined to only
those claims arising from the offer letters themselves, the
Plaintiff's wage and hour claims would be squarely encompassed by
them. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's claims would also be subject to
arbitration under a broad reading of the scope of the arbitration
clauses, given the presumption of arbitrability that arises from
such clauses. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration is granted.

The Defendant asks the Court to compel arbitration as to the
Plaintiff's claim only as to her individualized claims, and not her
claims on a collective action or class-wide basis. The Plaintiff
does not address this argument in her response papers. Accordingly,
the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration on an individualized
basis is granted.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Carter grants the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis and stays the
Plaintiff's remaining claims in favor of arbitration. The parties
are directed file rolling status updates regarding the arbitration
every 90 days. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the
motion at ECF No. 11 and mark the case as stayed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc82kmjf from Leagle.com.


LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Choco Products Have Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON KHALILI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LINDT & SPRUNGLI (NORTH AMERICA) INC., LINDT & SPRUNGLI
(USA) INC., Case No. e 2:23-cv-02543 (C.D. Cal., April 4, 2023)
alleges that the Defendants increase its profits and gain an unfair
advantage over its competitors, by selling dark chocolate products
without disclosing the heavy metal content contained, leading
reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, to believe the Products
are safe for consumption when they are not.

   -- The Product(s)

      The Products at issue include the Lindt Excellence Dark
      Chocolate 70% Cocoa, Lindt Excellence Dark Chocolate 85%
Cocoa,
      and all other substantially similar dark chocolate products
      manufactured or sold by Defendants to consumers in the United

      States that materially omit the contents of lead and cadmium
      therein.

   -- The Deception

      The Defendants have misled reasonable consumers, including
      Plaintiff, into believing the Products are safe for
consumption
      when they are not. A December 2022 Consumer Reports study
      measured the amount of heavy metals in dark chocolates,
      including the Products, against California's daily MADL for
lead
      (0.5 micrograms) and cadmium (4.1 micrograms). Id. The study

      found that Defendants' Products "contain cadmium and
lead—two
      heavy metals linked to a host of health problems in children
and
      adults," in amounts such that "eating just an ounce a day
would
      put an adult over a level that public health authorities and

      Consumer Reports’ experts say may be harmful."

Lead and cadmium are toxic heavy metals that are unsafe for
consumption because they can cause various health issues in adults
and children.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants had a duty to warn
consumers about the risks associated with consuming its Products,
because Defendants knew or should have known that its Products
contain heavy metals toxic to humans. The Defendants' failure to
disclose the heavy metal content in its Products is a material
omission because the information is relevant to consumers'
decision-making process. Lead and cadmium are known to have adverse
effects on humans, and this information could influence
consumers’ decisions to purchase the Products. The Plaintiff and
other consumers like him would not have purchased the Products had
they known the Products contained harmful lead and cadmium.

LINDT & SPRUNGLI is a chocolatier and confectionery company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
          Alan Gudino, Esq.
          Ryan D. Ardi, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: rardi@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com

MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Davis Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Davis et al v. Magna
International of America, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-11060-NGE-RSW (E.D. Mich.), Hon. Judge Nancy G. Edmunds
entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

The Plaintiffs have 30 days to name new class counsel, the Court
says.

The two named plaintiffs remain in this action, Melvin Davis and
Dakota King. The Plaintiffs move for an order certifying this
action as a class action, appointing Plaintiffs as the
representatives of the proposed class, and appointing Plaintiffs'
counsel as counsel for the class.

The Plaintiffs are individuals who invested in a 401k plan called
the Magna Group of Companies Retirement Savings Plan during their
employment with Magna.

This class action is brought pursuant to sections 409 and 502 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The
Plaintiffs bring this action against the Plan's fiduciaries. The
Plaintiffs define the class period as April 30, 2014, through the
date of judgment in this action (the Class Period).

The Plan is a defined contribution retirement plan. In such a plan,
the participants have individual accounts, and the Plan provides
for benefits based upon the amount contributed, and any income,
gains and losses, expenses, and any forfeitures which may be
allocated to the participant's account.

Magna is a Canadian parts manufacturer for automakers.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43cnab6 at no extra charge.[CC]



MCBC MEDICAL: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Moore Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL MOORE and JOYCE SUTTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MCBC MEDICAL DELIVERY
SERVICES, LLC d/b/a Medical Delivery Services, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00696-M (N.D. Tex., March 30, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for unpaid minimum and overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Moore and Sutton worked for the Defendant as delivery
drivers from approximately July 2022 the January 2023 and from
approximately May 2022 until February 2023, respectively.

MCBC Medical Delivery Services, LLC, doing business as Medical
Delivery Services, Inc., is a company that delivers medical
products to facilities across Texas and the United States. [BN]

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

                 - and -

         Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
         Matthew Thomson, Esq.
         LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
         729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
         Boston, MA 02116
         Telephone: (617) 994-5800
         E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                 mthomson@llrlaw.com

MDL 2843: Deal in Facebook Consumer Privacy Suit Gets Prelim. Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FACEBOOK, INC. CONSUMER PRIVACY USER PROFILE
LITIGATION. This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Case No.
3:18-MD-02843-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, enters an Order:

   (a) certifying the settlement class;

   (b) granting preliminary approval of the class action
       settlement pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1) of the Federal Rules
       of Civil Procedure; and

   (c) approving form and content of the Class Notice.

Settlement Class Representatives Steven Akins, Jason Ariciu,
Anthony Bell, Bridgett Burk, Terry Fischer, Tyler King, Jordan
O'Hara, and Cheryl Senko, and Defendant Meta, entered into a
Settlement Agreement on Dec. 22, 2022, which, together with the
exhibits and appendices thereto, sets forth the terms and
conditions for a proposed resolution of the Action and for its
dismissal with prejudice.

Judge Chhabria has reviewed the Settlement entered into by the
Parties, all exhibits thereto, the record in the case, and the
Parties' arguments. He preliminarily finds, for the purpose of
settlement only, that the Settlement Class meets all the
prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) for class
certification and meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3).

The Settlement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate such that notice thereof should be given to members of the
Settlement Class. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3),
the Settlement Class is preliminarily certified for the purpose of
settlement only:

      All Facebook users in the United States between May 24, 2007,
and Dec. 22, 2022, inclusive. Excluded from the Settlement Class
are (i) Meta and its employees, alleged co-conspirators, officers,
directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors, and wholly or
partly owned subsidiaries or affiliated companies; (ii) counsel for
any plaintiff whose case was consolidated into this MDL and their
employees, including but not limited to the undersigned counsel for
Plaintiffs and the undersigned counsel's employees; (iii) the
Discovery Mediators, Special Master, Settlement Mediator who
assisted in this action and their staff; and (iv) the Judges and
Court staff to whom this Action is or was assigned.

In addition, Judge Chhabria preliminarily finds that the Class
Counsel and the Settlement Class Representatives will fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the Class under Rule
23(a)(4), have done so, and meet the requirements of Rule 23(g).
The Class Counsel and the Settlement Class Representatives are
appointed as adequate representatives of the Settlement Class.

Judge Chhabria approves the Settlement Administration Protocol &
Notice Plan, amended Summary Notice, second amended Class Notice,
In-App Notice, amended Claim Form, Opt-Out Form, and Objection
Form.

By April 12, 2023, 14 calendar days after the issuance of the
Order, Meta will pay or cause to be paid a portion of the
Settlement Fund in an amount sufficient to effectuate the Notice
Plan to the Settlement Administrator (the "Initial Deposit").

Following issuance of the Order, and after payment of the Initial
Deposit, Meta will pay or cause to be paid all subsequent amounts
for Notice and Administration Costs (as invoiced by the Settlement
Administrator or Escrow Agent and approved by Class Counsel) (the
"Periodic Payments") within 30 calendar days after the submission
of an invoice by the Settlement Administrator or Escrow Agent. The
deadline may be extended by mutual consent of the Parties.

By April 28, 2023, 30 calendar days after the issuance of the
Order, Meta shall, for the purpose of facilitating Notice, provide
or cause to be provided to the Settlement Administrator information
about the Settlement Class Members required by the Settlement
Administrator to effectuate the Notice Plan.

The Settlement Administrator and Meta will provide Notice
consistent with the Notice Plan and the Notice will be disseminated
to Settlement Class Members beginning on the Notice Date on April
12, 2023, 14 calendar days after the issuance of the Order.

Judge Chhabria appoints Angeion Group to serve as the Settlement
Administrator. Angeion will establish the Escrow Account as a
qualified settlement fund for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Settlement Class Members who wish to make a claim must do so by
submitting a Claim Form by Aug. 25, 2023, 149 days after the
issuance of the Order, in accordance with the instructions
contained therein. The Settlement Administrator will determine the
eligibility of claims submitted and allocate the Settlement Fund in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

Objections must be filed with the Court or post-marked by July 26,
2023, no later than 119 days from the issuance of the Order, to the
Court at the following address: Class Action Clerk, United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden
Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. The Court will
require only substantial compliance with these requirements for
submitting an objection. Objectors may appear at the Final Approval
Hearing without submitting a written objection upon a showing of
good cause.

Any Settlement Class Member who seeks to be excluded from the
Settlement Class must submit a written request for exclusion that
will be postmarked and mailed to the Settlement Administrator or
submitted online through the claims portal no later than the
Opt-Out Deadline, July 26, 2023, no later than 119 days from
issuance of the Order.

The Final Approval Hearing will be held by the Court via video
conference on Sept. 7, 2023, beginning at 1:00 p.m.  Any objector
who timely submits an objection has the option to appear and
request to be heard at the Final Approval Hearing, either in person
or through the objector's counsel.

By June 21, 2023, not later than 84 days after the issuance of the
Order, the Class Counsel will file all papers in support of the
application for Attorneys' Fees and an Expenses Award and/or for
Service Awards. All opposition papers will be filed by July 21,
2023, 114 days after the issuance of the Order, and any reply
papers will be filed by Aug. 4, 2023, 128 days after the issuance
of the Order.

By July 11, 2023, 104 days after issuance of the Order, the Class
Counsel will file all papers in support of the application for the
Final Approval Order and Final Judgment. Any reply papers regarding
objections to the settlement and to update the Court regarding
notice and administration will be filed by Aug. 4, 2023, 128 days
after the issuance of the Order.

The Class Counsel's motion or application for Attorneys' Fees and
an Expenses Award and for Service Awards will be considered
separately from the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
Settlement. Any appeal from any order relating solely to the Class
Counsel's motion for Attorneys' Fees and an Expenses Award, and/or
for Service Awards, or any reversal or modification of any such
order, will not operate to terminate, vacate, or cancel the
Settlement.

The Defense Counsel and the Class Counsel are authorized to utilize
all reasonable procedures in connection with the administration of
the Settlement which are not materially inconsistent with either
this Order or the Settlement Agreement.

For the reasons discussed at the preliminary approval hearing and
in the March 6 Order, the concerns raised by the New Mexico
Attorney General -- regarding Meta's potential arguments about the
effect of the settlement on the ability of state authorities to
recover restitution for residents -- do not provide a basis for
rejecting the settlement or for requiring anything else of Meta. No
other state or local government entity filed a brief in response to
the invitation contained in the March 6 Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3mjj2ptr from Leagle.com.


MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Faces 2nd Class Action Suit Over Cyber Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Or at insurancebusinessmag.com reports that Medibank has been
served with yet another class-action lawsuit for disclosures on its
cyber security systems which led to a serious data breach last
October.

U.S.-based law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan said in the
lawsuit that Medibank breached disclosure obligations by failing to
reveal information relevant to alleged deficiencies in its cyber
security systems, Reuters reported.

This is the second class-action lawsuit filed against Australia's
largest health insurer in relation to the cyber event last October
11, 2022. During the incident, a security alert for unusual
activity spotted on Medibank's network eventually led to the
discovery that an unnamed hacker group had gained access to the
data of 9.7 million current and former Medibank customers -
including 500,000 health claims - and released the data on the dark
web.

In a recent cybercrime update, Medibank outlined what happened as
follows:

The hacker accessed Medibank systems using stolen Medibank
credentials being used by a third-party IT service provider.

The hacker accessed Medibank's network through a misconfigured
firewall which did not require an additional digital security
certificate.

The hacker was able to obtain more usernames and passwords to gain
access to Medibank's systems.

Medibank shut down the criminal's attack path and could detect no
further activity from the hacker since October 12.

Medibank also provided affected Medibank and ahm customers with a
tailored support package which included round-the-clock mental
health support and access to specialist identity protection
advice.

The AFP criminal investigation into the cybercrime is still
ongoing.

Medibank told Reuters it intends to defend itself against the
second class-action lawsuit filed against it.

Just last month, the law firm Baker & McKenzie slapped Medibank
with its first class-action suit regarding the October 2022 cyber
event. Baker & McKenzie alleged a breach of contract, violation of
Australian consumer law, and breach of equitable obligations of
confidence.

Medibank is one of many Australian companies attacked by cyber
hackers and ransomware since September last year, Reuters reported.
Digital payments firm Latitude Group and intellectual services
provider IPH both reported data breaches earlier this month, making
them some of the latest additions to the growing list of Aussie
targets. [GN]

MINNESOTA: MSOP Appeals Prelim. Injunction Ruling in Rud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Nancy Johnston, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 22, 2023,
entered in the lawsuit entitled JAMES JOHN RUD and BRIAN KEITH
HAUSFELD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NANCY JOHNSTON, Executive Director,
Minnesota Sex Offender Program, in official capacity, and JODI
HARPSTEAD, Department of Human Services Commissioner, in official
capacity, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-00486-JRT, in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The suit was removed from the Ramsey County District Court to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on March 1,
2023.

The Plaintiffs represent a class of individuals civilly committed
to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program who were approved for
transfer to the lower-security Community Preparation Services (CPS)
facility in St. Peter -- one of two facilities where MSOP patients
can complete the final phase of their MSOP treatment. The
Plaintiffs either await transfer or their transfer was
substantially delayed because the CPS facility does not have
capacity for them due to bed and staffing shortages. The Plaintiffs
bring official capacity claims against the Executive Director of
the MSOP and the Department of Human Services Commissioner, arguing
that they violated Plaintiffs' and class members' rights by failing
to transfer them to CPS facilities when ordered to do so.

On March 6, 2023, Plaintiff James John Rud was awaiting transfer
and filed a motion for temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction enjoining Defendants from ignoring their statutory
duties and compelling Defendants to effectuate his transfer order.

Because the Court found that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on
their procedural due process claim and Plaintiff Rud satisfied the
other requirements for preliminary injunctive relief, the Court
entered an Order on March 22, 2023, signed by Judge John R.
Tunheim, granting Plaintiff Rud's motion and issued a preliminary
injunction order directing Defendants to transfer him to CPS.

The appellate case is captioned as James Rud, et al. v. Nancy
Johnston, et al., Case No. 23-1577, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on March 27, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before May 8, 2023;

   -- Appendix is due on May 16, 2023;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, Jodi Harpstead and Nancy Johnston is due on
May 16, 2023; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Nancy Johnston, Executive Director, Minnesota
Sex Offender Program, in official capacity, et al., are represented
by:

          Emily Beth Anderson, Esq.
          Gabriel R. Ulman, Esq.
          Aaron Edward Winter, Esq.  
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400
          Saint Paul, MN 55101-2127
          Telephone: (651) 296-9412

Plaintiffs-Appellees James John Rud and Brian K. Hausfeld, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Joseph Nelson, Esq.
          Anthony Stauber, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON & GLUEK
          120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844

MISSISSIPPI: Court Dismisses Gayles v. Cain & MSP With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES GAYLES, Plaintiff v. NATHAN BURL CAIN, ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22CV34-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss.), Judge Sharion
Aycock of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi, Greenville Division:

     a. denies the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend;

     b. grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss; and

     c. dismisses the case with prejudice.

The matter comes before the court on the pro se prisoner complaint
of Gayles, who challenges the conditions of his confinement under
42 U.S.C. Section 1983. For the purposes of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, the Plaintiff was incarcerated when he filed the suit.
The Plaintiff has brought the instant case under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants provided
unconstitutionally harsh general conditions of confinement during
his stay at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman ("MSP").
The Defendants have moved to dismiss the instant case under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b) (failure to prosecute), Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
(failure to meet the requirements to represent a class in a class
action), and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted). The Plaintiff has not responded to the motion,
and the deadline to do so has expired.

Gayles was one of 277 current and former inmates of the MSP who
joined in the consolidated putative class actions of Amos v. Cain,
No. 4:20-CV-7-SA-JMV, and Lang v. Mallet, No. 4:20-CV-30-SA-JMV,
seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief due to MSP's
allegedly unconstitutional prison conditions. In June 2021, the
Court entered an order requiring any attorney of record for the
plaintiffs in those cases to file an entry of appearance or a
motion to withdraw for each named plaintiff. In July 2021, the
counsel for plaintiffs filed a motion to withdraw as to 53 named
plaintiffs, including Gayles. In August 2021, the Court granted the
counsel's motion to withdraw and directed the 53 plaintiffs to
notify the court as to whether they would proceed pro se or with
new counsel by Sept. 16, 2021.

On Aug. 23, 2021, Gayles informed the Court of his intention to
proceed pro se. On Jan. 14, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss 197 named plaintiffs, including Gayles and the other pro se
plaintiffs, on jurisdictional grounds and because pro se plaintiffs
are not adequate class representatives. On March 1, 2022, the Court
granted the Defendants' motion but instructed the Clerk of Court to
reassign Charles Gayles a separate case number for his own
individual pro se case. Gayles was reassigned and the court entered
a Scheduling Order on March 21, 2022, directing Gayles to file an
amended complaint setting forth his "individual claims for relief"
by April 17, 2022.

On April 25, 2022, Gayles instead filed a motion to join a separate
putative class action for which a class has not been certified. The
Defendants filed their response to the motion and memorandum in
support on May 6, 2022, requesting that the Court denies Gayles'
motion for his failure to comply with its Order, and, additionally,
because pro se plaintiffs cannot serve as representatives of a
putative class.

First, Judge Aycock finds that Gayles has not filed the amended
complaint in the case, and the deadline to do so expired months
ago. As such, there is no operative complaint in the present case,
and Gayles' failure to comply with the Court's order constitutes a
basis for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Next, Gayles seems to request to join the Alexander putative class
action and become a class representative. However, as a pro se
litigant, he cannot adequately represent the Alexander putative
class that he seeks to join and represent as required by Rule
23(a). In the event a class is established in Alexander, Gayles may
be part of that class, if allowed by the Court, but the Court will
not permit him to be a class representative in that action because
he is proceeding pro se. As such, to the extent that Gayles has
attempted to join the putative class action in Alexander as class
representative, his motion will be dismissed under Rule 23(a)
because, as a pro se litigant, he cannot adequately represent the
putative class.

Lastly, Judge Aycock finds that the complaint Gayles attached as
Exhibit A to his motion is one of four inoperative complaints
previously filed in Alexander that does not contain his name as a
plaintiff. As such, the complaint attached to his motion does not
set forth any individualized claims for relief against the
defendants as the Court required in the scheduling order. Neither
does it establish the elements of standing or state a claim against
the defendants upon which relief could be granted. As Gayles did
not comply with the Court's order -- and thus has not filed an
individualized complaint -- Judge Aycock dismisses the case with
prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted.

For these reasons, Judge Aycock denies the Plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend; grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and
dismisses the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted, and, in the alternative, without
prejudice for failure to comply with an order of the Court and
because the pro se plaintiff cannot adequately represent a putative
class in a class action suit. A final judgment consistent with the
Memorandum Opinion will be issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/53dawt3h from Leagle.com.


MISSISSIPPI: District Court Enters Final Judgment in Gayles v. Cain
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sharion Aycock of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Mississippi, Greenville Division, enters Final Judgment
the case, CHARLES GAYLES, Plaintiff v. NATHAN BURL CAIN, ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22CV34-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss.).

In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered, the Plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend is denied. In addition, the Defendants'
motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is granted, and
the case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted.

In addition, in the alternative, the case is dismissed without
prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with an
order of the court and because the pro se plaintiff may not
represent a putative class in a class action suit.

In light of this ruling, the remaining pending motions are
dismissed as moot. The case is closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Final Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3pkbppz4 from Leagle.com.


MONTREAL, QC: St-Leonard Homeowners Sue Over Repeated Floodings
---------------------------------------------------------------
ctvnews.ca reports that a group of homeowners in St-Leonard has
filed a class-action lawsuit against their borough and the City of
Montreal, claiming municipal authorities are to blame for repeated
floodings during heavy rain.

When streets in the Montreal borough flooded after rainfall in July
2019, residents on de Belmont Street were once again complaining
about storm sewers backing up and flooding their basements. It's
been a recurring problem going back decades.

A group of homeowners in St-Leonard has filed a class-action
lawsuit against their borough and the City of Montreal, claiming
municipal authorities are to blame for repeated floodings during
heavy rain.

When streets in the Montreal borough flooded after rainfall in July
2019, residents on de Belmont Street were once again complaining
about storm sewers backing up and flooding their basements. It's
been a recurring problem going back decades.

Homeowners say these floods are happening more and more often and
are pointing their fingers at the city for not upgrading their
drainage system as the borough continues to authorize new
developments.

"A storm that is a little bit over and above - bang - you have
water in your basement, water in your garage. You can't live like
that," said plaintiff Frankie La Giorgea.

A group of homeowners in St-Leonard has filed a class-action
lawsuit against their borough and the City of Montreal, claiming
municipal authorities are to blame for repeated floodings during
heavy rain.

When streets in the Montreal borough flooded after rainfall in July
2019, residents on de Belmont Street were once again complaining
about storm sewers backing up and flooding their basements. It's
been a recurring problem going back decades.

Homeowners say these floods are happening more and more often and
are pointing their fingers at the city for not upgrading their
drainage system as the borough continues to authorize new
developments.

"A storm that is a little bit over and above - bang - you have
water in your basement, water in your garage. You can't live like
that," said plaintiff Frankie La Giorgea.

Frustrated St-Leonard residents meet with borough mayor over
recurring floods
Kilometres away from waterfront, St-Leonard residents say flooding
a recurring issue
The alleged victims are now taking St-Leonard and Montreal to
court, through a class-action lawsuit seeking unspecified damages.

"It's happening more often is the issue, it's the recurrence of the
issue," said Charles O'Brien, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.

"Floods are coming every two or three years and I'm worried that if
we don't deal with the infrastructure, it's only gonna get worse."

There have been meetings with the borough council, but it claims
work was done in the past to ease the pressure on its sewers in
case of heavy rain. The homeowners say they're told it's their
problem and not the city's.

"They've asked us to put in more clapets, to fill in our garages so
the water doesn't seep in," said Pat Monaco, another homeowner.

"We're told the problem is theirs. They're told to have to install
backflip preventers, or that they have to condemn their driveways,
they should have better insurance or that it's global warming,"
their lawyer said. "It's never the city taking its responsibility
for the conditions of their infrastructure."

Lawyers for the city argued that the current laws for cities and
towns protects them from such legal actions. They declined our
request for an interview.

The judge heard the arguments from both sides at the courthouse. He
now has to rule whether a case has been made to authorize a
class-action suit.

A decision is expected in the coming months. [GN]

MOTA PIZZA: Denial of SC Mota's Bids for Sanctions Upheld in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SC Mota Associates Limited Partnership, et al.,
Appellants v. Mota Pizza Rustica Corp., Appellee, Case No.
3D22-1495 (Fla. Dist. App.), the District Court of Appeal of
Florida for the Third District affirms in part and reverses in part
the two orders denying the two motions for sanctions filed by
Appellants SC Mota Associates Limited Partnership and Sterling
Retail Services, Inc.

Appellee Mota (the "Tenant") leased commercial space in the Mall of
Americas from SC Mota (the "Landlord"). After the Landlord filed an
eviction action for failure to pay rent, the Tenant filed a
separate putative class action against the Landlord and Sterling
Retail Services. he Tenant primarily alleged that the Landlord
mismanaged the Mall and that the Property Manager was liable under
an alter ego theory.

Relevant in the matter are two motions for sanctions pursuant to
Section 57.105 that the Landlord and Property Manager filed in the
Tenant's class action. First, at the inception of the Tenant's
action, the Property Manager moved for sanctions arguing that the
Tenant's alter ego claim was not supported by the material facts
(the "Alter Ego Sanctions Motion"). Following discovery, the
Landlord and Property Manager filed the second motion for sanctions
at issue in this appeal, which asserted that evidence uncovered
during discovery conclusively showed that the Tenant did not have
standing to bring the class action (the "Standing Sanctions
Motion").

Before ruling on the sanctions motions, the trial court held a
hearing on the Tenant's motion for class certification and
subsequently denied class certification. The Tenant appealed. In
the interlocutory appeal, the Landlord and Property Manager sought
appellate attorney's fees pursuant to the parties' lease agreement
and as a sanction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.410.

The District Court of Appeal per curiam affirmed the trial court's
denial of class certification. It also conditionally granted the
Landlord and Property Manager's motion for appellate attorney's
fees pursuant to the parties' lease agreement, and denied, without
elaboration, the Landlord and Property Manager's motion for
appellate attorney's fees as a sanction.

On remand, the Tenant voluntarily dismissed the class action. The
pending sanctions motions were referred to a magistrate. Despite
the District Court of Appeal's unelaborated denial of sanctions,
the counsel for the Tenant told the magistrate that the District
Court of Appeal specifically addressed each one of the same
arguments counsel is making.

The magistrate issued a detailed, eight-page report and
recommendation on the Alter Ego Sanctions Motion. In its report and
recommendation, the magistrate concluded that the alter ego count
was not so completely devoid of merit on the facts and law. The
magistrate issued a separate report and recommendation denying the
Standing Sanctions Motion, which relied on the District Court of
Appeal's unelaborated denial of sanctions in the interlocutory
class action certification appeal.

The Landlord and Property Manager filed exceptions to the reports
and recommendations. The trial court overruled the exceptions and
ratified the magistrate's denial of sanctions. The Landlord and
Property Manager timely appealed.

Based on the record before it and the magistrate's detailed report
and recommendation on the Alter Ego Sanctions Motion, the District
Court of Appeal concludes that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in ratifying the magistrate's denial of that motion. It
therefore affirms the order ratifying the report and recommendation
on the Alter Ego Sanctions Motion without further discussion.

With respect to the denial of the Standing Sanctions Motion, the
Landlord and Property Manager argue that the magistrate erred in
relying on the law of the case doctrine when she denied sanctions
based on the District Court of Appeal's unelaborated denial of
sanctions in the interlocutory appeal of the class certification
order.

The District Court of Appeal holds that its unelaborated denial of
sanctions in an interlocutory appeal did not decide one way or the
other the merits of the Standing Sanctions Motion pending before
the trial court. Despite the Tenant's representations to the
contrary, the District Court of Appeal did not specifically address
any of the arguments raised by the Landlord or the Property Manager
in the per curiam affirmance or in the unelaborated order denying
sanctions. Consequently, the law of the case doctrine is
inapplicable. The District Court of Appeal therefore reverses the
order denying the Standing Sanctions Motion and remands for the
trial court to rule on the merits of the Motion.

The Opinion is not final until disposition of timely filed motion
for rehearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/39mde52d from Leagle.com.

Slusher & Rosenblum, P.A., and Jeremy E. Slusher, and Jonathan S.
Glickman (West Palm Beach), for the Appellants.

Ayala Law, P.A., and Eduardo A. Maura -- eayala@ayalalawpa.com --
for the Appellee.


MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 23
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARK, et al., v.
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00501 (D. Oreg.), Hon.
Judge Ann L. Aiken entered a class certification order:

  -- Discovery & PTO Deadlines Motion             Sept. 23, 2023
     for class certification is due by:

  -- Amended pleadings are due 45 days following the Court's order
     On plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

  -- Fact discovery material to individual claims is to be
completed
     120 days following the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion for

     class certification.

  -- Dispositive motions are due 45 days following the close of
fact
     discovery material to individual claims. ADR report is due 60

     days following the Court's ruling on any dispositive motions.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Prison Condition.[CC]

NAT'L ASSOC. OF REALTORS: Suit Over Conspiracy Can Be Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella at Reuters reports that a federal judge in Chicago
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.

U.S. 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.

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
(RMAX.N), Long & Foster Inc and other corporate defendants as
opposed to filing individual claims for monetary damages.

The judge's order was not a ruling on the merits of the
allegations, which can still be contested at a later stage. The
defendants have denied the conspiracy allegations.

In a statement, The National Association of Realtors said it was
"disappointed" in the decision and defended industry listing
practices.

The lawsuit challenges a requirement that sellers make "blanket
unilateral offers of compensation" to buyers' brokers when a home
goes on sale via a multiple listing service. That system puts
pressure on sellers to offer high commissions to attract buyers'
brokers, the sellers claimed.

NAR spokesperson Mantill Williams said this practice "saves sellers
time and money by having so many buyer brokers participating in
that local marketplace and thus creates a larger pool of buyers for
sellers."

A RE/MAX spokesperson said the company did not comment on pending
litigation. Long & Foster declined to comment.

The class seeking money damages includes certain home sellers who
paid a commission between March 2015 and December 2020 in states
including Texas, Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
North Carolina and Colorado, court filings show.

The case is Moehrl et al v. The National Association of Realtors et
al, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No.
1:19-cv-01610.[GN]

NATIONAL BANK: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Kalloghlian Myers LLP, a Toronto-based law firm that specializes in
class actions, civil litigation, and investor protection, filed the
lawsuit against National Bank Investments Inc.

The class in this case includes anyone who has bought units of
National Bank mutual funds with the help of an investment advisor.
If you bought one or more of these units before June 2022, the law
firm advises you to contact them to figure out your options.

                     The Allegations

Kalloghlian Myers LLP shared the allegations against National Bank,
which include "breach[ing] its trust obligations to investors by
wrongfully paying commissions from its mutual funds to benefit
itself."

The suit further claims that these mutual fund commissions were
"inappropriately paid to discount brokerages for providing advice
to purchasers, even though those brokerages were not authorized to
provide advice," adding that the commissions were instead
"improperly used as incentives to encourage discount brokerages to
sell National Bank mutual funds, violating National Bank's trust
obligations to investors."

It also alleges that these improper payments caused all mutual
investors to experience investment losses.

Garth Myers, one of the lawyers involved in the case, warned
Canadians who are saving for their retirement to ensure their bank
is looking out for them, instead of the other way around.

"We allege National Bank's conduct over many years hurt the
retirement savings of thousands of Canadians," Myers said. "We are
doing what we can to seek justice and compensation."

If you fall into the defined class category, email the law firm
here or call (647) 243-7381. [GN]

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Hubbard Suit Over Antitrust Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHUBA HUBBARD and KEIRA MCCARRELL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION; ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE; THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE,
INC.; THE BIG 12 CONFERENCE, INC.; PAC-12 CONFERENCE; and
SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE, Case No. 5:23-CV-01593 (N.D. Cal., April
4, 2023) alleges that as a result of the Defendants'
anticompetitive agreements, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated current and former college athletes did not receive the
Academic Achievement Awards that they would have received in a
competitive market and are therefore entitled to treble damages for
these antitrust injuries.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants are required to
compensate them and the Class they seek to represent for
Defendants' unlawful actions.

The Plaintiffs, and the members of the Class who they seek to
represent, were not members of the Grant-in-Aid Cap damages
settlement classes, which the N.D. Cal. Court approved in March
2017. Instead, they are current and former Division I college
athletes whose damages claims were not litigated in the
Grant-in-Aid Cap case, but who were damaged by the anticompetitive
restrictions on Academic Achievement Awards.

While the Grant-in-Aid Cap injunction was of great significance, it
did not rectify the damages suffered by thousands of Division I
athletes who went to schools that have since decided to offer
Academic Achievement Awards following changes to NCAA bylaws that
unlawfully prohibited them. In a competitive market, Plaintiffs and
the Class members they seek to represent would have received up to
$5,980 per year in Academic Achievement Awards. The Plaintiffs aim
to recover damages for those injuries here, says the suit.

The Defendants' agreements to price-fix players' compensation to
exclude Academic Achievement Awards violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1. Alston established that these
agreements were antitrust violations as a matter of law. The
Plaintiffs here may invoke established principles of collateral
estoppel such that only the amount of damages inflicted upon
Plaintiffs and the Class by Defendants' antitrust violation needs
to be further adjudicated. Specifically, because each Defendant in
this case had the full and fair opportunity to litigate the Section
1 liability issues in Grant-in-Aid Cap, including whether
Defendants' rules prohibiting Academic Achievement Awards caused
anticompetitive effects, whether there were procompetitive
justifications for their anticompetitive agreements, and whether
there were less restrictive alternatives, the doctrine of
collateral estoppel precludes Defendants from relitigating those
issues again here.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletics among about 1,100
schools in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: bens@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Emilee N. Sisco, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Verdoia, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  emilees@hbsslaw.com
                  stephaniev@hbsslaw.com

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Sweeney Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ryan Sweeney, et al., v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-01569-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order allowing them until April 27, 2023 to file their
Reply in support of their Motion for Class Certification.

On January 31, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification. The Defendants responded to Plaintiffs' class
certification motion on March 23, 2023, and Plaintiffs' Reply is
currently due on April 6, 2023.

The requested extension is less than the 30-day extension that was
previously granted to Defendants in connection with their class
certification opposition and will not prejudice any deadlines in
the Court's Scheduling Order. The Plaintiffs have met and conferred
with
Defendants regarding the requested extension and have been advised
that Defendants consent to the extension.

Nationwide is a group of large U.S. insurance and financial
services companies based in Columbus, Ohio.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GlcuNC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Eleanor Frisch, Esq.
          Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
          Daniel R. Sutter, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          400 South Fourth Street No. 401-27
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 807-1575
          E-mail: krichter@cohenmilstein.com
                  efrisch@cohenmilstein.com
                  myau@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsutter@cohenmilstein.com

                - and -

          Eric H. Zagrans, Esq.
          ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC
          1640 Roundwyck Lane
          Columbus, OH 43065-8416
          Telephone: (440) 452-7100
          E-mail: eric@zagrans.com

NEW JERSEY STATE: Galicki Seeks Reconsideration of March 13 Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY GALICKI, et al.,
v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00169-JXN-JSA
(D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
reconsideration of the March 13, 2023 Order denying plaintiffs'
motion for class certification pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)
and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UfVkXJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barry D. Epstein, Esq.
          Michael J. Epstein, Esq.
          THE EPSTEIN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          340 West Passaic Street
          Rochelle Park, NJ 07662
          Telephone: (201) 845-5962
          E-mail: bdepstein@theepsteinlawfirm.com
                  mjepstein@theepsteinlawfirm.com

NEXO CAPITAL: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Jeong Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUNHAN JEONG, Plaintiff v. NEXO CAPITAL INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-02392-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson
Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, grants Nexo's Motion to Dismiss
And/Or Strike Class Allegations Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), 12(f), and 23(d).

The lawsuit is a breach of contract and consumer protection case
regarding Nexo's Crypto Credit service, which allows users to
borrow cash by pledging cryptocurrency as collateral. Jeong alleges
that Nexo sold cryptoassets that he and others had staked Nexo in
violation of Nexo's Borrow Terms & Conditions. He also alleges that
Nexo engaged in deceptive advertising. Jeong seeks to bring his
claims on behalf of himself and three classes.

Nexo operates a website through which users can access Nexo's
"Crypto Credit" service. Using the Crypto Credit service, users can
stake any of a variety of cryptoassets as collateral for cash
loans. To use the Crypto Credit service a user must agree to Nexo's
Borrow Terms & Conditions. The Borrow Terms are non-negotiable.
Under the Borrow Terms, a user can borrow as much as they want so
long as they stake enough collateral to maintain a particular
loan-to-value ("LTV") ratio.

On Dec. 22, 2020, the SEC announced an action against Ripple Labs
Inc. -- the issuer of a cryptocurrency called XRP -- and two of its
executives, alleging that XRP constituted an unregistered
securities offering. In response to the news, over the course of a
few hours on Dec. 23, 2020, the price of XRP dropped from $0.45 to
$0.21. Nexo, seeing the price drop, suspended users' ability to use
XRP as collateral or to pay down loans. The Suspension remains in
place today. Nexo provided no notice of the Suspension to users.

As a result of the Suspension, users with loans based on XRP
collateral were "effectively locked out" of maintaining their LTV
ratios, since they could neither use their XRP to pay down their
loans nor sell their XRP on the open market, since this would
require withdrawing XRP collateral and further raising the LTV
ratio. Meanwhile, within hours of the Suspension, Nexo proceeded to
sell "massive quantities" of XRP held as customer collateral,
including U.S.-based customers and customers outside the U.S.

At the time of the Suspension, Jeong had staked collateral of
598,384.6188 XRP -- approximately $269,300 -- for a loan of
$169,400 from Nexo. As a result of Nexo's conduct around Dec. 20,
2020, Jeong lost his entire XRP collateral, in addition to the
following digital assets that he liquidated in an unsuccessful
attempt to pay down his loans as his LTV value rose: 47,190.47043
Lumen (approximately $6,000); 0.009255 Bitcoin (approximately
$215); 6.1674 Ether (approximately $3,600); and 168.18851 Link
(approximately $1,800). See id. ¶ 139. Jeong was assessed an
undisclosed 1.26% fee for each liquidation, costing him
approximately $1,607.01.

Jeong alleges that Nexo breached the Borrow Terms through the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it stopped
allowing users to pay down their loans with XRP and failed to
provide notice to users of the suspension of XRP payments. He also
alleges that Nexo engaged in false and misleading advertising in
violation of the UCL in three ways, including that Nexo has
advertised to consumers that it does not own users' collateral
while acting otherwise -- invoking its ownership right over users'
collateral to justify liquidation of that collateral. Finally, he
alleges that Nexo has engaged in unlawful or unfair business
practices under the UCL. In addition, Jeong alleges that Nexo
violated the unlawful prong of the UCL by offering loans in
California despite lacking a California Finance Lender ("CFL")
License.

Jeong brings his action on behalf of the following three classes:

    * Damages class: All persons who reside in the United States
who suffered damages from breach of contract arising from Nexo's
suspension of XRP payments on December 23, 2020, and thereafter.

    * Equitable-Relief Class: All persons who reside in the United
States and who maintain accounts or wallets with Nexo.

    * California UCL Class: All persons who reside in California
and who, as a result of Nexo's violations of the UCL as set forth
in this Amended Complaint, suffered losses from their use of Nexo's
Crypto Credit service.

Before the Court is Nexo's Motion to Dismiss And/Or Strike Class
Allegations Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
12(f), and 23(d). Nexo asks the Court to strike or dismiss Jeong's
class allegations for two independent reasons: (1) Jeong's
agreement with Nexo bars him from bringing a class action and (2)
Jeong's counsel cannot adequately represent a class. In the
alternative, Nexo asks the Court to strike Jeong's class
allegations against putative class members who do not live in
California because they are not subject to California law. Jeong
opposes Nexo's motion.

Jeong responds to each of Nexo's arguments. He argues that the
class action waiver in the Borrow Terms does not bar him from
bringing a class action because it is unenforceable. According to
him, the class action waiver is unenforceable for two independent
reasons: it is unconscionable, and it purports to waive public
injunctive relief. Jeong argues that Nexo's argument that Jeong's
counsel is inadequate is premature and baseless. Finally, he argues
that Nexo's alternative argument regarding non-California class
allegations is premature and wrong.

The Court heard oral argument on Nexo's motion on Feb. 23, 2023.

Judge Freeman agrees with Nexo that Jeong waived his right to bring
a class action when he agreed to the Borrow Terms. She, therefore,
does not reach Nexo's two other challenges.

Judge Freeman finds that Jeong has not demonstrated that the Borrow
Terms' class action waiver is unconscionable because he has not
shown that the waiver is found in a setting in which disputes will
predictably involve small amounts of damages. She therefore
proceeds to Jeong's argument that the waiver is unenforceable
because it precludes him from seeking public injunctive relief.

Judge Freeman agrees with Jeong that the Borrow Terms preclude
Jeong from seeking public injunctive relief. She finds, however,
that the provision precluding public injunctive relief is severable
under the Borrow Terms' severability clause. Accordingly, she finds
that the class action waiver remains intact and enforceable.

Finally, Judge Freeman finds that the Court's severance of the
sentence stating that "any relief awarded cannot affect other
Clients of Nexo" cures the McGill violation and allows Jeong to
pursue claims for public injunctive relief as pled in his UCL claim
in his individual capacity while upholding the valid class action
waiver. Nexo's separate argument regarding adequacy of the class
counsel is moot under this ruling. However, Judge Vazquez notes
that the argument is premature and would have been deferred to
consideration at the time of class certification.

For the foregoing reasons, Nexo's motion to strike class
allegations is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4mydpjet from Leagle.com.


NORTH COAST: Bryant, et al., Seek to Certify FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TENITA BRYANT, THEODORE
MCQUEEN, MARCUS MOORE, ANGELO MCKENZIE and LARRY GARDNER, JR.
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NORTH COAST NATURAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, NORTH COAST 5 NATURAL SOLUTIONS
CORPORATION, LEVEL 5 GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and
TIERNEY WILLIAMS aka Ty Williams, Case No. 1:19-cv-01075-CAB (N.D.
Ohio), the Plaintiffs file a motion to certify a Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action consisting of Defendants'
hourly employees:

  -- FLSA Salaried Class

     "All current and former employees of Defendants who were
     classified as salaried employees for the Collinwood Hemp
Venture
     Employers as executive-level employees in Ohio in any workweek
in
     the past three years (“FLSA Salaried Class”).

  -- FLSA Hourly Class

     "All current and former employees of Defendants who were
     classified as hourly employees for the Collinwood Hemp Venture

     Employers as manufacturing workers (or an equivalent position)
in
     Ohio in any workweek in the past three years"

On September 14, 2021, N.D. Ohio Court conditionally certified the
FLSA Salaried Class and FLSA hourly Class. Subsequently, plaintiffs
filed 63 Plaintiff Consent forms for putative FLSA hourly class
members. No FLSA Salaried Class members responded to the notice.

The Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are "similarly situated"
under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and class certification is
appropriate. The Defendants have not opposed the class
certification and have not filed a Motion to Decertify the class.

This is a wage and hour lawsuit brought on behalf of former
employees of Defendants. The workers are seeking unpaid minimum
wages and related damages. In this case, there is not much dispute
as to what happened. Defendants hired the members of the FLSA
hourly class, for the same position, at the same rate of pay, who
started working on April 1, 2019, and never paid them.

The proposed Collective consists of all hourly workers who worked
for Defendants from January 1, 2019, to present and were not paid
minimum wage.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nMljtw at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Claire I. Wade, Esq.
          Sean H. Sobel, Esq.
          SOBEL, WADE & MAPLEY, LLC
          55 Erieview Plaza, Suite 370
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 223-7213
          Facsimile: (216) 223-7213
          E-mail: wade@swmlawfirm.com
                  sobel@swmlawfirm.com

OHIO REPRODUCTIVE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Kamppi Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNSIE KAMPPI v. OHIO REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, LLC and BOSTON IVF,
INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01164-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 3, 2023) is
a class action suit alleging that the Defendants' failed to pay the
Plaintiff overtime wages as well as failure to comply with all
other requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

As fully alleged, the Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated
the FLSA and the Ohio Acts by failing to pay Plaintiff for all
compensable hours each day worked, including, upon information and
belief, by failing to pay Plaintiff all overtime compensation due
to short rest periods of 20 minutes or less in duration.

In addition, the Defendants violated the FLSA and Ohio Acts by
deducting time and/or not compensating at all for a "meal period"
in the amount of at least thirty (30) minutes each day even though
the "meal period" was regularly missed, shortened, and/or
interrupted by job duties at the Defendants' direction and for
Defendants' benefit, says the suit.

Ohio Reproductive Medicine is a medical group practice located in
Columbus, Ohio that specializes in Reproductive Endocrinology &
Infertility.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 704-0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

OKTA INC: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE OKTA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
22-cv-02990-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California grants in
part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

The securities fraud case is brought by Lead Plaintiff Nebraska
Investment Council, on behalf of itself and a putative class of
those who purchased the publicly traded Class A common stock of
Okta during the period from Sept. 1, 2021, through Sept. 1, 2022,
inclusive. The action arises from two main events and their
aftermath: Okta's acquisition of Auth0, Inc. in May 2021, and a
data security incident that occurred in January 2022 but that was
not disclosed until late March 2022.

Okta is a data security company that provides identity and access
management software that helps companies secure user authentication
into applications, and for developers to build identity controls
into applications, website web services, and devices. Okta
primarily markets the Okta Identity Cloud as a one-stop solution
that provides data security for an organization's workforce. It is
a 'growth company,' i.e., a company that prioritizes growth over
profits.

The complaint alleges that Okta has yet to report any net income
since its initial public offering in 2017. Also named as Individual
Defendants are Okta's CEO and Co-Founder Todd McKinnon; current CFO
Brett Tighe; and current Executive Vice Chairman, COO, and
Co-Founder Frederic Kerrest.

The Lead Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made numerous false
and misleading statements and omissions in filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"); in press releases and
in interviews with the media; at technology conferences; and during
quarterly investor calls throughout the Class Period.

On May 20, 2022, Plaintiff City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police
Officers' Retirement Trust filed suit against Okta and five
Individual Defendants regarding the January 2022 data security
incident. On Aug. 26, 2022, the Court appointed Nebraska Investment
Council as the Lead Plaintiff. On Oct. 13, 2022, the Lead Plaintiff
filed an amended class action complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, adding allegations regarding the Auth0 integration.

Alleging that the Defendants committed fraud by making materially
false statements and omissions throughout the Class Period, the
Lead Plaintiff brings the securities fraud claim pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5(b) promulgated thereunder by the SEC.

The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint, asserting that Okta
consistently warned investors of the challenges it faced with the
acquisition of Auth0 and the integration of its sales team. They
also argue that the Lead Plaintiff misapprehends the January 2022
security incident, and that hackers were unsuccessful in actually
breaching Okta's or its customers' systems, and that Okta promptly
reported everything it knew about the intrusion. The Defendants
contend, inter alia, that none of the statements challenged were
false or misleading when made, that the Lead Plaintiff has not pled
fraud with particularity, and that many of the challenged
statements are inactionable puffery, forward-looking, or opinions.
They further argue that the Lead Plaintiff fails to plead that the
Individual Defendants acted with the requisite scienter.

On Exchange Act claims, Judge Illston discusses only the disputed
elements of Section 10(b): material misrepresentation or omission,
and scienter.

First, the Lead Plaintiff challenges as false or misleading roughly
15 statements regarding the Auth0 integration. Judge Illston
concludes that these allegations fail to point to a violation of
the PSLRA because they suffer from a lack of specificity,
particularly with regard to timing, or else they do not give rise
to a strong inference of scienter.

Judge Illston grants without prejudice the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, with regard to statements made in September and early
December 2021 regarding employee attrition and the Auth0
integration. Finding that the statements the Individual Defendants
made on the March 2 and June 2, 2022 earnings calls to be
actionable under the facts alleged in the complaint, she denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss claims based on these statements.

Moreover, Judge Illston holds that without more specifics, she
cannot find that the complaint pleads with particularity that the
risk disclosure statements regarding possible employee attrition
affirmatively created an impression of a state of affairs that
differed in a material way from the one that actually exisd.
Lastly, she grants the motion to dismiss claims regarding employee
attrition as contained in the March and June 2022 risk disclosures,
with leave to amend these allegations.

Second, with regard to Okta's data security and the January 2022
incident, the complaint identifies five statements as false or
misleading. Judge Illston finds these allegations fail to plausibly
allege either falsity or scienter and so do not give rise to a
claim under the PSLRA as currently stated in the complaint.

Judge Illston says (i) the statements the Lead Plaintiff highlights
regarding Okta's "commitment" to data security are not actionable;
(ii) without more information she cannot find the complaint
sufficiently alleges the statement McKinnon made on Sept. 15, 2021,
was false or misleading when made; (iii) the complaint lacks
specific allegations regarding when the Individual Defendants
learned of the security incident, nor does the incident on its face
come close to the scale of the security concerns; and (iv) the
complaint as it stands fails to show that the statements McKinnon
made on June 8, 2022, were materially false or misleading when
made.

Third, where she has found that the Plaintiff has sufficiently
stated a Section 10(b) claim (i.e., with regard to the March 2 and
June 2, 2022 earnings call statements regarding the progress of the
integration), Judge Illston also finds that the Plaintiff has
stated a claim under Section 20(a). For the remainder of the
claims, where she has found no Section 10(b) violation is
sufficiently alleged, Judge Illston likewise finds the Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim under Section 20(a).

Finally, along with their motion and reply briefs, the Defendants
also filed a request for judicial notice. At this time, Judge
Illston declines to rule on the Defendants' request for judicial
notice, as she did not rely on any of these documents in resolving
the present motion.

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, Judge Illston
grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, with leave to amend. She grants the motion, except that
she denies the motion as to omissions the Individual Defendants
made regarding the Auth0 integration on the March 2 and June 2,
2022 earnings calls.

The second amended complaint will be due no later than April 28,
2023.

When amending the complaint, the Lead Plaintiff will also attach a
chart that lays out, concisely and with particularity, including
paragraph citations to the second amended complaint: which
statements the Lead Plaintiff alleges were materially false or
misleading; who made the statements; when the statements were made;
and the facts (including dates) that the Lead Plaintiff alleges
render the statement false or misleading.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/a25msnjp from Leagle.com.


PEOPLECONNECT INC: Filing of Amended Class Cert Bid Due June 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Callahan, et al., v.
PeopleConnect Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-09203 (N.D. Cal.),
Hon. Judge Edward M Chen entered an order class certification
schedule:

  -- Defendant's answer to second amended         April 13, 2023
     complaint to be filed by:

  -- Deadline to complete class-related           June 1, 2023
     discovery of Plaintiffs is:

  -- The Plaintiffs' amended motion for           June 8, 2023
     class certification to be filed by:

  -- The Defendant's opposition to the            July 5, 2023
     Plaintiffs' amended motion for class
     certification to be filed by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of          July 20, 2023
     amended motion for class certification
     to be filed by:

  -- The hearing on the motion for class          Aug. 3, 2023
     certification will be held on:

The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory
Actions.

Peopleconnect provides online social network services.[CC]

PRODUCERS SERVICE: Jones Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff KEITH JONES filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled JESUS CASAREZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRODUCERS SERVICE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-1086, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.

The lawsuit seeks actual damages in the amount of unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and all other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Edmund A. Sargus
entered an Order on November 14, 2019:

  1. granting in part and holding in abeyance in part Plaintiff's
     Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Belo Contract;

  2. denying as moot Plaintiff's Contingent Motion for Partial
     Summary Judgment; and

  3. denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

On Feb. 23, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Motion to substitute
Keith Jones as Named Plaintiff.

Mr. Jones seeks a review of the order entered by Judge Sargus.

The appellate case is captioned as Keith Jones v. Producers Service
Corporation, Case No. 23-3247, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on March 27, 2023.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant KEITH JONES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Danielle M. Crane, Esq.
          65 E. State Street, Suite 1800
          Columbus, OH 42315
          Telephone: (614) 462-5400

Defendant-Appellee PRODUCERS SERVICE CORPORATION is represented
by:

          Jason Hayes Beehler, Esq.
          TAFT LAW
          65 E. State Street, Suite 1000
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4000

RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Weiss Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
YEHUDA WEISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 509786/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., March 30,
2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of a
class of New York consumers, under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act seeking damages and declaratory relief.

Some time prior to February 5, 2023, Plaintiff allegedly incurred
an obligation to non-party creditor T-Mobile USA. Upon information
and belief, T-Mobile assigned the account to RPM to collect the
alleged debt.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated FDCPA by falsely
representing the character, amount, or legal status of the debt and
using a false representation or deceptive means to collect or
attempt to collect a debt. By reason thereof, Defendant is liable
to the Plaintiff for judgment that the Defendant's conduct violated
Section 1692e et seq. of the FDCPA, and that the Plaintiff is
entitled to actual damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys'
fees, asserts the complaint.

Receivables Performance Management, LLC is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ROADRUNNER FREIGHT: Padilla Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROADRUNNER FREIGHT, ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2300198 (Filed
Jan. 13, 2023), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Riverside, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on April 3, 2023.

The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:23-cv-00583 to the proceedings.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff purports to sue on his own behalf
and on behalf of all "persons who have been employed by the
Defendants as Non-Exempt Employees or equivalent positions, however
titled, in the state of California within the four years from the
filing of the Complaint in this action until its resolution. "

On behalf of himself and the proposed class, the Plaintiff alleges
the following claims for relief, styled causes of action, against
Roadrunner: failure to pay wages including overtime; failure to
provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to
pay timely wages; failure to provide accurate wage statements; and
failure to indemnify business expenses in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Roadrunner is a freight transportation arrangement company.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq.
          Kathy M. Huynh, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
          1999 Harrison St., Suite 700
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 768-0650
          Facsimile: (510) 768-0651
          E-mail: Tyler.Paetkau@huschblackwell.com
                  Kathy.Huynh@huschblackwell.com

ROCKET MORTGAGE: Gilburd Seeks to Conditionally Certify Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rachael Gilburd, an
Arizona Resident; Andrew Gebhart, an Arizona Resident; Daniel
Featherstone, an Arizona Resident; Derek Martin, an Arizona
Resident; Angela McGuire, an Arizona Resident; Kori Morin, an
Arizona Resident, Katherine Redas, an Arizona Resident, Erin
Salava, an Arizona Resident; David Vallejo, a Michigan Resident;
and Nick Vincent, an Arizona Resident, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, a
Michigan limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00010-DLR (D.
Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   (1) Conditionally certify this case as a collective action with

       respect to the class definition;

   (2) Authorize the Opt-In procedure outlined above; and

   (3) For any such other relief as this Court deems just and
proper.

The Plaintiffs seek to conditionally certify a nationwide
collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) consisting of:

    "All persons nationwide who worked for Defendant Rocket
Mortgage,
    LLC; who work[ed] over 40 hours in any given workweek as a past
or
    present mortgage banker or similar job title; and who were not

    paid overtime at the correct overtime rate of pay for all hours

    worked over 40 in a given workweek are known as the Collective

    Members."

Through this lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime
wages for themselves and the Collective Members, requiring the
proper payment of overtime wages to employees, under the collective
action mechanism of the FLSA.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/419Bakl at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Weiler, Esq.
          WEILER LAW PLLC
          5050 N. 40th St., Suite 260
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (480) 442-3410
          Facsimile: (480) 442-3410
          E-mail: jweiler@weilerlaw.com


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Medical Monitoring Part of Suit Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
insurancejournal.com reports that in a case involving a class
action brought by New Hampshire citizens against a Merrimack
plastics plant over its release of toxic chemicals into the air and
groundwater, the state's high court has found that medical
monitoring is neither a cause for an action nor a remedy in such a
case.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the "mere existence of
an increased risk of future development of disease is not
sufficient under New Hampshire law to constitute a legal injury for
purposes of stating a claim for the costs of medical monitoring as
a remedy or as a cause of action in the context of plaintiffs who
were exposed to a toxic substance but have no present physical
injury."

The state court ruling will have an effect on the certification of
the class in an action against the chemical firm, Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics Corp. The U.S. District Court for New
Hampshire asked the state's high court to answer whether New
Hampshire recognizes medical monitoring as a remedy or as a cause
of action in the context of plaintiffs who were exposed to a toxic
substance. That federal court has before it a class action
complaint filed in 2016 against Saint-Gobain over its use of
chemicals containing polytetrafluorethylane (PTFE) and
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in its manufacturing processes at its
Merrimack plant.

U.S. District Justice Joseph N. LaPlante has indicated that while
the state's medical monitoring stance will determine whether a
medical monitoring claim or remedy will proceed in the case and, if
so, whether a medical monitoring class can potentially be
certified, it will not impact the litigation with respect to other
issues that were not certified to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

The state court cited past court rulings and the lack of agreement
among state lawmakers on the issue in answering the question in the
negative. In 2020, the legislature passed a bill that would have
established a statutory cause of action for medical monitoring for
toxic substances without proof of present physical injury or
symptoms. However, the governor vetoed the bill and the legislature
did not override the veto.

According to the plaintiffs, while they have no already-diagnosed
physical injury, the increased risk of illness or disease and the
inherent latency of visible harm caused by toxins creates the
present medical need for medical testing and this constitutes legal
detriment and injury. They asserted that because "the foundation of
New Hampshire tort law is one's right to recover for another's
invasion of a legally protected interest," proof of present
physical injury is not required.

Saint-Gobain countered that New Hampshire law requires present
physical injury in order to recover under traditional negligence
claims. The company noted that the New Hampshire court has never
affirmed liability under a negligence claim except upon proof of a
physical injury.

The court agreed with Saint-Gobain. According to the ruling, the
"present medical necessity" for "diagnostic testing" is based on
the plaintiffs' allegation that they are at an "increased risk"
that in the future they might possibly develop an illness or
disease caused by exposure to PFOA. However, "an increased risk of
harm is not an injury for purposes of a negligence action," the
court concluded.

The plaintiffs brought tort claims under New Hampshire law,
including negligence, nuisance, trespass, and negligent failure to
warn. They seek damages in the form of the costs of medical
monitoring, or in the alternative, injunctive relief to fund a
medical monitoring program.

The plaintiffs and other members of the class claim they have
suffered annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort and loss of use and
enjoyment of the properties which they own and that the releases
from chemical plant have caused a diminution in value of their
properties and affected the marketability of those properties,
which will continue into the future.

In support of their position, the plaintiffs cited decisions from
other jurisdictions. However, the court said its own "well-
established precedents control" the resolution of this issue. The
court further explained, citing from a prior opinion:

If twenty persons were endangered by an act having the possibility
of injury, it would be absurd to say that rights of action accrued
to all of them at the moment the defendant's act was completed,
such rights of action to evaporate when it turned out that the harm
was averted for some reason or other. Only if and when harm came to
any one of the twenty, would a right of action accrue . . . . There
is an actionable breach of the duty only when the injury happens.

The complaint alleges that Saint-Gobain had knowledge of the
emissions of these chemicals at its plants in New York and Vermont
and their potential for contamination of water wells and adverse
health effects, yet failed to test the wells near the Merrimack
plant and to warn the citizens that the wells and groundwater at or
near the plant were likely contaminated.

Beginning in April 2016, the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services recommended that some residents of
Litchfield, Manchester and Merrimack use bottled water and advised
the residents not to drink or cook with water from the wells.
Shortly after this, Saint-Gobain began providing bottled water to
citizens.

The case attracted amicus briefs for the plaintiffs from
conservation, civil justice and environmental groups including the
Conservation Law Foundation, New Hampshire Safe Water Alliance, New
Hampshire Science and Public Health and the New Hampshire
Association for Justice, as well as briefs in support of
Saint-Gobain from lawyers representing pharmaceutical, chemical,
tort reform and insurance interests including the New Hampshire
Association of Domestic Insurance Companies, American Property
Casualty Insurance Association, Washington Legal Foundation,
American Chemistry Council, and Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America.[GN]

SEQUEL YOUTH: Abused Children Can File Lawsuit to Get Help
----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Miller at topclassactions.com reports that Sequel Youth and
Family Services promised to take in and help troubled kids across
the United States. The owners turned the service into a for-profit
behemoth with 25 centers in 16 states and outpatient centers in
others. At one point the company was valued at $400 million. As
reported by American Public Media, the company sought to dominate
the country's behavioral health care industry, valued at more than
$2 billion.

Then the reports of abuse came -- sexual abuse, physical abuse and
emotional abuse. Even death. As one example, Cornelius Frederick, a
16-year-old boy, threw some food in the cafeteria. He was then
forced to the ground and restrained by staffers for 12 minutes,
during which time Frederick stopped breathing. Another 12 minutes
passed before anyone called 911. The medical examiner ruled his
death homicide by asphyxiation.

Sequel, headquartered in Huntsville, Alabama, eventually shut down
some of the treatment centers where abuse surfaced and sold its
company. According to APM, "most of the former Sequel treatment
centers that remain open are now controlled by Vivant Behavioral
Healthcare, which was founded in 2021 by Jay Ripley, one of three
people who founded Sequel in 1999."

                        Do You Qualify?

Were you or a loved one held at a Sequel, Vivant or Brighter
Heights facility, where you or your loved one suffered death,
sexual abuse or physical abuse? If so, you may be eligible to join
a lawsuit investigation to hold the company and its leaders
accountable.

                    Feces on the Floor

In addition to the death of Cornelius Frederick, caught on
surveillance cameras in the cafeteria, many other reports have
surfaced involving Sequel facilities.

NBC news talked to an investigations supervisor who told the news
organization "I recall walking in (to a certain room) and the
stench was overwhelming. There were feces on the floor, stuck
inside the door frame, stuck around the window," Christy Johnson
told NBC.

Other children, according to the report, described physical abuse
by staff and the denial of medical care. For example, a 14-year-old
boy said staff members had shoved him headfirst into a wall,
leaving a gash just beneath his hairline that was not treated. NBC
reviewed more than 10,000 pages of records that demonstrated how
Sequel leveraged hundreds of millions of dollars in government
funding and tens of millions more from private equity firms to
expand its enterprise. It convinced state officials to send more
children to their facilities despite government inspections that
flagged violations in at least nine states.

              Self-harm as a Means to Escape

NBC also talked to sources who once lived in the facilities. One
girl, who was depressed and had thoughts of suicide after her
mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer, said she regularly
witnessed staff putting girls into restraints to the point where
they struggled to breathe. She said she and other girls tried to
harm themselves so they would be removed from the facility. Another
source said he was put into solitary confinement for 72 hours with
no access to a toilet.

                        Sexual Abuse

The Des Moines Register reported extensively on sexual abuses at
Sequel's Iowa facility. The newspaper reported that the facility
hired a convicted felon who sexually assaulted a 17-year-old
student at the facility. The teen who filed the lawsuit had been
sexually assaulted twice before a Texas judge sent her to the
Sequel facility. Before that happened, the girl's mother asked if
men would be working in the home's dorm. The mother was incorrectly
advised that only women would be working in the girls' dorm.

According to the newspaper, a watchdog report "found police have
been called more than 30 times to the residential facility for
teens in the past five years. Police reports showed the academy has
been the subject of several serious allegations -- assaults and
fights, as well as allegations of forcible sodomy and rape by staff
members. Some resulted in criminal charges; others did not."

Join a Sequel/Vivant/Brighter Heights lawsuit investigation
If you or a loved one were stayed at a Sequel, Vivant or Brighter
Heights facility seeking treatment, but instead were met with abuse
of any kind, you may be eligible to join a  lawsuit investigation
to hold the company and its leaders accountable.[GN]

SIMONE MARSTILLER: Meza, et al., Win Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLANCA MEZA, by and
through her Guardian, Aide Hernandez, DESTINY BELANGER, by and
through her Guardian, Julie Belanger, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, and DISABILITY RIGHTS FLORIDA, INC.,
v. SIMONE MARSTILLER, in her official Capacity as Secretary for the
FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Case No.
3:22-cv-783-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla.), Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard
entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   2. certifying the following Class with respect to Counts I, II,
      and III of the Complaint:

      "All Florida Medicaid recipients whose prescription for
      incontinence supplies has been or will be denied Medicaid
      coverage based on Defendant’s exclusion of those supplies
for
      recipients aged 21 and older.

   3. designating the Plaintiffs Blanca Meza, by and through her
      guardian, Aide Hernandez and Destiny Belanger, by and through

      her Guardian, Julie Belanger as Class Representatives; and

   4. appointing th Plaintiff'’ Counsel, Katy DeBriere, Alison
      DeBelder, and Lewis Golinker as Class Counsel.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2), and as such, the Motion is due to be
granted.

The Plaintiff Blanca Meza is twenty-two years old and diagnosed
with "spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, muscle spasticity,
neuromuscular scoliosis, and partial epilepsy."

Meza has lived her entire life at home with her family, where her
mother, Aide Hernandez, acts as her "24-7 care provider. "

The Plaintiff Destiny Belanger is also twentytwo years old and is
diagnosed with "encephalopathy, acquired brain injury,
non-intractable epilepsy, intellectual disability, and expressive
language disorder."

A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KMaaCd at no extra charge.[CC]

SIRIUS XM: Potts Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff JESSICA POTTS filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order and Judgment dated March 7, 2023, entered in the lawsuit
entitled JESSICA POTTS, an individual, on behalf of herself, the
State of California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIRIUS XM RADIO
INC., a Delaware Corporation; PANDORA MEDIA, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-09755-DMG-KS, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The suit was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on December 17, 2021.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to indemnify all necessary business
expenditures, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements,
and unfair competition.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 21, 2022,
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Western Division, entered the
Parties' Stipulated Protective Order. The Defendants said that
discovery in the Action is likely to involve the production of
confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special
protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose
other than prosecuting the litigation may be warranted.
Accordingly, the Parties asked the Court to enter the Stipulated
Protective Order.

On January 23, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings as to Plaintiff's four causes of action.

On March 7, 2023, Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an Order granting
DEFENDANTS' motion for summary judgment. Judge Gee ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, and DECREED that judgment is entered in favor of
Defendants Sirius XM Radio Inc. and Pandora Media, LLC and against
Plaintiff.

The appellate case is captioned as Jessica Potts v. Sirius XM
Radio, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-55282, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 28, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Jessica Potts Mediation Questionnaire was due on
April 4, 2023;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 26, 2023;

   -- Transcript is due on May 26, 2023;

   -- Appellant Jessica Potts opening brief is due on July 5,
2023;

   -- Appellees Pandora Media, LLC and Sirius XM Radio, Inc.
answering brief is due on August 4, 2023; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant JESSICA POTTS, an individual, on behalf of
herself, the State of California, as a private attorney general,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          VON BEHREN & HUNTER LLP
          2041 Rosecrans Avenue
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 607-9111

               - and -

          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          Katelyn Leeviraphan, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, PC
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050  

               - and -

          Kyle Dalton Smith, Esq.
          KYLE D. SMITH, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          409 North Pacific Coast Highway
          Redondo Beach, CA 90277
          Telephone: (949) 529-8464  

Defendants-Appellees SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
et al., are represented by:

          Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP
          333 S Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 615-1700

SMITHFIELD FRESH: Franklin Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA, IMWL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON FRANKLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SMITHFIELD FRESH MEATS CORP., Case No.
4:23-cv-04054-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill., April 4, 2023) challenges
policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

As a result of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees not
being paid for all hours worked, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees were not paid overtime compensation for all of
the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek.

The amount of time Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
spent performing unpaid work was approximately ten to fifteen
minutes or more each day. This resulted in approximately 50 minutes
to 1 hour and 25 minutes or more of unpaid overtime per employee,
per week. The collective that Plaintiff seeks to represent and for
whom Plaintiff seeks the right to send "opt-in" notices for
purposes of the collective action, and of which Plaintiff is
himself a member, is composed of and defined as follows:

   "All current and former employees of Smithfield Fresh Meats
Corp.
   who were involved in the manufacturing, packaging, or handling
of
   food or food products and who were required to don and doff
   sanitary clothing and other protective equipment at any time
during
   the three (3) years preceding the date of the filing of this
Action
   to the present and worked more than 40 hours in at least one
   workweek. (FLSA Collective).

The Defendant manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells food
products throughout the United States. As a manufacturer of food
products, Defendant is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and is subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FDCA).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SURGICAL CARE: Sheikh Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Abdul Sheikh, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC, and
Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 30-02022-01254790-CU- was removed
from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on April 3, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00586 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

Surgical Care Affiliates (SCA) Health -- https://sca.health/ -- is
one of the largest providers of outpatient surgery in the United
States. Based in Deerfield, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nicole R. Roysdon, Esq.
          WILSON TURNER KOSMO, LLP
          402 W. Broadway, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 236-9600
          Fax: (619) 236-9669
          Email: nroysdon@wilsonturnerkosmo.com


SVB FINANCIAL: Response Dates & Hearing in Siddiqui Suit Continued
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AIZAZ SIDDIQUI, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREG W. BECKER and DANIEL
J. BECK, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-01228-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California enters an Order continuing dates of
response and initial case management conference.

On March 17, 2023, Siddiqui filed a putative class action complaint
alleging violations of the federal securities laws against the
Defendants. The Defendants agree to accept service and waive formal
service of process, of the Complaint.

The Court has issued orders setting (1) May 30, 2023, as the
deadline for the parties to meet and confer regarding initial
disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery
plan; (2) June 13, 2023, as the deadline to complete initial
disclosures or state objection in a Rule 26(f) Report, and file a
case management statement and Rule 26(f) report; and (3) June 20,
2023, as the date of the Initial Case Management Conference, and
instructing that the parties submit a Case Management Statement by
June 13, 2023.

Two related securities fraud class actions are currently pending in
the Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-001173-VC (N.D.
Cal.) and No. 3:23-cv-01097-JD (N.D. Cal.) and arise out of the
same facts and circumstances as this action. The Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (the "PSLRA") provides that if more than one
action on behalf of a class asserts substantially the same claim or
claims, and any party has sought to consolidate those actions for
pretrial purposes or for trial, the court will not make its
determination until after it has consolidated the related cases.

The parties submit that good cause exists to adjourn the June 20,
2023 Initial Case Management Conference and all associated
deadlines, until, at the earliest, after the Court has ruled on the
Lead Plaintiff/Counsel Motions and consolidation. In the interest
of judicial economy, no Defendant should be required to move to
dismiss or otherwise respond to the Complaint in this action
pending appointment of a lead plaintiff and the subsequent filing
of an amended complaint or designation of the existing complaint as
the operative complaint.

Therefore, the parties, in the interests of judicial economy,
hereby agree and stipulate, and request that the Court orders as
follows:

     1. The Defendants accept service, and waive formal service of
process, of the Complaint. By agreeing to accept service, and waive
formal service of process, of the Complaint, the Defendants do not
waive any rights, defenses, or arguments with the sole exception of
arguments based on insufficient service of process.

     2. No Defendant has any obligation to answer or otherwise
respond to the Complaint pending appointment of a lead plaintiff
and the lead plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint or
designation of the existing complaint as the operative complaint.

     3. The Initial Case Management Conference is adjourned, to be
rescheduled by the Court after the filing of any amended complaint
or designation of an operative complaint by the lead plaintiff(s)
appointed by the Court, or after the Court rules on the Defendants'
anticipated motion(s) to dismiss, as the Court determined to be
appropriate, and all deadlines associated with that Conference are
likewise adjourned.

     4. Within 14 days of the Court appointing a lead plaintiff the
parties will meet and confer and submit a proposed schedule to the
Court for the filing of an amended complaint or the designation of
the existing complaint as the operative complaint and any response
thereto.

     5. The parties to this stipulation agree that the existence of
this stipulation, the filing of the stipulation, the terms thereof,
and the entry of any party into the stipulation will not be used as
evidence either in support of or against any argument or defense
that the parties may later make or raise. The parties reserve all
their rights.

Based on the stipulation of the signed parties, and good cause
appearing, Judge Gilliam approved the Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3h3bwf7p from Leagle.com.

JAMES N. KRAMER -- jkramer@orrick.com -- ALEXANDER K. TALARIDES --
atalarides@orrick.com -- ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, San
Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant Greg W. Becker


TARGET CORP: Kelly Employment Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------
Linden Kelly, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 230201898 (Filed Feb. 17, 2023), was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on April 4, 2023.

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-01301 to the proceedings.

In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges Target violated the
Philadelphia Fair Workweek Employment Standards, by: failing to
provide compliant written good faith estimates of employees work
schedules; failing to pay required penalties and Predictability Pay
and obtain written consent when Target changed employees' work
schedules with less than 14-days' notice; changing employees'
schedules at the last minute; and failing to offer new shifts to
current employees before hiring new employees.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, as well as the prospective
class, seek unpaid compensation, $50 each pay period Target
purportedly failed to provide written notice of available work
hours, $50 each pay period Target allegedly failed to provide
written notice of its policy for distributing work hours, in
presumed damages, $1,000 each supposed failure to award available
work hours, liquidated damages up to $2,000, and their reasonable
attorney's fees and costs, says the suit.

Target is a retailer of general merchandise and food products.[BN]

The Defendants is represented by:

          Jacqueline R. Barrett, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 995-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 995-2801

TH EXPLORATION: Tug Hill Files 4th Cir. Appeal in Royalties Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Tug Hill Operating, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SOUTHERN COUNTRY FARMS,
INC., a West Virginia Corporation, individually, and on behalf of
all individuals and legal entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
TH Exploration, LLC, TH Exploration II, LLC, Tug Hill Operating,
LLC, THQ Appalachia I, LLC, THQ Appalachia I Midco, LLC, THQ
Marketing, LLC and Atinum Marcellus I, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-00084-JPB, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia at Wheeling.

This case, filed on June 3, 2021, arises from alleged underpayment
of royalties and for production on oil and gas leases; plaintiff is
a lessor and seeks to represent a class of lessors; defendants are
successor lessees to leases originally held by Gastar Exploration
USA, Inc. The Complaint in this case alleges defendants' breached
the contract by deducting amounts not permitted by the leases, that
they negligently or fraudulently misrepresented material facts,
that defendants were unjustly enriched by taking funds to which
they had no legal right, that they are entitled to an accounting
from defendants, and seeks a declaratory judgment and injunctive
relief.

The Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff's
Complaint and to Strike the Class Allegations on October 1, 2021,
asking the Court to dismiss Counts II and III of the Complaint,
strike the allegations regarding predecessor liability, strike the
requests for punitive damages and attorneys' fees, and to strike
the class allegations.

The Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the Motion on
October 25, 2021. The Defendants filed a reply on November 1,
2021.

On November 4, 2021, Judge John Preston Bailey entered an Order
granting Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff's
Complaint. Counts II and Ill were DISMISSED, and the requests for
punitive damages and attorneys' fees were STRICKEN. The Plaintiff
was granted leave to amend the Complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Tug Hill Operating, LLC v.
Southern Country Farms, Inc., Case No. 23-143, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on March 27,
2023.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners THQ APPALACHIA I, LLC, et al., are
represented by:

          Travis L. Brannon, Esq.
          Amanda Rose Cashman, Esq.
          Thomas Charles Ryan, Esq.
          Emily Celeste Weiss, Esq.
          K&L GATES, LLP
          K&L Gates Center
          210 6th Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2312
          Telephone: (412) 355-6500

Plaintiff-Respondent SOUTHERN COUNTRY FARMS, INC., a West Virginia
Corporation, individually, and on behalf of all individuals and
legal entities similarly situated, is represented by:

          Thomas E. Buck, Esq.
          Mark A. Kepple, Esq.
          BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC
          1219 Chapline Street
          Wheeling, WV 26003-0000
          Telephone: (304) 233-3100

               - and -

          Robert L. Redfearn, Esq.
          Robert L. Redfearn, Jr., Esq.
          SIMON PERAGINE SMITH & REDFEARN
          1100 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 569-2030

               - and -

          Joseph M. Scipione, Esq.
          NITTANY GROUP
          169 Gerald Street
          State College, PA 16801
          Telephone: (814) 826-2244

               - and -

          Thomas Eugene White, Esq.
          604 6th Street
          Moundsville, WV 26041-0000
          Telephone: (304) 845-7008

TORY BURCH: Overcharges Tax Monies, Wilkins Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANJANEE WILKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TORY BURCH, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00422-RLW (E.D. Mo.,
April 4, 2023) is a class action on behalf of all persons that
purchased goods from the Defendant's Internet website for delivery
in the State of Missouri.

The Defendant allegedly overcharges tax monies at a higher tax rate
than the correct applicable use tax rate on products purchased
through remote sales channels, including from Tory Burch's Internet
website, that are shipped to Missouri customers from an
out-of-state facility, resulting in the overcollection of monies
from Missouri consumers.

Missouri state law mandates that retailers charge a "use tax" on
sales of their products through remote means, including an Internet
website, telephone, catalog or other remote communications system,
to Missouri purchasers that are shipped from an out-of-state
facility. The state use tax rate for these sales is 4.225%. There
are also additional local use taxes that are imposed on sales made
through remote sales channels based on the delivery address of the
Missouri purchasers.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a
proposed class of Missouri residents who purchased products for
personal, family, or household use from Tory Burch through remote
sales channels, including its Internet website.

The Plaintiff was and is a Missouri citizen residing in Saint
Louis, Missouri. On February 24, 2023, Plaintiff purchased: one
Ella Printed Tote for personal, family or household use for
delivery to 10317 Pearson Drive, Saint Louis, Missouri 63136. The
Plaintiff's purchase was shipped from Atlanta, Georgia.

Tory Burch has conducted business in Missouri through remote sales
channels, including making sales through its Internet website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Wolloch, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
                  sbeck@bursor.com
                  jwolloch@bursor.com

TOYOTA MOTORS: Rampant RAV4 Roof Leaks Lead to First Class-Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Class-action lawyers at Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, P.C., 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 - 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. [GN]

TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS: Metcalf May File 3rd Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELE METCALF and HANNAH LAWSON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
TRANSPERFECT TRANSLATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
19 Civ. 10104 (ER) (KHP) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants in
part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
proposed Third Amended Complaint.

Metcalf and Lawson brought the putative class action on Aug. 28,
2019, alleging that TransPerfect violated provisions of the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL") by, inter alia, failing to pay them for
overtime hours worked. On Sept. 30, 2022, the Court issued an
Opinion and Order, dismissing without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
claims brought pursuant to the so-called New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act ("WTPA"), NYLL Section 195(3), for failure to plead
an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing.

TransPerfect is a corporate language services provider domiciled in
New York. Metcalf and Lawson each worked at TransPerfect's New York
City office for various months in 2018 and 2019. Metcalf worked as
a client services manager, Lawson as a project manager. Both earned
a weekly salary of less than $1,125 and regularly worked more than
forty hours per week.

Metcalf and Lawson bring the action on behalf of themselves and
TransPerfect salaried employees who were compensated less than
$1,125 per week while working overtime in the New York City office
between Dec. 31, 2018 and Jan. 13, 2020 (the "Class Members").

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Katherine H. Parker dated Nov. 15, 2022 (the "R&R"), which
recommends that the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file proposed Third Amended
Complaint (the "PTAC"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a). Specifically, the R&R recommends that the Plaintiffs be
granted leave replead their NYLL Section 195(3) claims -- because
they now sufficiently allege that they were injured by
TransPerfect's failure to provide accurate wage statements -- but
denied leave to assert claims pursuant to a separate provision of
the WTPA, Section 195(1), which requires employers to provide
employees with wage notices at the time of hiring.

On Nov. 29, 2022, TransPerfect objected to the portion of the R&R
granting the Plaintiffs leave to amend their Section 195(3) claims,
asserting that the PTAC still does not sufficiently allege that the
Plaintiffs suffered an injury in fact.

The Plaintiffs do not object to Judge Parker's recommendation to
deny them leave bring claims pursuant to NYLL Section 195(1) as
futile. In any event, Judge Ramos has reviewed the thorough and
well-reasoned R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise. He
therefore adopts Judge Parker's recommendation to deny the
Plaintiffs leave to amend the SAC to bring claims pursuant to NYLL
Section 195(1).

TransPerfect objects to the determination of the R&R that the
Plaintiffs have standing to litigate their NYLL Section 195(3)
claims because the Plaintiffs still have not adequately alleged an
actual injury in fact.

Judge Ramos agrees with the R&R that the PTAC makes allegations
that plausibly suggest that had TransPerfect provided accurate
notices and statements, the Plaintiffs would not have gone
underpaid for nearly nine months and would now be able to determine
whether the retroactive payments are sufficient. For now, at the
pleading stage, no more is required.

For these reasons and having reviewed Magistrate Judge Parker's
thorough and well-reasoned R&R, Judge Ramos finds no error, clear
or otherwise. He therefore adopts the R&R and denies the motion to
amend as to the Section 195(1) claims but grants it as to the
Section 195(3) claims. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
terminate the motion, Doc. 176.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5ewtpapy from Leagle.com.


TRUCK WORLD: Faces Rubiales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO G. RUBIALES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUCK WORLD CORP., TRUCK MOTION
CORP., JOAQUIN MARTIARENA, and ANDRES MARTIARENA, Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-14094 (S.D. Fla., March 30, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages at required
rate in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a truck driver from
approximately November 01, 2022, to February 3, 2023.

Truck World Corp. is a trucking company based in Fort Pierce,
Florida.

Truck Motion Corp. is a trucking company based in Fort Pierce,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

TRUSTED MEDIA: S.D. New York Dismisses First Amended Bohnak Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case, MARTHA M. BOHNAK, DEBBIE JO TERZOLI, BELINDA LOOMIS, CYNTHIA
BROWN, CONNIE JOHNSON, DONNA BROWN, KATHLEEN HELTON, LESLIE
TRANTUM, TAMMY JOHNSON, SUE JONES, and JUAN SEPULVEDA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
TRUSTED MEDIA BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21 Civ. 7476 (NSR)
(S.D.N.Y.).

The Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint ("AC") pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

Eleven named Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against
TMBI, alleging sale, rental, or disclosure of its subscribers'
personal information, without the subscribers' knowledge or
consent, to third parties for profit, in violation of Alabama,
Indiana, California, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, Washington, and
Puerto Rico statutes.

TMBI is a Delaware corporation and publishes magazines such as
Reader's Digest, The Family Handyman, Country, Country Woman, and
Taste of Home. It conducts business throughout Alabama, Indiana,
California, Nevada, Ohio, South Dakota, Washington, and Puerto
Rico, among other U.S. states.

The Plaintiffs are 11 residents respectively of these states who
subscribe to at least one of TMBI's magazines. TMBI maintains a
vast digital database comprised of its subscribers' names, basic
demographic information, and subscription preferences. It sells
such information -- which the Plaintiffs define as TMBI's "Data
Brokerage Products" -- to various third parties, including data
miners, data aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, list
rental recipients, list exchange recipients, and list brokers. The
Plaintiffs define each class as the residents of each respective
state who appear in any of TMBI's Data Brokerage Products.

The AC sets 48 eight causes of action, respectively under the Right
of Publicity statutes of the eight states: the Alabama Right of
Publicity Act, Ala. Code Section 6-5-772(a) ("Alabama Statute");
Indiana Code (IC) 32-36-1-1, et seq. (the "Indiana Statute");
California Civil Code Section 3344 (the "California Statute");
Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated (Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann.) Section
597.770, et seq. (the "Nevada Statute"); Ohio Revised Code Section
2741.01, et seq. (the "Ohio Statute"); South Dakota Codified Laws
Section 21-64-1, et seq. (the "South Dakota Statute"); Revised Code
of Washington (RCW) 63.60.010, et seq. (the "Washington Statute");
and 32 Laws of Puerto Rico (L.P.R.) Section 3151, et seq. (the
"Puerto Rico Statute") (collectively, "State Statutes"). Under each
State Statute, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory
damages, and punitive damages where available. TMBI moved to
dismiss the AC.

The instant action is one among many substantially similar actions
filed in this district and across the country. As elsewhere, the
Plaintiffs' argument centers on the statutory phrase "use a
person's name or identity on or in" products, found in each of the
State Statutes. The Plaintiffs aver that, by selling subscribers'
personal information to third parties, TMBI used the subscribers'
name "on or in" the "Data Brokerage Products" within the meaning of
the State Statutes.

Consistent with the Court's colleagues' rulings, Judge Roman
disagrees. First, the State Statutes address the right of
publicity. A progeny of the common law right to privacy torts, the
right of publicity, upon codification, was not contemplated to
encompass any unconsented sale or rental of personal information in
the data industry. Second, in this district and beyond, multiple
courts have recently considered the same statutory argument over
the same activity -- the unauthorized sale of subscriber
information -- and rejected the same argument as made by the
Plaintiffs.

In the case at bar, the gist of the Plaintiffs' argument is that
the language of the State Statutes can be interpreted to cover
TMBI's unauthorized sale of its subscribers' information and thus
protect the subscribers' privacy right. Such invocation of the
publicity right statutes for alleged protection of privacy is akin
to pointing to the eye of a sizable grey animal and declaring that
because the eye appears to be that of a whale, the animal must be a
whale -- even though all precedents make unequivocally clear that
the animal is an elephant. The Plaintiffs' argument is novel.

Accordingly, Judge Roman grants TMBI's motion to dismiss the AC.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion
at ECF No. 24 and terminate the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5wa4wphu from Leagle.com.


TWITTER INC: Violates WARN Act, Gadala Class Action Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA GADALA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TWITTER, INC. and TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
3:23-cv-01595 (N.D. Cal., April 4, 2023) challenges the Defendants'
violation of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

The Plaintiff, along with numerous other similarly situated
employees, were employed by Twitter through TEKsystems, an employee
staffing company. While these employees were classified as
employees of TEKsystems, the duties that they performed for Twitter
were indistinguishable from the employees who were employed
directly by Twitter. Twitter referred to these employees as its
"contingent workforce."

Multi-billionaire Elon Musk purchased Twitter in October 2022 and
immediately began laying off more than half its workforce. On
November 12, 2022, Twitter laid off numerous employees across the
country who worked for Twitter and were paid through TEKsystems,
including Plaintiff, without providing them with the required
notice under the federal or California WARN Act or any payment in
lieu of notice, says the suit.

Plaintiff Christina Gadala is an adult resident of Miami, Florida.
She worked for Twitter, and was paid through TEKsystems, as a
Senior Scala Engineer. She worked remotely but was hired by Twitter
through TEKsystems' office in San Francisco, California. Ms. Gadala
worked for Twitter from June 1, 2021, until she was laid off on
November 12, 2022.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a Rule 23 class action on
behalf of all affected employees who were employed by Twitter and
paid through TEKsystems and were terminated in connection with Elon
Musk's slashing of Twitter's workforce, across the United States.

Twitter is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in San Francisco,
California. TEKsystems is a Maryland corporation, headquartered in
Hanover, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  bmanewith@llrlaw.com

US XPRESS: $13 Million Class Action Settlement Granted Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ufonobong Umanah at  bloomberglaw.com reports that a settlement
agreement between US Xpress Enterprises and stockholders allegedly
misled by its 2018 IPO received a federal judge's sign-off.

The $13 million settlement will be finalized after a July 2023
hearing before Judge Travis R. McDonough of the US District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Before the end of April, the settlement's claims administrator must
notify potential members of the class and provide the summary
notice to the Wall Street Journal and an unnamed national newswire
service. [GN]

USA TRUCK: Perez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Salaried Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSMYR E. PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. USA TRUCK BROKERS, INC., CALI-TRUCKS
TRANSPORTATION CORP., ARGA TRANSPORT INC., JOHN J. MEDINA, and
JIMMY PERDOMO, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-21241 (S.D. Fla., March
30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a salaried employee
from March 07, 2022, until January 06, 2023.

USA Truck Brokers, Inc. is a freight transportation company in
Florida.

Cali-Trucks Transportation Corp. is a freight transportation
company in Florida.

Arga Transport Inc. is a freight transportation company in Florida.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

VMWARE INC: Bid to Dismiss Amended Lamartina Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM LAMARTINA, Plaintiff v. VMWARE, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02182-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J.
Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, grants in part and denies in part
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated
Complaint.

Presently before the Court is Defendants VMware, Inc., Patrick P.
Gelsinger, and Zane Rowe's Motion to Dismiss the SAC for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and for failure to plead claims
with the requisite level of particularity under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4, et seq.

The Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, filed by Lead Plaintiff
Northeast Carpenters Pension Fund on Oct. 8, 2021, asserts
individually and on behalf of a putative class violations of
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") promulgated thereunder. Judge Davila finds the matter
suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local
Rule 7-1(b).

VMware is a company based in Palo Alto, California that provides
software products and services, including licenses, subscriptions,
and software as a service ("SaaS"). Its CEO and CFO during the
Class Period were, respectively, Defendants Patrick P. Gelsinger
and Zane Rowe.

The Lead Plaintiff is a defined benefit pension plan with assets of
over $2.5 billion that provides retirement benefits to over 25,000
participants. It was a purchaser of shares of VMware and brings the
action individually and on behalf of all persons other than the
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired VMware securities
between Aug. 24, 2018 and Feb. 27, 2020, both dates inclusive.

Throughout the Class Period, VMware stocks were actively traded on
the New York Stock Exchange. Its publicly filed financial
statements are subject to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP").

On March 31, 2020, Plaintiff William Lamartina filed a putative
class action federal securities complaint with the Court. On July
20, 2020, the Court appointed Northeast Carpenters Pension Fund as
the Lead Plaintiff and its counsel as the Lead Counsel. On Sept.
18, 2020, pursuant to the parties' stipulated agreement, the Lead
Plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC and on Sept. 10, 2021, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the motion, with leave to
amend. The Lead Plaintiff filed the operative SAC on Oct. 8, 2021,
and the Defendants filed the present motion to dismiss on Nov. 5,
2021. On Sept. 13, 2022, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Statement of
Recent Decision to alert the Court of the SEC Order. On March 7,
2023, the Court issued an order requesting supplemental briefing.
The Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants filed their briefs on,
respectively, March 14, 2023, and March 21, 2023. It attached a
redline copy of the SAC with additional allegations from the SEC
Order to its supplemental brief.

First, the Defendants request the Court takes judicial notice of
the documents attached as exhibits to the declaration of Elliot
Greenfield filed in support of the Defendants' Motion. The Court
previously took judicial notice of Exhibits A through Z --
consisting of VMware's Form 10-K, 10-Q, and 8-K reports filed with
the SEC; transcripts of VMware earnings calls; and Gelsinger and
Rowe's Form 4 filings submitted to the SEC -- and Judge Davila does
so for the reasons described in the Court's order on the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the FAC. The five remaining exhibits
are all documents filed with the SEC: VMware's Form 8-K, dated Nov.
19, 2019, and four additional Form 4 filings submitted by Gelsinger
and Rowe. The Lead Plaintiff does not oppose the Defendants'
request for judicial notice. As with the other SEC filings, Judge
Davila finds it appropriate to take judicial notice of Exhibits
AA-EE.

Second, the Lead Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants engaged in a
scheme to defraud the market in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 when they disseminated materially misleading statements in
VMware's SEC filings and press releases and during VMware's
earnings calls. The Defendants argue the Lead Plaintiff fails to
state a claim under Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5 that satisfies the
PSLRA's heightened pleading standards. As in their motion to
dismiss the FAC, they argue that the Lead Plaintiff has failed to
plead facts sufficient to establish (1) an actionable material
misstatement or omission, (2) a strong inference of scienter, and
(3) loss causation.

Judge Davila holds that the Lead Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded
actionable misleading statements with respect to the Defendant's
factual statements concerning specific revenue and backlog amounts,
forward-looking statements about projected revenue, and concrete
descriptions of the past and present state of revenue recognized
over a period of time.

Moreover, although factual discovery may well prove otherwise,
Judge Davila finds that the allegations in the SAC and Proposed TAC
regarding Gelsinger and Rowe's involvement in the "backlog policy
meeting" and the policy requirements regarding the involvement of
senior management and quarterly meetings about implementation --
combined with the stock sales -- support a strong inference of
scienter. And, combined with the allegations of the disclosure of
the SEC investigation and the resulting stock price changes, the
Court finds again that Lead Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded loss
causation.

In sum, Judge Davila finds that the Lead Plaintiff has pleaded
facts sufficient to state a claim against the Defendants for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.

Third, the Defendants do not argue that Gelsinger and Rowe lacked
day-to-day control over VMware. Further, the Lead Plaintiff alleges
that Gelsinger and Rowe were VMware's CEO and CFO throughout the
Class Period, certified the SEC filings containing allegedly
misleading statements, and had direct or supervisory responsibility
over VMware's day-to-day operations. The Lead Plaintiff
additionally asserts that Gelsinger and Rowe were involved in
VMware's meetings related to the company's backlog accounting,
starting with the November 2018 "backlog policy meeting." Judge
Davila finds that the Lead Plaintiff has adequately alleged
Gelsinger's and Rowe's control over VMware, so that the Lead
Plaintiff has stated a Section 20(a) claim against each Individual
Defendant.

Finally, the Lead Plaintiff lastly asserts a Section 20A claim
against Gelsinger. The Defendants argue that even if a predicate
violation is alleged, the Lead Plaintiff did not trade
contemporaneously with Gelsinger.

In light of the Ninth Circuit's refusal to strictly restrict the
contours of a contemporaneous trade for purposes of Section 20A,
Judge Davila declines the Defendants' invitation to do so by
requiring a same-day or next-day trade. Nor will he accept the Lead
Plaintiff's suggestion of the opposite rule, i.e., permitting a
class action to be maintained on behalf of all persons who
purchased stock on an exchange during the period that defendants
were selling that stock on the basis of insider information.

However, Judge Davila finds ample precedent in this circuit for a
finding that a four-day trading gap may be considered
contemporaneous. He therefore finds that the Lead Plaintiff has
stated a claim for Section 20A liability against Gelsinger.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Davila denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Lead Plaintiff's 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim
with respect to the Lead Plaintiff's claims based on factual
statements concerning specific revenue and backlog amounts,
forward-looking statements about projected revenue, and concrete
descriptions of the past and present state of revenue recognized
over a period of time.

Judge Davila grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Lead
Plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim with respect to the
Lead Plaintiff's claims based on all other categories of
statements, including statements about the strength of VMware's
business, the Defendants' general thoughts about or happiness with
VMware's performance or pipeline, the Defendants' confidence in or
optimism about VMware's positioning and future prospects in
different geographic and product segments, VMware's readiness for
industry shifts, and VMware's future strategies and momentum.

Judge Davila denies the motion to dismiss the Lead Plaintiff's
Section 20(a) and Section 20A claim.

The Lead Plaintiff's deadline to file its Proposed TAC as a Third
Amended Consolidated Complaint was April 6, 2023.

The Defendants will file their answer to the Third Amended
Complaint within 14 days of its filing.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yhmeaxnz from Leagle.com.


WHITING SOLUTIONS: Faces Lovette Suit Over Telephonic Sales Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OCTAVIUS LOVETTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WHITING SOLUTIONS CORP. D/B/A BULLET PROOF
ENTREPRENEUR, Case No. CACE-23-012197 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty.,
April 3, 2023) is a class action suit complaint for legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Whiting
Solutions in sending automated telephonic sales calls, in the form
of text messages, to his cellular telephone and the cellular
telephones of numerous other individuals across Florida, in
violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The "Class" which the Plaintiff seeks to represent is comprised of
and defined as follows:

   "All persons in Florida who, at any time since July 1,2021,
   Received a telephonic sales call made by or on behalf of the
   Defendant using the same type of equipment used to make
telephonic
   sales calls to Plaintiff."

Excluded from the class are the Defendant, its officers and
directors, members of the immediate families of the foregoing,
legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of the
foregoing, and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling
interest.

Whiting Solutions offers "life design and maximization" solutions.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305)357-2107
          Facsimile: (305)200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhalI.com
                  aravindran@hedinhall.com

YASAR LLC: Austin Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL AUSTIN v. YASAR, LLC and DELTON DANIEL, Case No. 5:23-cv-71
(N.D. Tex., April 3, 2023) is a class action suit by the Plaintiff
against his employer pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
seeking damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b) including without
limitation, unpaid overtime; liquidated damages; employment;
reinstatement; promotion; and the payment of wages lost and an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages and a reasonable
attorney's fee  and costs.

The Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, demands a jury trial
on all issues so triable.

The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Lubbock, Texas. He was
employed by Defendant from July 7, 2021, through November 11, 2022,
as a security guard paid at the regular rate of $600.00 per
workweek, and whose primary duties were to relieve other guards
from their posts outside of various locations such as the offices
of the Texas Workforce Commission, construction sites, shopping
centers, RV parks, banks and hospitals.

During one or more weeks of the Plaintiff's employment with
Defendants, the Plaintiff worked in excess of forty hours, but was
never paid the additional half-time premium for each hour over 40
worked in a workweek as required under the FLSA, says the
suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
          ROSS SCALISE LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-7677
          Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
          E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com

               - and -

          S. Rafe Foreman, Esq.
          HUTCHISON & FOREMAN, PLLC
          1312 Texas Avenue, Suite 101
          Lubbock, Texas 79401
          Telephone: (806) 491-4911
          Facsimile: (806) 491-9911
          E-mail: SRFservice@FightsForRight.com

ZAHARA CORP: Faces Vasquez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
FLORENTINO VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZAHARA CORP. d/b/a BAGELETTE and
ISSAM CHEIKHALI, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-02459 (E.D.N.Y., March 30, 2023) seeks to recover damages
for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Human Rights
Law, arising from Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendants.

The complaint alleges Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime
wages, failure to pay spread of hours compensation, failure to
provide wage statements, failure to furnish written wage notice,
and engagement in discrimination against Plaintiff on the basis of
his disability.

Plaintiff Vasquez was employed by the Defendants as a baker and
food preparer while performing related miscellaneous duties from
January 2006 until September 2022.

Zahara Corp., d/b/a BAGELETTE, is a bagel shop based in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


                            *********

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 ***