---

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

              Thursday, May 4, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 90

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Bennett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Berkley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Carlson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Cooper Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams

3M COMPANY: Remand of Adams & Mounts Suits to State Court Reversed
ALASKA AIRLINES: Court Won't Review Denial to Remand Krueger Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Jackson Suit Affirmed
AMPLIFY ENERGY: $50-M Deal in Oil Spill Class Suit Gets Final OK
ARBORWORKS LLC: Ortiz Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.

AUSTRALIA: Faces O'Gradie Class Suit Over COVID Vaccine Injury
AUTOASSURE LLC: Roach Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours
AUTONOMY PRODUCTIONS: Ward Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
BILLYBOB HOLDINGS: Tamayo Biometrics Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
BUILD REALTY: Court Granted Class Cert. in House-Flipping Scam Suit

CAMBRIAN HOMECARE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Alberto Suit Upheld
CAREPINE HOME: Ngafua Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
CENGAGE LEARNING: First Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Kleiner Suit
CEREBRAL MEDICAL: Sanders Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: McMahon Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 3rd Cir

CLARKSBURG WATER: Faces Class Suit Over Water Lead Exposure
COBB COUNTY, GA: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Bentley Suit Alleges
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Bid to Dismiss Morris Suit Granted in Part
EDGIO INC: Faces Esfandiari Class Suit Over Securities Violations
EL CAMINO: Faces Edwards Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Tips

FLORIDA HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss Data-Sharing Class Suit Denied
FOX REHABILITATION: Appeals Final Judgment in Conner TCPA Suit
GENERAC POWER: Faces Baltimore Class Suit Over Defective Switches
GOODYEAR TIRE: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 5, 2024
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Nichols Suit Over Mislabeled Mobile Phones

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Faces Fischer Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
GUNNAR OPTIKS: Gimenez Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
HARBOR UCLA: Wilcox Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
HDR ENGINEERING: Bacani Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
HEREFORD INSURANCE: MSP Suit Dismissal for Lack of Standing Upheld

HOME DEPOT: Case Schedule, Trial Date Stricken in Didzun Class Suit
HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Pizzuto Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D. Mass.
HUSKY OIL: $2.7MM in Attorneys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Bruzek Suit
IKEA US: Deadline to Submit Class Suit Settlement Claims on May 4
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages

J. CREW: Faces New Class Suit Over Deceptive Sales Tactics
JACKSONS FOOD: Aramburo Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
KANAWAY SEAFOODS: Rule 23 Class Action Certification Sought
KANAWAY SEAFOODS: Seeks Summary Judgment on "Closed Campus" Claims
KANAWAY SEAFOODS: Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification

LESSING'S INC: Eisenbarth Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages
LINCOLN BENEFIT: Farley Seeks to Certify Class of Policy Owners
LIVEPERSON INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 23
LOCAL IN MEMPHIS: Hartwell Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
LOU TAGE INC: Enriquez Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages

MAESA LLC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Luis Suit Says
MANPOWER US: Keopimpha Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Stays Shacno Action Pending June 8 Mediation
MAURA HEALEY: Simmons, et al., Seek Class Certification
MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Alcona Community Says

MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Houghton Lake Claims
MDL 2913: Genesee School Says E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market
MEDICUS HEALTHCARE: McCarthy Wins Collective Action Certification
MICHIGAN: Davis Appeals Denial of Bid to Alter Judgment to 6th Cir.
MICHIGAN: John Does Win Leave to Supplement Complaint v. Whitmer

MILLENNIA TAX: Faces Fridline Class Suit Over Spam Calls
MORGAN WALLEN: Faces Class Suit Over Last-Minute Cancelled Concert
NACHURS ALPINE: Court Grants Partial Bid to Dismiss Gray FCRA Suit
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Summary Judgment for Falk Affirmed With Costs
NATIONAL GENERAL: Must Produce Legacy Data by June 1, Court Says

NAVY FEDERAL: Hart's March 12, 2023 Errata Sheet Struck From Record
NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Clark Class Suit Over White Spot Control
NEW YORK, NY: Conditional Cert. of Settlement Class Sought
NEW YORK, NY: Settlement in Student With Diabetes Suit Finalized
NEW YORK, NY: Time to Respond to Complaint Extended to June 1

NEW YORK: Decisions Made During CMC Entered in Betances v. Fischer
NOBLE ENERGY: Boulter Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 10th Cir.
NORTHEAST WORK: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due March 16, 2024
OPENSIDED MRI: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Brust Suit to 8th Cir.
PENNSYLVANIA: Bid to Certify Class Deemed Withdrawn in Bobby Suit

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert. Bid Must be Filed by June 13
PHH MORTGAGE: Aduayi Sues Over Improper Business Practices
PLASTIC OMNIUM: Does not Properly Pay Truck Operators, Dally Says
POKE FIDI: Yuwono Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
PRECOAT METALS: Barnard BIPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Ill.

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Frazier Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 15
RANGE RESOURCES: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 20
REALPAGE INC: Enders Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
REALPAGE INC: Kramer Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D. Tenn.

REALPAGE INC: Kramer Suit Transferred From W.D. Wash. to M.D. Tenn.
REALPAGE INC: Mackie Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D. Tenn.
REALPAGE INC: Marchetti Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to M.D. Tenn.
REALPAGE INC: Parker Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
REALPAGE INC: Saloman Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to M.D. Tenn.

REALPAGE INC: Weaver Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D. Tenn.
REECE CONSTRUCTION: Kwate Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
RIPPLE LABS: Court Heard Motion for Class Cert. in XRP Suit
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 2024
RYDER INTEGRATED: Class Cert Must Be Filed After Close of Discovery

RYDER INTEGRATED: Valdiviezo Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SAINT AGNES: Remand of Crouch Suit to Fresno Super. Court Endorsed
SCRIPPS NETWORKS: Bids for Dismissal of VPPA Class Suit Granted
SETTON PISTACHIO: Class Certification Schedule Order Entered in Ali
SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Herrick Sues for Copyright Infringement

SIX FLAGS: OFPRS Seeks Leave to Amend Complaint
SKIN SAVVY MEDICAL: Latta Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
SOCIETE AIR FRANCE: Kaur Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
STABILITY AI: Midjourney Seeks to Dismiss All Class Claims
STATE BAR OF GEORGIA: Mignott Files Suit in N.D. Georgia

STEVE MOLLENKOPF: Kiger Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
STUBHUB: Filing of Class Cert Bid Reset to July 7
SUB-ZERO GROUP: Bankhurst Sues Over Defective Gas Stoves
SUSAN QUINTANA: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Kalam
TAPESTRY INC: Nguyen-Wilhite FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. New York

TAPESTRY INC: Nguyen-Wilhite Sues Over Illegal Background Check
TARGET CORPORATION: Murillo Suit Removed to N.D. California
TAURUS INTERNATIONAL: Harman Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
TELEPERFORMANCE SE: WGES Files Suit in D. Idaho
THYSSENKRUPP SUPPLY: Torres-Boyd Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.

TIKTOK INC: Albaran Class Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill.
TIKTOK INC: Androshchuk Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
TIKTOK INC: Arroyo Privacy Invasion Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
TIKTOK INC: Fugok Consumer Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to N.D. Ill.
TIKTOK INC: G. R. Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois

TIKTOK INC: Moody Consumer Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill.
TIKTOK INC: Recht Privacy Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
TIKTOK INC: Schulte Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
TIMEX.COM INC: Licea Suit Removed to C.D. California
TMX FINANCE: Smith Files Suit in S.D. Georgia

TOYOTA MOTOR: Shu's Class Complaint Dismissed With Leave to Amend
TWITTER INC: Cornet Suit Transferred From California to Delaware
TWITTER INC: Cornet WARN Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to D. Del.
TWITTER INC: Yeh Breach of Contract Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
UDEMY INC: Saleh Suit Removed to D. New Jersey

ULLA JOHNSON: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ULTIMATE PARTY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED KINGDOM: Lewis Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial
UNITED SITE SERVICES: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Valdez Suit Removed to D. Colorado

UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Portion of Class Cert. Bid Sealed
US IMMIGRATION: Ms. L., et al., Seek to Modify Class Definition
VEROS CREDIT: Torres Suit Removed to C.D. California
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Yslas Seeks May 2 Extension to File Reply
WALT DISNEY: Nielsen Files Bid for Class Certification

WARBY PARKER: Pham Suit Removed to N.D. California
WEST-STAR NORTH DAIRY: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WINNCOMPANIES LLC: Rubio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
XWELL INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
YUM! BRANDS INC: Gravitt Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Bennett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Gary Bennett, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01275-RMG (D.S.C., March 31,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
          Keith Jackson, Esq.
          Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
          RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
          3530 Independence Dr.
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: 205-879-5000
          Facsimile: 205-879-5901


3M COMPANY: Berkley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Berkley, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01276-RMG (D.S.C., March 31,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
          Keith Jackson, Esq.
          Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
          RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
          3530 Independence Dr.
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: 205-879-5000
          Facsimile: 205-879-5901


3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Brown, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01278-RMG (D.S.C., March 31,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
bladder cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
          Keith Jackson, Esq.
          Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
          RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
          3530 Independence Dr.
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: 205-879-5000
          Facsimile: 205-879-5901


3M COMPANY: Carlson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Carlson, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01279-RMG (D.S.C., March 31,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
bladder cancer and prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
          Keith Jackson, Esq.
          Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
          RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
          3530 Independence Dr.
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: 205-879-5000
          Facsimile: 205-879-5901


3M COMPANY: Cooper Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Cooper, Jr., and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-01288-RMG
(D.S.C., March 31, 2023), is brought for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

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

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

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
          Keith Jackson, Esq.
          Jeremiah Mosley, Esq.
          RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
          3530 Independence Dr.
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Phone: 205-879-5000
          Facsimile: 205-879-5901

3M COMPANY: Remand of Adams & Mounts Suits to State Court Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN ADAMS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. 3M
COMPANY, fka Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 23-5232 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reverses the district court's order
remanding Adams and Mounts complaints to state court.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, often called CAFA, extends
federal diversity jurisdiction to certain mass actions involving
100 or more persons. At issue is whether two state-court
complaints, each joining more than 100 plaintiffs, qualify as CAFA
mass actions. The Sixth Circuit concludes that they do and reverses
the district court's contrary determination.

Brian Adams and Charles Mounts mined coal in Kentucky. Both wore
respirators to protect their lungs from coal dust. Both
nevertheless developed pneumoconiosis, a disease caused by inhaled
dust particles.

Adams and Mounts sued 3M along with some other respirator
manufacturers and distributors. They alleged that 3M and the other
manufacturers, all out-of-state corporations, made defective
respirators; that various Kentucky retailers distributed them; and
that they contracted pneumoconiosis as a result. Adams' complaint
named more than 400 co-plaintiffs, demanded "judgment" against all
defendants "jointly, severally, and/or individually," and sought "a
trial by jury on all issues so triable." Mounts' complaint named
more than 300 co-plaintiffs and mirrored Adams' in substance.

3M removed the cases to federal court on CAFA, federal question,
and diversity grounds. The district court remanded them to state
court. 3M sought leave to appeal and the Sixth Circuit granted its
petition for review.

The Sixth Circuit explains that under Section 1453(c)(1), a court
of appeals may accept an appeal from an order of a district court
granting or denying a motion to remand a class action. For purposes
of the section, a mass action will be deemed to be a class action.
As to the merits, all agree that the Adams and Mounts lawsuits
qualify as "civil actions" and seek "monetary relief." That leaves
one question: Have Adams and Mounts "proposed" to "try" "claims of
100 or more persons jointly on the ground that" the claims involve
common questions of law or fact?

The miners' complaints did just that, the Sixth Circuit holds. When
Adams and Mounts each filed complaints with more than 100
co-plaintiffs, they offered to try their co-plaintiffs' claims
jointly. By filing a complaint predicated on a common question of
law or fact, Adams and Mounts thus offered the presence of common
questions as a "ground" for pursuing a joint trial.

Moreover, the Sixth Circuit says CAFA targets putative class
actions and lawsuits that resemble them -- "mass actions" in short.
Lawsuits like the miners' complaints fit the bill. They assert
parallel claims on behalf of more than 100 plaintiffs, all
proceeding on the theory that the claims are similar enough to
merit adjudication in tandem. It should not come as a surprise that
CAFA covers them. Where a single complaint joins more than 100
separate claims involving common questions of law and fact, there
is a presumption that those plaintiffs have implicitly proposed a
joint trial.

The miners respond that, under Kentucky or federal law, their cases
may not ultimately involve common questions of law or fact. But at
most this suggests they might have made an unwarranted proposal for
a joint trial grounded on common questions. Still, an unwarranted
proposal remains a proposal. Nor does it matter that a joint trial
may never result, perhaps even on 3M's motion to bifurcate or
sever. That possibility suggests that a Kentucky court might
eventually decline a proposal for a joint trial, not that Adams or
Mounts did not offer one.

The miners add that their counsel sought individual rather than
joint trials in a similar case. But that case is not this case.
Adams and Mounts each filed a complaint joining more than 100
co-plaintiffs and seeking "a" jury trial. Any "nonbinding"
implication, suggestion, or even promise that they seek only
individual trials does not defeat federal jurisdiction.

For similar reasons, the Sixth Circuit says it does not matter that
Adams' and Mounts' complaints sought judgment "jointly, severally,
and/or individually" against the Defendants. That speaks to each
Defendant's liability on a judgment not to the presence of a joint
trial demand. It also does not matter that federalism concerns
premised on a due regard for the rightful independence of state
governments generally cut against removal. Once Congress exercised
its enumerated powers in this area, no antiremoval presumption
attends cases invoking CAFA.

In the alternative, Adams and Mounts urge the Sixth Circuit to
affirm the remand order under CAFA's "local controversy" exception.
But for the exception to apply, the miners must show that a
Kentucky defendant's conduct forms a significant basis for their
claims. The "core" of the miners' complaints alleges that 3M (and
other out-of-state defendants), designed, manufactured, and sold
defective respirators, then lied about their faults. 3M, in other
words, is the real target in the action.

The miners add that Kentucky merchants sold the respirators,
perhaps negligently or recklessly. But they have offered no reason
for thinking that the merchants' liability is anything but
derivative of 3M's liability. All told, the Sixth Circuit cannot
conclude that this controversy is local.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/n5pcfvwp from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Michael A. Scodro -- mscodro@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN
LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for the Appellant.

Michael B. Martin, MARTIN WALTON LAW FIRM, Friendswood, Texas, for
the Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Michael A. Scodro, MAYER BROWN LLP, Chicago, Illinois,
Evan M. Tager -- etager@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP,
Washington, D.C., Byron N. Miller -- bmiller@tmslawplc.com --
THOMPSON MILLER & SIMPSON PLC, Louisville, Kentucky, Bryant J.
Spann -- BSpann@tcspllc.com -- THOMAS COMBS & SPANN, Charleston,
West Virginia, Margaret Oertling Cupples -- mcupples@bradley.com --
James Stephen Fritz, Jr. -- sfritz@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT
BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Jackson, Mississippi, Scott Burnett Smith --
ssmith@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Huntsville,
Alabama, Timothy Rodriguez -- trodriguez@bradley.com -- BRADLEY
ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for the Appellant.

Michael B. Martin, MARTIN WALTON LAW FIRM, Friendswood, Texas,
Johnny Givens -- johnny@givens-law.com -- GIVENS LAW FIRM, PLLC,
Ridgeland, Mississippi, for the Appellees.

John H. Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS,
SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae.


ALASKA AIRLINES: Court Won't Review Denial to Remand Krueger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRYSTAL KRUEGER, an individual on behalf of herself
and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C22-1777-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C.
Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, denies the Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of the Court's order denying her motion to remand.

The Defendant filed a notice of removal to federal court on Dec.
15, 2022. The notice of removal asserted jurisdiction pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The Plaintiff filed a motion
to remand, arguing that this Court lacked CAFA jurisdiction and, in
the alternative, that an exception applied. She also requested
jurisdictional discovery. The Court denied the motion to remand and
found that no citizenship-based exception applied. It also denied
the request for jurisdictional discovery. The Plaintiff
subsequently filed a motion to reconsider.

First, the Plaintiff argues the Court committed manifest error by
disregarding Ninth Circuit precedent when it relied on the
Defendant's estimation that class members worked an average of one
meal and one rest break eligible shift each week. However, Judge
Coughenour says the Plaintiff misstates the precedent she claims
the Court disregarded. The Defendant was not required to provide
"actual evidence" to rebut the Plaintiff's arguments as the
Plaintiff asserts, as long as the Defendant's estimations were
reasonable, and thus the Court did not err.

Second, the Plaintiff argues the Court erred when it accepted the
Defendant's class size calculation because the Defendant
misinterpreted the proposed class definition. The Plaintiff does
not argue that the Court disregarded controlling precedent, nor
does she provide new facts or legal authority. The Plaintiff's
disagreement merely rehashes prior arguments. As such, it is not a
proper challenge for purposes of a motion for reconsideration.

Third, the Plaintiff argues the Court erred when it concluded that
she failed to meet her citizenship burden. She argues this error is
based on another flawed interpretation of the class definition that
allows the Court to consider flight attendants who are part of the
commuter travel program.

However, the Court's consideration of commuting flight attendants
in its citizenship analysis was not error, let alone a manifest
one. First, there is no language in the class definition that
expressly excludes flight attendants who use non-revenue commuter
travel. Second, flight attendants must certify that they live in
another city to qualify for commuter travel, not another state.
Accordingly, flight attendants could certify that they live in
Washington and still qualify for the commuter travel program.

Fourth, the Plaintiff claims that the Court did not review the
entire record before determining whether residency evidence can
establish citizenship. In its order, the Court reviewed and
incorporated the entire factual record before concluding that the
Plaintiff's evidence only established residency, not citizenship.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's claim is baseless, Judge Coughenour
holds.

Lastly, the Plaintiff contends that the Court erred when it did not
permit jurisdictional discovery. In reasserting her jurisdictional
discovery request, the Plaintiff does not present any new authority
that suggests the Court made a manifest error in its decision to
deny jurisdictional discovery.

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4eka49jj from Leagle.com.


AMAZON.COM INC: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Jackson Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DRICKEY JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. AMAZON.COM, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 21-56107 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's
denial of the Amazon's motion to compel arbitration.

Jackson seeks to represent a class of individuals, known as Amazon
Flex drivers, claiming damages and injunctive relief for alleged
privacy violations by Amazon. He contends that Amazon monitored and
wiretapped the drivers' conversations when they communicated during
off hours in closed Facebook groups.

Jackson is a driver for Amazon's delivery program known as Amazon
Flex. Amazon engages individuals to make deliveries in their own
cars. Amazon describes them as "delivery partners" who sign up
through the "Amazon Flex app on a smartphone" and deliver food and
grocery orders from Whole Foods Market stores, Amazon Fresh
locations, and other local stores, as well as packages and orders
of goods from Amazon Delivery Stations, using their personal
vehicles.

When Jackson signed up for the Flex program in December 2016, he
accepted the 2016 Terms of Service Agreement ("2016 TOS"). It
contained an arbitration clause that applied to disputes related to
that agreement. The 2016 TOS also stated that Flex participants
were responsible for reviewing this Agreement regularly to stay
informed of any modifications. Although the TOS allowed the drivers
to opt out of the arbitration provision, Jackson did not do so. He
began driving for Amazon Flex and communicated with other Flex
drivers in closed, private Facebook groups.

According to a declaration Amazon filed in the district court,
Amazon emailed a new TOS to Amazon Flex drivers in 2019. This TOS
contained a broader arbitration provision that made the issue of
arbitrability itself subject to arbitration. It is not disputed
that Jackson continued in the program after 2019 and continued
participating in closed Facebook groups of Amazon Flex drivers as
he had since 2016.

In February 2021, Jackson filed a class action lawsuit against
Amazon, alleging that it wiretapped Flex drivers' communications
and invaded their privacy by monitoring their closed Facebook
groups. The complaint alleged that during times when they were not
working, the members of these groups communicated about matters of
mutual interest. Although Jackson believed he was communicating
only with other drivers, his complaint alleges that Amazon was
unlawfully monitoring the communications in the Facebook groups.

The complaint alleged no contractual violations. Rather, it claimed
violations of state and federal laws: the California Invasion of
Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code Sections 631, 635); invasion of
privacy under California's Constitution; the Federal Wiretap Act
for the interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic
communications (18 U.S.C. Sections 2510, et seq.) and for the
manufacture, distribution, possession, and advertising of wire,
oral, or electronic communication (18 U.S.C. Section 2512); and the
Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. Sections 2701, et seq.).
Jackson sought to represent a class of all Flex drivers in the
United States who were members of the closed Facebook groups and
allegedly had communications intercepted by Amazon without their
consent. He also sought to represent a subclass of members in
California. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief
as well as damages.

Amazon moved to compel arbitration under California law. The motion
invoked the arbitration clause of the 2019 Terms of Service
Agreement ("2019 TOS"), which it claimed Jackson accepted by
continuing to make deliveries after being emailed a copy of the new
terms. It asserted that the 2019 arbitration provision applied and
required the issue of arbitrability to be decided by the
arbitrator. Amazon, however, did not produce a copy of the 2019
email notifying drivers of the new TOS, nor did it provide any
evidence that Jackson received such an email.

The district court denied Amazon's motion to compel. It ruled that
under California law, the 2016 TOS applied because Amazon had not
shown that it provided individualized notice to Jackson of a 2019
TOS, and such individualized notice was necessary to establish
mutual assent to the 2019 arbitration provision. It further
concluded that the claims of Amazon's unlawful conduct fell outside
the scope of the arbitration clause in the 2016 TOS because the
claims were not related to the parties' performance under the
agreement. The court said that Amazon's alleged violative conduct
existed independently of the Plaintiff's employment relationship
with Amazon.

Amazon now appeals the order denying its motion to compel
arbitration, arguing that the 2019 TOS applies, and that Jackson's
claims must go to arbitration even if the 2016 provision applies.
Jackson argues that we do not have jurisdiction to hear Amazon's
appeal from the district court but maintains that the district
court properly denied arbitration under the 2016 provision.

The Ninth Circuit opines that for the drivers' continued
performance of services to constitute assent to be bound by new
2019 terms, Amazon needed to show that it actually provided notice
of those terms. It did not do so. The district court therefore
correctly held that the arbitration provision in the 2016 TOS still
governed the parties' relationship. The critical question then
becomes whether this dispute is within the scope of that
provision.

The Ninth Circuit finds that Amazon seeks arbitration because the
alleged monitoring of drivers' conversations took place while the
drivers were performing deliveries for Amazon under the agreement
and participating in the Flex program. But the alleged misconduct
was not related to the agreement. Nor was it related to
participation in the Flex program or the performance of services
under that program. Amazon's alleged misconduct existed
independently of the contract and therefore fell outside the scope
of the arbitration provision in the 2016 TOS. The district court
therefore correctly denied Amazon's motion to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bde6cdve from Leagle.com.

Michael E. Kenneally -- michael.kenneally@morganlewis.com --
(argued), Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, D.C.; Joseph
Duffy -- joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com -- Brianna R. Howard --
brianna.howard@morganlewis.com -- and Taylor C. Day, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Los Angeles, California; Catherine Eschbach --
catherine.eschbach@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Houston, Texas, for the Defendant-Appellant.

Max S. Roberts -- mroberts@bursor.com -- (argued) and Joshua D.
Arisohn -- jarisohn@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher PA, New York, New
York; L. Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- and Neal J.
Deckant -- ndeckant@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher PA, Walnut,
Creek, for the Plaintiff-Appellee.


AMPLIFY ENERGY: $50-M Deal in Oil Spill Class Suit Gets Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
City News Service, News Partner of Patch reports that a federal
judge in Santa Ana on April 24, 2023 signed off final approval of a
$50 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit involving the
pipeline oil leak that gushed thousands of gallons of crude into
the ocean off Huntington Beach in 2021.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter gave final approval to the
lawsuit against Amplify Energy. The agreement won preliminary
approval in September, but the attorneys and judge waited for any
objections before final approval and there were none.

"Not a single objection," attorney Wylie Aitken, who was lead
counsel for the plaintiffs, told City News Service after the
hearing. "Not one person of all three classes made an objection.
That's the first time I've ever seen that."

Aitken told Carter during the hearing that while they couldn't
solve all of the issues that led up to the rupture of the pipeline
-- such as where cargo ships are allowed to park off the coast --
but, he added, "We can heighten awareness" to the authorities who
can do something about it.

"I'm kind of amazed that this court's good pressure got all this
resolved" so quickly, Amplify attorney Daniel Donovan told Carter.

Carter praised all of the attorneys who worked on the case along
with the special masters who helped them.

"I want to compliment you for resolving this so quickly and not
taking years and years," Carter said.

Aitken told City News Service that "the timeline on this is
amazing. It may be a class action record" for how quickly it was
resolved, he added.

Aitken emphasized how important it was to gain the "injunctive
relief" in the lawsuit, which led to heightened training of the
workers on the pipeline and more frequent inspections.

Another significant improvement was that when a leak is observed a
notice will go out to everyone involved all at once instead of
relying on a chain of people, Aitken said.

"Hopefully we won't experience this tragedy again," he said.

Another key to the settlement is the way claims will be paid out,
Aitken said. A system was worked out so that the fishers and other
merchants affected by the oil spill will get checks directly
without having to fill out a claim form, Aitken said.

He said that it was easy to do with the fisheries because "they
keep such detailed records."

But it will be more challenging in the tourism industry. For hotels
it was easier because they can count rooms not rented, but for
other small businesses they will have to fill out some sort of
claim form and the deadline for that is June 9, so more notices
will go out again soon, he said.

"We don't want to miss anybody," he said.

Of the $50 million Amplify Energy will pay to settle the lawsuit,
$34 million will go to a class of fishers, $9 million will go to
property owners and about $7 million goes to the tourism industry
such as whale watching companies, Aitken said.

Amplify agreed to increase staffing on the Elly platform to provide
for three control room operators (an increase of one per crew) and
three plant operators (an increase of one per crew) over the next
three years.

The next big step is preliminary approval of a $45 million
settlement with the two shipping companies that damaged the
pipeline, the MSC Danit and M/V Beijing, Aitken said. An agreement
has been reached, but Carter must grant preliminary approval and
then barring any objections it will be finally approved later,
Aitken said.

Also, last year, Amplify Energy settled criminal cases in state and
federal court and agreed to pay fines. The company agreed in
federal court to pay a $7.1 million fine and $5.8 million to
reimburse the U.S. Coast Guard for expenses from the October 2021
spill and also agreed to pay $4.9 million in fines to resolve a
misdemeanor complaint in state court.

The pipeline, which is used to carry crude oil from several
offshore drilling platforms to a processing plant in Long Beach,
began leaking the afternoon of Oct. 1, 2021, but oil continued to
pump through the line until the following morning, authorities said
last year.

All told, about 25,000 gallons of oil seeped into the ocean from
the ruptured 16-inch pipeline, which is submerged about 4.7 miles
west of Huntington Beach. The leak forced the cancellation of the
popular Huntington Beach Airshow, which was underway when the spill
was detected. Beaches were closed up and down the Orange County
coast as crews worked to contain the crude oil.

Federal investigators have said the pipeline appeared to have been
damaged by a ship's anchor, likely belonging to one of dozens of
cargo ships that were backlogged over a period of months outside
the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex.

More than a dozen companies doing business in the region sued
Amplify Energy Corp. for damages resulting from the spill.

Fishing resumed in late November 2021 along the Orange County
coast, following a two-month shutdown of fisheries due to the
spill. The fishing ban encircled 650 square miles of marine waters
and about 45 miles of shoreline, including all bays and harbors
from Seal Beach to San Onofre State Beach, officials said. [GN]

ARBORWORKS LLC: Ortiz Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JESUS JULIAN GUTIERREZ ORTIZ, an individual, and on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
ARBORWORKS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company;
ARBORWORKS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
VCU295630, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Tulare, to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California on April 13, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:23-at-00320 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims under the California
Labor Code for: (1) unpaid minimum wage and liquidated damages; (2)
unpaid overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods and pay
missed meal period premiums; (4) failure to provide rest periods
and pay missed rest period premiums; (5) failure to furnish
accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failure to pay all wages
earned and unpaid at separation; (7) failure to reimburse business
expenses; and (8) violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law.

ArborWorks, LLC is an environmental tree and grounds care
company.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Greg S. Labate, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 513-5100
          Facsimile: (714) 513-5130
          E-mail: glabate@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Keahn N. Morris, Esq.
          Gal Gressel, Esq.
          Nina Montazeri, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
          E-mail nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com

AUSTRALIA: Faces O'Gradie Class Suit Over COVID Vaccine Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Chung of News.Com.Au reports that for Gareth O'Gradie, the
20-centimetre scar on his chest serves as a constant reminder that
his life will never be the same after the Covid vaccine.

The Melbourne teacher -- a previously healthy father-of-two who was
into running, footy, cricket and tennis -- had part of his heart
removed in February last year as an "extreme" last resort, after
seven months bedridden and in constant pain.

Mr O'Gradie, 41, developed severe pericarditis -- inflammation of
the lining around the heart -- soon after receiving his first
Pfizer vaccination in July 2021.

"Six days after [the vaccination] I had sudden-onset chest pain,
shortness of breath, fever, chills, sweats," he said. "I'd never
known what a heart attack would feel like, but that's the type of
thing I expected."

He was rushed to hospital and soon diagnosed with vaccine-induced
pericarditis. Over the subsequent months, unable to work, he spent
90 days in and out of hospital and was placed on a raft of
different medications and therapies, to no avail.

"It came back quite badly in February 2022 and I was in hospital
for 35 days -- that's when the surgery took place," he said.

"In the end I had open heart surgery to remove the pericardium,
which had become inflamed and stuck to my heart. It's extreme. All
the heads of different departments, cardiology, rheumatology,
cardiothoracic, all had conferences to say, 'We've tried this, what
is the next step for this recurrent pericarditis we can't control
the pain for?' It wasn't an easy decision. They said, 'Nothing's
working -- this is what we can offer.'"

Mr O'Gradie is one of the three lead applicants on a landmark Covid
vaccine injury class action lawsuit filed in federal court on April
26, 2023.

He is one of many Australians unhappy about his treatment by the
federal government's Covid vaccine claims scheme.

Anthony Rose, 46, another lead applicant, has experienced
incapacitating fatigue and debilitating neurological symptoms
following Moderna -- but without a definitive link to the vaccine
or even a proper diagnosis, he is on his own.

"I'm just treading water waiting to drown, basically," said Mr
Rose.

The former construction management worker and amateur martial
artist began experiencing "severe stabbing chest pains" within 24
hours of his vaccine in October 2021, which progressed into
"serious neurological issues" over the next two weeks.

"Basically blacking out, collapsing, getting severe head pressure,"
he said.

Neurological tests were unable to pinpoint the cause of his
symptoms which continue to this day, leaving him out of work and on
the brink of homelessness.

According to Mr Rose, he can handle three to four hours per day of
light activity such as walking around the house and talking before
"my brain just shuts down".

"I've only got a limited amount of function then it just completely
shuts down with seizure-like activity -- tics, tremors, my legs go,
speech goes, vision goes," he said.

"I've done everything -- all sorts of red light therapies,
hyperbaric chambers, functional neurologists where they had me on
all sorts of machines -- I've exhausted every medical avenue."

The father-of-two was rejected for compensation and "dumped on
Jobseeker".

"If rent goes up or anything changes in the slightest I’m
basically homeless," he said.

"As far as being a parent it's devastating. All our options for a
prosperous future are gone. I've sold everything, that got us 18
months, now I'm at the point loans are defaulting, everything's
gone."

For Mr O'Gradie, joining the class action was about getting
"reasonable recognition and compensation" for himself and others
like Mr Rose who are still suffering.

The drastic surgery has resolved the pericardial pain but he has
been effectively left with a permanent disability, and severely
immunocompromised due to his current medications.

"I no longer have a sac around my heart," he said.

"The pericardial sac regulates the amount of blood that flows into
the heart, sort of stops it from overflowing, so I have severe
shortness of breath and fatigue still which affects what I can do
with my family. I can't do sport, I'm never going to play footy
again. I can't do my old role. We've managed to get by but
long-term . . . what's going to happen to me? It's a bit of a
worry."

The class action, organised and crowd-funded by Queensland GP Dr
Melissa McCann, takes aim at the Commonwealth government and the
Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) -- along with a number of
senior public servants -- alleging negligence, breach of statutory
duty and misfeasance in public office.

The suit alleges that the respondents approved the vaccines "with
no proper or reasonable evidentiary or logical basis to reasonably
determine the vaccines to be safe, effective and possessing a
positive risk-benefit profile".

"The action will argue that the Therapeutic Goods Administration
did not fulfil their duty to properly regulate the Covid-19
vaccines, resulting in considerable harm and damage to
Australians," Natalie Strijland from NR Barbi Solicitor said in a
statement.

Ms Strijland said the action "arises upon the basis that the
government did not truly establish that the vaccines were indeed
safe or effective for use by the Australian public, and the claim
now proceeds upon the basis that the government in fact acted
negligently in approving the vaccines and also by failing to
withdraw them after approval based upon the known evidence".

"Australians who have experienced a serious adverse event following
Covid-19 vaccination are invited to step forward and register for
this class action," she said.

A spokesman for the Department of Health and Aged Care said, "The
department is aware of a proceeding commenced on April 27, 2023 in
the Federal Court of Australia by applicants represented by NR
Barbi Solicitor Pty Ltd. As the matter is before the court it is
not appropriate to comment further."

According to Dr McCann, nearly 500 people have already provided
details of their injuries and expressed interest in joining the
action, which she said was necessary as the existing compensation
scheme had failed Australians.

The scheme has left thousands of people suffering vaccine injuries
still waiting for a decision, and has been widely criticised as
being overly complex, difficult to access and too narrowly focused
on a small number of officially recognised side effects.

As of April 12, Services Australia had received 3501 applications
and paid 137 claims totalling more than $7.3 million. Another 2263
claims are still in progress, 405 have been withdrawn and 696
deemed not payable.

Dr McCann said the scheme was "not fit for purpose" and had left
many vaccine injured Australians "abandoned with no support" after
being promised "fair and accessible" compensation.

As of April 16, the TGA has received 138,307 total adverse event
reports from nearly 66 million doses administered, a rate of 0.2
per cent.

The medicines regulator has identified 14 reports where the cause
of death was linked to vaccination, from 985 reports received and
reviewed. "There have been no new vaccine-related deaths identified
since 2022," the TGA said in its most recent safety report.

"The TGA closely monitors reports of suspected side effects (also
known as adverse events) to the Covid-19 vaccines. This is the most
intensive safety monitoring ever conducted of any vaccines in
Australia."

The TGA said myocarditis and pericarditis were "usually temporary
conditions, with most people getting better within a few days",
noting that the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation
(ATAGI) "continues to emphasise that the protective benefits of the
vaccines far outweigh the rare risk of these side effects".

But Mr O'Gradie believes there has been "misinformation about the
safety" of the vaccines from the government.

"I think there has been some cover-up," he said.

"There was a lot of, you know, 'We need to not scare the public as
part of the vaccine rollout, so let's not publicise these things.'
There was a large, intentional withholding of information -- that
doesn't give people informed consent."

He stressed that he was "totally not or never have been
anti-vaccine".

"I'm pro-science, I'm well educated," he said.

Mr Rose, meanwhile, said it was "nothing short of criminal" that
the government "continued to push it" even as it received reports
of serious reactions and even deaths.

"The fact they've got a compensation scheme in the first place --
why would you continue if you know there's something happening?" he
said.

"It's insanity." [GN]

AUTOASSURE LLC: Roach Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Hours
-------------------------------------------------------------
DALLAS ROACH, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. AUTOASSURE, LLC, a limited liability corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 4:23-cv-00484-SPM (E.D. Mo., April 17, 2023) is brought by
the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Missouri Minimum Wage Law in order to recover unpaid overtime wages
as well as other damages from the Defendant.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its St. Peter's location as a
sales representative, also known as senior sales representatives or
service plan specialists, during portions of the previous three
years. She asserts that Defendant did not pay her time and a half
for overtime hours worked and did not pay time and a half to any
sales representatives (or those similarly situated) for hours
worked above 40 hours in any given workweek.

AutoAssure, LLC is a third-party vehicle service contract
provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bret C. Kleefuss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DERALD L. GAB
          1708 Olive Street
          St. Louis, MO 63103
          Telephone: (314) 367-4878
          Facsimile: (314) 678-3998
          E-mail: bretcharles@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Gregory Anderson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY ANDERSON
          1420 Strassner Drive
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 962-1115  
          E-mail: greg@lawofficeofgregoryanderson.com

AUTONOMY PRODUCTIONS: Ward Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PAUL WARD, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTONOMY PRODUCTIONS, LLC,
a foreign limited liability company, SHERIFF ROBOT PRODUCTION
SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV26005, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on April 14, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-02891-GW-MAR to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges the following causes of action
against Defendants: (1) failure to pay all premium wages; (2)
failure to pay all overtime wages; (3) failure to pay all wages due
and owing on separation; (4) failure to provide accurate wage
statements; and (5) unfair business practices.

Autonomy Productions, LLC is a company that operates in the media
and entertainment industry.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam Levin, Esq.
          Stephen A. Rossi, Esq.
          Kyle Decamp, Esq.
          MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
          2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120
          Telephone: (310) 312-2000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
          E-mail: axl@msk.com
                  sar@msk.com
                  kxd@msk.com

BILLYBOB HOLDINGS: Tamayo Biometrics Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANGELICA ESTRADA TAMAYO, individually and on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated persons known and
unknown, Plaintiff v. BILLYBOB HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2023CH01773, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on April 17, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-02388 to the proceeding.

On February 23, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint alleging that Billybob violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act by using biometric scanning technology to
monitor and track its employees' and other staffers, including
Plaintiff's time.

Billybob Holdings, Inc. is a corporation in the business of
recycling and compounding raw materials based in Alsip,
Illinois.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
          Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
          Shaina Wolfe, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60603-3433
          Telephone: (312) 499-6700
          Facsimile: (312) 499-6701
          E-mail: gmaatman@duanemorris.com
                  jariley@duanemorris.com
                  swolfe@duanemorris.com

BUILD REALTY: Court Granted Class Cert. in House-Flipping Scam Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that U.S. District Court
Judge Douglas Cole certified the suit as class action Feb. 21, 2023
in a case - captioned Compound Property Management LLC, et al. v.
Build Realty Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00133.

A racketeering lawsuit is progressing against a company that
marketed itself as a "one-stop shop" for house flipping, but
allegedly scammed consumers out of their savings.

The lawsuit against Build Realty -- which also does business as
Greenleaf Funding -- was originally filed in an Ohio federal court
in February 2019, WCPO reports.
U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Cole certified the suit as class
action Feb. 21.

According to the lawsuit, Build Realty and other companies
(including Edgar Construction, First Title, Gary Bailey and George
Triantafilou) advertised through seminars, social media, websites
and other media that it would teach people how to flip homes with
little or no money down and no credit checks.

The plaintiffs say the company told them it was buying homes in
bulk and it would pass the savings onto them. However, the lawsuit
alleges the company in fact bought from the market, marked up the
property and sold it to plaintiffs at a marked-up price.

Alleged victims believed they had signed a contract for purchase,
but they never actually owned the property, instead becoming the
beneficiaries of a trust, they say.
Meanwhile, the students said they were tricked by deceptive
marketing and ambiguous contract terms through a complex
racketeering scheme that was based on mail fraud.
One class and a subclass have been certified in the case.

The class is made up of anyone who paid $10,000 or more to Build
Realty to become an investor.

There is also a subclass made up of those who lost their properties
when Build Realty reclaimed them or resold them due to default,
WCPO reports.

Some people allegedly lost their life savings in the scheme, with
alleged damages estimated to be in the millions, the outlet
reports.

Olga Feree said she lost tens of thousands of dollars she paid
Build Realty to renovate a two-family home.

"They would always feed me all of this nonsense and lead me on and
say, 'Oh, it's a great investment,'" Ferree told WCPO. "They are
sneaky, they create corporation on top of corporation and there’s
nothing you can do."

In 2022, Brad Pitt's Make It Right Foundation agreed to a $20.5
million settlement to resolve allegations that it poorly rebuilt
hurricane-damaged homes.

What do you think of the allegations in this Build Realty house
flipping lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Finney Law Firm LLC and Markovits
Stock & DeMarco LLC.

The Build Realty house flipping lawsuit is Compound Property
Management LLC, et al. v. Build Realty Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00133, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio. [GN]

CAMBRIAN HOMECARE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Alberto Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER PLAYU ALBERTO, Plaintiff and Respondent v.
CAMBRIAN HOMECARE, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. B314192 (Cal.
App.), the U.S. Court of Appeals of California for the Second
District, Division Four, affirms the trial court's denial of
Cambrian's petition for arbitration.

Alberto, the Respondent, is a former employee of Appellant Cambrian
Homecare. When she was hired, Alberto signed a written arbitration
agreement. Alberto brought wage-and-hour claims against Cambrian.
Cambrian petitioned for arbitration. The trial court denied the
petition. The trial court found that even if the parties had formed
an arbitration agreement, the agreement had unconscionable terms,
terms that so permeated the agreement they could not be severed.

Cambrian hired Alberto on Sept. 17, 2019. That same day, as part of
her orientation, a Cambrian representative gave her agreements to
sign. Three of those agreements relate to resolution of potential
disputes: a "Dispute Resolution Process—Arbitration Agreement," a
"Confidentiality Agreement," and a "Confidentiality Agreement
Addendum." Alberto signed a written arbitration agreement.

On Oct. 27, 2020, Alberto filed a complaint, alleging multiple
wage-and-hour causes of action. On Jan. 4, 2021, Cambrian asked
Alberto to arbitrate her dispute. She refused and, on Jan. 25,
2021, filed a "First Amended Class Action Complaint," again
alleging wage-and-hour causes of action, and also alleging she was
an "'aggrieved employee'" under the Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA).

On March 17, 2021, Cambrian petitioned to compel arbitration. It
also contended that Alberto had waived any class or representative
claims. On April 7, 2021, Alberto opposed the petition, arguing
that no arbitration agreement had been formed because Cambrian had
not signed the agreement. She also argued that the Arbitration
Agreement was infected with both procedural and substantive
unconscionability, the taint of which cannot be severed or cured.
On April 19, 2021, Cambrian replied.

On April 29, 2021, the trial court considered Cambrian's petition,
and asked for additional briefing on the issue of whether the
Arbitration Agreement delegated the determination of the
Arbitration Agreement's validity to an arbitrator, not the trial
court. Ultimately, both Cambrian and Alberto agreed that the trial
court, not the arbitrator, should decide all issues concerning the
validity of the agreement to arbitrate, a stipulation the trial
court accepted.

On June 11, 2021, the trial court denied Cambrian's petition to
compel arbitration. It found that Cambrian's failure to sign the
Arbitration Agreement meant that the parties had not formed an
agreement to arbitrate. It reasoned that the Arbitration Agreement
contained an express provision that the parties needed to sign it
in order for it to be binding. The trial court also found the
Arbitration Agreement unconscionable and unenforceable, even
assuming it had been formed. Cambrian timely appealed.

Cambrian, on appeal, contests the trial court's rulings on contract
formation and unconscionability. The Court of Appeals holds that it
need not reach the contract formation issue. Assuming (without
deciding) that Cambrian and Alberto formed an arbitration agreement
despite Cambrian's missing signature, the agreement had
unconscionable terms. The trial court was not required to sever
those terms, and therefore was not required to enforce the
Arbitration Agreement.

The Court of Appeals finds that the trial court did not err in
finding a high degree of substantive unconscionability. The trial
court found a low degree of procedural unconscionability due to the
adhesive nature of the agreement. Neither party contests this
finding on appeal. Therefore, only a high degree of substantive
unconscionability would render the agreement unconscionable.

The Court of Appeals also has no difficulty concluding that the
Arbitration Agreement and the Confidentiality Agreement should be
read together. Treating them separately fails to account for the
overall dispute resolution process the parties agreed upon. So,
unconscionability in the Confidentiality Agreement can, and does,
affect whether the Arbitration Agreement is also unconscionable. To
hold otherwise would let Cambrian impose unconscionable arbitration
terms, and then avoid a finding of unconscionability because it put
the objectionable terms in a (formally) separate document. That is
contrary to Civil Code section 1642.

Since the two agreements were part of a single transaction
(Alberto's hiring and the dispute resolution procedure applicable
to Alberto) unconscionability in the Confidentiality Agreement is
relevant in determining whether the parties' agreement to arbitrate
was unconscionable. The Court of Appeals finds that the
Confidentiality Agreement and Addendum waived Cambrian's need to
obtain a bond before seeking an injunction, required Alberto to
agree in advance to the existence of irreparable injury, and
required Alberto to consent to the issuance of an injunction. Those
terms made the injunction provision unconscionable.

The Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's finding that the
three provisions it identified -- the non-mutual confidentiality
injunction provisions, the prohibition on discussion of wages, and
the prohibition on representative and PAGA claims -- contained a
high degree of substantive unconscionability.

The Court of Appeals next determines whether the trial court acted
properly when it refused to sever these provisions from the rest of
the parties' agreement to arbitrate. It finds that the trial
court's finding that unconscionability permeated the arbitration
agreement as a whole and its refusal to sever the unconscionable
provisions was a reasonable exercise of its discretion. The trial
court was not required to sever the offending provisions and
enforce the remainder of the Arbitration Agreement.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's
order denying arbitration. The Respondent is awarded her costs on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/pub6w48w from Leagle.com.

Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, Amber S. Healy --
ahealy@aalrr.com -- Neil M. Katsuyama -- neil.katsuyama@aalrr.com
-- and Lauren D. Fierro -- Lauren.Fierro@aalrr.com -- for the
Defendant and Appellant.

Bibiyan Law Group, David D. Bibiyan -- david@tomorrowlaw.com -- and
Diego Aviles, for the Plaintiff and Respondent.


CAREPINE HOME: Ngafua Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JARTU NGAFUA, Plaintiff v. CAREPINE HOME HEALTH,
LLC and ELIUD OMOLLO, Defendants, Case No. 220500297, was removed
from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County,
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on April 17, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01468 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff filed this action as a potential class action in the
state court on May 3, 2022 alleging Defendants violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the
Philadelphia Wage Theft Ordinance.

CarePine Home Health, LLC is a home health care service in
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          David M. Koller, Esq.
          Jordan D. Santo, Esq.
          KOLLER LAW
          2043 Locust Street, Suite 1B
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 545-8917
          Facsimile: (215) 575-0826
          E-mail: davidk@kollerlawfirm.com
                  jordans@kollerlawfirm.com

CENGAGE LEARNING: First Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Kleiner Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRED KLEINER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellant v. CENGAGE LEARNING
HOLDINGS II, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING, INC., Defendants, Appellees,
DOE AFFILIATED ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 22-1451 (1st
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reverses the
judgment of the district court granting Cengage's motion to dismiss
and remands for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion.

Kleiner claims that Cengage Learning Holdings II, Inc., and Cengage
Learning, Inc. (collectively, "Cengage") committed unfair and
deceptive business practices under Massachusetts law by
intentionally obfuscating information regarding the sales of his
published books.

Kleiner is a professor emeritus at Boston University who has
written several academic textbooks. In 2005, he entered into a
publishing agreement with Wadsworth Publishing Co., Cengage's
predecessor in interest. Under the agreement, Kleiner agreed to
author and deliver certain academic works. Wadsworth, in turn,
agreed to publish and market the works, and to pay Kleiner
royalties as specified in the agreement. The agreement contains two
"escalator levels," which increase Kleiner's royalty percentage
once a certain number of aggregate units are sold. It also imposes
a reporting obligation.

Cengage is a publisher and distributor of textbooks and other
academic material. It acquired Wadsworth and, with it, a
relationship with Kleiner. Cengage and Kleiner thereafter twice
amended the agreement without changing the choice of law clause.

After entering and emerging from bankruptcy around 2013-2014,
Cengage shifted its focus from a traditional textbook sales model
to a subscription model. In the new model, called Cengage
Unlimited, students can pay a single-price subscription fee per
semester for Cengage's entire catalog, rather than purchasing books
individually. To fit this new business model, Cengage designed a
new method of calculating royalties owed to authors, as it no
longer simply sold discrete units of an author's work.

Under the new method, Cengage allocates the subscription fees users
pay into several different "revenue pools" based on the type of
material included in the subscription (e-books, courseware
supplements, or print rentals) and assigns authors' works into one
of the revenue pools. Authors are then paid royalties from the
revenue pool based on several variables, including (1) the author's
contractual royalty rate, (2) the number of "uses" of the work, and
(3) the net price as a percentage of total revenue for each title
and product type.

Kleiner claims that Cengage exploited opportunities for obfuscation
and deception that resulted from this new, more complex method of
calculating royalties. He alleges that Cengage provided authors
with incorrect and otherwise confusing reports, and then refused to
provide straightforward responses to author inquiries that would
have revealed that Cengage was not paying the full amount of
royalties due to the authors. In a proposed amended complaint
submitted along with his opposition to Cengage's motion to dismiss,
Kleiner further alleges that Cengage sought to leverage authors'
confusion by negotiating new agreements with terms more favorable
to Cengage.

Kleiner's putative class action complaint against Cengage on behalf
of himself and other authors alleges a single count for violation
of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, which prohibits unfair
or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce. He seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Cengage to disclose its
royalty calculation methods and provide reasonable disclosures of
royalty-related information. He also seeks treble damages and
attorneys' fees.

Cengage moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the
choice of law clause in Kleiner's publishing agreement bars the
assertion of a claim arising only under Massachusetts law. It also
argued that even if Massachusetts law applies, the complaint fails
to state a claim under Chapter 93A.

The district court granted Cengage's motion, reading the choice of
law clause as mandating that all disputes be resolved according to
New York law. It held the clause enforceable and characterized
Kleiner's claim as 'essentially duplicative' of a contract claim;
therefore, the court reasoned, it was barred by the choice of law
clause. It did not address whether the complaint failed to state a
claim under Chapter 93A.

Kleiner appealed. He argues that the agreement's selection of New
York law is unenforceable, and that even if it is enforceable, its
selection of New York law to construe and govern the agreement does
not bar Kleiner's statutory claim under Massachusetts' Chapter
93A.

The First Circuit agrees with Kleiner that the choice of law clause
does not bar the assertion of Kleiner's claim. If Cengage deceived
an author in reporting what royalties were due under the contract
as construed under New York law, nothing in the contract would
dictate the choice of law to be applied in determining whether that
alleged deception was actionable not as a breach of contract, but
as a violation of Chapter 93A. And because neither party points to
any other respect in which New York and Massachusetts law differ as
they might bear on this dispute, the First Circuit declines to
decide whether the choice of New York law is unenforceable.

For these reasons, the First Circuit reverses the judgment of the
district court and remands for further proceedings consistent with
its Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mr23yv2t from Leagle.com.

Richard Weingarten -- rweingarten@slarskey.com -- with whom David
Slarskey -- dslarskey@slarskey.com -- Slarskey LLC, Edward V.
Colbert III -- colbert@casneredwards.com -- David Koha --
koha@casneredwards.com -- and Casner & Edwards, LLP, were on brief,
for the Appellant.

Michael R. Gottfried -- MRGottfried@duanemorris.com -- with whom
Duane Morris LLP was on brief, for the Appellees.


CEREBRAL MEDICAL: Sanders Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RITA SANDERS, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CEREBRAL MEDICAL GROUP, a
Professional Corporation, CEREBRAL, INC., a California Corporation,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV05406
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District for the Central District of
California on April 17, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-02880-CAS-MAR to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's first amended complaint, the operative complaint
filed on March 14, 2023, asserts causes of action for (1)
negligence, (2) breach of implied contract, (3) Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act; (4) unfair business practices, and (5)
unjust enrichment against Defendants in connection with their
alleged unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's and the putative
class members' personal health information and/or personal
identifying information to third parties, which was discovered on
or around January 3, 2023.

Cerebral Medical Group is a teletherapy and medication management
company.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Teresa C. Chow, Esq.
          Alexis Cruz, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
          Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com
                 acruz@bakerlaw.com

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: McMahon Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 3rd Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Bridget McMahon, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 3, 2023
entered in the lawsuit entitled BRIDGET MCMAHON and JAMES RICE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CHIPOTLE
MEXICAN GRILL, INC., t/d/b/a CHIPOTLE, Case No. 2:20-cv-01448-WSS,
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs Bridget McMahon and James Rice claim Chipotle
misappropriated consumer funds through its company policy of
allegedly "short-changing customers who used cash to purchase
food." In the event a customer used cash to make a purchase at a
Pennsylvania Chipotle location, the Mexican food restaurant would
withhold the coin portion of any change due, the Chipotle class
action alleges.

On September 25, 2020, the Defendant removed this case from the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County to the Western District
of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 1, 2023, the
Defendant asked the Court to enter an order granting leave to file
its response in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification under seal for the following reasons:

   1. The Defendant will be filing a Response in Opposition to
      Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification that refers to
      documents that have been designated as "Confidential"
      pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in
      this matter on May 27, 2021.

   2. Reference to the designated materials is necessary in
      order for the Court to address Defendant's response to
      the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

   3. Compelling reasons and good causes support sealing
      the Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs'
      motion for class certification, because it identifies
      information that contains trade secrets, competitively
      sensitive technical, marketing, financial, sales,
      proprietary, sensitive business information, and private
      personal information.

On April 3, 2023, Judge William S. Stickman entered a Memorandum
Opinion and Order DENYING Defendant's January 18, 2023 Motion to
Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Matthew E. Pohl; DENYING
Plaintiffs' December 19, 2022 Motion for Class Certification,
DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiffs' December 19, 2022 Motion to Appoint
Rothman Gordon, P.C. as Class Counsel.

The appellate case is captioned as Bridget McMahon, et al. v.
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., Case No. 23-8018, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 13,
2023.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners BRIDGET MCMAHON, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Frank G. Salpietro, Esq.
          William F. Ward, Esq.
          ROTHMAN GORDON
          310 Grant Street, 3rd Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 338-1185

Defendant-Respondent CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL INC, TDBA Chipotle, is
represented by:

          Betsy Bulat, Esq.
          Robert J. Mollohan, Jr., Esq.
          MARTENSON HASBROUCK & SIMON
          2573 Apple Valley Road NE
          Atlanta, GA 30319
          Telephone: (404) 909-8100

               - and -

          Derek J. Illar, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT
          600 Grant Street
          44th Floor, US Steel Tower
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 566-6771

CLARKSBURG WATER: Faces Class Suit Over Water Lead Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Makayla Schindler of 12WBoy reports that Mani Ellis & Layne, PLLC
is partnering with the Loomis Law Office, PLLC in pursuing an
active class action lawsuit against the Clarksburg Water Board.

The lawsuit is said to be on behalf of Water Board customers and
others affected by lead levels in the water supply, mentioned
Bernie Layne, Attorney and partner at Mani Ellis & Layne. According
to Layne, within the case, the Board failed to notify the public
about the risk of lead exposure in the city's drinking water in a
2021 investigation conducted by the West Virginia Department of
Health and Human Resources.

While discussing some details with Layne, he told a 12 News
reporter, "a great amount of research and interviews and collection
of physical data and reports have gone into the process of making a
determination as to whether we believe there is legal liability,
with regard to the activities undertaken by the Clarksburg Water
Board and other alleged defendants."

Mani Ellis & Layne have posted a more in-depth look into the
lawsuit on its website. Which, according to its website, certain
streets and neighborhoods in Clarksburg tested extremely high for
lead content in the water, including:

Tyler Avenue - 2,130 parts per billion (PPB)
Bridge Street - 726.5 PPB
Stanley Avenue - 326.6 PPB

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues
warnings when lead content is above 15 parts per billion, meaning
these numbers are much higher than that limit. The main concern is
the risk of lead poisoning for residents of homes built before
1960, and women who are pregnant or are nursing as well as their
babies. You can find symptoms, what to do if you are affected, and
other legal options here.

The Clarksburg Water Board held a meeting on April 25 at 3:00 p.m.
and did not provide comment on the active lawsuit. However, it did
share water sample results from four of its normal testing sites
from last year to this year. It showed the lead results mostly
staying under 10 PPB.

There was a spike to higher numbers in July 2022, but Davis
mentioned that Summer is typically when lead results are at their
highest due to the lead leaching into the warm water. They are
hoping that the phosphoric acid they have been adding to the water
will coat the inside of the pipes and prevent old water lines from
polluting the water with lead.

Davis told 12 News: "I wanna show you the numbers, the numbers are
coming down… I'll tell anybody, the main thing is when that water
warms up in the summertime, that's when we're gonna know if the
phosphates really working because that's when you start getting the
really high numbers. But as right now, it’s really reduced the
values out there."

Only time will tell what comes of the lawsuit, as well as the lead
content results in the summer. [GN]

COBB COUNTY, GA: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Bentley Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN BENTLEY; GARY CHASTAIN; JOHN CONNIFF, JR.; JEFFERY DEMOSS,
STEVEN LESTER; KEVIN LEWIS; IAN MARTIN; KEITH SCHNEIDER; KYLE
SMITH, and EDWARD TOWNSEND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COBB COUNTY, GA,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01827-TWT (N.D., GA., April 21, 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.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as battalion chiefs.

COBB COUNTY, GA operates the Cobb County Fire Department ("CCFD"),
which is the Cobb County department responsible for providing fire
suppression and first response emergency medical service to Cobb
County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Stanojevich, Esq.
          QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
          4100 Perimeter Park South
          Atlanta, GA 3034

               - and -

          Lauren P. McDermott, Esq.
          Mark J. Murphy, Esq.
          MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C.
          1920 L Street, NW, STE 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Email: lmcdermott@mooneygreen.com
                 mmurphy@mooneygreen.com

CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Bid to Dismiss Morris Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMANDA MORRIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. CROSSCOUNTRY
MORTGAGE, LLC; RALEIGH REALTY, INC. (f/k/a Raleigh Realty, LLC),
Defendants, Case No. 5:22-CV-336-BO-BM (E.D.N.C.), Judge Terrence
W. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, Western Division:

   a. grants in part and denies without prejudice in part
      CrossCountry's motion to dismiss;

   b. grants Raleigh Realty's motion to dismiss;

   c. dismisses the Plaintiffs' complaint is without prejudice
      pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); and

   d. grants the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend their
      complaint.

Plaintiffs Amanda and Joshua Morris commenced the action on Aug.
25, 2022. Their complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. Section
2607, by engaging in a "kickback" or "unearned fee" scheme
prohibited by RESPA. Specifically, they allege that they were
clients of Raleigh Realty in 2021 looking to buy a home. Early in
their search, the Plaintiffs prequalified with another lender at a
2.25% interest rate with a 100% loan to value ratio. In May 2021,
they entered into a residential purchase agreement to purchase a
home.

The Plaintiffs allege that they were steered by the Raleigh Realty
agent to obtain a loan from CrossCountry Mortgage, which offered an
interest rate of 3.625% and charged a $995.00 loan origination fee.
Theys did in fact obtain a mortgage from CrossCountry Mortgage for
the purchase of their primary residence in Clayton, North Carolina
under the foregoing terms, and their Deed of Trust on the property
was recorded on Aug. 31, 2021.

The Plaintiffs allege that the words and actions of Raleigh Realty,
through its owners and/or agents, had the effect of influencing
their selection of CrossCountry Mortgage as a mortgage lender. They
further allege that one or more North Carolina branches of
CrossCountry Mortgage have been paying thousands of dollars a month
to Raleigh Realty and/or its owner Ryan Fitzgerald in exchange for
Raleigh Realty referring, steering, and otherwise directing all of
their home buyers to CrossCountry for mortgage lending services.
They allege that if Mr. Fitzgerald discovered that any Raleigh
Realty agents were not referring home buyers to CrossCountry
Mortgage he would threaten to deprive those agents of future
leads.

Both Defendants have moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. CrossCountry Mortgage has also
moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. Both Defendants contend
that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that they suffered
an injury in fact.

The Plaintiffs contend they were injured when as a result of the
Defendants' illegal agreement and acts to carry it out, they and
others similarly situated were unfairly and deceptively steered
toward obtaining federally related mortgage loans from CrossCountry
Mortgage and have been injured by the payment of unlawful closing
fees and/or the payment of origination fees or interest rates in
excess of what CrossCountry's competitors in the market would have
charged. Their specific allegations identify (1) an origination fee
of $995 paid to CrossCountry and (2) a mortgage with an interest
rate almost 1.5 points higher than what they had prequalified for
with another lender.

First, Judge Boyle holds that unlawful closing fees are rocedural
violations unless the Plaintiff has alleged that they resulted in
increased settlement costs. The Plaintiffs offer a bare allegation
that they were charged an origination fee by CrossCountry, but
provide no allegations which would plausibly support a showing that
an origination fee would not have been charged by another lender or
that CrossCountry's origination fee was unreasonably higher than
other lenders.

Second, the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that using
CrossCountry Mortgage resulted in an increased interest rate. There
are no allegations which would support a showing that their
prequalification rate would have been applied in August had they
proceeded with financing with the other lender or that
CrossCountry's rate was higher than they would have qualified for
elsewhere during the relevant period, August 2021. In other words,
Judge Boyle holds that the fact that te Plaintiffs prequalified in
February at a particular interest rate has little relevance to the
interest rate they closed with six months later.

Third, for the same reasons, Judge Boyle finds that the Plaintiffs
have failed to plausibly allege that they have suffered an injury
in fact, or real harm. In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege a
single RESPA violation for engaging in a kickback or referral
scheme in violation of Section 2607, and courts have found there to
be no private right of action under RESPA's disclosure requirement
found in 12 U.S.C. Section 2603. Moreover, for an informational
injury to confer Article III standing, it must nonetheless result
in a 'real' harm with an adverse effect.

Finally, at the hearing, the Plaintiffs requested leave to amend
their complaint to address the pleading deficiencies. Judge Boyle,
in his discretion, permits the Plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint to attempt to remedy their inadequate jurisdictional
allegations.

Because he has determined that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the complaint as filed, Judge Boyle declines to
consider CrossCountry Mortgage's Rule 12(b)(6) argument. The motion
to dismiss on this ground is therefore denied without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint not more than 14 days
from the date of entry of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/57dc3u39 from Leagle.com.


EDGIO INC: Faces Esfandiari Class Suit Over Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP of BusinessWire reports that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona, captioned Esfandiari v. Edgio, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00691, on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Edgio, Inc. f/k/a Limelight
Networks, Inc. ("Edgio" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EGIO) securities
between February 11, 2021 and March 12, 2023, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this
notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your Edgio investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/Edgio-Inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or
visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your
rights.

On March 13, 2023, before the market opened, Edgio issued a press
release announcing that it will restate its previously issued
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2021 and
2020, as well as the quarterly reports for fiscal 2022 and 2021,
because its audit committee "identified an error in the Company's
historic accounting treatment of Edgio's Open Edge solution." The
Company anticipated the restatements would result in a "reduction
to revenue of up to approximately $23.0 million for the nine-month
period ended September 30, 2022, up to approximately $16.7 million
for the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2021, and up to
approximately $6.6 million for the twelve-month period ended
December 31, 2020." As a result, the Company stated that it would
be unable to file its annual report on time.

On this news, the Company’s share price fell $0.1597, or 15.5%,
to close at $0.8703 per share on March 13, 2023, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the sale of Open Edge equipment should be
accounted as financing leases; (2) that there were material
weaknesses in the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting related to Open Edge transactions; (3) that, as a result,
the Company's revenue had been overstated in certain periods; and
(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendant’s positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Edgio securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To
be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain
an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

Contacts

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]

EL CAMINO: Faces Edwards Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Tips
-----------------------------------------------------
DYLAN EDWARDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EL CAMINO FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 0:23-cv-60720 (S.D. Fla., April 17, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and the Class members state
and federal minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Florida Minimum Wage Act, and the Florida Constitution.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a tipped, non-exempt Front of
the House barback at El Camino in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida from
April 28, 2022 until December 3, 2022. He asserts that the
Defendant committed federal and state minimum wage violations
because it failed to provide Front of the House employees with
statutorily required tip notice and allowed Supervisors and
Managers to take Front of the House employees' tips during the
previous five years.

El Camino Fort Lauderdale, LLC owns and controls El Camino
Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Jake S. Blumstein, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

FLORIDA HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss Data-Sharing Class Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that a proposed class
action alleging that Florida Health Sciences Center Inc. illegally
shared patients' information with Meta Platforms Inc. will stay in
federal court.

The hospital, which does business as Tampa General Hospital,
defeated the plaintiff's attempt to voluntarily dismiss the action
as part of a pleading maneuver to defeat federal jurisdiction.

Granting voluntary dismissal would result in the hospital losing a
substantial statutory right to have the case heard in federal
court, Judge William F. Jung of the US District Court for the
Middle District of Florida said on April 24, 2023. [GN]


FOX REHABILITATION: Appeals Final Judgment in Conner TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
FOX REHABILITATION SERVICES PC filed an appeal from the District
Court's Final Judgment dated April 3, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
entitled STEVEN A. CONNER DPM, P.C., Plaintiff v. FOX
REHABILITATION SERVICES, P.C., Defendant, Civil Action No.
2:21-cv-1580-MMB, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brings this
action against Fox for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and conversion of its paper and toner used to print
the "junk" faxes he received.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and other persons similarly
situated, initiated the action on April 2, 2021, alleging the
Defendant violated the TCPA when it sent it a series of fax during
the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic and converted the
Plaintiff's toner and paper used to print those faxes. On June 10,
2021, Fox answered the Plaintiff's Complaint, and the parties
proceeded through discovery.

On Sept. 6, 2022, the Court denied class certification and Fox's
motion for summary judgment. Conner sought an interlocutory appeal
on the Court's decision regarding certification, which was denied
by the Third Circuit.

Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania entered an Order on February 24, 2023
finding for the Plaintiff only on claims under the
Telecommunications and Consumer Protection Act of 1991. As to
whether Conner was entitled to damages on his conversion claim,
Judge Baylson held that although the facts show that Fox sent junk
faxes to Dr. Conner's fax machine, he cannot find that this was
"serious" interference and thus rules for Fox on the conversion
claims.

On March 29, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an appeal to review Judge
Baylson's Order. That appellate case was captioned as Steven A.
Conner DPM P.C. v. Fox Rehabilitation Services PC, Case No.
23-1550, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

On April 3, 2023, Judge Baylson entered a Final Judgment Order in
favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant, Fox Rehabilitation
Services in the total amount of $4,000.00, plus costs.

This appellate case is captioned as Conner v. Fox Rehabilitation
Services PC, Case No. 23-1684, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 13, 2023.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant FOX REHABILITATION SERVICES PC is represented
by:

          Alexander D. Terepka, Esq.
          KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER
          171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550
          Atlanta, GA 30363

               - and -

          Ryan D. Watstein, Esq.
          WATSTEIN TEREPKA
          1055 Howell Mill Road, 8th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: (404) 782-0695

Plaintiff-Appellee STEVEN A. CONNER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:


           Barry J. Blonien, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM
          203 N La Salle Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (608) 205-4147  

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK LAW FIRM
          820 W 41st Street, Suite 35
          Miami Beach, FL 33140
          Telephone: (305) 239-8726

GENERAC POWER: Faces Baltimore Class Suit Over Defective Switches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a class action
alleges Generac has falsely advertised its PWRcell system in that
certain critical connector components can overheat, melt or explode
during normal use in case - captioned Baltimore et al. v. Generac
Power Systems, Inc.

Two North Carolina residents allege in a proposed class action that
Generac Power Systems has falsely advertised its PWRcell clean
energy system in that certain critical connector components can
overheat, melt or explode during normal use.

The 34-page suit piggybacks onto a proposed class action filed last
October that alleged Generac's SnapRS 801 switch, the predecessor
to the 802 switch, was prone to repeatedly turn on and off before
eventually deforming and melting during normal use. The new case,
filed in North Carolina, alleges Generac's purported fix for the
melting problem, the SnapRS 802 switches, "fail[] just as earlier
models did," as they will "overheat, melt, explode, and otherwise
malfunction" during normal use.

The lawsuit alleges all three models of Generac’s SnapRS
connectors, the 801, 801A and 802, are afflicted by the same
defect—namely, that they are overactive and repeatedly turn on or
off instead of remaining in the on or off position consistently,
causing overheating. Per the suit, Generac has deliberately and
willfully concealed the SnapRS switch defect from consumers, who've
allegedly been deprived of the benefit of their bargain after
reportedly paying a roughly $47,000 baseline starting price for the
PWRcell clean energy system.

"Indeed, rather than providing consumers with new, non-defective
Snaps after they fail as a result of the Defect, Generac fails to
provide a non-defective replacement component capable of remedying
the problem and/or improperly denies consumers' warranty claims,"
the lawsuit says.

Per the suit, Generac boasts that consumers who use a fully
functional PWRcell system, touted as "the complete clean energy
system," will save more than $66,000 in energy costs over 25 years.
The company describes its PWRcell as "not just a powerful battery,
but [] also the most flexible and scalable home energy system on
the market," claiming the product offers "30% more power output
than our competitors" and "more storage capacity," the lawsuit
states.

According to the suit, Generac fails to disclose the "known Defect"
to consumers or provide non-defective replacement parts. The case
claims that although Generac represents that replacement SnapRS
switches are available, consumers often find that they're unable to
buy the product directly from the company or receive service from
authorized dealers.

As a result, consumers are left with PWRcell systems that do not
function as intended, and many end up voiding their warranties
given that they are forced to receive service outside of Generac's
dealership network, the case says.

The filing specifies that consumers cannot buy solar panels from
Generac, and that the company's PWRcell system is designed to
integrate with a consumer's existing solar panel setup to "manage
electricity produced by solar panel modules for consumption within
a consumer's home." Generac uses its PV Link to connect solar
modules into an array, with the SnapRS switches installed to enable
rapid shutdown, the case relays.

Without functioning Snaps, the suit says, electricity produced by a
single solar panel module is unable to circulate around the panel
array to the PV Link and from there into a consumer's home, the
lawsuit explains, stressing that a damaged or destroyed Snap
disrupts electricity flow and may render an entire array of solar
panels useless.

According to court documents, there are at least six proposed class
action cases pending against Generac in several districts
nationwide over the alleged SnapRS switch defect. The case filed
against the company in October 2022 has been stayed pending a
decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)
on whether to consolidate the case with several related lawsuits,
court documents show.

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons who bought a Generac PWRcell
system in North Carolina anytime within the applicable statute of
limitations period and until the date notice is sent to proposed
class members. [GN]

GOODYEAR TIRE: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 5, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arisha Byars v. The
Goodyear Tire And Rubber Co., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-01358-SSS-KK
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order
setting deadlines for the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification as follows:

                   Event                        Deadline

  Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend            June 26, 2023
  Pleadings or Add Parties

  Deadline for the Plaintiff to File           Jan. 5,2024
  Motion for Class Certification and
  Any Class Certification Expert Report

  Deadline for the Defendant to File           Jan. 19, 2024
  Opposition to Class Certification
  and Any Class Certification Expert
  Report

  Deadline for the Plaintiff to File           Feb. 26,2024
  Reply in Support of Motion for
  Class Certification and Any Class
  Certification Rebuttal Expert Report

  Class Certification Hearing                  Feb. 23,2024

Goodyear Tire is an American multinational tire manufacturing
company founded in 1898 by Frank Seiberling and based in Akron,
Ohio.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L61FAD at no extra charge.[CC]




GOOGLE LLC: Faces Nichols Suit Over Mislabeled Mobile Phones
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE NICHOLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No
1:23-cv-01022-RMR-NRN (D. Col., April 22, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant is engaged in deceptive business practices in selling the
Pixel 4a, Pixel 5, and Pixel 5a mobile phones, advertised as
capable of accessing 5G broadband networks.

According to the complaint, the products were manufactured,
identified, marketed, and sold by Defendant and expressly and
impliedly warranted to the Plaintiff and class members that they
were capable of accessing 5G networks. The Defendant's
representations about the products were conveyed in writing and
promised it would be defect-free, and Plaintiff understood this
meant they were capable of accessing 5G networks, says the suit.

The products were not merchantable because they were not fit to
pass in the trade as advertised, not fit for the ordinary purpose
for which it was intended and did not conform to the promises or
affirmations of fact made on the packaging, container or label,
because they were marketed as if were capable of accessing 5G
networks, the suit alleges.

GOOGLE LLC operates as a global technology company specializes in
internet related services and products. The Company focuses on
web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine,
cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Faces Fischer Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH FISCHER, MICHAEL O'SULLIVAN, JOHN MOESER, LOUIS PIA, THOMAS
BARDEN, CONSTANCE MANGAN, and CHARISE JONES individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a GEICO, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-02848 (E.D.N.Y., April 17, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages on behalf of the Plaintiffs and non-exempt employees
with substantially similar job duties who worked for the Defendants
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiffs were former employees of the Defendant who worked as
special investigators as part of the Woodbury, New York office.
They assert that GEICO had a practice of suffering and permitting
them and similarly situated employees to work without pay,
including substantial overtime work.

Government Employees Insurance Company d/b/a GEICO is in the
business of providing vehicle insurance, property insurance, and
business insurance. GEICO operates in all 50 states, including New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Troy Kessler, Esq.
          Garrett Kaske, Esq.
          KESSLER MATURA P.C.
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
          E-mail: tkesler@kesslermatura.com
                  gkaske@kesslermatura.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
          Theanne Liu Svedman, Esq.
          Jarron D. McAllister, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
          E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com
                  tliu@outtengolden.com
                  jmcallister@outtengolden.com

GUNNAR OPTIKS: Gimenez Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GASTON PROCOPIO GIMENEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GUNNAR OPTIKS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 37-2023-00007453-CU-FR-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California on April 14, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00671-AGS-WVG to the proceeding.

The complaint is a putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges
Gunnar Optiks advertised, and continues to advertise, false
information related to its blue light-filtering glasses. The
Plaintiff claims that such practices constitute untrue or
misleading advertising under California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, California's False Advertising Law, California's Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law, as
well as various common law claims.

Gunnar Optiks, LLC manufactures and retails digital eyewear.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy K. Branson, Esq.  
          Patrick J. Mulkern, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
          101 W. Broadway Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-7441
          Facsimile: (619) 696-7124
          E-mail: tbranson@grsm.com
                  pmulkern@grsm.com

HARBOR UCLA: Wilcox Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TURESA WILCOX, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARBOR UCLA MEDICAL CENTER
GUILD, INC., a California nonprofit corporation; ATC HEALTHCARE
SERVICES LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV04472, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on April 14, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-02802 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action against the Defendants
for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and Wage
Orders, and the Unfair Competition Law, California Business and
Professions Code.

Harbor UCLA Medical Center Guild provides health care
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angelica A. Zabanal, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 689-7400
          Facsimile: (213) 689-7401
          E-mail: aazabanal@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          Gerald L. Maatman, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 499-6700
          Facsimile: (312) 279-6780
          E-mail: gmaatman@duanemorris.com
                  jariley@duanemorris.com

               - and -
          Shireen Y. Wetmore, Esq.
          Lauren M. Case, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          Spear Tower One Market Plaza, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1127
          Telephone: (415) 957-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 957-3001
          E-mail: sywetmore@duanemorris.com
                  lmcase@duanemorris.com

HDR ENGINEERING: Bacani Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NORMA BACANI, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HDR ENGINEERING, INC., a Nebraska
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CVRI2301360, 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 14, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:23-cv-00655 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff asserts eight causes of action against
Defendant for: (1) failure to pay all overtime wages; (2) failure
to pay all sick time; (3) meal period violations; (4) rest period
violations; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; (6) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses:
(7) waiting time penalties; and (8) unfair competition.

HDR is an employee-owned architecture, engineering and consulting
firm.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Hazel U. Poei, Esq.
          Vincent L. Chen, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 885-1360
          Facsimile: (949) 885-1380       
          E-mail: hazel.poei@jacksonlewis.com
                  vincent.chen@jacksonlewis.com

HEREFORD INSURANCE: MSP Suit Dismissal for Lack of Standing Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, A DELAWARE ENTITY,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. HEREFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, A NEW YORK
COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Docket No. 22-80 (2d Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the judgment of the
district court dismissing MSP's amended complaint for lack of
standing and denying further leave to amend.

The appeal stems from one of numerous lawsuits that MSP has brought
around the country seeking to recover from insurance companies that
allegedly owe payments to Medicare Advantage Organizations ("MAOs")
under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (the "MSP Act"). In the
putative class action brought, MSP charges Hereford with
"deliberate and systematic avoidance" of Hereford's reimbursement
obligations under the MSP Act.

Hereford provides no-fault insurance to its policyholders. When a
policyholder is a Medicare beneficiary, Hereford's no-fault policy
is a primary plan under the MSP Act. MSP is a litigation and
technology firm that owns and pursues claims arising under
government healthcare programs on behalf of healthcare
organizations and providers, including MAOs. It is not itself an
MAO, but its assignors are.8 Health Insurance Plan of Greater New
York, an EmblemHealth company and a MAO, is alleged to be one of
MSP's assignors.

MSP seeks double damages in this putative class action for what it
describes as Hereford's deliberate and systematic avoidance of
payment and/or reimbursement obligations under the MSP Act. It
contends that Hereford failed to reimburse EmblemHealth and the
proposed class of MAOs for conditional payments made by the MAOs
for medical expenses incurred by Medicare beneficiaries enrolled
with the MAOs and that Hereford, as the primary plan, was required
to pay under its no-fault insurance policies.

MSP now identifies only one set of facts that it asserts
exemplifies this "deliberate and systematic avoidance": that of the
Medicare beneficiary "N.G." It alleges that on Oct. 14, 2014, N.G.
was injured in an accident and required medical care as a result.
At the time of the accident, N.G. was enrolled in an MA plan issued
by the MAO EmblemHealth. N.G. was also covered by a no-fault policy
issued by Hereford. For medical services provided to N.G. between
October 14 and October 18, EmblemHealth was billed $9,085.15 and
paid $2,694.15. Hereford reported N.G.'s medical services to CMS
under Section 111. By reporting these services to CMS, MSP alleges,
Hereford admitted that it should have paid for N.G.'s
accident-related injuries in the first instance. To date, Hereford
has not reimbursed EmblemHealth for the amounts EmblemHealth paid.

MSP seeks to recover expenses associated with not only the medical
services that N.G. received, but also amounts associated with the
63 claims listed in Exhibit A of its Amended Complaint—medical
services that Medicare beneficiaries who enrolled with EmblemHealth
as their MAO allegedly incurred, that EmblemHealth paid, and that
Hereford reported to CMS under Section 111. MSP's double-damages
claim also extends to costs for claims that it extrapolates on
behalf of a putative class of all MAOs (and their assignees) that
paid for a Medicare beneficiary's accident-related medical services
from March 2015 to March 2021 and for which Hereford, as the
primary plan, should have reimbursed the MAOs or paid in the first
instance.

MSP sued Hereford in June 2020. After Hereford moved to dismiss,
MSP amended its complaint. Hereford again moved to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
The district court granted Hereford's motion, concluding that MSP
did not have standing to bring its N.G. or class claims. The
district court dismissed MSP's amended complaint for lack of
standing and denied further leave to amend.

MSP timely appealed.

The Second Circuit concludes that MSP does not have standing under
Article III because it has failed to establish either
injury-in-fact or causation. It holds that the plain language of
Section 111 tells that when a no-fault insurance provider such as
Hereford reports a claim pursuant to Section 111, it does not
thereby admit that it is liable for the claim. The statutory
context of the section's reporting obligation and the purpose of
the reporting obligation confirm the correctness of this
interpretation.

Because MSP's argument that the payments made by EmblemHealth are
reimbursable by Hereford rests entirely on its proposed
interpretation of Section 111, MSP has not adequately alleged a
"concrete" or "actual" injury or that the injury it alleges is
fairly traceable to Hereford. It therefore lacks standing to bring
the N.G. exemplar claim. Accordingly, it also lacks standing to
bring its Exhibit A and class claims, which rely on the same
theories of injury and causation.

The Second Circuit also concludes that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying MSP leave to amend based on its
repeated failures to cure. The complaints in each of these
dismissed cases are substantially similar and yet MSP has made no
meaningful efforts of which we are aware to amend its standing
allegations either in the complaint or the amended complaint filed
in the case.

Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirms the judgment of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Order is available
at https://rb.gy/gaswl from Leagle.com.

FRANCESCO ZINCONE (Jorge A. Mestre -- jmestre@riveromestre.com --
on the brief), Rivero Mestre LLP, New York, NY, for the
Plaintiff-Appellant.

MICHAEL F. PERLEY -- MFP@HURWITZFINE.COM -- Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.,
Buffalo, NY, for the Defendant-Appellee.


HOME DEPOT: Case Schedule, Trial Date Stricken in Didzun Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD JAMES DIDZUN, an
individual; IAN McANDREWS and KATE McANDREWS, individually and for
their marital community; on behalf of themselves and persons
similarly situated; v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., a foreign corporation,
and HOME DEPOT USA, INC.; Case No. 2:21-cv-01540-RSL (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order striking the
current case schedule and trial date to allow the Parties to
prepare for mediation.

On July 22, 2022, the parties filed their Joint Motion to Continue
Trial Date and Amend Case Schedule. On July 25, 2022, the Court
Granted the parties' Motion to Continue and set March 7, 2023, as
the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Class
Certification.

On March 6, 2023, the parties jointly requested the Court extend
the deadline for filing of the Plaintiffs' class certification
materials by six weeks.

The Court granted this request and reset the deadline to April 18,
2023. During the collaborative preparation of that stipulated
request, the parties expressed mutual interest in participating in
a pre-certification mediation. The Parties have agreed on potential
mediators and are in the process of finalizing a mediation date in
either May or June 2023.

The parties require additional time to explore a potential agreed
resolution of this dispute, without the distraction or expense of
simultaneous certification briefing, and thus, the parties believe
good cause exists to strike the trial date pending the outcome of
the approaching mediation.

Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail
corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances,
and services, including fuel and transportation rentals.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40s7ePy at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark A. Trivett, Esq.
          Duncan C. Turner, Esq.
          BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
          19929 Ballinger Way NE, Ste. 200
          Seattle, WA 98155
          Telephone: (206) 621-6566
          E-mail: dturner@badgleymullins.com
                  mtrivett@badgleymullins.com

                - and -

          Abel M. Tsegga, Esq.
          NORTHSHORE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          144 Railroad Ave. Ste. 308
          Edmonds, WA 98020
          Telephone: (206) 697-4878
          Facsimile: (206) 512-1106
          E-mail: abel@northshorelawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Laurence A. Shapero, Esq.
          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 693-7057
          Facsimile: (206) 693-7058
          E-mail: Laurence.shapero@ogletree.com
                  evan.moses@ogletree.com

HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Pizzuto Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D. Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL C. PIZZUTO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. HOMOLOGY MEDICINES, INC., ARTHUR
O. TZIANABOS, W. BRADFORD SMITH, and ALBERT SEYMOUR, Case No.
2:22-cv-01968, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on April 21, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:23-cv-10858-AK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding Homology's business, operations,
and compliance policies in order to trade Homology securities at
artificially inflated prices between June 10, 2019 and February 18,
2022.

Homology Medicines, Inc. is a genetic medicines company with
principal executive offices located at One Patriots Park, Bedford,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Telephone: (310) 405-7190
         E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

HUSKY OIL: $2.7MM in Attorneys' Fees & Costs Awarded in Bruzek Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASEN BRUZEK, HOPE KOPLIN, and CHRISTOPHER PETERSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HUSKY OIL OPERATIONS LTD. and SUPERIOR REFINING
COMPANY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-697-wmc (W.D. Wis.), Judge
William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin awards $2,723,211.91 in attorneys' fees and
actual costs.

Following a 2018 explosion and fire at defendants' refinery in
Superior, Wisconsin, the named Plaintiffs and other residents were
forced to evacuate their homes and businesses. On behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated residents who incurred
damages as a result of their evacuation, the Plaintiffs sued Husky
Oil Operations Ltd. and Superior Refining Co. LLC.

In a previous order, the Court approved a class settlement in which
the Defendants agreed to pay a total of $1.05 million into a class
fund to be divided as follows: (1) $2,000 each to the class
representatives; (2) $169,000 for notice and claims administration;
and (3) the remaining $875,000 in payments to the class members who
submitted a claim. The only issue remaining before the Court is the
Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

The Court held an oral argument on the Plaintiffs' fee request on
Jan. 21, 2022.

The class counsel has filed a motion for an award of attorneys'
fees based on the lodestar method: the number of hours reasonably
expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.
Specifically, they submitted billing records showing 6,251 hours of
work spent on the case and hourly rates ranging from $350 to $845
for attorneys and $200 to $315 for paralegals, for a total of
$3,151,017.25 in attorney fees and $359,948.97 in costs.

Considering the degree of the counsel's success in achieving a
class settlement, the time spent on unsuccessful claims and
theories, and excessive fees driven by the Defendants' aggressive
tactics, Judge Conley concludes that a reduction of 25% in fees is
appropriate, for a total of $2,363,262.94 in fees and $359,948.97
in costs. He is satisfied that the class counsel's rates are
reasonable and adequately supported as the market rate.

For these reasons, Judge Conley grants in part and denies in part
the class counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. The
Defendants must pay the class counsel $2,363,262.94 in fees and
award actual costs of $359,948.97, for a total award of
$2,723,211.91.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2jzh2n from Leagle.com.


IKEA US: Deadline to Submit Class Suit Settlement Claims on May 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Sharkey of KRTV reports that the deadline for participating
in this class action is the end of the day on May 4, so make sure
you submit your claim by then if you want to receive a settlement.

Ikea might owe you money. If you bought anything from Ikea between
Oct. 18, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2019, you might be entitled to benefits
from a class-action lawsuit.

Ikea just settled a class action lawsuit for $24 million. The
furniture and home-goods chain was found in violation of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act's provisions on Identity Theft
Prevention and Credit History Restoration when it printed more than
the last five digits of customers' credit card numbers on their
receipts. (Ikea has claimed no wrongdoing in the case.)

As part of the class action settlement, customers who shopped at
Ikea between Oct. 18, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2019 and used a credit card
or debit card may be able to receive a small settlement sum from
the company.

So what should you do if you think you are entitled to some of this
settlement money from Ikea?

The most important step is to submit a claim form. You can do so by
calling  855-958-6213 or visiting the Ikea class action website.

If you were impacted by this settlement, it's likely you received
either a postcard or an email with a claim number. But if you lost
that email or card, or you never received one, you can still submit
a form via the website and the company will be able to determine if
you are owed money. You don't need to have your receipt.

How much money will you get from Ikea if you are eligible to
participate in this class action lawsuit? CNET estimated that you
may get about $30 to $60 from the company.

The amount of money you might get from a class action settlement
generally depends on the number of people who are involved in the
suit — and the number of people who will take the time to submit
a claim. Class actions often get very low participation.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, only about 9% of
consumers take action in class action lawsuits. [GN]

INSOMNIA COOKIES: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Ryan Golden of HR Dive reports that class- and collective-action
claims have led to costly settlements for food service companies in
recent years, particularly where delivery work is involved.

Two former general managers for bakery chain Insomnia Cookies sued
the company on April 23, 2023, alleging it failed to pay them for
all hours worked -- including overtime -- and failed to reimburse
one for the cost of making deliveries.

According to the class and collective action suit, Williams v.
Insomnia Cookies LLC, the first of the named plaintiffs worked more
than 100 hours per week at one point during November 2021, but was
only paid for 45 hours of work. The employee also alleged Insomnia
failed to pay him an additional 33 hours of overtime hours and 38
hours of paid time off. Insomnia "improperly and unlawfully
utilized" PTO to pay portions of his overtime wages, he claimed.

The second plaintiff alleged that, although he was scheduled to
work 45 hours per week, Insomnia required him to be on call 24
hours a day with an expectation to answer calls and emails. The
plaintiff said he was paid one hour extra per week for
contingencies, but that he typically would spend between 10 to 30
extra hours on his personal computer to help manage the store.

At one point, the latter plaintiff also alleged he would frequently
work between 50 and 60 hours per week through the end of his
employment, but that an Insomnia district manager "would frequently
fail to add the recorded hours of overtime by claiming that he
didn't know how to add the hours on paper," according to the
complaint, filed in a New York federal district court.

Insomnia tasked the second plaintiff with using his own car to
assist with cookie deliveries when no driver was available, he
alleged, but the company did not reimburse him outside of an
additional two dollars per each delivery performed.

Insomnia Cookies did not respond to an HR Dive request for
comment.

Class and collective action claims have led to costly settlements
for food service companies in recent years, particularly where
delivery work is involved. In 2021, a Domino’s Pizza franchisee
operating stores in North Carolina and South Carolina agreed to pay
$3 million to settle claims that the stores required drivers to pay
for their own delivery expenses without reimbursement.

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor published an opinion letter
stating that employers may reimburse delivery drivers who use their
personal vehicles to complete deliveries with a "reasonable
approximation of expenses incurred for the employer's benefit
rather than the actual amount of expenses incurred" to comply with
the Fair Labor Standards Act. [GN]

J. CREW: Faces New Class Suit Over Deceptive Sales Tactics
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Hickman and additional reporting by Jessica Binns. of Yahoo
reports that a class action lawsuit filed in January in California
Superior Court that was kicked up to the U.S. District Court of
Northern California accuses J. Crew (JC) of misleading customers of
its J. Crew Factory (JCF) brand into believing they are getting the
same quality of clothing as the original J. Crew line at a
discounted price.

"In an effort to give off the appearance of a bargain, Defendant
intentionally misleads consumers as to the quality and value of the
merchandise available on its website and in its retail stores
through its deceptive sales tactics," the complaint reads.

Plaintiffs point out that the labels on J. Crew and J. Crew Factory
items are strikingly similar, with clothing tags distinguished by
just "two small dots" on the Factory version of the tags. On the
price tags, this potential confusion is further exacerbated by a
"comparable value" showing reduced prices in dollars, or by
percentages.

"Defendant fails to provide consumers with any information upon
which such 'comparable value' prices and savings are based," the
complaint reads. ". . . the 'comparable values' displayed
correspond to prices for other, higher quality products at JC, not
JCF. JCF clothing is never sold at the 'comparable value' price
listed."

A J. Crew Group spokesperson rejected the allegations, telling
Sourcing Journal via email, "We deeply value transparency and
providing our customers with the best shopping experience possible.
These allegations are entirely meritless, and we will defend
ourselves vigorously against them."

The original plaintiffs in the class action, expected to swell to
well more than 100, hence the move to U.S. District Court, are
Californians Dani Calderon and Evguenia Babaeva, who tell similar
stories of believing they were getting significant bargains on J.
Crew clothing, only to realize afterward they had purchased
lower-quality J. Crew Factory clothing.

The 36-page initial filing in Superior Court in Santa Clara
includes five counts, including violation of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act under California law, false advertising, fraud, unfair
competition and unjust enrichment.

The value of the class action is deemed to be at $5 million or
higher, the standard amount listed in such a suit, and plaintiffs
are asking the court to order the company to change its marketing
practices.

Of note, Ann Taylor's parent company settled a similar deceptive
pricing lawsuit in 2018 for $6.1 million after plaintiffs
complained that the retailer's outlet product prices and quality
didn't reflect what consumers find in the chain's mainline stores.

J. Crew, which acquired the Madewell brand in 2006, had filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in May of 2020 but emerged just
six months later under the holding company Anchorage Capital
Group.

Meanwhile, Calderon is also the plaintiff in a class-action
wiretapping lawsuit filed on Feb. 15 against Target. The complaint,
asking for at least $5 million in damages, accuses the
Minneapolis-based retail chain of contracting "with Salesforce to
provide the software that secretly runs the chat function on
Defendant's Website" in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act. Similar complaints have been lodged against companies
including Foot Locker and Bloomingdale's as well Crocs, Adidas and
Lacoste. [GN]

JACKSONS FOOD: Aramburo Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JESUS ARAMBURO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACKSONS FOOD STORES, INC.
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2023-00009655-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, Los Angeles County, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on April 12,
2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00665-AGS-WVG to the proceeding.

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) failure
to pay all overtime wages; (2) meal period violations; (3) rest
period violations; (4) paid sick leave violations; (5) untimely
payment of wages; (6) wage statement violations; (7) waiting time
penalties; and (8) unfair business practices.

Jacksons Food Stores, Inc. operates as a special purpose
entity.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew E. Farmer, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 705-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 724-1201
          E-mail: mfarmer@littler.com

KANAWAY SEAFOODS: Rule 23 Class Action Certification Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cody Flaherty, Jerry Ross,
and Kegan Flaherty, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. d/b/a Alaska General
Seafoods, Case No. 3:22-cv-00155-SLG (D. Alaska), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed class
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) and allowing the Plaintiffs to issue the
proposed notice to class members:

   "All current and former hourly paid employees of The Defendant
who
   were subject to the "closed campus" policy two years prior to
the
   filing of this lawsuit through the date of the final disposition
of
   this action."

At or around April 2020, The Defendant enacted several workplace
practices, including the one at issue in this case, a COVID-19
"closed campus" policy. The Defendant's "closed campus" policy
precluded The Plaintiffs from leaving The Defendant's premises,
having guests, spending time with their families or enjoying the
surrounding environments. As part of the "closed campus" policy,
The Plaintiffs were effectively confined to their workstation
during on-clock worktime and to their dorm room during off-clock
hours.

The Plaintiffs were hourly paid employees of The Defendant, who
remained on duty at its fish processing plants for extended periods
of time. Notwithstanding that The Plaintiffs were at The
Defendant's fish processing plants for 24-hour periods, were unable
to enjoy an uninterrupted night's sleep due to work interruptions,
and were otherwise engaged to wait, The Plaintiffs were only paid
for the time scheduled to work less than 24 hours per day.

The Defendant's pay practice and policy fails to pay The Plaintiffs
for time spent engaged to wait. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the
proposed class have been denied overtime wages under Alaska law.

The Defendant's "closed campus" policy precluded The Plaintiffs
from leaving The Defendant's premises, having guests, spending time
with their families, or enjoying the surrounding environments.

AGS is a seafood processing company that purchases fresh seafood
from independent fishermen, who harvest their wild catch from
fisheries located in Alaska.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 18, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H8Vw5L at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
          400 North St. Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 577-0258
          Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
                  marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com

                - and -

          Daniel I. Pace, Esq.
          PACE LAW OFFICES
          101 E 9th Ave., Ste 7A
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Telephone: (907) 222-4003
          Facsimile: (907) 222-4006
          E-mail: dan@pacelawoffices.com

KANAWAY SEAFOODS: Seeks Summary Judgment on "Closed Campus" Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CODY FLAHERTY, JERRY ROSS,
AND KEGAN FLAHERTY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. KANAWAY SEAFOODS, INC., d/b/a Alaska General
Seafoods, Case No. 3:22-cv-00155-SLG (D. Alaska), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting summary judgment on the
remaining "closed campus" claims of Named Plaintiffs Cody Flaherty,
Jerry Ross, and Kegan Flaherty as well as Opt-In Plaintiffs John
Bauman, Elizabeth Patton, and Bryan Barlahan, which should be
dismissed with prejudice prior to class certification.

AGS is a seafood processing company that purchases fresh seafood
from independent fishermen, who harvest their wild catch from
fisheries located in Alaska. AGS produces canned, fresh, and frozen
seafood and sells to wholesale customers around the world.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 18, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ozataG at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
          400 North St. Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 577-0258
          Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
                  marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com

                - and -

          Daniel I. Pace, Esq.
          PACE LAW OFFICES
          101 E 9th Ave., Ste 7A
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Telephone: (907) 222-4003
          Facsimile: (907) 222-4006
          E-mail: dan@pacelawoffices.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kara Heikkila, Esq.
          Bryce J. Wilcox, Esq.
          WITHERSPOON BRAJCICH MCPHEE, PLLC
          608 Northwest Boulevard, Suite 402
          Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814
          E-mail: kheikkila@workwith.com
                  bwilcox@workwith.com

KANAWAY SEAFOODS: Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cody Flaherty, Jerry Ross,
and Kegan Flaherty, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Kanaway Seafoods, Inc. d/b/a Alaska General
Seafoods, Case No. 3:22-cv-00155-SLG (D. Alaska), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and order that
notice be provided to the class:

    "All current and former hourly paid employees of Defendant who

    were subject to the "closed campus" policy three years prior to

    the filing of this lawsuit through the date of the final
    disposition of this action.

The Plaintiffs bring this collective action for overtime wage
violations against Defendant pursuant to the FLSA. At or around
April 2020, the Defendant enacted several workplace practices,
including the one at issue in this case, a COVID-19 "closed campus"
policy. Defendant's "closed campus" policy precluded Plaintiffs
from leaving Defendant’s premises, having guests, spending time
with their families, or enjoying the surrounding environments. As
part of the "closed campus" policy, the Plaintiffs were effectively
confined to their workstation during on-clock worktime and to their
dorm room during off-clock hours. The Plaintiffs were hourly paid
employees of Defendant, who remained on duty at its fish processing
plants for extended periods of time. Notwithstanding that
Plaintiffs were at Defendant's fish processing plants for 24-hour
periods, were unable to enjoy an uninterrupted night's sleep due to
work interruptions, and were otherwise engaged to wait, the
Plaintiffs were only paid for the time scheduled to work less than
24 hours per day.

The Defendant's pay practice and policy fails to pay Plaintiffs for
time spent engaged to wait. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the
proposed collective class have been denied overtime wages.

AGS is a seafood processing company that purchases fresh seafood
from independent fishermen, who harvest their wild catch from
fisheries located in Alaska.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41AGFJw at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
          400 North St. Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 577-0258
          Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
          E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
                  marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com

                - and -

          Daniel I. Pace, Esq.
          PACE LAW OFFICES
          101 E 9th Ave., Ste 7A
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          Telephone: (907) 222-4003
          Facsimile: (907) 222-4006
          E-mail: dan@pacelawoffices.com

LESSING'S INC: Eisenbarth Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA EISENBARTH, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LESSING'S, INC., LESSING'S RESTAURANT
SERVICES, INC., JAMES OLSEN, ELLEN BARRET, ANN BRESNAN, ROBERT B.
FERGUSON, LAWRENCE LESSING III, JOHN S. LESSING, J.R., JOHN S.
LESSING, MARK K. LESSING, MICHAEL S. LESSING, SANDRA M. LESSING,
THOMAS S. MCKELVEY, and STEPHEN ZAGOR, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-02779 (E.D.N.Y., April 13, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants seeking to recover Plaintiff's unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, statutory
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, misappropriated
gratuities, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Labor
Law's Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages
and overtime hours, failure to provide spread-of-hours pay, failure
to provide wage notices and wage statements, misappropriation of
gratuities, unlawful deductions from wages, and failure to pay for
the maintenance of the required uniforms.  

Plaintiff Eisenbarth worked as a bartender and server at the
Sandbar restaurant from approximately August 2020 until
approximately August 2021.

Lessing's Hospitality Group is comprised of over 100 locations
throughout the Northeast and Florida. Lessing's operates wedding
and catering venues, full-service restaurants, pop-up kitchen
concepts, corporate and academic dining centers, and a historic
inn.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford Tucker, Esq.
          SACCO & FILLAS LLP
          31-19 Newtown Ave., 7th Floor
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Telephone: (718) 269-2243
          E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com

LINCOLN BENEFIT: Farley Seeks to Certify Class of Policy Owners
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deana Farley, v. Lincoln
Benefit Life Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-02485-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.),
the Court entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to
certify the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule
23(b)(2).

    "All owners, or beneficiaries upon a death of the insured, of
the
    Defendant's individual life insurance policies issued in
    California before 2013 that the Defendant lapsed or terminated
for
    the non-payment of premium in or after 2013 without first
    providing all the notices, grace periods, and offers of
    designation required by Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and
    10113.72."

The court appoints plaintiff as class representative and Nicholas &
Tomasevic, LLP and Winters & Associates as class counsel under Rule
23(g).

The case concerns the lapse and termination of certain life
insurance policies. The Plaintiff Farley claims defendant Lincoln
Benefit did not comply with California state law regulating the
policies.

In April 2011, Deana Farley purchased a life insurance policy for
her son's life from Lincoln Benefit.  The policy contained a
contractual 61-day grace period and stated defendant would send a
written notice "at least 30 days prior to the day coverage lapses.
"

The plaintiff's policy lapsed for nonpayment and she subsequently
reinstated the policy. The Plaintiff continued to make payments
until she missed a payment in 2018. The Defendant lapsed the policy
and terminated it for nonpayment, and plaintiff did not take steps
to reinstate the policy.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H86Y1p at no extra charge.[CC]




LIVEPERSON INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer of GlobeNewsWire reports that the deadline to ask
the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is June 23,
2023 in a class action lawsuit has been filed against LivePerson,
Inc. ("LivePerson" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LPSN). The lawsuit
alleges LivePerson made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including: (1)
LivePerson failed to address material weaknesses with internal
controls; (2) LivePerson's third quarter financial statements,
ended in September 30, 2022 failed to disclose WildHealth's
suspension of Medicare reimbursement; and (3) as a result,
LivePerson's fourth quarter 2022 revenue would be affected.

If you bought shares of LivePerson between May 10, 2022 and March
16, 2023 and you suffered a significant loss on that investment,
you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey
Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Joshua Karr, Esq.
at jkarr@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832
or you may visit the firm's website
https://holzerlaw.com/case/liveperson/ to learn more.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content. 

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

LOCAL IN MEMPHIS: Hartwell Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDAL HARTWELL JR.,
Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. LOCAL IN
MEMPHIS, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company, THE VAULT ON
GE PATTERSON, LLC,  a Tennessee limited liability company, E & H
2.0, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company, and TYSON BRIDGE,
an individual, Case No. 2:22-cv-02410-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

   (1) authorizing this case to proceed as a FLSA collective
       action for overtime violations on behalf of similarly
situated
       hourly-paid cooks;

   (2) directing the Defendants to immediately provide the
Plaintiffs'
       counsel a computer-readable file containing the names (last

       names first), last known physical addresses, last known
email
       addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment, and

       last known telephone numbers of all putative class members;


   (3) providing that the Court-approved notice be posted at all of

       the Defendants' locations where putative class members work,
as
       well as be mailed and emailed to the putative class;

   (4) tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class
as
       of the date this is fully briefed; and

   (5) requiring that the opt-in plaintiffs' Consent to Join Forms
be
       deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3n5yllV at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT
          OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com

LOU TAGE INC: Enriquez Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ENRIQUEZ, on behalf of himself, individually and all similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. LOU TAGE INC. d/b/a ROBKE’S
COUNTRY INN, LOUIS SELVAGGIO and LOUIS SELVAGGIO, JR., Defendants,
Case No. 606033/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., April 13, 2023)
arises from the Defendants' violations of the New York Labor Law
and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations
and violations of New York common law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' failed to pay overtime
wages and minimum wages; retained tips and gratuities; failed to
pay spread of hours compensation; failed to issue timely payment of
wages; failed to furnish accurate wage statements for each pay
period; and failed to provide a wage notice upon his hire.

The Plaintiff commenced his employment on January 2020 as a server,
a position that he held until March 7, 2021.

The Defendants are a company and its owners or managers that serve
Italian cuisine and steakhouse fare at its restaurant in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588

MAESA LLC: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Luis Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN YAN LUIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAESA LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-03381-JHR-GWG (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2023) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, us.AndrewFitzSimons.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

MAESA LLC manufactures fragrance. The Company offers personal care,
cosmetics such as nail polishes, lipstick, foundations, eyeshadow,
mascara, primer, and makeup kit, as well as perfumes and home
fragrance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor A. Saab, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Telephone: (718) 740-5060
          Facsimile: (718) 709-5912
          Email: NoorASaabLaw@gmail.com

MANPOWER US: Keopimpha Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHARLES KEOPIMPHA, as an individual on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. MANPOWER US INC., a Delaware Corporation; MANPOWERGROUP US INC.,
a Wisconsin Corporation; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
23STCV05422, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
April 14, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-02833 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) recovery
of unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages; (2) recovery of
overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods or compensation
in lieu thereof; (4) failure to provide rest periods or
compensation in lieu thereof; (5) failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; (6) failure to timely pay all wages due
upon separation of employment; (7) failure to reimburse business
expenses; and (8) unfair competition.

Manpower US Inc. is a workforce solutions company.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allison S. Wallin, Esq.
          Alexandria W. Rafizadeh, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (800) 715-1330
          E-mail: awallin@littler.com
                  awitte-rafizadeh@littler.com

MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Stays Shacno Action Pending June 8 Mediation
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW SHACHNO, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a corporation; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-01215-TWR-JLB (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Todd W. Robinson entered an order granting
joint motion to stay case pending June 8, 2023, Mediation.

Here, the Parties seek a stay of this action and all pending
deadlines because they "are attending a private mediation on June
8, 2023, for potential resolution of both this action and its
companion state-court Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action.
"

The Parties assert that a stay is justified for the foregoing
reasons:

     (i) it will allow the Parties to avoid further burdensome and

         costly class discovery;

    (ii) it will stay (and potentially avoid) all pending discovery

         disputes between the Parties, which this Court has had to

         (and will continue to) referee through informal discovery

         conferences;

   (iii) it may avoid discovery motion practice;

    (iv) it will stay (and potentially avoid) other motion
practice
         (e.g., The Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions, The
Plaintiff’s
         class certification motion, The Defendant’s summary
judgment
         motion, etc.) -- all of which this Court would have to
         analyze and rule on; and (v) it will allow the Parties to

         focus their attention on potential resolution.

Marriott is an American multinational company that operates,
franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel, residential and
timeshare properties.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LlYaHI at no extra charge.[CC]


MAURA HEALEY: Simmons, et al., Seek Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN SIMMONS, et al., v.
MAURA HEALEY, in her official capacity as Governor of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-11715-PBS
(D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   a. Certify a Class consisting of:

      "Medicaid-eligible adults in Massachusetts with mental
illness
      and/or physical disabilities, including older adults who, now
or
      in the future: (1) reside in a nursing facility for at least
60
      days, notwithstanding any temporary hospitalizations, and (2)

      have not been provided community residential services and
      supports to live in integrated settings in the community."

   b. Certify a Subclass consisting of:

      "Medicaid-eligible adults with serious mental illness who,
now
      or in the future, have been admitted to, or who were screened

      for admission to, nursing facilities pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
      section 1396r(e)(7) and 42 C.F.R. section 483.112.

   c. Appoint the Center for Public Representation, Greater Boston

      Legal Services, Justice in Aging, and Foley Hoag LLP as
co-class
      counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil

      Procedure.

The Individual the Plaintiffs are Medicaid-eligible individuals
with mental illness and/or physical disabilities, including older
adults with disabilities, who are unnecessarily confined in nursing
facilities in Massachusetts.

Each Individual the Plaintiff can be appropriately served by the
community service system funded and operated by The Defendants, and
prefers to live in a more integrated setting, with appropriate
residential services and supports. However, each Individual the
Plaintiff remains segregated as a result of The Defendants'
planning, administration, and funding of their long-term care
system, which unduly relies on segregated settings like nursing
facilities, and which denies the Individual the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated persons in nursing facilities the
opportunity to receive services in the most integrated setting.

The Plaintiffs include DAVID MARSTERS, by his next friend, Nancy
Pomerleau; LORRAINE SIMPSON, by her guardian, Sara Spooner; SHERRI
CURRIN, by her guardian, Sara Spooner; CAROLE CHOJNACKI, by her
guardian, Sara Spooner; RICHARD CAOUETTE, by his guardian, Sara
Spooner; DONALD GRANT, by his guardian, Sara Spooner, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated persons; and MASSACHUSETTS
SENIOR ACTION COUNCIL.

The Defendants include KATE WALSH, in her official capacity as
Secretary, Executive Office of Health and Human Services; MATTHEW
GORZKOWICZ, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Executive
Office of Administration and Finance; ELIZABETH CHEN, in her
official capacity as Secretary, Executive Office of Elder Affairs;
and MICHAEL LEVIN, in his official capacity as Assistant Secretary
of MassHealth.

As described in the Complaint, the Defendants' administration and
funding of their long-term care system violate Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, and Title XIX of the Social Security Act.

Additionally, the Individual the Plaintiffs who have mental illness
have been or are being denied the pre-admission evaluations and
post-admission specialized services in the nursing facility that
are necessary to provide them with active and appropriate
treatment, in violation of the Nursing Home Reform Amendments
(NHRA) to the Medicaid Act.

This action seeks class-wide injunctive relief consistent with Rule
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Procedure to end the harm suffered
by the Individual the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated who
are segregated in nursing facilities and denied appropriate
treatment.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41QMRwo at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven J. Schwartz, Esq.
          Mark J. Murphy, Esq.
          Jennifer Hotchkiss Kaplan, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          5 Ferry Street
          Easthampton, MA 01027
          Telephone: (413) 586-6024
          E-mail: sschwartz@cpr-ma.org
                  mmurphy@cpr-ma.org
                  jkaplan@cpr-ma.org

                - and -

          Deborah Filler, Esq.
          GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES
          197 Friend Street
          Boston, MA 02114
          E-mail: dfiller@gbls.org

                - and -

          Regan Bailey, Esq.
          Eric Carlson, Esq.
          JUSTICE IN AGING
          1444 I Street, NW, Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 683-1990
          E-mail: rbailey@justiceinaging.org
                  ecarlson@justiceinaging.org

                - and -

          Dean Richlin, Esq.
          Kristyn Bunce DeFilipp, Esq.
          Jeremy Meisinger, Esq.
          Andrew London, Esq.
          FOLEY HOAG LLP
          155 Seaport Blvd.
          Boston, MA 02210
          E-mail: drichlin@foleyhoag.com
                 KBunceDeFilipp@foleyhoag.com
                 jmeisinger@foleyhoag.com
                 alondon@foleyhoag.com

MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Alcona Community Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALCONA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01789 (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, worked together to implement their
shared goal of growing a youth market in the image of the
combustible cigarette market through a multi-pronged strategy to:
(1) create an highly addictive product that users would not
associate with cigarettes and that would appeal to the lucrative
youth market, (2) deceive the public into thinking the product was
a fun and safe alternative to cigarettes that would also help
smokers quit, (3) actively attract young users through targeted
marketing, and (4) use a variety of tools, including false and
deceptive statements to the public and regulators, to delay
regulation of e-cigarettes.

By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.

The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged deceptive marketing scheme, to educate its
students on the true dangers of Defendants' e-cigarette products
and to prevent the possession and use of Defendants' e-cigarette
products on Plaintiffs' property.

The Alcona Community Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Alcona Community Schools is a public school district organized and
existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan with
its geographic boundaries located in Alcona County.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
         
          James Frantz, Esq.
          William B. Shinoff, Esq.
          Jade S. Koller, Esq.
          Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
          FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
          402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-5945
          Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
          E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                  wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
                  jkoller@frantzlawgroup.com
                  kaghazaryan@frantzlawgroup.com

MDL 2913: E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market, Houghton Lake Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOUGHTON LAKE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01792 (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, worked together to implement their
shared goal of growing a youth market in the image of the
combustible cigarette market through a multi-pronged strategy to:
(1) create an highly addictive product that users would not
associate with cigarettes and that would appeal to the lucrative
youth market, (2) deceive the public into thinking the product was
a fun and safe alternative to cigarettes that would also help
smokers quit, (3) actively attract young users through targeted
marketing, and (4) use a variety of tools, including false and
deceptive statements to the public and regulators, to delay
regulation of e-cigarettes.

By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.

The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged deceptive marketing scheme, to educate its
students on the true dangers of Defendants' e-cigarette products
and to prevent the possession and use of Defendants' e-cigarette
products on Plaintiffs' property.

The Houghton Lake Community Schools case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Houghton Lake Community Schools is a public school district
organized and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of
Michigan with its geographic boundaries located in Roscommon
County.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
         
          James Frantz, Esq.
          William B. Shinoff, Esq.
          Jade S. Koller, Esq.
          Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
          FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
          402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-5945
          Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
          E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                  wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
                  jkoller@frantzlawgroup.com
                  kaghazaryan@frantzlawgroup.com

MDL 2913: Genesee School Says E-Cigarette Targets Youth Market
--------------------------------------------------------------
GENESEE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01791 (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, negligence, gross negligence,
strict product liability, punitive damages, and violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, Juul Labs, Inc., the maker of the JUUL
e-cigarette, and Altria, one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, worked together to implement their
shared goal of growing a youth market in the image of the
combustible cigarette market through a multi-pronged strategy to:
(1) create an highly addictive product that users would not
associate with cigarettes and that would appeal to the lucrative
youth market, (2) deceive the public into thinking the product was
a fun and safe alternative to cigarettes that would also help
smokers quit, (3) actively attract young users through targeted
marketing, and (4) use a variety of tools, including false and
deceptive statements to the public and regulators, to delay
regulation of e-cigarettes.

By working to preserve and expand the market of underage JUUL
customers, fraudulently denying JLI's youth-focused marketing, and
deceiving regulators and the public in order to allow JUUL products
and mint-flavored JUULpods to remain on the market, the JLI
Enterprise caused the expansion of an illicit e-cigarette market
for youth in Plaintiff's schools and caused a large number of youth
in Plaintiff's schools to become addicted to nicotine, thus forcing
Plaintiff to expend time, money, and resources to address the
epidemic Defendants created through their conduct, the suit
asserts.

The Plaintiff, and similarly situated school districts in the State
of Michigan, have redirected significant resources to combat
Defendants' alleged deceptive marketing scheme, to educate its
students on the true dangers of Defendants' e-cigarette products
and to prevent the possession and use of Defendants' e-cigarette
products on Plaintiffs' property.

The Genesee School District case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Genesee School District is a public school district organized and
existing in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan with
its geographic boundaries located in Genesee County.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
         
          James Frantz, Esq.
          William B. Shinoff, Esq.
          Jade S. Koller, Esq.
          Kristina Aghazaryan, Esq.
          FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
          402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-5945
          Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
          E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                  wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
                  jkoller@frantzlawgroup.com
                  kaghazaryan@frantzlawgroup.com

MEDICUS HEALTHCARE: McCarthy Wins Collective Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as James McCarthy v. Medicus
Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00668-JL (D.N.H.), the
Hon. Judge Joseph N. Laplante entered an order granting McCarthy's
motion for conditional certification of a collective action.

   "All non-exempt, salaried recruiters who worked for Medicus from

   September 26, 2019 to the date the court-approved notice is sent

   out, excluding those recruiters who worked out of Medicus' Texas
or
   Colorado offices during that time."

The Court said, "Medicus to produce the above-referenced Excel
document within 10 days of the date of this order and the Plaintiff
to issue notice and consent forms.

The court notes that this definition potentially includes
recruiters who were not paid the correct regular rate for the
overtime pay they did receive. While Medicus argues that McCarthy
did not plead this alleged FLSA violation in the operative
complaint, the court finds that the complaint (when construed in
McCarthy’s favor) plausibly includes a claim encompassing an
improper rate calculation.

The Plaintiff McCarthy alleges that Medicus had a common pay
practice or plan that resulted in him and similarly situated
physician recruiters not receiving overtime wages for all earned
overtime hours, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

Medicus classified McCarthy as a "non-exempt" employee under the
FLSA and paid him a salary plus commissions. By classifying
McCarthy and other recruiters as non-exempt, according to McCarthy,
Medicus knew that under the FLSA, it needed to pay such non-exempt
employees overtime wages.

McCarthy alleges that Medicus required him to regularly work over
40 hours a week and knew that his work as a recruiter required him
to work over 40 hours in a workweek.

Medicus Healthcare provides recruitment and management services.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3owEUhz at no extra charge.[CC]


MICHIGAN: Davis Appeals Denial of Bid to Alter Judgment to 6th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS DAVIS is taking an appeal from a court order denying his
motion to alter judgment in the lawsuit entitled Chris Davis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Heidi Washington, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-00129, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Michigan.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges generally that the Defendants have failed to mitigate the
risks of COVID-19 transmission at the Kinross Correctional Facility
(KCF) in Kincheloe, Chippewa County, Michigan. He reports that
"nine highly contagious prisoners originally housed at Marquette
Branch Prison (MBP), who had tested positive for COVID-19, were
anonymously, intentionally and deliberately transferred into the
KCF population to contaminate the majority of the KCF population."
The Plaintiff does not indicate who was responsible for the
transfer.

The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants disregarded Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations because the
KCF school principal, who was showing symptoms of COVID-19 and was
known to be positive for the deadly virus, was let into the
facility. Other persons likewise let several officers and other
staff into the facility without testing them. The Plaintiff
complains that it is impossible to socially distance at KCF. He
notes that he contracted the virus during November of 2020.

The Plaintiff identified several other parties as Plaintiffs;
however, Plaintiff Davis was the only person to sign the complaint
and, thus, the only person the Court recognizes as a party
plaintiff to the action. The Plaintiff purports to bring the action
on behalf of a class of prisoners who experience lingering
side-effects that impede their ability to carry out normal
day-to-day tasks. He also identifies a subclass of prisoners who
are over the age of 45 and medically vulnerable.

On Mar. 23, 2022, the Court entered judgment and dismissed the case
through an Order signed by Judge Maarten Vermaat.

On May 2, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion to alter judgment,
which the Court denied on Mar. 10, 2023.

The appellate case is captioned Chris Davis v. Heidi Washington, et
al., Case No. 23-1345, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, filed on April 18, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CHRIS DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, appears pro se.

MICHIGAN: John Does Win Leave to Supplement Complaint v. Whitmer
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN DOES, et al., Plaintiffs v. GRETCHEN WHITMER, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-10209 (.D. Mich.), Judge Mark A.
Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to supplement their complaint.

The Plaintiffs bring the class action to challenge the
constitutionality of Michigan's Sex Offenders Registration Act,
Mich. Comp. L. Section 28.721 et seq. (SORA 2021) on several
grounds. Their present motion seeks to add a new claim challenging
the application of SORA 2021 to individuals who "are or will be
subject to sex offender registration under SORA 2021 for a
conviction or adjudication from a jurisdiction other than Michigan"
based on alleged violations of the Due Process Clause, the Equal
Protection Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the
Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The Plaintiffs assert that their proposed new claim implicates more
than 5,700 class members, or 11% of the class of individuals they
represent. They submit that they learned about the factual basis
for their proposed new claim through discovery, which is ongoing
and scheduled to close on June 16, 2023.

Judge Goldsmith says courts should freely give leave for plaintiffs
to amend their pleadings when justice so requires. Whether the
non-movant would suffer prejudice from the amendment "is crucial to
the inquiry. Justice requires that the Plaintiffs be permitted to
add their proposed new claim. Judge Goldsmith finds that an
amendment to the pleadings will provide for an efficient resolution
of their case, as their new claim is closely interrelated with
other issues already asserted in their complaint. It appears that
the addition of this single claim would not require significant
additional discovery. And crucially, the Defendants do not argue
that they would be prejudiced by an amendment.

The Defendants suggest that the Plaintiffs have exhibited undue
delay in waiting until now to assert their proposed new claim. But
Judge Goldsmith credits the Plaintiffs' submission that it was only
through discovery that they developed an understanding of the
potential strength and value to the class of their new cause of
action. Further, delay by itself is not sufficient to deny a motion
to amend.

The Defendants also suggest that the Plaintiffs' proposed new claim
is futile on statute-of-limitation grounds, without citing to any
case law. As the Plaintiffs correctly note, however, courts often
find it most practical and efficient to defer on futility arguments
presented against a motion to amend and to instead resolve this
issue once the parties have had the opportunity to fully brief the
question. Judge Goldsmith declines to find that the Defendants'
brief reference to a potential futility defense overrides the
presumption that the Plaintiffs should be freely granted leave to
amend their pleadings where, as in the case, justice so requires.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion is granted. The Plaintiffs must
file their amended complaint incorporating their proposed new
claim. The Defendants' answer is due 14 days after that filing.

Judge Goldsmith has advised the parties of its willingness to adopt
a schedule that will include an accelerated period of discovery,
prompt briefing of summary judgment motions, and the earliest
feasible trial date. To the extent that the Plaintiffs' requested
expansion of the case requires additional discovery, motion
practice, or other activity, an amendment to the existing schedule
may be necessary.

Judge Goldsmith directs the parties to meet and confer regarding
how the Plaintiffs' amendment to their pleadings will impact the
schedule, if at all, and to submit a proposed stipulated order
amending the schedule, if necessary. He also directs them to submit
a proposed stipulated order granting the Plaintiffs' pending motion
to certify a new sub-class corresponding to their new claim, to the
extent that they are in agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3arbkusw from Leagle.com.


MILLENNIA TAX: Faces Fridline Class Suit Over Spam Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Millennia Tax
Relief faces a proposed class action wherein a consumer claims to
have received numerous unsolicited calls, texts and ringless
voicemails from the company, even though his cell phone number is
on the National Do Not Call Registry in a case - captioned Fridline
v. Millennia Tax Relief, LLC.

The 16-page lawsuit says that the tax debt service has run afoul of
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) -- which aims
to shield consumers from unwanted telemarketing voice calls and
texts -- by transmitting prerecorded calls and messages to the
plaintiff, a Pennsylvania resident, and countless others.

As the suit tells it, the plaintiff began receiving voice calls and
texts from Millennia in November 2021. Per the complaint, the
messages offered a "fresh start" on tax debt and promoted other
services "he did not want or need."

According to the case, some of the voice calls included prerecorded
messages that went straight to the plaintiff's voicemail after just
a partial ring. Such "ringless" voicemails are also subject to the
TCPA's regulations, the filing states.

The plaintiff had never done business with Millennia, or so much as
expressed interest in doing so, and "[at] no point" consented to be
contacted by the company, as required under the TCPA, the complaint
shares.

The filing explains that the plaintiff had added his phone number
to the National Do Not Call Registry in September 2005 in an
attempt to find "solitude from invasive and irritating solicitation
calls."

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
Millennia Tax Relief called using prerecorded or artificial voice
and/or ringless voicemail technology since April 20, 2019.

The suit also looks to cover anyone in the United States with a
cell phone who, since April 20, 2019, received more than one call
or text from Millennia Tax Relief on that phone during a 12-month
period and whose phone number was listed on the Do Not Call
Registry for more than 31 days. [GN]

MORGAN WALLEN: Faces Class Suit Over Last-Minute Cancelled Concert
------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Romualdi of ET Canada reports that Morgan Wallen's
last-minute cancelled concert in Mississippi is now a legal
matter.

On April 24, 2023, an angry fan sued the country music star for
cancelling his April 23, 2023 show at Vaught-Hemingway Stadium in
Oxford, minutes before he was set to hit the stage.

According to court documents obtained by Page Six and TMZ, the
federal lawsuit filed by Brandi Burcham accuses Wallen, 29, of
breach of contract and negligence.

Burcham pointed out that although the University of Mississippi,
which hosted the sold-out concert, promised to reimburse
ticketholders, her refund had yet to be "issued" when she filed the
complaint.

The plaintiff also notes that the guaranteed full ticket refunds
fail to consider concertgoers' "out-of-pocket expenses they
incurred in connection with the concert cancellation, including
transportation, lodging, food, merchandise sales, transaction fees
and other [fees]."

Additionally, Burcham wants to make the lawsuit a class action "on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated" patrons who
attended Wallen's cancelled show. She’s also demanding a trial by
jury.

April 23, 2023's show marked the fifth date of Wallen's "One Night
at a Time World Tour". The cancelled concert, due to the "Last
Night" singer losing his voice, disappointed approximately 60,000
attendees, many of whom expressed their frustration online.

Following the disappointing announcement, which displayed on
screens inside the venue, Wallen took to his Instagram Stories
apologizing to fans, noting he "tried everything [he] could" to
feel better in time for the show.

On April 24, 2023, he shared a follow-up message revealing that
he's been placed on "doctor-ordered vocal rest" and, as a result,
had to reschedule three additional tour stops.

"I appreciate and understand everything you do to get to my shows,
so it would be unfair of me to put on a show that I know will not
be 100%," he continued. "I'm doing everything I can to speed up the
process of getting to that 100% mark." [GN]

NACHURS ALPINE: Court Grants Partial Bid to Dismiss Gray FCRA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Curtis J. Gray, Plaintiff v. Nachurs Alpine Solutions,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-125 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Jeffrey J.
Helmick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Western Division, grants the Defendant's partial motion to
dismiss and denies its partial motion for judgment on the pleadings
as moot.

Gray filed a complaint against Defendant Nachurs Alpine Solutions
("NAS") alleging: violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA"); invasion of privacy; and race discrimination under both
federal and state law. He also asserts class action allegations
with respect to the FCRA violations.

Gray, an African American male, began working at NAS in March 2019
as a temporary, seasonal employee placed through Arbet Staffing. By
September, his supervisor recommended he apply for full-time
employment due to his strong work performance. As part of the
process, Gray was required to complete a standard online employment
application.

The application included a question about criminal history. At the
conclusion of the application, there was a relevant disclosure
authorizing NAS to contact, obtain and verify the accuracy of the
information contained in his application from all previous
employers, educational institutions and references. Gray also
signed an authorization from ProScreening, a third-party vendor
utilized by NAS to conduct background check. Gray alleged he never
received the documents cited in the authorization.

Subsequently, ProScreening conducted a background check on Gray.
This background check returned information inconsistent with Gray's
representations on his application. NAS did not offer Gray a
position. Upon inquiry, NAS' HR Director, Alyson Issler, informed
Gray there were issues with his background check but would not tell
him any specifics.

Gray reached out to Arbet for help and Arbet ran a nationwide
background check to help Gray identify the issue. Relevantly, the
Arbet background report noted a misdemeanor public intoxication
conviction and the misdemeanor conviction for operating a vehicle
under the influence. Arbet asked NAS to explain why it did not hire
Gray, and Issler responded it was due to Gray's "work history,
references, and background" and that his "work performance was
poor." Arbet had received no complaints from NAS regarding Gray's
work performance; instead, Gray's performance was reported as
strong.

In February 2020, Gray filed an OCRC/EEOC charge alleging race
discrimination. He alleges NAS' position statement contained
multiple inconsistencies regarding Gray's discussions with Issler
and the contents of the NAS background report.

NAS's partial motion to dismiss challenges Gray's standing to
assert each of the FCRA claims, arguing Gray has not adequately
alleged a cognizable injury in fact resulting from the procedural
violations.

Judge Helmick grants NAS' partial motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(1) and dismisses the claims for relief under Section 1681b
and Section 1681d at Counts 1 and 2 without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. While he is dismissing Gray's FCRA
claims for lack of concrete harm sufficient to establish standing,
Judge Helmick opine that NAS should not take this ruling as
approval of its conduct. On the face of the submissions, Gray
appears to have identified deficiencies which may violate statutory
requirements, and NAS would behoove itself to review its policies
and procedures for proper compliance in this regard. The
Plaintiff's class action claims are also dismissed without
prejudice because the Plaintiff lacks standing. Furthermore, NAS'
partial motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is
denied without prejudice as moot.

The remaining claim for relief at Counts 1 and 2 under Section
1681m, and the common law invasion of privacy claim at Count 3,
were previously dismissed on March 31, 2022. Gray conceded in his
motion for leave to file his second amended complaint that these
claims were not revived but were included to preserve the option to
respectfully appeal their dismissal at the appropriate time.
Accordingly, the only remaining active claims are those asserting
individual race discrimination at Counts 4 to 6 of the second
amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://rb.gy/rh0rh from Leagle.com.


NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Summary Judgment for Falk Affirmed With Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY P. FALK, ETC., Respondent v. NASSAU COUNTY, ET
AL., Appellants, 2020-05384, Index No. 600868/17 (N.Y. App. Div.),
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second
Department, affirms the judgment of Judge Jeffrey S. Brown of the
Supreme Court, Nassau County, in favor of the Plaintiff and against
the Defendants, entered July 23, 2020, with costs.

In a putative class action, inter alia, for declaratory relief, the
Defendants appeal from Judge Brown's judgment. The judgment,
insofar as appealed from, upon an order of the same court entered
March 11, 2020, inter alia, denying that branch of the Defendants'
motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the
first cause of action as sought declaratory relief and granting the
Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on so much of the
first cause of action as sought declaratory relief, is in favor of
the Plaintiff and against the Defendants declaring that the
County's current fee associated with issuing a Tax map
Certification Letter (a 'TMCL') is excessive and not tied to the
County's responsibility to maintain its property registry.

In November 2016, the Plaintiff allegedly purchased a home in
Nassau County, and paid the sum of $1,225 to record his deed and
mortgage on the property, which included fees in the total sum of
$450 to obtain two tax map certification letters from the County
Clerk as required under Nassau County Administrative Code Section
6-33.0. In January 2017, the Plaintiff commenced the putative class
action against the County and the Nassau County Department of
Assessments, seeking, inter alia, a judgment declaring that the
fees imposed pursuant to Nassau County Administrative Code Section
6-33.0 are excessive and not reasonably necessary to accomplish the
Defendants' responsibility to maintain the County's property
registry.

Thereafter, the Defendants moved, among other things, for summary
judgment dismissing so much of the first cause of action as sought
that declaratory relief, and the Plaintiff cross-moved for summary
judgment on so much of the first cause of action as sought that
declaratory relief. In an order entered March 11, 2020, the Supreme
Court, inter alia, denied that branch of the Defendants' motion and
granted the Plaintiff's cross-motion. On July 23, 2020, the court
entered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendants, among other things, declaring that the County's current
fee associated with issuing a TMCL is excessive and not tied [to]
the County's responsibility to maintain its property registry. The
Defendants appeal.

The Appellate Division holds that the Plaintiff established, prima
facie, that the fees imposed pursuant to Nassau County
Administrative Code Section 6-33.0 were excessive and improper, as
they were exacted for general revenue purposes and not tied to the
County's obligation to maintain its property registry. In
opposition to the Plaintiff's prima facie showing, the Defendants
failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The Defendants' remaining
contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment on so much of the first cause of action
as sought declaratory relief, denied that branch of the Defendants'
cross-motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of
the first cause of action as sought declaratory relief, and entered
a judgment declaring that "the County's current fee associated with
issuing a TMCL is excessive and not tied to the County's
responsibility to maintain its property registry."

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3mub9f from Leagle.com.

Thomas A. Adams, County Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jackie L. Gross and
Samantha A. Goetz of counsel), for the Appellants.

McLaughlin Stern, LLP, New York, NY (Jason S. Giaimo --
jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com -- and Less S. Shalov --
lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- of counsel), for the Respondent.


NATIONAL GENERAL: Must Produce Legacy Data by June 1, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDD KING, et al., v.
NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,Case No.
4:15-cv-00313-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered
an order on joint discovery letter requesting policyholder data.

  -- The Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
     matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and
     proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance
     of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy,
     the parties' relative access to relevant information, the
     parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in
resolving
     the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed

     discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within
this
     scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
     discoverable.

  -- At minimum, policyholder data stored on NPS is relevant to the

     Plaintiffs' damages and class membership. Accordingly, by May
1,
     2023, National General Defendants must produce policyholder
data
     for all good driver PPA policies sold by agents using NPS for

     non-supergroup entities, some of which begins on June 6, 2011
and
     the rest of which begins on September 29, 2011.

  -- In other words, by May 1, 2023, National General Defendants
shall
     produce all policyholder data from January 1, 2011 to the
present
     that is not stored on a legacy system.

  -- As to policy data stored on legacy systems, the Plaintiffs'
     request for pre-2011 data is inappropriate because the
Plaintiffs
     have not shown that the liability period in this case should
     stretch back to 2008.

  -- However, the court finds that policyholder data stored on
legacy
     systems from January 1, 2011 until the date each National
General
     Defendant began using NPS is relevant to the Plaintiffs'
claims.

  -- Accordingly, National General Defendants shall produce this
     legacy data by June 1, 2023, or on a date agreed upon by the
     parties.

  -- National General Defendants assert that they will incur
several
     expenses to access and extract data from legacy systems. They

     will have to hire a database administrator for approximately
two
     months at an estimated cost of $23,333.

  -- National General Defendants assert that it will cost them
     approximately $80,333 to access and extract policy data from
     their legacy systems from January 1, 2011 that is not
available
     on NPS and is only available on legacy system(s).

  -- The parties shall meaningfully meet and confer to discuss the

     legacy data retrieval process and agree on a process that is
     reasonable and cost-effective. If The Plaintiffs elect to move

     forward with their request for the legacy data, the Plaintiffs

     and National General the Defendants shall evenly split the
costs
     of retrieving and producing the legacy documents.

On February 9, 2023, the Plaintiffs and National General Defendants
were ordered to meaningfully meet and confer regarding the
Plaintiffs' request for policyholder data for 2011 forward.

The parties were instructed to file a joint discovery letter if any
disputes remained. They submitted the instant discovery dispute on
March 29, 2023.

In the joint letter, the Plaintiffs maintain that all California
Good Driver policyholder data for 2011 forward is relevant and
necessary for class certification, specifically to calculate
damages on a classwide basis. They contend that the data is
essential to demonstrate that rates and corresponding damages can
be calculated for the entire class. The Plaintiffs also request
policyholder data stored on systems no longer in use (legacy
systems) from 2008 until the date National General Defendants'
current policy management system (NPS) was implemented.

For their part, National General Defendants primarily contend that
this data is not necessary prior to class certification.
Nevertheless, National General The Defendants offer to provide all
policyholder data for all post-June 6, 2011 good driver Private
passenger automobile (PPA) policies sold by agents using NPS for
non-supergroup entities.

Thatproduction would include policyholder data from:

  - NGIC for June 6, 2011 to the present;

  - MICG for June 6, 2011 to the present;

  - INIC for September 29, 2011 to the present; and

  - IPIC for September 29, 2011 to the present.

National General Defendants have represented that the data would
include more than 96% of policyholders potentially at issue in the
class period.

National General is a Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based property
and casualty insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H7vTCa at no extra charge.[CC]

NAVY FEDERAL: Hart's March 12, 2023 Errata Sheet Struck From Record
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, SIOBHAN MORROW and TRACEE LE FLORE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NAVY
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant. MARIA HART and TRACEE LE FLORE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Civil Action
Nos. 1:21-cv-0722 (MSN/LRV), 1:22-cv-0844 (MSN/LRV) (E.D. Va.),
Magistrate Judge Lindsey Robinson Vaala of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, grants
the Defendant's Motion and Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to
Strike Plaintiff Hart's Deposition Errata Sheet.

The matter comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to
Strike, requesting an order striking the errata sheet for Ms.
Hart's Feb. 8, 2023 deposition.

The class action litigation centers on the scope of International
Service Assessment Fees ("ISA Fees") charged by Navy Federal for
transactions made outside of the United States. The Plaintiffs, a
class of Navy Federal accountholders, allege that the Defendant
breached its contractual obligations by charging ISA Fees for
transactions made while the accountholder was in the United States.
Thus, at the heart of the dispute is the scope and meaning of a
transaction that is made "outside of the United States."

The Defendant moves to strike the errata sheet from the Feb. 8,
2023 deposition of Ms. Hart. Ms. Hart's errata sheet consists of
three changes to her deposition testimony -- each of which the
Defendant seeks to strike.

The first two errata entries relate to the issue of Ms. Hart's
understanding of what constitutes an "international transaction."
First, in response to the question "Is there something else you
believe an international transaction could be?" Ms. Hart testified
at her deposition: "A transaction that is made -- well, that you're
not in another country. If it -- you're in separate countries, it's
international." On her errata sheet, Ms. Hart changed this response
to instead read: "A transaction that is made abroad is
international."

Second, in response another question regarding her understanding of
what an international transaction is, Ms. Hart testified "Yes"
several times in a row. On her errata sheet, she changes the second
"Yes" response to read "Yes, if both parties are abroad."

The final errata entry challenged by the Defendant relates to a
question regarding how Ms. Hart learned of the litigation. She
testifies "It was in an email that I received." For this response,
her errata sheet instead reads: "I saw an ad online, and I
responded to the ad."

The Defendant argues the three changes on Ms. Hart's deposition
errata sheet constitute improper substantive revisions that
materially alter her testimony and are not permitted under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 30 and relevant caselaw. The Plaintiffs
oppose the Defendant's Motion to Strike, asserting that the
proposed changes are permissible clarifications of incomplete and
confusing responses that do not accurately reflect Ms. Hart's
recollection. The parties appended to their briefs copies of the
relevant pages from the original deposition transcript, as well as
the proposed errata sheet. The Court has not reviewed or been
provided the full deposition transcript.

Judge Vaala notes that each of the three proposed changes in Ms.
Hart's errata sheet is plainly substantive and changes the meaning
of her original testimony. With respect to all three changes, the
Plaintiffs do not assert that the errata sheet seeks to correct
typographical or transcription errors, and their claim that the
three changes are "minor" is unavailing. She opines that the
changes on Ms. Hart's proposed errata sheet go beyond correcting
typographical or transcription errors and veer into impermissibly
altering her original testimony. Because the errata sheet consists
only of the three changes at issue, all of which arc impermissible,
Judge Vaala strikes the entire errata sheet.

For this reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Strike is granted. Ms.
Hart's March 12, 2023 errata sheet is stricken from the record.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9rbj3md from
Leagle.com.


NEW SOUTH WALES: Faces Clark Class Suit Over White Spot Control
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Stevens, Clarence Valley Independent of Australian Rural &
Regional News reports that a fisherman who has been trawling the
Clarence River all his life is behind a legal class action hoping
to compensate fishermen who haven't had any income since February
due to a White Spot control order preventing the harvesting of
uncooked prawns.

Bruce Clark, who has been fishing the Clarence River all his life
and for the past 17 years has operated a family fishing business
with his son and grandson trawling the Clarence River and Lake
Wooloweyah, said they have never been locked out of the estuary
before.

"I'm the bloke who instigated all the White Spot class action for
and on behalf of the region two (Clarence River) fishermen, I
initiated the class action about three weeks ago and it's still in
the process of being formalised," he said.

Mr Clark said the class action is being handled by Chris Thompson
from Law Essentials, Hervey Bay.

White Spot was first detected at a Palmers Island prawn farm in
August 2022, then in February 2023, White Spot was detected at two
Palmers Island prawn farms and was confirmed by the NSW Department
of Primary Industries DPI and the Australian Centre for Disease
Preparedness diagnostic tests.

A control order, issued under the NSW Biosecurity Act 2015, issued
on February 15 is in place until June 14, 2023, and restricts the
movement of raw, uncooked decapod crustaceans from the Clarence
Estuary while containment, source detection and surveillance
activities are underway.

Currently, Mr Clark said the prawns in Lake Wooloweyah and the
Clarence River are too small to cook, meaning trawler operators
haven't received an income since February.

"The prawns can be caught and cooked, but at the present moment the
prawns are only bait size and are not a cooking grade, so we have
completely lost all income," he said.

"We are on our asses, we've had no compensation, the only
compensation we were given by the Department of Primary Industries
was a one-third reduction in our management fees, which is
nothing."

Having lost thousands of dollars a week since February 15, Mr Clark
said the class action calls on the government to compensate
fishermen for lost wages while they are locked out of the estuary
due to the control order.

"The reason for no compensation according to the DPI is because it
was not an emergency shutdown, if it was declared an emergency
shutdown or closure, it's like flood relief, you get automatic
compensation, but this was a control order closure," he said.

"If they've implemented an emergency response incident management
team, that should automatically entitle us to compensation under
the emergency closure."

"You can't just close an industry down overnight, and that includes
the fish co-op which it's costing thousands of dollars daily,
without any compensation."

The only financial compensation offered, Mr Clark said was $500
from the Rural Assistance Authority, which fishermen had to apply
for and wait up to eight weeks to receive.

The Clarence Valley Independent sent NSW Agriculture Minister Tara
Moriarty questions about an April 19 meeting she had with the
Clarence River Fishermen's Co-Op asking whether there are any plans
to compensate fishermen, if the government plans to stop imported
prawns and prawn food, what the source of the white spot outbreak
was, if the control order will be lifted early or how long it would
last, and what would be done to help local fishermen and the
co-operative.

A spokesperson said NSW DPI is working with infected farms, local
industry and other state and national bodies to ensure on-farm
eradication and surveillance of wild crustacea in the area but gave
no indication of whether there were any plans to compensate
fishermen.

"DPI is working with the coop, the associations and the fishers to
try and develop a pathway back to business for these fishers whilst
removing the risk to the rest of the state from spread of the
virus, and without putting our international trade in crustaceans
from Australia at risk," the spokesperson said.

"This pathway back to business will need to be supported from all
other States, the Commonwealth Government and industry."

"The best assistance for these farmers is to get back to production
with access to markets as quickly as possible, and that is what the
current work by DPI has focused on. Including covering the costs of
decontamination for those farms."

The spokesperson didn't comment on whether a ban on imported prawns
and imported prawn farm food would be sought by government, or if
imported prawn food was detected as the source of the outbreak.

"DPI effort and focus has been on minimising the risk of the spread
of White Spot," the spokesperson said."

"Formal biosecurity directions have been in place on each of the
affected farms since the detection of White Spot on each farm.
These directions ensure appropriate biosecurity risk mitigation is
in place throughout the response."

"DPI are also working with the Australian Fisheries Research and
Development Corporation and our industry partners to establish a
project to work on product and market development alternatives
which is already underway."

"DPI is continuing to work to determine the source of the
outbreak."

The Independent also asked new Member for Clarence Richie
Williamson why the coalition didn't do something about the White
Spot issue and compensate fishermen when they were in power.

"I really can't answer that question as I wasn't privy to any
discussions previously, apart from one meeting (as a candidate in
early March 2023) with the Minister, the former Member for Clarence
and the board of the Fishermen's Co-op," Mr Williamson said.

Mr Williamson said he wasn't privy to any plans made by the
government to combat White Spot in the Clarence before he was
elected, but noted the government was in caretaker mode from March
3 leading up to the election.

"I'm very willing to work, in a bipartisan way, with the new
Minister and Government to ensure the fishing families that have
been affected by this order are financially supported by both the
State and Federal Government, I believe it is the right thing to
do." [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Conditional Cert. of Settlement Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAHKEEM MILLER; JOSE
GUITY; TRAVIS BUTLER; ARIAN PERALTA; GARY GARCIA, JR.; BOBBY DEE
CRUZ, and ISAIAH MUHAMMAD, on their own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK; CYNTHIA BRANN;
TIMOTHY FARRELL; HAZEL JENNINGS; and BRENDA COOKE, Case No.
1:21-cv-02616-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23:

    (1) granting preliminary approval of the settlement
Stipulation;

    (2) conditionally certifying the proposed settlement class
under
        Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3);

    (3) appointing Rust Consulting, Inc. as Administrator; and

    (4) appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40wUUxy at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander A. Reinert, Esq.
          55 Fifth Avenue, Room 1005
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (646) 592-6543
          E-mail: areinert@yu.edu

                - and -

          Eric Hecker, Esq.
          John R. Cuti, Esq.
          Alexander Goldenberg
          Daniel Mullkoff
          CUTI HECKER WANG LLP
          305 Broadway, Sixth Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 620-2600
          E-mail: ehecker@chwllp.com
                  dmullkoff@chwllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sylvia O. Hinds-radix, Esq.
          Alan H. Scheiner, Esq.
          Carolyn Depoian, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          100 Church Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 1000

NEW YORK, NY: Settlement in Student With Diabetes Suit Finalized
----------------------------------------------------------------
News/Media Release of School Bus Fleet Connex reports that a
federal court has approved a landmark settlement that's expected to
ensure children with diabetes in New York City get the care they
need to fully participate in school and school-related activities.

The class-action settlement resolves claims that New York City, the
Department of Education, the Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene, and the Office of School Health "systematically failed to
ensure that students with diabetes could attend school safely and
have access to the same educational opportunities as their peers,"
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

That's according to a news release from Disability Rights
Advocates, the American Diabetes Association, and the law firm of
Weir Greenblatt Pierce LLP.

Expectations for the Defendants
Under the settlement agreement, the defendants are expected to
modify policies, practices, and procedures related to:

Planning to determine the needs of students with diabetes and how
those needs are met.
Providing care such that students with diabetes aren't excluded or
segregated from their classmates.

Training staff and contractors (nurses, paraprofessionals,
administrators, bus drivers and attendants, and teachers and other
staff), and the provision of services during the school day and in
afterschool activities.

Anticipated Reforms for New York City

Reforms listed in the settlement agreement include:

Development and adoption of a template plan for students with
diabetes, based on the American Diabetes Association's Model 504
Plan.

Commitment that accommodations necessary to meet student needs
can't be denied based on resources or available funding.

New timelines related to how school staff will plan to meet the
needs of students with diabetes, including meetings to develop
Section 504 plans and ensuring that students can attend school with
all accommodations in place on their first day of school.

Robust new training about how to care for students with diabetes.

Changes to ensure appropriately trained staff are available so that
students with diabetes can attend field trips, eat with their
classmates, ride the school bus, and participate in sports and
other afterschool activities alongside other children.
The American Diabetes Association has been appointed as the joint
expert for monitoring and reporting, with Dr. Peter D. Blanck as
external monitor, for three school years. [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Time to Respond to Complaint Extended to June 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Forest, et al., v. City of
New York, et al. Case No. 1:23-cv-00743-JHR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden entered an order granting in part and
denying in part Parties' application to extend the Defendant's time
to answer the Complaint through June 1, and to continue to hold
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.

  -- The respective deadlines for the Defendants to answer or
     otherwise respond to the Complaint are extended to June 1,
2023.

  -- The parties' request to hold the Plaintiffs' motion for a
     preliminary injunction in abeyance until June 1, 2023, is
denied.

  -- By May 1, 2023, the parties shall submit a proposed briefing
     schedule for (1) that motion, and (2) the Plaintiffs' motion
to
     waive the posting of a bond.

  -- Such schedule shall allot a maximum of 45 days to complete
     briefing on both motions. If the parties do not submit a
proposed
     schedule by May 1, both motions shall be deemed withdrawn
without
     prejudice to renewal at a later date.

  -- As to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, by May
10,
     2023, the parties shall confirm that they have reached an
     agreement on class certification, or, alternatively, shall
submit
     a proposed briefing schedule.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40BgBfJ at no extra charge.[CC]


NEW YORK: Decisions Made During CMC Entered in Betances v. Fischer
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL BETANCES, et al., Plaintiffs v. BRIAN FISCHER, in
his capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Correctional Services (DOCS), and in his individual capacity, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 11-CV-3200 (RWL) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York enters an order on the summary of the
decisions made during a case management conference that took place
on April 19, 2023.

As discussed at the case management conference:

     1. To address the implications of the recent Second Circuit
Vincent decision, the parties will proceed according to the
following deadlines:

          April 20, 2023 - The Plaintiffs were to serve limited
contention interrogatories

          May 4, 2023 - The Defendants will serve answers to the
interrogatories

          May 18, 2023 - If the Plaintiffs believe that the answers
to their interrogatories warrant further factual discovery, they
will meet and confer with the Defendants and notify the Court of
any proposed change in the schedule

          May 25, 2023 - The Plaintiffs will file their opening
brief for partial summary judgment

          June 26, 2023 - The Defendants will file their
opposition, and cross-motion, if any

          July 10, 2023 - The Plaintiffs will file their reply, and
opposition to the Defendants' cross-motion

          July 24, 2023 - The Defendants will file their reply, if
any, in support of their cross-motion

     2. The briefing will address at least the following issues:
(i) the impediment/causation issue identified by the majority in
Vincent, (ii) the Court's previous ruling with respect to Nunc Pro
Tunc class members, and (iii) implications for continuation as a
class action for general loss-of-liberty damages.

     3. On May 1, 2023, the parties were to submit blackout dates
of availability for trial of general loss-of-liberty damages in
September, October, November, and December 2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3wtzes8n from Leagle.com.


NOBLE ENERGY: Boulter Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 10th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mike Boulter, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order and Final Judgment dated April 6, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit styled Mike Boulter, Boulter, LLC, Barclay Farms, LLC, on
behalf of themselves and classes of similarly situated persons v.
Noble Energy, Inc., Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore, LP, Case No.
1:22-cv-01843-DDD, in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado-Denver.

On December 30, 2021, the Plaintiffs refiled their class action
complaint against Noble and Kerr-McGee in the District of Colorado
which contained allegations substantially identical to the claims
alleged in their previous class action complaint (D. Colo. Case No.
1:21-cv-01346-RM-KLM). On April 1, 2022, both Defendants, Noble and
Kerr-McGee filed a joint motion to dismiss the December 30, 2021
complaint citing lack of this Court's subject matter jurisdiction.

On April 27, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims in the
December 30, 2021 complaint without prejudice (D. Colo. Case No.
1:21-cv-03500-RM-SKC). In its April 27, 2022 Order, the Court
reiterated Judge William J. Martinez's February 17, 2021 Order (D.
Colo. Case No. 1:20-cv-00861-WJM-KLM) which dismissed without
prejudice Plaintiffs' previous complaint containing substantially
identical allegations. Under Judge Martinez's February 17, 2021
Order, the Plaintiffs were required to file an application with the
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to allow the COGCC to
determine if a bona fide contractual dispute exists between the
Plaintiffs and Defendants, pursuant to Colorado's Oil and Gas
Conservation Action. Consistent with the Court's direction, the
Plaintiffs initiated a payment of proceeds action seeking an
administrative remedy with the COGCC on December 16, 2021. On July
14, 2022, the COGCC action Plaintiffs had initiated was stayed
pending a ruling by the Supreme Court of Colorado in a matter on
appeal titled Antero Resources Corporation v. Airport Land
Partners, Ltd., et al., Appeal No. 19CA1799.

The Plaintiffs filed this class action complaint on July 26, 2022
to preemptively address any statute of limitation defense Noble or
Kerr-McGee may raise in the future. Because Defendants Noble and
Kerr-McGee have been underpaying royalties owed to Plaintiffs for
over six years and because filing an application with an
administrative agency may not toll the applicable statute of
limitations, the Plaintiffs refiled this action out of an abundance
of caution to preserve all of their claims against Noble and
Kerr-McGee consistent with the law.

On September 21, 2022, the Defendants filed a MOTION to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim and a Joint MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction.

On April 6, 2023, Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an Order
granting the said Defendants' dismissal motion. A Final Judgment
was made by the Clerk of Court in favor of the Defendants.

The appellate case is captioned as Boulter, et al. v. Noble Energy
Inc., et al., Case No. 23-1118, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on April 13, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form, entry of
appearance and disclosure statement were due April 27, 2023 for
Barclay Farms, LLC, Mike Boulter, Boulter, LLC and Ralph Nix
Produce, Inc.; and

   -- Notice of appearance and disclosure statement were due on
April 27, 2023 for Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore, LP, Noble Energy
Inc.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MIKE BOULTER, BOULTER, LLC, RALPH NIX
PRODUCE, INC., and BARCLAY FARMS, LLC, on behalf of themselves and
classes of similarly situated persons, are represented by:

          George Barton, Esq.
          Stacy Ann Burrows, Esq.
          BARTON AND BURROWS
          5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
          Mission, KS 66205
          Telephone: (913) 563-6250

Defendants-Appellees NOBLE ENERGY INC. and KERR-MCGEE OIL & GAS
ONSHORE, LP are represented by:

          Kyle M. Holter, Esq.
          Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq.
          DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS
          1550 Seventeenth Street, Suite 500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 892-7533

               - and -

          Spencer Allen, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD
          1225 17th Street, Suite 2200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 292-1200

               - and -
    
          Anthony N. Kaim, Esq.
          Barrett Reasoner, Esq.
          Shannon Nicole Smith, Esq.
          GIBBS & BRUNS
          1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 650-8805

               - and -

          Carlos Romo, Esq.
          Ezekiel J. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS WEESE PEPPLE & FERGUSON
          1801 California Street, Suite 3400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-2828

NORTHEAST WORK: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due March 16, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID OBERMEIER, v.
NORTHEAST WORK & SAFETY BOATS, LLC, JACK CASEY, and LINDA CASEY,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00046-SVN (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala V.
Nagala entered a scheduling order as follows:

  -- Any motion to further amend the complaint or join parties must
be
     filed by The Plaintiff no later than May 5, 2023.

  -- Any motion to amend the answer or join parties must be filed
by
     the Defendants no later than 28 days after the answer is
filed.

  -- Any party with a claim or counterclaim for damages shall serve

     a damages analysis on the other parties, in compliance with
Rule
     26(a)(1)(A)(iii), on or before February 28, 2024.

  -- Any party that is required to serve a damages analysis shall
     serve an updated damages analysis on the other parties by June

     14, 2024.

  -- The Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of the
Fai8r
     Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective is due by April 21,
2023.

  -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Federal
Rule
     of Civil Procedure 23 is due by March 16, 2024.

  -- The Defendants' motion to decertify the FLSA collective is due
by
     March 16, 2024.

  -- Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) must be
exchanged
     by April 28, 2023.

  -- Fact discovery will be completed (not propounded) by January
31,
     2024.

Northeast Work provides rescue, inspection work boats and work
platforms and barges.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H9HWyK at no extra charge.[CC]




OPENSIDED MRI: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Brust Suit to 8th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
OPENSIDED MRI OF ST. LOUIS, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the
lawsuit entitled Douglas Brust, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Opensided MRI of
St. Louis, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00089-SEP, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
involves unsolicited fax advertisements received by Plaintiffs
Douglas Phillip Brust, D.C., P.C., and Alan Presswood, D.C., P.C.,
who bring suit individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated. They initiated this junk fax case against Opensided MRI
of St. Louis, LLC, Opensided MRI of St. Louis II, LLC, and Matthew
Ruyle, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991 (TCPA).

On June 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk on Mar. 31, 2023. Judge Pitlyk finds that the
putative class members similarly received multiple faxes that they
allegedly did not previously consent to. Therefore, she finds that
the receipt of unwanted faxes via online fax services is sufficient
to confer Article III standing to bring a claim under the TCPA.
Further, she finds that the Plaintiff has met its burden of
showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, the predominance of
common issues as to Class A. And because the Plaintiff has
identified a reliable method to identify class members, the class
is ascertainable.

The appellate case is captioned Douglas Brust, et al. v. Opensided
MRI of St. Louis, LLC, et al., Case No. 23-8003, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on April 18,
2023. [BN]

Defendants-Petitioners OPENSIDED MRI OF ST. LOUIS, LLC, et al. are
represented by:

            Tina N. Babel, Esq.
            Ryan M. Prsha, Esq.
            CARMODY & MACDONALD
            Suite 1800
            120 S. Central Avenue
            Saint Louis, MO 63105
            Telephone: (314) 854-8600

Plaintiffs-Respondents DOUGLAS PHILLIP BRUST, D.C., P.C., et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

            Max G. Margulis, Esq.
            MARGULIS LAW GROUP
            28 Old Belle Monte Road
            Chesterfield, MO 63017
            Telephone: (636) 536-7022

                    - and -

            Wallace C. Solberg, Esq.
            ANDERSON & WANCA
            Suite 760
            3701 Algonquin Road
            Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

PENNSYLVANIA: Bid to Certify Class Deemed Withdrawn in Bobby Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOBBY K. WILLIAMSON, v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-01965-YK-LT (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Yvette Kane entered
an order that the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is deemed
withdrawn.

The Court, "The Plaintiff has not filed a brief in support of the
motion within fourteen days of its filing, and under Local Rule
7.5, motions that are not accompanied by supporting briefs within
14 days "shall be deemed to be withdrawn.""

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nc1SVt at no extra charge.[CC]

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Class Cert. Bid Must be Filed by June 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joseph Pinzon v.
Pepperdine University (re Pepperdine University Tuition and Fees
COVID-19 Refund Litigation), Case No. 2:20-cv-04928-DMG-KS (C.D.
Cal.),  the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order that:

  -- the Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class Certification
on
     or before June 13, 2023;

  -- the Defendant's deadline to file its Opposition to the
     Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be July 11,
     2023;


  -- the Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Reply in support of
their
     Motion for Class Certification shall be August 8, 2023; and

  -- A hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
shall
     be held on August 25, 2023.

Pepperdine is a private research university affiliated with the
Churches of Christ with its main campus in Los Angeles County,
California.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oJM7eg at no extra charge.[CC]


PHH MORTGAGE: Aduayi Sues Over Improper Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR ADUAYI; and ADENEYE O. ADESANYA-ADUAYI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PHH MORTGAGE
SERVICES; and NEWREZ LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-10857 (D.
Mass., April 21, 2023) alleges violation of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have
neglected to fulfill its duty to provide information available to
it in the regular course of business to the Plaintiffs upon receipt
of Plaintiffs' Qualified Written Request and Request for
Information.

The Defendants have allegedly demonstrated a "pattern or practice"
of failing to adequately respond to borrowers' requests for account
information.

PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES provides mortgage financing solutions. The
Company offers real estate and private label solutions,
correspondent lending, loan subservicing, and relocation services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicola Yousif, Esq.
          Matthew McKenna, Esq.
          SHIELD LAW, LLC
          157 Belmont St.
          Brockton, MA 02301
          Telephone: (508) 588-7300
          Facsimile: (508) 588-7303

PLASTIC OMNIUM: Does not Properly Pay Truck Operators, Dally Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN DALLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLASTIC OMNIUM AUTO INERGY (USA), LLC, a
Michigan limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-10877-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich., April 17, 2023) seeks to recover
Plaintiff's unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, interest,
attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the common law claim of unjust
enrichment against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly truck
operator on June 22, 2021 until February 2023. The Plaintiff
asserts that he and those similarly situated have regularly worked
in excess of 40 hours a week and have been paid some overtime for
those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's shift
premiums as required by the FLSA.

Plastic Omnium Auto Inergy designs and manufactures auto
parts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
          Kalamazoo, MI 49007
          Telephone: (269) 250-7500
          E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          1 Towne Sq., 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48375
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: aasciutto@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          Laura Supanich, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 824-3828
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
                  lms@melmedlaw.com

POKE FIDI: Yuwono Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDY YUWONO, on behalf of
himself, FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. POKE
FIDI LLC d/b/a CHIKARASHI FIDI, POKE NYC LLC d/b/a CHIKARASHI
CHINATOWN, POKE NOMAD LLC d/b/a CHIKARASHI NOMAD, CANAL ARCADE LLC
d/b/a NAKAJI, JOHN DOE CORPORATION, d/b/a KONO, MICHAEL JONG LIM,
IVY TSANG a/k/a IVY CHU, JONATHAN CHU, and SELWYN CHAN, Case No.
1:22-cv-05052-JLR-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting her motion for conditional collective
certification and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29
u.s.c. section 216(b).

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41FkyS4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

PRECOAT METALS: Barnard BIPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEREMY BARNARD, on behalf of himself and other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRECOAT METALS
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2023CH000015, was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Madison County,
Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, East St. Louis Division, on April 14, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-01237 to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated the Biometric
Information Privacy Act by: (1) failing to develop and/or make
public a written policy to Plaintiff and class members; (2)
capturing or collecting Plaintiff's and class members' biometric
identifiers and/or information without informing them in writing
and obtaining a written release; and (3) disclosing or otherwise
disseminating Plaintiff and the class members' biometric
identifiers and/or information without obtaining consent.

Precoat Metals Corporation is a provider of metal coil coating
solutions. The Company engages in the advanced application of
protective and decorative coatings services for steel and aluminum
coil.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph T. Charron, Esq.
          BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
          300 E. Randolph St., Suite 5000
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 861-8000
          Facsimile: (312) 861-2899
          E-mail: JT.Charron@bakermckenzie.com

               - and -

          William F. Dugan, Esq.
          Remy D. Snead, Esq.
          BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
          300 E. Randolph St., Suite 5000
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 861-8000
          Facsimile: (312) 861-2899
          E-mail: william.dugan@bakermckenzie.com
                  remy.snead@bakermckenzie.com

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Frazier Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Robert Frazier, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated March 3, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
styled ROBERT FRAZIER, et al., individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons V. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY,
MARYLAND, e/fl/., Case No. 8:22-cv-01768-PJM, in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt.

The suit, filed on July 19, 2022, is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Maryland Constitution and Fourteenth
Amendment Right to Substantive Due Process and Right to Procedural
Due Process.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs'
fundamental right to pretrial liberty by subjecting them to
pretrial detention without the substantive findings required by the
Constitution. The Judge Defendants issue pretrial referrals knowing
that the Plaintiffs will be detained at length while the Pretrial
Division processes the referral, or indefinitely if the Division
refuses to release. They do so having necessarily found that the
Plaintiffs may be released by granting the Division authority to
release without further judicial involvement. The County Defendants
detain the Plaintiffs while they delay processing pretrial
referrals, and refuse to release the Plaintiffs, despite no
judicial finding justifying detention, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class on July 19, 2022.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Peter J. Messitte entered an order on March 3, 2023 denying without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The
Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended motion for class
certification.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Frazier v. Prince
George's County, Maryland, Case No. 23-6359, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 13,
2023.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBERT FRAZIER, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons, et al., are represented by:

          Robert L. Boone, Esq.
          Thomas K. Bredar, Esq.
          WILMERHALE LLP
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 295-6314

               - and -

          Ellen K. Connell, Esq.
          Sonika R. Data, Esq.
          Donna M. Farag, Esq.
          Matthew Theodore Martens, Esq.
          Britany Nicole Riley, Esq.
          Ayana Williams, Esq.
          Edward Henderson Williams, II, Esq.
          WILMERHALE LLP
          2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 663-6613

               - and -

          Jeremy Dakota Cutting, Esq.
          Ryan Downer, Esq.
          Ellora Thadaney Israni, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          1601 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 844-4975

               - and -

          Timothy Jeffrey Perla, Esq.
          WILMERHALE LLP
          60 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 526-6696

               - and -

          Seth Wayne, Esq.
          INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY & PROTECTION
          600 New Jersey Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (415) 516-4939  

Defendants-Appellees PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al., are
represented by:

          Shelley Lynn Johnson, Esq.
          Andrew Jensen Murray, Esq.
          PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW
          1301 McCormick Drive
          Largo, MD 20774
          Telephone: (301) 952-3932

PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN STROMQUIST,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,; and
AMY VERMEER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,; v. PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio
corporation,; and PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio
corporation,; Case No. 8:22-cv-00332-BCB-MDN (D. Neb.), Hon. Judge
Michael D. Nelson entered a case progression order as follows:

   1) The deadline for moving to amend pleadings or add parties is
May
      19, 2023.

   2) A status conference to discuss case progression, the parties'

      request for a hearing on the Plaintiffs' anticipated class
      certification motion, and the parties' interest in settlement

      will be held with the undersigned magistrate judge on
November
      1, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. by telephone.

   3) The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules 33,

      34, 36, and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is
      November 1, 2023. Motions to compel written discovery under
      Rules 33, 34, 36, and 45 must be filed by November 15, 2023.

   4) The deadlines for identifying expert witnesses and completing

      expert disclosures for all experts expected to testify at
trial,
      and non-retained experts, are:

      -- For the plaintiffs:                December 15, 2023

      -- For the defendants:                February 29, 2024

   5) Motion to Certify a Class Action.

      a. Any motion to certify this case as a class action shall be

         filed by December 15, 2023, in the absence of which any
claim
         in the pleadings that this is a class action shall be
deemed
         abandoned, and the case shall proceed, for purposes of
Fed.
         R. Civ. P. 23, as if a motion for class certification had

         been filed and denied by the Court.

      b. The Defendants shall file a response to the Plaintiffs'
class
         certification motion by February 29, 2024.

      c. The Plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of the motion

         for class certification by April 15, 2024.

   6) The deposition deadline, including but not limited to
      depositions for oral testimony only under Rule 45, is April
15,
      2024.

   7) The deadline for filing motions to exclude testimony on
Daubert
      and related grounds is April 15, 2024.

   8) The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for
      summary judgment will be set following the Court's rulings on

      class certification.

   9) The parties shall comply with all other stipulations and
      agreements recited in their Rule 26(f) planning report that
are
      not inconsistent with this order.

Progressive Universal operates as an insurance firm.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LqTfFk at no extra charge.[CC]

RANGE RESOURCES: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUPERT, et al., v. RANGE
RESOURCES - APPALACHIA, LLC et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01281 (W.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Patricia L Dodge entered an order amending the
case management order deadlines as follows:

  -- Completion of Class Certification          July 20, 2023
     Discovery by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' Disclosure of Class        July 26, 2023
     Certification Experts and Reports by:

  -- The Defendant's Disclosure of Class        August 23, 2023
     Certification Experts and Reports by:

  -- Discovery of Class Certification Experts   September 6, 2023
     Completed by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class           September 20, 2023
     Certification by:

  -- The Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition   October 18, 2023
     to Class Certification by:

  -- The Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in        November 1, 2023
     Further Support of Class Certification
     By:

The nature of suit states Contract -- Other Contract.[CC]


REALPAGE INC: Enders Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEREMY ENDERS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC., ALLIED ORION GROUP
LLC, AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC, BELL
PARTNERS, INC., BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST,
CORTLAND PARTNERS LLC, CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC., EQUITY
RESIDENTIAL, FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS,
LLC, INDEPENDENCE REALTY TRUST, INC., LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.,
MIDAMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC., SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.,
SHERMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. and UDR, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00055, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee on April 21, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Tennessee assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00390 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unjust enrichment and
price fixing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
Section 104 of the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 by forming a
cartel in the multifamily residential real estate market in the
U.S. to artificially inflate the rental prices of multifamily units
above competitive levels.

RealPage, Inc. is a software company headquartered in Richardson,
Texas.

Allied Orion Group, LLC is a company that manages apartment units
headquartered in Houston, Texas.

AvalonBay Communities, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.

Avenue5 Residential, LLC is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Seattle, Washington.

Bell Partners, Inc. is a company that manages apartment units
headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina.

BH Management Services, LLC is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.

Camden Property Trust is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Houston, Texas.

Cortland Partners, LLC is a company that manages apartment units
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in New York, New York.

Equity Residential is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

FPI Management, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Folsom, California.

Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC is a company that manages
multifamily rental real estate, headquartered in Charleston, South
Carolina.

Independence Realty Trust, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Lincoln Property Co. is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

MidAmerica Apartment Communities, Inc. is a company that manages
multifamily rental real estate, headquartered in Germantown,
Tennessee.

Security Properties Inc. is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Seattle, Washington.

UDR, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily rental real estate,
headquartered in Highlands Ranch, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
         SHUMAN, GLENN & STECKER
         600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South
         Denver, CO 80202
         Telephone: (303) 861-3003
         Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
         E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

                - and -

         Michael J. Boni, Esq.
         Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
         BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
         15 St. Asaphs Road
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Telephone: (610) 822-0200
         Facsimile: (610) 822-0206

REALPAGE INC: Kramer Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D. Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Kate Kramer, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; ALLIED ORION GROUP,
LLC; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BELL
PARTNERS, INC.; BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST;
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, LLC; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; and UDR, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-03835, was transferred from the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April 14, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Tennessee assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00356 to the proceeding.

The suit arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize rental housing prices in the Greater
Washington, D.C. Metro Area. The Plaintiff seeks to recover treble
damages, injunctive relief, and other relief as appropriate, based
on the Defendants' violations of federal antitrust laws.

RealPage provides software and services to managers of residential
rental apartments, including the YieldStar/AI Revenue Management
software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian P. Levis, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: clevis@lowey.com

Defendant Greystar Real Estate Partners LLC is represented by:

          William Leitzsey Monts, III, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 13th St, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-6440
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
          E-mail: william.monts@hoganlovells.com

REALPAGE INC: Kramer Suit Transferred From W.D. Wash. to M.D. Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KAREN KRAMER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; FPI
MANAGEMENT, INC.; RPM LIVING, LLC; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC;
MIDAMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; MORGAN PROPERTIES, LLC;
AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC; BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY; AVALONBAY
COMMUNITIES, INC.; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL;
ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC; ZRS MANAGEMENT, LLC; CAMDEN PROPERTY
TRUST; UDR, INC.; CONAM MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; THRIVE COMMUNITIES
MANAGEMENT, LLC; SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.; CWS APARTMENT HOMES,
LLC; PROMETHEUS REAL ESTATE GROUP; SARES REGIS GROUP OPERATING,
INC.; and MISSION ROCK RESIDENTIAL, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00198,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on April 21, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Tennessee assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00389 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged agreement in restraint
of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by forming a
cartel in the multifamily residential real estate market in the
U.S. to artificially inflate the rental prices of multifamily units
above competitive levels.

RealPage, Inc. is a software company headquartered in Richardson,
Texas.

Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC is a company that manages
multifamily rental real estate, headquartered in Charleston, South
Carolina.

Lincoln Property Co. is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in New York, New York.

FPI Management, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Folsom, California.

RPM Living, LLC is a company that manages multifamily rental real
estate, headquartered in Austin, Texas.

BH Management Services, LLC is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.

MidAmerica Apartment Communities, Inc. is a company that manages
multifamily rental real estate, headquartered in Germantown,
Tennessee.

Morgan Properties, LLC is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Avenue5 Residential, LLC is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Seattle, Washington.

Bozzuto Management Company is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Greenbelt, Maryland.

AvalonBay Communities, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.

Highmark Residential, LLC is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

Equity Residential is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

Essex Property Trust, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in San Mateo, California.

ZRS Management, LLC is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Orlando, Florida.

Camden Property Trust is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Houston, Texas.

UDR, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily rental real estate,
headquartered in Highlands Ranch, Colorado.

CONAM Management Corporation is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in San Diego, California.

Thrive Communities Management, LLC is a company that manages
multifamily rental real estate, headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.

Security Properties Inc. is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Seattle, Washington.

CWS Apartment Homes, LLC is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Austin, Texas.

Prometheus Real Estate Group is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in San Mateo, California.

Sares Regis Group Operating, Inc. is a company that manages
multifamily rental real estate, headquartered in Newport Beach,
California.

Mission Rock Residential, LLC is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Denver, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         Breanna Van Engelen, 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
                 breannav@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

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

REALPAGE INC: Mackie Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D. Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TIFFANY MACKIE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE, INC., ALLIED
ORION GROUP LLC, AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL,
LLC, BELL PARTNERS, INC., BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, CAMDEN
PROPERTY TRUST, CORTLAND PARTNERS LLC, CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.,
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, LLC, INDEPENDENCE REALTY TRUST, INC., LINCOLN PROPERTY
CO., MIDAMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC., SECURITY PROPERTIES
INC., SHERMAN ASSOCIATES, INC and UDR, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00011, was transferred from the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April 14, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Tennessee assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00358 to the proceeding.

This action arises from Defendants' alleged conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize rental housing prices in the Greater
Denver Metro Area.

RealPage provides software and services to managers of residential
rental apartments, including the YieldStar/AI Revenue Management
software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rusty Evan Glenn, Esq.
          SHUMAN GLENN & STECKER
          600 17th Street
          Suite 2800 South
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-3003
          Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
          E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elayna M. Fiene, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG
          1144 15th Street, Suite 3300
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 572-6528
          E-mail: elayna.fiene@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Caitlin C. McHugh, Esq.
          James Michael Lyons, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
          1601 19th Street, Suite 1000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 623-9000
          E-mail: cmchugh@lewisroca.com
                  jlyons@lewisroca.com

               - and -

          Ian Simmons, Esq.
          O'MELVENY AND MYERS, LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-4001
          Telephone: (202) 383-5300
          E-mail: isimmons@omm.com  

               - and -

          Stephen McIntyre, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          400 S Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          E-mail: smcintyre@omm.com

               - and -

          Matt T. Schock, Esq.
          BAKERHOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street, Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-0600
          Facsimile: (303) 861-7805
          E-mail: mschock@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan Harrison Tamm, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          760 Southwest Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 294-9523
          E-mail: ryan.tamm@stoel.com

               - and -

          Andrew T. Hepworth, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          707 17th Street, Suite 3100
          Denver, CO 80202-3400
          Telephone: (720) 479-3900
          Facsimile: (214) 462-3299
          E-mail: ahepworth@cozen.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Hoeft, Esq.
          KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
          701 Fifth Ave., Ste 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 223-1313
          Facsimile: (206) 682-7100
          E-mail: jhoeft@karrtuttle.com

REALPAGE INC: Marchetti Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to M.D. Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MATTEO MARCHETTI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; THOMA BRAVO, L.P.;
AMLI MANAGEMENT COMPANY; ALLIANCE RESIDENTIAL COMPANY; APARTMENT
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, LLC; ASSET LIVING, LLC; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL
LLC; BH MANAGEMENT LLC; THE BOZZUTO GROUP; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST;
CORTLAND PROPERTIES, INC.; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; EQUITY
RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; GREYSTAR
REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; MID-AMERICA
APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; MORGAN PROPERTIES; RPM LIVING LLC;
SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; and
WINNCOMPANIES LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-20263, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April
21, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Tennessee assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00380 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged agreement in restraint
of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by forming a
cartel in the multifamily residential real estate market in the
U.S. to artificially inflate the rental prices of multifamily units
above competitive levels.

RealPage, Inc. is a software company headquartered in Richardson,
Texas.

Thoma Bravo L.P. is a private equity firm based in Florida.

Alliance Residential Realty, LLC is a company that manages
apartment units headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Apartment Management Consultants, LLC is a company that manages
apartment units headquartered in Sandy, Utah.

Asset Living, LLC is a company that manages apartment units
headquartered in Houston, Texas.

Avenue5 Residential, LLC is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Seattle, Washington.

BH Management Services, LLC is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.

Bozzuto Management Company is a company that manages residential
units headquartered in Greenbelt, Maryland.

Camden Property Trust is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Houston, Texas.

Cortland Properties, Inc. is a company that manages apartment units
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in New York, New York.

Equity Residential is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

Essex Property Trust, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in San Mateo, California.

FPI Management, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Folsom, California.

Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC is a company that manages
residential apartments, headquartered in Charleston, South
Carolina.

Lincoln Property Co. is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

MidAmerica Apartment Communities, Inc. is a company that manages
multifamily rental real estate, headquartered in Germantown,
Tennessee.

Morgan Properties, LLC is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

RPM Living, LLC is a company that manages residential apartments,
headquartered in Austin, Texas.

Security Properties Inc. is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Seattle, Washington.

Thrive Communities Management, LLC is a company that manages
residential apartments, headquartered in Seattle, Washington.

Winncompanies LLC is a company that manages residential apartments,
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq.
         Javier A. Lopez, Esq.
         KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
         2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
         Coral Gables, FL 33134
         Telephone: (305) 372-1800
         E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
                 jal@kttlaw.com


                - and -

         Archie C. Lamb, Jr., Esq.
         ARCHIE LAMB & ASSOCIATES
         2625 McCormick Dr., Ste. 102
         Clearwater, FL 33759
         Telephone: (205) 612-6789
         E-mail: alamb@archielamb.com

                - and -

         Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
         Steven N. Williams, Esq.
         Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
         Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
         JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
         601 California Street, Suite 1000
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 500-6800
         Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
         E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                 swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
                 czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
                 krayhill@saverilawfirm.com

REALPAGE INC: Parker Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PRISCILLA PARKER, PATRICK PARKER, and BARRY
AMAR-HOOVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.; BELL
PARTNERS, INC.; BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT
COMPANY; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; CONAM MANAGEMENT CORP.; CORTLAND
PARTNERS, LLC; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS,
LLC; HIGHMARK RESIDENTIAL, LLC; LANTOWER LUXURY LIVING, LLC;
LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY; MIDAMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.;
PINNACLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; RPM LIVING, LLC; UDR,
INC.; and ZRS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-20160, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee on April 21, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Tennessee assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00378 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged price fixing in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by forming a cartel in
the multifamily residential real estate market in the U.S. to
artificially inflate the rental prices of multifamily units above
competitive levels.

RealPage, Inc. is a software company headquartered in Richardson,
Texas.

AvalonBay Communities, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.

Bell Partners, Inc. is a company that manages apartment units
headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina.

BH Management Services, LLC is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.

Bozzuto Management Company is a company that manages residential
units headquartered in Greenbelt, Maryland.

Camden Property Trust is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Houston, Texas.

CONAM Management Corporation is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in San Diego, California.

Cortland Partners, LLC is a company that manages apartment units
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

FPI Management, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Folsom, California.

Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC is a company that manages
residential apartments, headquartered in Charleston, South
Carolina.

Highmark Residential, LLC is a company that manages residential
apartments, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

Lantower Luxury Living, LLC is a company that manages residential
apartments, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

Lincoln Property Co. is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

MidAmerica Apartment Communities, Inc. is a company that manages
multifamily rental real estate, headquartered in Germantown,
Tennessee.

Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC is a company that
manages residential apartments, headquartered in Addison, Texas.

RPM Living, LLC is a company that manages residential apartments,
headquartered in Austin, Texas.

UDR, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily rental real estate,
headquartered in Highlands Ranch, Colorado.

ZRS Management, LLC is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Orlando, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq.
         Michael Criden, Esq.
         CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
         7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
         South Miami, FL 33143
         Telephone: (305) 357-9000
         Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
         E-mail: lgrossman@cridenlove.com
                 mcriden@cridenlove.com

                - and -

         David R. Scott, Esq.
         Patrick McGahan, Esq.
         Michael Srodoski, Esq.
         G. Dustin Foster, Esq.
         SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
         156 South Main Street
         P.O. Box 192
         Colchester, CT 06145
         Telephone: (860) 537-5537
         Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
         E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
                 alawrence@scott-scott.com
                 pmcgahan@scott-scott.com
                 msrodoski@scott-scott.com
                 gfoster@scott-scott.com

                - and -

         Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
         Stacey Slaughter, Esq.
         Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq.
         J. Austin Hurt, Esq.
         ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
         800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 349-8500
         Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
         E-mail: tundlin@robinskaplan.com
                 sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
                 gkozen@robinskaplan.com
                 ahurt@robinskaplan.com

                - and -

         Vincent Briganti, Esq.
         Christian P. Levis, Esq.
         Peter Demato, Esq.
         Radhika Gupta, Esq.
         LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
         44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Telephone: (914) 997-0500
         Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
         E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                 clevis@lowey.com
                 pdemato@lowey.com
                 rgupta@lowey.com

REALPAGE INC: Saloman Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to M.D. Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTOPHER SALOMAN and MICHAEL STRAUSS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
REALPAGE, INC.; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.; BELL PARTNERS, INC.;
BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; BOZZUTO MANAGEMENT COMPANY; CAMDEN
PROPERTY TRUST; CONAM MANAGEMENT CORP.; CORTLAND PARTNERS, LLC; FPI
MANAGEMENT, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; HIGHMARK
RESIDENTIAL, LLC; LANTOWER LUXURY LIVING, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY
COMPANY; MIDAMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; PINNACLE PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; RPM LIVING, LLC; UDR, INC.; and ZRS
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-21038, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April
21, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Tennessee assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00381 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged price fixing in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by forming a cartel in
the multifamily residential real estate market in the U.S. to
artificially inflate the rental prices of multifamily units above
competitive levels.

RealPage, Inc. is a software company headquartered in Richardson,
Texas.

AvalonBay Communities, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.

Bell Partners, Inc. is a company that manages apartment units
headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina.

BH Management Services, LLC is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa.

Bozzuto Management Company is a company that manages residential
units headquartered in Greenbelt, Maryland.

Camden Property Trust is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Houston, Texas.

CONAM Management Corporation is a company that manages multifamily
rental real estate, headquartered in San Diego, California.

Cortland Partners, LLC is a company that manages apartment units
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

FPI Management, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Folsom, California.

Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC is a company that manages
residential apartments, headquartered in Charleston, South
Carolina.

Highmark Residential, LLC is a company that manages residential
apartments, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

Lantower Luxury Living, LLC is a company that manages residential
apartments, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

Lincoln Property Co. is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

MidAmerica Apartment Communities, Inc. is a company that manages
multifamily rental real estate, headquartered in Germantown,
Tennessee.

Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC is a company that
manages residential apartments, headquartered in Addison, Texas.

RPM Living, LLC is a company that manages residential apartments,
headquartered in Austin, Texas.

UDR, Inc. is a company that manages multifamily rental real estate,
headquartered in Highlands Ranch, Colorado.

ZRS Management, LLC is a company that manages multifamily rental
real estate, headquartered in Orlando, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Jeffrey B. Kaplan, Esq.
         Maria V. Ceballos, Esq.
         DIMOND KAPLAN & ROTHSTEIN, P.A.
         2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH-2B
         Miami, FL 33133
         Telephone: (305) 374-1920
         E-mail: Jkaplan@dkrpa.com
                 Vceballos@dkrpa.com

REALPAGE INC: Weaver Antitrust Suit Transferred to M.D. Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEFFREY WEAVER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE, INC., ALLIED
ORION GROUP LLC, AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC., AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL,
LLC, BELL PARTNERS, INC., BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, CAMDEN
PROPERTY TRUST, CORTLAND PARTNERS LLC, CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.,
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, LLC, INDEPENDENCE REALTY TRUST, INC., LINCOLN PROPERTY
CO., LYON MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., MIDAMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES,
INC., SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., SHERMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. and UDR,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03224, was transferred from the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
on April 14, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Tennessee assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-00357 to the proceeding.

This action arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize rental housing prices in the Greater
Denver Metro Area.

RealPage provides software and services to managers of residential
rental apartments, including the YieldStar/AI Revenue Management
software.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 W Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798-5319
          E-mail: cmedici@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Christian P. Levis, Esq.
          Peter Demato, Esq.
          Radhika Gupta, Esq.
          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, PC
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
                  pdemato@lowey.com
                  rgupta@lowey.com
                  vbriganti@lowey.com

               - and -

          G. Dustin Foster, Esq.
          Michael Srodoski, Esq.
          Patrick McGahan, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT, LLP
          156 S Main Street
          PO Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: gfoster@scott-scott.com
                  msrodoski@scott-scott.com
                  pmcgahan@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq.
          J. Austin Hurt, Esq.
          Stacey Slaughter, Esq.
          Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 Lasalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: gkozen@robinskaplan.com  
                  ahurt@robinskaplan.com
                  sslaughter@robinskaplan.com  
                  tundlin@robinskaplan.com  

               - and -

          Rusty Evan Glenn, Esq.
          SHUMAN GLENN & STECKER
          600 17th Street
          Suite 2800 South
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-3003
          Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
          E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Caitlin C. McHugh, Esq.
          James Michael Lyons, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
          1601 19th Street, Suite 1000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 623-9000
          E-mail: cmchugh@lewisroca.com
                  jlyons@lewisroca.com

               - and -

          Marguerite S. Willis, Esq.
          MAYNARD NEXSEN, PC
          104 South Main Street, Suite 900
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (803) 253-8265
          E-mail: mwillis@maynardnexsen.com

               - and -

          Ian Simmons, Esq.
          O'MELVENY AND MYERS, LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-4001
          Telephone: (202) 383-5300
          E-mail: isimmons@omm.com

               - and -

          Todd R. Seelman, Esq.
          LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
          1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4000
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (720) 292-2002
          Facsimile: (303) 861-7767
          E-mail: Todd.Seelman@lewisbrisbois.com

               - and -

          Matt T. Schock, Esq.
          BAKERHOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street, Suite 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-0600
          Facsimile: (303) 861-7805
          E-mail: mschock@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan Harrison Tamm, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          760 Southwest Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 294-9523
          E-mail: ryan.tamm@stoel.com

               - and -

          William Leitzsey Monts, III, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 13th St, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-6440
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
          E-mail: william.monts@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Andrew T. Hepworth, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          707 17th Street, Suite 3100
          Denver, CO 80202-3400
          Telephone: (720) 479-3900
          Facsimile: (214) 462-3299
          E-mail: ahepworth@cozen.com

               - and -

          David G. Palmer, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1144 15th Street, Suite 3300
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 572-6500
          Facsimile: (303) 572-6540
          E-mail: palmerdg@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Karen H. Safran, Esq.
          Robert Scott Hunger, Esq.
          GOODSPEED MERRILL
          9605 S. Kingston Court, Suite 200
          Englewood, CO 80112
          Telephone: (720) 531-4037
          E-mail: ksafran@goodspeedmerrill.com
                  rhunger@goodspeedmerrill.com  

               - and -

          Diane Rebecca Hazel, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          1400 16th Street, Suite 200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (720) 437-2034
          E-mail: dhazel@foley.com

               - and -

          David D. Cross, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          2100 L St NW Ste 900
          WASHINGTON, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 887-1500
          Facsimile: (202) 887-0763
          E-mail: dcross@mofo.com

REECE CONSTRUCTION: Kwate Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAN KWATE, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REECE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
a ForProfit Corporation; and STEVEN REECE and the marital community
thereof, Defendants, Case No. 23-00002-02124-0-SEA, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County
of King to the United States District Court of the Western District
of Washington on April 13, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-00570 to the proceeding.

In his amended complaint, the Plaintiff brings a putative class
action against "Tribal Defendants" under the Revised Code of
Washington, asserting the following five claims for relief: (1)
failure to provide rest periods; (2) failure to provide meal
periods; (3) failure to pay wages; (4) failure to pay the
prevailing wage; and (5) willful deprivation of wages.

Reece Construction Company is a general contractor providing road
construction, civil and residential sitework, and commercial
building construction services.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sarah N. Turner, Esq.
          Nicole E. Demmon, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 695-5115
          Facsimile: (206) 689-2822
          E-mail: sturner@grsm.com

RIPPLE LABS: Court Heard Motion for Class Cert. in XRP Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jake Simmons of Bitcoinist reports that the class action lawsuit
against Ripple Labs for selling XRP as an unregistered security is
picking up steam on April 26, 2023. The case, which is being
litigated in the state of California, will see a class
certification hearing on April 26, 2023 at 4:30 p.m. ET.

Class certification is a court order that gives plaintiffs the
right to proceed on behalf of a particular class of plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit. If the judge already denies that order, the
case, which has been ongoing since 2018, could end sooner than
expected.

XRP community attorney John E. Deaton stated in a Twitter thread on
April 26, 2023 that it is a Zoom hearing that he will be attending.
Unlike the case of LBRY vs. the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), the judge in charge of the case will not allow
amicus attorneys to attend the oral hearing.

The founder of Crypto Law and attorney for XRP holders had filed an
amicus brief in the case in February. In principle, however, the
hearing is open to the public.

"I anticipate that the public will be present as audience members
only, but as I said at the hearings in New York, PLEASE do not
interrupt the proceedings and DO NOT contact Ripple's lawyers, the
plaintiffs' lawyers, the court, or anyone else associated with the
case," Deaton writes. Remarkably, the judge opened online access to
only 500 members of the general public.

The hearing is about oral arguments on the certification issue of
the group of XRP owners suing Ripple. Plaintiff Vladi Zakinov, who
owned XRP for only two weeks, is asking to be the lead plaintiff in
the class action.

He argues that XRP is a security. Sostak is asking the court to
create a class consisting of all XRP owners who bought and now hold
XRP or who sold XRP at a loss.

The proposed class action would include XRP holders around the
world, including the 75,890 XRP holders around the world who
disagree with the plaintiffs in Zakinov and side with Ripple in the
case against the SEC.

Moreover, the proposed class action is not limited to direct sales
of Ripple, but encompasses all sales of XRP, including secondary
sales and international sales in countries where XRP is already
classified as a non-security.

John E. Deaton urged the court in his amicus brief not to certify
the class because of these conflicts and because there are only a
small number of XRP holders who claim that XRP is an unregistered
security.

Although the litigation has been pending for five years, the
court's scheduling indicates that the case could drag on for quite
some time (if the class is certified). XRP community member Huber
recently shared the court schedule. According to it, the trial
might not start until April 15, 2024. That would be 6 years before
the trial would even begin.

At press time, the XRP price stood at $0.4689, up 2% in the last 24
hours. [GN]

ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COOPER MOORE and ANDREW
GILLETTE, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 2:21-cv-01571-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
Barbara J. Rothstein entered an order granting the parties'
stipulated motion for extension of scheduling order:

                Event                 Current Date      Requested
Date

  Deadline for class                  Apr. 28, 2023     Jul. 28,
2023
  certification fact discovery:

  The Plaintiffs' expert report(s)    May 19, 2023      Aug. 21,
2023
  served on the Defendant:

  The Defendant's expert report(s)    Jun. 23, 2023     Sept. 25,
2023
  served on the Plaintiffs

  The Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert     Aug. 7, 2023      Nov. 7,
2023
  report(s) served on the
  Defendant:

  Deadline to complete class          Aug. 21, 2023     Nov. 21,
2023
  certification expert
  discovery:

  Deadline for the Plaintiffs to      Sept. 4, 2023     Jan. 10,
2024
  file motion for class
  certification:

  Deadline for the Defendant's        Oct. 2, 2023      Feb. 7,
2024
  class certification response:

  Deadline for the Plaintiffs'        Oct. 16, 2023     Feb. 28,
2024
  class certification reply:

Robinhood is a stock brokerage firm, which provides brokerage
clearing services.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LnT6T3 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com

                - and -

          Sophia M. Rios, Esq.
          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          401 B Street, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 489-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: srios@bm.net
                  mdrake@bm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kenneth E Payson, Esq.
          Lauren Burdette Rainwater, Esq.
          Eric Franz, Esq.
          Theo A. Lesczynsk, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA)
          920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104-1610
          Telephone: (206) 622-3150
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7700     
          E-mail: kenpayson@dwt.com
                  laurenrainwater@dwt.com
                  ericfranz@dwt.com
                  theolesczynski@dwt.com

RYDER INTEGRATED: Class Cert Must Be Filed After Close of Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFENY NANCE, on behalf
of herself and the Class Members, v. RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and RYDER SYSTEM, INC., a Florida
Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00477-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an amended pretrial scheduling order
as follows:

   -- Discovery

      The Court finds that bifurcation is necessary in order to
best
      determine if the elements of class certification are met.
      Accordingly, the Court hereby bifurcates the discovery
process.
      All discovery in Phase I shall be limited to facts that are
      relevant to whether this action should be certified as a
class
      action and shall be completed within 240 days.

   -- Class Certification

      The Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later
than
      180 days after the close of certification discovery. The
parties
      are responsible for ensuring that all motions are filed to
allow
      for proper notice of the hearing under the Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure and/or Local Rules. Local Rule 230 governs
the
      calendaring and procedures of civil motions.

   -- Post-Certification Case Activity

      "All other necessary dates and deadlines, including dates for

      the Final Pretrial Conference and Trial, along with all
      deadlines associated therewith, will be set by a Supplemental

      Pretrial Scheduling Order to be issued following the
Court’s
      ruling on The Plaintiff’s Class Certification Motion.

   -- Objections to Pretrial Scheduling Order

      This Pretrial Scheduling Order will become final without
      further order of the Court unless objections are filed within
14
      days of service of this Order.

Ryder Integrated offers logistics, warehousing, shipping,
distribution, freight forwarding, brokerage, storage, cargo, and
supply chain management services.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oxlJUV at no extra charge.[CC]

RYDER INTEGRATED: Valdiviezo Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Luz Valdiviezo, Michael Ramirez, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Ryder Integrated
Logistics, Inc., Case No. 2023L002826 was removed from the Cook
County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on April 21, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02526 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. -- https://lms.ryder.com/ --
offers logistics, warehousing, shipping, distribution, freight
forwarding, brokerage, storage, cargo, and supply chain management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gregory P Abrams, Esq.
          Connor Joseph Doughty, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          233 South Wacker Dr., Suite 6950
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 256-9444
          Email: gregory.abrams@tuckerellis.com
                 connor.doughty@tuckerellis.com


SAINT AGNES: Remand of Crouch Suit to Fresno Super. Court Endorsed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHRYN CROUCH, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAINT AGNES MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01527-ADA-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California recommends that the:

   (1) Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court be
       granted;

   (2) Defendant's request for judicial notice in support of its
       opposition be granted; and

   (3) Defendant's pending motion to dismiss be denied as moot.

The Defendant removed the putative class action from the Fresno
County Superior Court on Nov. 23, 2022. The Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on Jan. 18, 2023, bringing individual and
putative class claims. She alleges that the Defendant uses
Facebook/Metal Pixel analytics tool on its website to track certain
information, including information a user submits on its website.
This information includes private medical data, which is thereafter
shared with Facebook through Pixel.

The Plaintiff alleges that her (and the putative class's) private
medical information was shared with Facebook without her consent by
the Defendant's use of Pixel on its website. And this unauthorized
sharing led to violations of California's Invasion of Privacy Act
(Count I) and Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Count
II).

The Defendant alleges jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1442(a)(1), which is known as the federal officer removal statute.

The Plaintiff argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction under the
federal officer removal statute and thus should remand the case to
state court. Specifically, she was not acting under a federal
officer because it has no agency relationship with the Government,
was not under its control, did not fulfill a task the Government
otherwise would have had to do, and would not face a significant
risk of state-court prejudice as a result of its conduct.

The Defendant counters that, by building a patient portal, it was
assisting the Government "to fulfill a federal goal." Moreover, the
Government monitored its compliance with the Meaningful Use
Program, with the Defendant submitting detailed reports on patient
portal activities. And if not for the Defendant, the Government
would have had to build the electronic records system, and it could
face significant state-court prejudice for its actions. The
Defendant asserts that these circumstances show that it was acting
under a federal officer for purposes of establishing jurisdiction
under the federal officer removal statute.

The Plaintiff moves to remand the case to state court, arguing that
the Defendant was not acting under a federal officer so as to
provide subject matter jurisdiction. The presiding District Judge
has referred the motion for the preparation of findings and
recommendations, and Judge Grosjean held a hearing on the motion on
April 14, 2023.

Judge Grosjean concludes that the Defendant's participation in the
Meaningful Use Program does not give rise to the type of
circumstances necessary to conclude that it acted under a federal
officer so as to confer jurisdiction under the federal officer
removal statute. Accordingly, she recommends that (1) the
Plaintiff's motion to remand be granted; (2) the Defendant's
request for judicial notice in support of its opposition be
granted; and (3) the Defendant's pending motion to dismiss be
denied as moot.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United
States District Court Judge assigned. Within 14 days after being
served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party
may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all
parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the
objections will be served and filed within 14 days after service of
the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of
rights on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Findings &
Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhn3f5f from
Leagle.com.


SCRIPPS NETWORKS: Bids for Dismissal of VPPA Class Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weil reports that on April 24, 2023, Weil won a complete victory
for Scripps Networks, LLC, owned by Warner Bros. Discovery, in a
putative nationwide class action alleging violations of the federal
Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), when the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Scripps' motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim in its entirety.

The plaintiffs in this case subscribed by email to free newsletters
when they visited HGTV.com (the website of Scripps' popular HGTV
television network), and allegedly also viewed videos and other
content on the HGTV website. The newsletters, though, are a
separate offering from the video content found on the website. The
plaintiffs alleged that HGTV disclosed their online video-viewing
history to Facebook, through the use of an embedded piece of code
called the Facebook Tracking Pixel, in violation of the VPPA.

The VPPA was originally enacted in 1988 after a newspaper published
information about Judge Robert Bork’s video rental history at a
local movie rental store. In relevant part, the VPPA holds that
"[a] video tape service provider who knowingly discloses, to any
person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer
of such provider shall be liable to the aggrieved person."

Believing that the plaintiffs were trying to extend the reach of
the VPPA beyond its intended scope of protecting the privacy of
video-watching activity, Scripps moved to dismiss. In its Opinion
and Order, the court agreed that the plaintiffs failed to state a
claim under the VPPA because they did not fall within the statute's
definition of a "consumer." The court engaged in a close reading
and analysis of the statute and relevant precedent, and held that
merely subscribing to HGTV.com newsletters - which does not involve
purchasing, renting or watching any audio-visual content from HGTV
- does not make the plaintiffs "consumers" of video content under
the VPPA. As the court explained, "in the statute's full context, a
reasonable reader would understand the definition of 'consumer' to
apply to a renter, purchaser or subscriber of audio-visual goods or
services, and not goods or services writ large.” They were
subscribers, the court found, to "newsletters, not subscribers to
audio visual materials."

The court's decision is an important limitation on the reach of the
VPPA given the current volume and extent of class actions being
commenced in U.S. courts seeking substantial statutory damage
awards under the VPPA (now numbering more than 100 separate
cases).

The Weil team was led by Weil Complex Commercial Litigation partner
David Yohai, and included partners David Singh and Randi Singer,
counsel David Yolkut, and associates Blake Steinberg and Amy Le.
[GN]

SETTON PISTACHIO: Class Certification Schedule Order Entered in Ali
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ali v. Setton Pistachio of
Terra Bella, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00959 (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara A. Mcauliffe entered an order on class certification
schedule as follows:

   -- The parties shall meet and confer in advance of the
conference
      regarding dates for merits discovery, if any, and trial,
along
      with a proposed class notice consistent with the district
      court's ruling on class certification.

   -- No later than May 5, 2023, the parties shall submit both
      proposed dates for further scheduling of this action and a
      proposed class notice.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment.

Setton Pistachiois America's grower, processor and exporter of
California pistachios since 1986.[CC]



SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Herrick Sues for Copyright Infringement
---------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA HERRICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHUTTERSTOCK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-03191 (S.D.N.Y., April 17, 2023) is a federal class action
brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant alleging copyright
infringement. The Plaintiff asserts violation of the Copyright Act
and seeks relief for violations of Copyright Management Information
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 1202 et seq.

The Plaintiff alleges that throughout the damages Class Period,
Shutterstock has unlawfully generated revenue by acting as an agent
and licensor of copyrighted works without the knowledge or
permission of the copyright holders themselves. Some of
Shutterstock's contributors use its platform to issue licenses to
photos and videos for which the contributor does not own the
copyright and has not been granted authorization from the copyright
holder, an act which constitutes copyright infringement. However,
while Shutterstock generally suspends additional unauthorized
licensing of the copyrighted works upon receiving notification from
a copyright owner of infringement, Shutterstock refuses to
terminate the unauthorized licenses issued through its platform and
retains its share of the ill-gotten licensing fees, says the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is the owner of copyrighted works that were allegedly
distributed, displayed and licensed by Shutterstock to its
customers without her authorization and from which conduct
Shutterstock obtained a direct financial benefit from those
unauthorized licenses.

Shutterstock, Inc. is an American provider of stock photography,
stock footage, stock music, and editing tools headquartered in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James H. Bartolomei Esq.
          DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
          809 W. 3rd Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 228-7600
          E-mail: james@duncanfirm.com

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          201 California Street, Suite 1240
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 977-2230
          E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
                  pmarkert@cerallp.com

               - and -

          Bryan D. Hoben, Esq.
          HOBEN LAW
          1112 Main Street
          Peekskill, NY 10566
          Telephone: (347) 855-4008
          E-mail: bryan@hobenlaw.com

SIX FLAGS: OFPRS Seeks Leave to Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System et al v. Six Flags Entertainment
Corporation et al., the Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order granting it leave to file its First Amended Complaint for
violations of the Federal Securities Laws.

The Lead Plaintiff further asks the Court to modify the case
caption to the above, In re  Six Flags Entertainment Corp.
Securities Litigation.

Under the joinder analysis, Key West P&F should be allowed to join
this litigation as a Named Plaintiff. Key West P&F asserts the same
claims as Oklahoma Firefighters, based upon the same course of
conduct by The Defendants and arising from their open-market
purchases of Six Flags common stock.

On February 12, 2020, Oklahoma Firefighters and Local 103 filed a
securities class action complaint against The Defendants.

On May 8, 2020, the Court appointed Oklahoma Firefighters and Local
103 to serve as Lead Plaintiffs. On July 2, 2020, Oklahoma
Firefighters and Local 103 filed the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. The Court
granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and issued a final
Judgment dismissing the case with prejudice on March 3, 2021.

On July 26, 2021, the Court denied Lead Plaintiffs' motion to Amend
or Set Aside Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and for Leave to
file an Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

On January 18, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted Oklahoma
Firefighters' appeal, and reversed and remanded this case for
further proceedings.

Six Flags is an American amusement park corporation.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 18, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oDhGXl at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hannah Ross, Esq.
          John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
          Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq.
          Jesse L. Jensen, Esq.
          John J. Esmay, Esq.
          Brandon A. Slotkin, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
          GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com
                  johnr@blbglaw.com
                  katiem@blbglaw.com
                  jesse.jensen@blbglaw.com
                  john.esmay@blbglaw.com
                  brandon.slotkin@blbglaw.com

                - and –

          Lewis T. LeClair, Esq.
          MCKOOL SMITH PC
          300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 978-4000
          Facsimile: (214) 978-4044
          E-mail: lleclair@mckoolsmith.com

SKIN SAVVY MEDICAL: Latta Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skin Savvy Medical
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Gloria Latta, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Skin Savvy Medical
Group, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02491 (N.D. Ill., April 20, 2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Skin Savvy Medical Spa -- https://skinsavvy.com/ -- provides
injectables, laser treatments, skin rejuvenation, and body
care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 Ne 1st Ave, Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


SOCIETE AIR FRANCE: Kaur Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a former employee
has filed a proposed class action against Societe Air France over
alleged New York Labor Law violations in case - captioned Kaur v.
Societe Air France.

The 16-page case claims the international airline has unlawfully
paid airport operations associates, passenger service agents, cargo
associates, ramp service agents, mechanics and engineers in New
York bi-weekly instead of weekly. The lawsuit further alleges that
Air France has failed to provide employees with uniform maintenance
compensation or one additional hour's pay at the minimum wage for
days they worked shifts lasting longer than 10 hours.

According to the suit, the NYLL requires an employer to pay on a
weekly basis manual workers who perform physical labor at least 25
percent of the time. The plaintiff, a former Air France passenger
service agent at JFK International Airport, says she spent over a
quarter of her shifts performing physical tasks like lifting,
weighing and transferring luggage but consistently received her
paycheck every two weeks.

"Plaintiff and other 'manual workers' . . . need to be paid weekly
to keep up with day to day [sic] expenses such as housing and
transportation costs, groceries, utilities, and other regular
bills, and in order to obtain the full value of their earned wages
as due," the filing states, adding that New York's high cost of
living places another financial burden on Air France manual
workers, who are paid wages at or near the minimum hourly rate.

The plaintiff claims that Air France's allegedly improper
compensation policies have caused her to pay bills late on more
than one occasion and hindered her ability to save, invest and plan
for the future.

"Defendant reaped billions in annual revenue from its customers as
a direct result of its Manual Workers' labor while unlawfully
withholding from and paying late its employees who are least able
to weather these unjust delays," the suit scathes.

Moreover, the case alleges that the airline has run afoul of the
New York Code of Rules and Regulations by requiring employees to
wear a uniform each shift without cleaning or offering to clean the
uniform, or covering the cost of uniform maintenance beyond one
initial dry cleaning. Instead, workers are forced to spend their
own money and time off the clock to wash, iron, dry clean, alter or
repair their own uniforms, the complaint claims.

Although the NYLL states that non-exempt employees are entitled to
one additional hour of pay if their total workday exceeds 10 hours,
the plaintiff says she was frequently required to work overtime and
shifts as long as 18 hours without extra wages pursuant to the
state's "spread of hours of pay" rule, the suit contends. The
lawsuit also notes that the airline generally did not pay the
plaintiff time-and-a-half wages for every hour worked over 40 per
week.

Finally, the suit claims that Air France, who reportedly employs
more than 38,000 people worldwide, has failed to provide employees
with wage statements, in violation of the NYLL. According to the
filing, the plaintiff and other similarly situated workers are
entitled to $50 for each day the defendant did not provide wage
notices, or $5,000 each.

The lawsuit looks to represent all non-exempt persons employed by
Air France in New York as manual workers who were paid on a
bi-weekly basis within the past six years. [GN]

STABILITY AI: Midjourney Seeks to Dismiss All Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH ANDERSEN, an
individual; KELLY MCKERNAN, an individual; KARLA ORTIZ, an
individual, v. STABILITY AI LTD., a UK corporation; STABILITY AI,
INC., a Delaware corporation; MIDJOURNEY, INC., a Delaware
corporation; DEVIANTART, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:23-cv-00201-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant Midjourney move the
Court pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(f) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure:

   (a) dismissing all claims against it under Rule 12(b)(6) on the

       ground that the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts
to
       state plausible claim for relief; and

   (b) striking the class claims under Rule 12(f) on the ground
that
       it is evident from the Complaint that this case cannot be
       maintained as a class action.

The Named Plaintiffs in this putative class action are three visual
artists who assert that their rights were violated when their
artwork was used to train Stable Diffusion, an open-source
generative AI platform.

The Plaintiffs further allege that Stable Diffusion was embedded as
the "image-generating engine" in "AI Image Products" offered by the
Defendants Stability, Midjourney, and DeviantArt, which can be used
to create images that infringe The Plaintiffs' works. The
Plaintiffs, however, fail to allege the most basic facts necessary
to state a claim against Midjourney -- for themselves or any
purported class.

According to the Plaintiffs, this class action "concerns a
DeviantArt software product called DreamUp, a Midjourney software
product, and a Stability software product called DreamStudio, all
of which are AI-Image Products and, upon information and belief,
built on a Stability Software Library called Stable Diffusion."

Stability AI develops open AI models for image, language, audio,
video, 3D, and biology.

A copy of the Defendants' order dated April 18, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3V2z1oP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Angela L. Dunning, Esq.
          J. Asheton Lemay, Esq.
          Kayla Blaker, Esq.
          Judd D. Lauter, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          3175 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
          Telephone: (650) 843-5000
          Facsimile: (650) 849-7400
          E-mail: adunning@cooley.com
                  alemay@cooley.com
                  kblaker@cooley.com
                  jlauter@cooley.com

STATE BAR OF GEORGIA: Mignott Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Bar of Georgia
Foundation, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marsha W. Mignott,
individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
State Bar of Georgia Foundation, Inc., State Bar of Georgia Office
of the General Counsel, Assistant GC William Van Hearnburg, Jr., In
His Official Capacity, Case No. 1:23-cv-01834-ELR (N.D. Ga., April
23, 2023).

The nature suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Race
Discrimination.

State Bar of Georgia Foundation, Inc. -- https://www.gabar.org/ --
is a legal services in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marsha Williams Mignott, Esq.
          THE MIGNOTT LAW GROUP, LLC
          4945 Presidents Way
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Phone: (770) 621-5499
          Fax: (770) 621-5496
          Email: Lawyers@mignottlaw.com


STEVE MOLLENKOPF: Kiger Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steve Mollenkopf, et
al. The case is styled as Becky Kiger, other similarly situated
persons v. Steve Mollenkopf, Ann M. Livermore, Anthony J.
Vinciquerra, Clark T. Randt Jr., Cristiano R. Amon, Gregory N.
Johnson, Harish Manwani, Irene B. Rosenfeld, Jamie S. Miller,
Jean-Pascal Tricoire, Jeffrey W. Henderson, Kornelis Smit, Mark D.
McLaughlin, Mark Fields, Qualcomm, Inc., Sylvia Acevedo, Case No.
2023-0444-JTL (Del. Chancery Ct., April 21, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."

Steve Mollenkopf retired as the Chief Executive Officer of Qualcomm
Incorporated in 2021.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bennett, Blake, Esq.
          COOCH & TAYLOR PA-WILMINGTON
          1000 W St 10th Fl
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Phone: (302) 984-3889
          Fax: (302) 984-3939
          Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com


STUBHUB: Filing of Class Cert Bid Reset to July 7
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE: STUBHUB REFUND
LITIGATION, Case No. 4:20-md-02951-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order resetting the following
deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil
Local Rule 16-10:
                  Event                             Deadline

  Deadline for Completion of Document             May 12, 2023
  Production:

  The Plaintiffs’ Deadline to File Motion         July 7, 2023
  for Class Certification (and disclose
  class expert(s)):

  The Defendant's Deadline to Respond to          Sept. 5, 2023
  Motion for Class Certification (and
  disclosure of class rebuttal expert(s)):

  The Plaintiff's Deadline to Reply In            Oct. 17, 2023
  Support of Class Certification Motion
  and Parties' Responses to Any Daubert
  Challenges:

  Hearing on Motion for Class                     Nov. 9, 2023
  Certification

A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Apysvw at no extra charge.[CC]

SUB-ZERO GROUP: Bankhurst Sues Over Defective Gas Stoves
--------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BANKHURST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUB-ZERO GROUP INC.; and WOLF APPLIANCE,
INC. Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00253-slc (W.D. WI., April 21,
2023) alleges that the Defendants sells and markets defective gas
stoves, cooktops, and ovens.

According to the complaint, the Defendants make, sell, distribute,
and market household appliances, including Wolf brand gas stoves,
cooktops, and ovens.

The Plaintiff purchased a gas cooktop made by Defendants. The
Plaintiff believed that the product was free from defects, and he
did not know that gas cooking has significant pollutant risks. Had
he known of the risks of pollutants from the gas cooktop, he would
not have purchased it, says the suit.

SUB-ZERO GROUP INC. is a manufacturing company. The Company
manufactures refrigerators, freezers, and wine storage units. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christin Cho, Esq.
          Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
          Simon Franzini, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 656-7066
          Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
          Email: christin@dovel.com
                 jonas@dovel.com
                 simon@dovel.com

SUSAN QUINTANA: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Kalam
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MD ABUL KALAM, v. SUSAN
QUINTANA, Case No. 1:23-cv-03060-AT-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial
management as follows:

  -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
     scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
     judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary

     judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)

     must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this
Court's
     Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's

     website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.

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

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

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

  -- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding
     (including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a
deadline
     must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of

     Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for
     adjournments or extensions will not be entertained.

  -- In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual
     Practices, letters and lettermotions are limited to four
pages,
     exclusive of attachments. Courtesy copies of letters and
     lettermotions filed via ECF are required only if the filing
     contains voluminous attachments. Courtesy copies should be
     delivered promptly, should bear the ECF header generated at
the
     time of electronic filing, and should include tabs for the
     attachments.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42ayl35 at no extra charge.[CC]



TAPESTRY INC: Nguyen-Wilhite FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Huong Thu Nguyen-Wilhite, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. Tapestry, Inc., Case No.
151620/2023 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on April 20, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03339-JLR to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Tapestry, Inc. -- https://www.tapestry.com/ -- is an American
multinational luxury fashion holding company.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan Stoler, Esq.
          Maria Alejandra Gomez, Esq.
          Brian Daniel Murphy, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON
          30 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Phone: (212) 332-3800
          Fax: (212) 332-3888
          Email: jstoler@sheppardmullin.com
                 magomez@sheppardmullin.com
                 bmurphy@sheppardmullin.com


TAPESTRY INC: Nguyen-Wilhite Sues Over Illegal Background Check
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a class action
lawsuit claims Tapestry, Inc. has violated federal law by failing
to provide job applicants with adequate notice and a copy of their
consumer report before taking adverse action against them based on
the contents of the report in a case - captioned Nguyen-Wilhite v.
Tapestry, Inc.

A proposed class action lawsuit claims Tapestry, Inc. has violated
federal law by failing to provide job applicants with adequate
notice and a copy of their consumer report before taking adverse
action against them based on the contents of the report.

In particular, the 14-page lawsuit says that the luxury fashion
company has run afoul of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by
failing to provide employees and job applicants with a copy of
their background check, a statement of their FCRA rights and timely
notification before making adverse employment decisions based on
the individuals' third-party consumer reports.

Instead, the luxury fashion house—whose brands include Coach,
Kate Spade and Stuart Weitzman—sends employees and applicants a
copy of their report and requisite FCRA disclosures only after it
has determined an individual to be "ineligible" for employment, the
suit alleges.

Per the case, Tapestry utilizes First Advantage Background Services
Corporation to perform background checks on candidates for hire,
transfer or promotion within the company. The third-party consumer
reporting agency provides "adjudication" services whereby it
"scores" an individual's report against Tapestry's hiring criteria
and indicates whether an applicant is eligible or ineligible for
employment, the complaint explains.

Under the FCRA, any entity that intends to take adverse action
against a job application based on data from a consumer report is
required to timely notify the person and provide them with a copy
of the report and a statement of their FCRA rights prior to taking
action, the filing describes. As the lawsuit tells it, this
provision aims to give the consumer time to review their report,
dispute inaccuracies or discuss the information with the employer.

The plaintiff, an Arizona resident who had formerly worked at a
Tapestry-operated Coach store in California, applied for a transfer
to an Arizona location in November 2022, the suit states. Soon
after, the defendant requested a background check on the woman, the
case relays.

The complaint claims that the report returned by First Advantage
erroneously listed the criminal record details of an individual of
a "different gender, different date of birth, and other different
personal identifying information." Although the plaintiff has no
criminal history, her apparent report included criminal convictions
for theft, drunk driving, driving with a suspended license and
possession of drug paraphernalia, the filing explains, stressing
the inaccuracy of the data.

"All the criminal record history reported by First Advantage to
[Tapestry] was inaccurate," the lawsuit reads. "[The plaintiff] has
no criminal history, has never been arrested or charged with any
crime, and the records reflect a different gender and date of birth
for many of the criminal records in question."

Based on information in the report at issue, First Advantage
determined the plaintiff to be ineligible for hire, and on the
April 24, 2023 following Tapestry's receipt of her report, the
woman was informed that she was being fired because of the criminal
history that appeared in her background check, the suit shares.

"Plaintiff was embarrassed, humiliated, and confused, because she
has no criminal record, and had not even seen a copy of the First
Advantage background report," the case says.

According to the complaint, the woman was "blindsided" and "had no
opportunity to dispute or discuss the report with Tapestry before
the adverse action took effect."

Per the filing, Tapestry did not provide the plaintiff with notice,
a copy of her report or a statement of her FCRA rights until the
day after she had been terminated, in violation of federal law.

The lawsuit looks to represent any candidates for new employment,
continued employment, transfer or promotion with Tapestry, Inc. or
its subsidiaries who reside in the United States and who were the
subject of a First Advantage background report that was scored as
"In-Eligible For Hire" and/or "Fail" since February 17, 2021. [GN]

TARGET CORPORATION: Murillo Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Pedro Murillo and Isaac Garcia, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TARGET
CORPORATION, a Minnesota Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV02131 was removed from the Superior Court
of the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on April 21, 2023, and assigned Case No.
Case No. 2:23-cv-03033.

The Complaint asserts six causes of action for failure to pay
minimum and straight-time wages; failure to pay overtime wages;
failure to pay final wages timely upon termination; failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse
necessary business expenses; and unfair business practices in
violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
          Anna M. Skaggs, Esq.
          Isabella E. Hubert, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street, 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          Email: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                 annaskaggs@paulhastings.com
                 isabellahubert@paulhastings.com


TAURUS INTERNATIONAL: Harman Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff RITA HARMAN filed an appeal from the District Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment dated March 15, 2023
entered in the lawsuit entitled ITA HARMAN, Individually and on,
Behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAURUS
INTERNATIONAL, MANUFACTURING, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Act.
No. 3:21-cv-697-ECM, in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama, Eastern Division.

Plaintiff Harman alleges her Taurus PT 738 TCP Pistol malfunctioned
due to a defect in the pistol's slide component. She brings this
class action against Defendants Taurus International Manufacturing,
Inc. ("TIMI") -- the manufacturer of the PT 738 pistol -- and
Taurus Holdings, Inc., on her behalf and all those similarly
situated. In her second amended complaint, the Plaintiff asserts
six claims: violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act ("FDUTPA") (Count I), violation of the Alabama
Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("ADTPA") (Count II), breach of
express warranty (Count III), breach of implied warranty of
merchantability (Count IV), violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act ("MMWA") (Count V), and declaratory relief (Count VI).

The Plaintiff filed her original complaint in the Southern District
of Florida on Feb. 2, 2021, bringing claims for violation of
FDUTPA; negligence; strict liability; breach of express warranty;
breach of implied warranty of merchantability; violation of MMWA;
negligent failure to disclose, failure to warn, concealment and
misrepresentation; fraudulent concealment and intentional failure
to warn; and seeking declaratory relief. On March 25, 2021, she
filed her first amended complaint with the same claims.

The case was then transferred to this Court on Oct. 18, 2021, and
consolidated for discovery purposes with the Plaintiff's husband's
private action against the Defendants (Civ. Act. No. 3:21-cv-98)
for discovery purposes. In response to the Court's order granting
in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss or
for a more definite statement, the Plaintiff filed her amended
complaint on March 18, 2022.

On April 15, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Emily C. Marks of
the Middle District of Alabama entered an Order on March 15, 2023
granting Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
and dismissing Plaintiff's claims in their entirety and with
prejudice.

Judge Marks held that the Plaintiff fails to allege facts
demonstrating the Defendants denied repairs to her PT 738 pistol in
violation of its unlimited repair policy. The Plaintiff has not
alleged that she "sought or was denied repairs for any alleged
defect," as required to make a claim for breach of a repair
warranty. To the extent that she claims the Defendants had a duty
to recall or replace the PT 738 pistol after it became aware of
Aunkst's defective pistol, no such duty exists under Alabama law.
Therefore, the complaint has not stated a claim on which the
Defendants can be found liable under the unlimited repair policy
for engaging in any other unconscionable, false, misleading, or
deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce.
Count II was, therefore, dismissed.

The appellate case is captioned as Rita Harman v. Taurus
International Manufacturing Inc., et al., Case No. 23-11235, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on
April 13, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before May 23, 2023;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief;

   -- Awaiting Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due
on or before May 3, 2023 as to Appellant Rita Harman; and

   -- Awaiting Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due
on or before May 17, 2023 as to Appellee Taurus International
Manufacturing Inc.[BN]

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

          Matthew Gregory Garmon, Esq.
          Michael Todd Wheeles, Esq.
          MORRIS HAYNES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          3500 Blue Lake Dr Ste 200
          Birmingham, AL 35243
          Telephone: (205) 324-4008

               - and -

          David L. Selby, II, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          3000 Riverchase Galleria Ste 905
          Birmingham, AL 35244
          Telephone: (205) 988-9253

Defendants-Appellees TAURUS INTERNATIONAL MANUFACTURING INC., et
al., are represented by:

          Reid C. Carpenter, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE, LLC
          400 20th St N
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 581-0710

               - and -

          Colin Dang Delaney, Esq.
          Austin J. Hemmer, Esq.
          John Weeks, Esq.
          SMITH GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
          1105 W Peachtree St NE Ste 1000
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3608
          Telephone: (404) 815-3790

               - and -

          Mark Krieger, Esq.
          SMITH GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
          50 N Laura St Ste 2600
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 598-6125

               - and -

          John P. Marino, Esq.
          Kristen Wenger, Esq.
          RIVKIN RADLER, LLP
          1301 Riverplace Blvd Ste 1000
          Jacksonville, FL 32207
          Telephone: (904) 792-8948

               - and -

          Robert Jackson Sewell, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP
          1500 Urban Center Dr Ste 450
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 761-5192

TELEPERFORMANCE SE: WGES Files Suit in D. Idaho
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teleperformance SE.
The case is styled as City of Warren General Employees' System, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Teleperformance SE, Oliver Rigaudy, Daniel Julien, Akash Pugalia,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00181-BLW (D. Idaho, April 19, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for Federal
Commodity Exchange Regulation.

Teleperformance SE -- http://www.teleperformance.com/-- is a
global digital business services company headquarters in
France.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Duilio Bottari, Esq.
          Jason R. N. Monteleone, Esq.
          MONTELEONE LAW OFFICES PLLC
          350 North 9th Street Suite 500
          Boise, ID 83702
          Phone: (208) 331-2100
          Fax: (208) 947-2424
          Email: jake@treasurevalleylawyers.com
                 jason@treasurevalleylawyers.com

               - and -

          Brian Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 231-1058
          Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com


THYSSENKRUPP SUPPLY: Torres-Boyd Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTINE TORRES-BOYD, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THYSSENKRUPP SUPPLY
CHAIN SERVICES NA, INC., a Michigan Corporation; THYSSENKRUPP
LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-20 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23CV029199, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
April 14, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-01836-AGT to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) recovery
of unpaid minimum wages; (2) recovery of unpaid overtime wages; (3)
failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest
periods; (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements; and (6)
unfair competition.

Thyssenkrupp Supply Chain Services NA, Inc. provides warehousing
and distribution, transportation and solutions to the automotive,
renewable energy, commercial construction, heavy industrial,
e-Commerce, and manufacturing industries.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory G. Iskander, Esq.
          Chad D. Greeson, Esq.
          Nicholas Gioiello, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Treat Towers
          1255 Treat Boulevard Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: (925) 932-2468
          Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
          E-mail: giskander@littler.com
                  cgreeson@littler.com
                  ngioiello@littler.com

TIKTOK INC: Albaran Class Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARITZA ALBARAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TIKTOK, INC. (f/k/a) MUSICAL.LY, INC.,
and BYTEDANCE, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00486, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
April 21, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-02463 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged common law invasion of
privacy, unjust enrichment and violations of the Federal Wire Tap
Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Comprehensive
Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and California Business &
Professions Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants
invaded the privacy of consumers who downloaded TikTok, a
video-sharing social media app, which used in-app website browsers
that intercepted valuable data and information of such consumers,
such as Plaintiff and the Class, without their consent.

TikTok, Inc., formerly known as Muscial.ly, Inc., is a social media
application company based in Culver City, California.

ByteDance, Inc. is a technology company based in Mountain View,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Tina Wolfson, Esq.
         Theodore Maya, Esq.
         AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
         2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
         Burbank, CA 91505
         Telephone: (310) 474-9111
         Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
         E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                 tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

TIKTOK INC: Androshchuk Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Yevgeniy S. Androshchuk, individually and on
behalf all others similarly situated v. TIKTOK INC. (f/k/a
MUSICAL.LY, INC.), and BYTEDANCE INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00108, was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on April 21, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02462 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for
Election Commission: Failure Enforce Compliance.

TikTok -- https://www.tiktok.com/ -- is the world's leading
destination for short-form mobile videos.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Lauren Joost, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 400-3000
          Email: jjoost@ktmc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony J. Weibell, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: (650) 354-4134
          Email: aweibell@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Samantha A. Machock, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
          12235 El Camino Real
          San Diego, CA 92130-3002
          Phone: (858) 350-2300
          Email: smachock@wsgr.com


TIKTOK INC: Arroyo Privacy Invasion Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CANDACE ARROYO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TIKTOK INC., a California
corporation, and BYTEDANCE INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-09300, was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Central District of California to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on April 17, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-02250 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of every person in the United States whose website
communications were intercepted through Defendants' use of Session
Replay Code in the TikTok app via TikTok's in-app web browser and
seeks all civil remedies provided under the cause of action,
including but not limited to actual, statutory, liquidated,
punitive damages, disgorgement, and attorneys' fees and costs.

TikTok Inc. operates as a free service and social media application
for creating and sharing short mobile videos.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          Steven P. Sukert, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 990-2218
          E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com
                  ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  sukert@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Daniel Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony J. Weibell, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 354-4134
          E-mail: aweibell@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Victor H. Jih, Esq.
          Kelly Hope Yin, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, 28th Floor
          Century City, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 446-6900
          E-mail: vjih@wsgr.com
                  kyin@wsgr.com  

               - and -

          Samantha A. Machock, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
          12235 El Camino Real
          San Diego, CA 92130-3002
          Telephone: (858) 350-2300
          E-mail: smachock@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Thomas Robert Wakefield, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH AND ROSATI
          1 Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 947-2000
          E-mail: twakefield@wsgr.com

TIKTOK INC: Fugok Consumer Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRADLEY FUGOK and ADAM K. STOREY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIKTOK, INC. (f/k/a)
MUSICAL.LY, INC., and BYTEDANCE, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00779, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on April 21, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-02467 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Federal Wiretap Act and the Pennsylvania Wiretap and Electronic
Surveillance Control Act, and for common law invasion of privacy
and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendants
invaded the privacy of consumers who downloaded TikTok, a
video-sharing social media app, which used in-app website browsers
that intercepted valuable data and information of such consumers,
such as Plaintiff and the Class, without their consent.

TikTok, Inc., formerly known as Muscial.ly, Inc., is a social media
application company based in Culver City, California.

ByteDance, Inc. is a technology company based in Mountain View,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
         Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (610) 667-7706
         Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
         E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                 mtroutner@ktmc.com

TIKTOK INC: G. R. Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as G. R., a minor by and through her guardian ad
litem, Mayra De La Cruz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. TIKTOK INC. (f/k/a MUSICAL.LY, INC.), and
BYTEDANCE INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00509, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 21,
2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02464 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for
Election Commission: Failure Enforce Compliance.

TikTok -- https://www.tiktok.com/ -- is the world's leading
destination for short-form mobile videos.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          Hal D. Cunningham, Esq.
          SCOTT AND SCOTT LLP
          600 West Broadway Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 233-4565
          Fax: (619) 233-0508
          Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
                 hcunningham@scott-scott.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony J. Weibell, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: (650) 354-4134
          Email: aweibell@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Samantha A. Machock, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
          12235 El Camino Real
          San Diego, CA 92130-3002
          Phone: (858) 350-2300
          Email: smachock@wsgr.com


TIKTOK INC: Moody Consumer Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL MOODY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TIKTOK, INC. (f/k/a) MUSICAL.LY, INC.,
and BYTEDANCE, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01075, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
April 21, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-02465 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the
Electronic Communications Act, Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. According to the
complaint, the Defendants invaded the privacy of consumers who
downloaded TikTok, a video-sharing social media app, which used
in-app website browsers that intercepted valuable data and
information of such consumers, such as Plaintiff and the Class,
without their consent.

TikTok, Inc., formerly known as Muscial.ly, Inc., is a social media
application company based in Culver City, California.

ByteDance, Inc. is a technology company based in Mountain View,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
         Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
         BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
         600 West Broadway, Suite 900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 230-0800
         Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
         E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
                 sward@barrack.com

                - and -

         John G. Emerson, Esq.
         EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
         2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
         Houston, TX 77042
         Telephone: (800) 551-8649
         Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
         E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

TIKTOK INC: Recht Privacy Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Austin Recht, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TikTok Inc. (f/k/a
Musical.ly, Inc.); ByteDance Inc.; Beijing Douyin Information
Service Co. Ltd. a/k/a ByteDance Technology Co. Ltd.; and Douyin
Ltd. a/k/a ByteDance Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-08613, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Central
District of California to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on April 17, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-02248 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this proposed class action on behalf of all
persons who downloaded TikTok, a social media application, and used
TikTok's in-app website browser. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class
Members, Defendants TikTok Inc., ByteDance Inc., Beijing Douyin
Information Service Co. Ltd. a/k/a ByteDance Technology Co. Ltd..,
and ByteDance Ltd. invaded the privacy of Plaintiff and Class
Members by secretly intercepting details and contents about
Plaintiff and Class Members without their consent, says the suit.

TikTok Inc. operates as a free service and social media application
for creating and sharing short mobile videos.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Brian Fernandes, Jr., Esq.
          Shannon E Royster, Esq.
          Sterling Lynn Cluff, Esq.
          Jay Lichter, Esq.
          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          BARON AND BUDD PC
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          E-mail: dfernandes@baronbudd.com
                  sroyster@baronbudd.com
                  scluff@baronbudd.com
                  jlichter@baronbudd.com
                  rtellis@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Donald W. Bivens, Esq.
          DON BIVENS PLLC
          15169 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 205
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (602) 708-1450
          E-mail: don@donbivens.com  

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony J. Weibell, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 354-4134
          E-mail: aweibell@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Kelly Hope Yin, Esq.
          Victor H. Jih, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
           PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, 28th Floor
          Century City, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 446-6900
          E-mail: kyin@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Samantha A. Machock, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
          12235 El Camino Real
          San Diego, CA 92130-3002
          Telephone: (858) 350-2300
          E-mail: smachock@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Thomas Robert Wakefield, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH AND ROSATI
          1 Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 947-2000
          E-mail: twakefield@wsgr.com

TIKTOK INC: Schulte Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Grace Schulte, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TikTok Inc. formerly known as:
MUSICAL.LY INC.; ByteDance Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00362 was removed
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
April 20, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02466 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

TikTok -- https://www.tiktok.com/ -- is the world's leading
destination for short-form mobile videos.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Candace Noelle Smith, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3414
          Phone: (404) 881-7000

               - and -

          Connely Doize, Esq.
          HERMAN JONES LLP
          3424 Peachtree Road Northeast, Suite 1650
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: (404) 504-6506
          Email: cdoize@hermanjones.com

               - and -

          John C. Herman, Esq.
          COHN BAUGHMAN & MARTIN
          333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 62049
          Phone: (800) 449-4900
          Email: jherman@csgrr.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Geoffrey Michael Drake, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP-ATL 40
          1180 Peachtree Street NE. Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Phone: (404) 572-4600
          Email: gdrake@kslaw.com


TIMEX.COM INC: Licea Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Miguel Licea, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Timex.com, Inc., Does 1 through 10,
Case No. CIVSB2224126 was removed from the San Bernardino Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 19, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00691 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Timex -- https://www.timex.com/ -- offers a suite of watches for
men, women, boys, and girls.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          2029 Century Park East 6th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (424) 239-3400
          Fax: (424) 239-3434
          Email: ana.tagvoryan@blankrome.com


TMX FINANCE: Smith Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TMX Finance Corporate
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Whitley Smith, Adam
White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc.; TMX Finance LLC doing
business as: TitleMax doing business as: TitleBucks doing business
as: InstaLoan; Case No. 4:23-cv-00105-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., April 19,
2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc. --
https://www.tmxfinancefamily.com/ -- provides consumer credit
products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kyle G.A. Wallace, Esq.
          SHIVER HAMILTON CAMPBELL LLC
          3490 Piedmont Road, Suite 640
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Phone: (404) 593-0020
          Fax: (888) 501-9536
          Email: kwallace@shiverhamilton.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Shu's Class Complaint Dismissed With Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHARLENE SHU, MARK TENGOWSKI, ROMAN SIVION, AND
MOHAMED ALMAKALEH, individually and on behalf of all others similar
situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC. AND TOYOTA
MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04661-LB
(N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

In this putative class action on behalf of a nationwide class, a
California subclass, and a New York subclass, the Plaintiffs allege
that the Toyota Defendants knowingly misrepresented that RAV4 SUVs
came with an advanced-headlight feature (when in fact, they did
not), and the Plaintiffs relied on that misrepresentation in buying
the RAV4s.

Sharlene Shu, is a resident of California who bought her RAV4 here,
and Mark Tengowski, Roman Sivion, and Mohamed Almakaleh, are
residents of New York state who bought their RAV4s there. The
Defendants are California corporations with their principal places
of business in Plano, Texas. The complaint generally refers to them
collectively as Toyota. An issue is the sufficiency of the
allegations against each individual defendant. The complaint
alleges that the Defendants are agents of each other and acted as a
joint venture.

The Plaintiffs purchased their RAV4s primarily for personal,
family, or household use and believed the adaptive headlights were
a valuable safety feature and that the lack of the headlights
resulted in safety hazards including driving at night, in low
light, or in inclement weather. Toyota knew that the RAV4 vehicles
it sold and leased in the United States did not contain the
adaptive headlights as part of the package of features that they
had marketed and the Monroney labels and other advertising material
were false and deceptive.

The proposed classes are as follows:

     Class: All persons who purchased or leased, in the United
States, a Toyota RAV4 vehicle where any written representation
falsely stated that the vehicle included Adaptive Headlights.

     California Subclass: All class members who made their purchase
in the State of California.

     New York Subclass: All class members who made their purchase
in the State of New York.

The complaint has nine claims: (1) fraud, deceit, and
misrepresentation (the Plaintiffs and the class); (2) deceptive
practices in violation of the CLRA (Ms. Shu and the California
subclass); (3) false advertising in violation of California's False
Advertising Law (FAL) (the Plaintiffs, the class, and the
California subclass); (4) negligent misrepresentation (the
Plaintiffs and the class); (5) unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent
practices in violation of the UCL (the Plaintiffs, the class, and
the California subclass); (6) deceptive practices and false
advertising in violation of New York's General Business Law (the
New York Plaintiffs and the New York subclass); (7) breach of an
express warranty under California and New York law (the Plaintiffs
and the class); (8) breach of an express warranty under
California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the Plaintiffs,
the class, and the California subclass); and (9) breach of an
express warranty in violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act (the Plaintiffs and the class).

The Defendants moved to dismiss the claims on the grounds that the
Plaintiffs (1) did not allege fraud with particularity under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 9(b) for reasons that include lumping the defendants
together without specifying their individual roles and not alleging
pre-purchase reliance on specific misrepresentations, (2) did not
provide statutory notice under the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA) or allege Toyota's pre-sale notice of the
misrepresentations, (3) did not allege the special relationship
required to plead negligent misrepresentation under New York law,
and (4) did not plausibly plead breach-of-express-warranty claims
because they did not allege the specific promises.

The Court held a hearing on April 6, 2023.

First, Judge Beeler grants the motion to dismiss claims one through
six for failure to plead fraud with particularity, with leave to
amend. She finds that the Plaintiffs have said that they can allege
more specifically that they relied on materials like those that
they submitted with their opposition, especially since this was a
national marketing campaign. To the extent that Toyota's removal of
the misrepresentations is relevant to knowledge and perhaps intent,
it can be added on amendment too.

Second, Judge Beeler grants Toyota's motion to dismiss the CLRA
claim. She dismisses the CLRA damages claim without prejudice
because Ms. Shu did not provide the written notice required by the
CLRA. Ms. Shu also did not plead Toyota's pre-sale knowledge that
the Monroney label and other materials were incorrect, which
defeats her CLRA claims under Cal. Civ. Code Section 1770(a)(5) &
(7). And, there are no non-conclusory allegations of intent that
Toyota had pre-sale knowledge of the misstatements, and thus, there
are no allegations that Toyota intended to defraud Ms. Shu.

Third, Judge Beeler finds that the Plaintiffs' arguments on their
negligent-misrepresentation claim do not support their position,
and they do not otherwise address Toyota's arguments. She dismisses
the claim. It seems unlikely that the amendment can be cured, but
the dismissal is without prejudice.

Fourth, Judge Beeler dismisses the express warranty claims --
including the California-based claims under the Song-Beverly Act
and the Plaintiffs' individual claims under the Magnuson-Moss Act
-- with leave to amend to allege the statements. The Court
dismissed the Plaintiffs' fraud claims with leave to identify the
specific misrepresentations more particularly. Ms. Shu's
express-warranty claims are predicated on the misstatements.

Lastly, Judge Beeler holds that (i) because the UCL claim is
predicated on dismissed claims, it is dismissed; (ii) the New York
Plaintiffs cannot assert a UCL claim if the misconduct did not
occur; and (iii) the Plaintiffs conceded the issue because they do
not respond to Toyota's argument that the FAL claim is limited to
California residents.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Beeler dismisses the complaint with
leave to amend (although certain claims cannot be reasserted, such
as any UCL and FAL claims brought by non-California residents). The
Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 28 days and must
attach a blackline comparison of the amended complaint against the
current complaint.

The Order disposes of ECF No. 24.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Order is available
at https://rb.gy/nx5k1 from Leagle.com.


TWITTER INC: Cornet Suit Transferred From California to Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California transfers the case, EMMANUEL CORNET, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. TWITTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-06857-JD
(N.D. Cal.), to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware.

In November 2022, after a buyout by Elon Musk, Twitter laid off a
substantial portion of its workforce. The Plaintiffs sued Twitter
on behalf of themselves and a putative class of other Twitter
employees alleging that the layoffs violated federal and state
laws. The second amended complaint (SAC), which is the operative
complaint, states that the employees are third-party beneficiaries
of the merger agreement for the buyout between Musk and Twitter.

The Plaintiffs allege in Count II that Twitter is liable for breach
of contract for breaking its commitment in the merger agreement
that, for the one-year period following the acquisition, it would
continue to provide its employees who were terminated with
severance packages that were no less favorable than the severance
packages that were provided to terminated employees prior to the
acquisition. The SAC alleges other claims against Twitter for
breach of contract and promissory estoppel (Counts I and III), and
for violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification (WARN) Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2101 et seq., the
California WARN Act, Cal. Lab. Code Section 1400 et seq., and other
provisions of the California Labor Code (Counts IV, V, and VI).

In prior orders, the Court directed Twitter to provide notice of
the pendency of this case before asking employees to release their
legal claims in connection with severance packages, and sent the
claims of named Plaintiffs Emmanuel Cornet, Justine De Caires, Grae
Kindel, Alexis Camacho, and Jessica Pan to arbitration on an
individual basis. The Plaintiffs whose claims were sent to
arbitration will not serve as named Plaintiffs for the putative
class.

Twitter now asks to transfer the action to the District of Delaware
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) on the basis of a forum-selection
clause in the merger agreement. In the alternative, it asks to
dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(3) for improper venue, or to dismiss certain claims for
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Plaintiffs seek to enforce the terms of a merger agreement that
plainly directs disputes arising out of or relating to the
agreement to Delaware courts, to be resolved in accordance with
Delaware law. The agreement contains the forum-selection clause. It
also contains the choice of law provision.

Judge Donato holds that either the Plaintiffs are third-party
beneficiaries of the merger agreement and should be litigating in
Delaware, or their third-party beneficiary claim is foreclosed by
the express terms of the agreement and will not fly in California
or Delaware.

The next question concerns scope. The Plaintiffs do not contest
that the breach of contract claim alleged in Count II, which
alleges that they were third-party beneficiaries to the merger
agreement, falls within the scope of the forum-selection clause.
But they say that the additional breach of contract claim in Count
I and the promissory estoppel claim alleged in Count III stand
independent from Twitter's merger agreement.

Judge Donato rules that the complaint demonstrates otherwise. Even
if these claims might not "require interpretation of" the merger
agreement, he says the dispute that they encompass is at the very
least logically connected to it, and to some extent grows out of
it. Consequently, Counts I through III fall within the scope of the
forum-selection clause.

That leaves the Plaintiffs' claims for violations of the federal
and California WARN Acts, and various California Labor Code
provisions (Counts IV through VI). The Plaintiff say that Counts IV
through VI can be dismissed. In any event, Judge Donato says none
of the remaining named Plaintiffs assert that they have standing to
bring the claims and dismisses the claims without prejudice.

All the claims that remain before the Court are subject to the
forum-selection clause in the merger agreement. The Plaintiffs have
not identified any exceptional reasons for avoiding enforcement of
the clause in the case. Consequently, the case is transferred to
the District of Delaware.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 19, 2023 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/n6trf5mv from Leagle.com.


TWITTER INC: Cornet WARN Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to D. Del.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EMMANUEL CORNET, JUSTINE DECAIRES, GRAE KINDEL,
ALEXIS CAMACHO, and JESSICA PAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. TWITTER, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-06857,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware on April 21, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Delaware assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-00441 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN
Act) and the California WARN Act by conducting mass layoffs without
providing the required notice.

Twitter, Inc. is a technology company headquartered in San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
         Thomas Fowler, Esq.
         LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
         729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
         Boston, MA 02116
         Telephone: (617) 994-5800
         E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                 tfowler@llrlaw.com

TWITTER INC: Yeh Breach of Contract Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Henry Yeh, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWITTER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CGC-23-605100, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Francisco to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on April 13,
2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-01790 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims against Twitter for breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, violations of the California
Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment arising from
allegations that Twitter used email addresses and/or phone numbers
provided by account holders in connection with security features
for advertising purposes.

Twitter, Inc. is an American social media company based in San
Francisco, California.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq.
          Whitney B. Weber, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone: (415) 391-0600
          E-mail: elizabeth.deeley@lw.com
                  whitney.weber@lw.com

               - and -

          Michele D. Johnson, Esq.
          650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925
          Telephone: (714) 755-8113  
          E-mail: michele.johnson@lw.com

UDEMY INC: Saleh Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mohamed Saleh, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UDEMY, INC., Case No.
BER-L-006626022 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Bergen County, to the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey on April 20, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-02207.

The complaint presents solely federal questions, and does so in two
counts--one presenting a claim for relief under the federal Wiretap
Act, and the other presenting a claim for relief under the federal
Video Privacy Protection Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jamie P. Clare, Esq,
          COLE SCHOTZ P.C.
          Court Plaza North
          25 Main Street
          P.O. Box 800
          Hackensack, NJ 07602-0800
          Phone: 201-489-3000
          Facsimile: 201-489-1536
          Email: jclare@coleschotz.com

               - and -

          David W. Bertoni, Esq.
          David Swetnam-Burland, Esq.
          Eamonn R.C. Hart, Esq.
          BRANN & ISAACSON
          113 Lisbon Street, P.O. Box 3070
          Lewiston, ME 04243-3070
          Phone: 207-786-3566
          Facsimile: 207-783-9325
          Email: dbertoni@brannlaw.com
                 dsb@brannlaw.com
                 ehart@brannlaw.com


ULLA JOHNSON: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ulla Johnson, Inc.
The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Ulla Johnson, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-02952 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023).

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

Ulla Johnson, Inc. -- https://ullajohnson.com/ -- is a boutique in
New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


ULTIMATE PARTY: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ultimate Party Super
Store, Inc. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Ultimate Party Super Store,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03295 (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2023).

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

Ultimate Party Super Store, Inc. --
https://ultimatepartysuperstores.com/ -- is a party store in
Hendersonville, Tennessee offering Balloons, plates, costumes, and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED KINGDOM: Lewis Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marion T.D. Lewis filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated April 5, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled
MARION T.D. LEWIS, Plaintiff v. THE GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND AND THE
UNITED KINGDOM and THE INSTITUTION OF THE BRITISH MONARCHY OR THE
CROWN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10792 (JLR), in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Plaintiff, a lawyer proceeding pro se, commenced the action on
Dec. 21, 2022, and filed an Amended Complaint on Dec. 28, 2022. On
Jan. 29, 2023, the Plaintiff moved to certify a class. On Jan. 31,
2023, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion on the grounds that a
pro se plaintiff cannot seek to represent the interests of third
parties. On March 30, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a letter on the
docket indicating that she had not received notice of the Jan. 31,
2023 order until March 28, 2023, and requested the Court to
reconsider its order denying the motion to certify a class.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon
of the Southern District of New York entered an Order on April 5,
2023 denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration the order
denying the motion to certify a class.

As an initial matter, Judge Rochon found that the Plaintiff's
motion was filed long after its deadline under Local Rule 6.3. The
Plaintiff contends that she did not receive notice of the Jan. 31,
2023 Order until March 28, 2023. She is an attorney barred in this
Court, and has ECF and Pacer access, permitting her to
electronically file and receive electronic notification of Court
filings. Her contact information is listed on the docket.

To the extent any of this information is no longer correct, Judge
Rochon said the Plaintiff must update her account on ECF and/or
Pacer to receive electronic notifications of filings at the email
address she has listed in her letter. If she has any questions
related to this process, she should contact the Attorneys Services
Help Desk at 212-805-0800.

Although untimely, Judge Rochon considered the merits of the
Plaintiff's motion. The Plaintiff had argued that, as an attorney,
she can represent a class pro se because she is willing to forego
all attorneys' fees related to the case. To be sure, a conflict of
interest is a concern about permitting a pro se attorney to
represent a class. However, waiving attorneys' fees does not
entirely obviate this conflict of interest because the Plaintiff
would still be acting as both the class representative and the
class counsel. Other courts in this Circuit have concluded that a
complaint's class allegations cannot stand because a pro se
plaintiff, seeks to serve both as class representative and as class
counsel.

For these reasons, Judge Rochon concluded that the Plaintiff has
failed to meet the strict standard required for reconsideration and
has not pointed to controlling decisions or data that the court
overlooked. Accordingly, her motion was denied.

The appellate case is captioned as Lewis v. The Government of
England and the United Kingdom, Case No. 23-544, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 13,
2023.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Marion T.D. Lewis, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Marion T.D. Lewis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARION T.D. LEWIS
          12 Rue Jean Baptist Potin
          Vanves, FR
          Telephone: +33658710767

UNITED SITE SERVICES: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michael Allen Garcia, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED SITE SERVICES OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., UNITED SITE NATIONAL SERVICES COMPANY, UNITED
SITE SERVICES, INC., A THONE CO., INC. and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,, Case No. 23STCV02816 was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
April 21, 2023, and assigned Case No. Case No. 2:23-cv-03019.

On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff Michael Allen Garcia filed a
Complaint asserting three claims for relief: Violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act; Violation of the California Investigative
Consumer Reporting Agencies Act; and Violation of the Consumer
Credit Reporting Agencies Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert S. Blumberg, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
          Phone: 310.553.0308
          Fax: 310.553.5583
          Email: rblumberg@littler.com


UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS: Valdez Suit Removed to D. Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Angela Valdez, Ricky Abeyta, Mark Franklin,
and Michael Childs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS OF VIRGINIA, LLC, a
Virginia Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2023CV30498 was
removed from the District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on April 21, 2023, and assigned Case No. Case No.
1:23-cv-01015.

The Plaintiffs generally assert that Defendant employed them and
the class they seek to represent (Class), improperly failed to pay
them and the Class overtime compensation under the Colorado Wage
and Hour Law and failed to provide them and the Class rest breaks
or compensation in lieu of those breaks in violation of the
Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards (COMPS) Orders.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sterling J. LeBoeuf, Esq.
          DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP
          1550 17th Street, Suite 500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: 303-892-9400
          Fax: 303-893-1379
          Email: sterling.leboeuf@dgslaw.com


UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Portion of Class Cert. Bid Sealed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALEY MARTINEZ, et al., v.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO, Case No. 3:20-cv-01946-LAB-WVG (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Larry Alan Burns  entered an order

   1) granting motion to seal portion of motion for class
      certification,

   2) continuing hearing and reseting briefing schedule, and

   3) granting leave to file excess pages.

On March 28, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, and motion to seal certain materials submitted in
support of that motion. No opposition to the motion to seal was
filed, and the Court finds the Plaintiffs have shown good cause for
filing the documents under seal.

Separately, the parties jointly move to continue the hearing on the
motion for class certification and to reset the briefing schedule.

The Court orders as follows:

   1) The hearing on the motion for class certification is
continued
      to June 5, 2023 at 11:30 a.m.;

   2) The Defendant's opposition to the motion for class
certification
      must be filed by May 8, 2023; and

   3) The Plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion for class
      certification must be filed by May 22, 2023.

   4) All other deadlines in this case remain unchanged.

University of San Diego is a private Roman Catholic research
university in San Diego, California.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3V4rjdQ at no extra charge.[CC]



US IMMIGRATION: Ms. L., et al., Seek to Modify Class Definition
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ms. L., et al., v. U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00428-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion to modify the class definition
while settlement discussions remain ongoing.

Thus, the proposed modified Class members here "seek uniform
injunctive or declaratory relief from policies or practices
generally applicable to the class as a whole."

The Plaintiffs hereby move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
for a limited modification of the existing Class. This modification
will include families similarly situated to existing Class members,
and will allow the parties to work together to facilitate
additional reunifications while settlement discussions between the
parties are
ongoing.

As the Court knows, the parties have been engaged in extensive
settlement negotiations for roughly 18 months. The parties continue
to engage in good faith negotiations on the substantive terms of
the relief that will be provided to Ms. L. Class members who were
separated from their children under the prior Administration, and
expect to file a motion for preliminary approval of that settlement
in the coming months.

On June 26, 2018, the Court issued the classwide preliminary
injunction in this case, and certified an injunctive class defined
as:

   "All adult parents who enter the United States at or between
   designated ports of entry who (1) have been, are, or will be
   detained in immigration custody by the DHS, and (2) have a minor

   child who is or will be separated from them by DHS and detained
in
   ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody, absent a
   determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to
the
   child."

Since that time, the parties went through several rounds of
litigation concerning the rights of deported parents to return to
the United States, resulting in the return of certain unlawfully
deported parents to the United States.

U.S. Immigration is a federal law enforcement agency under the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 18, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Aovnfq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lee Gelernt, Esq.
          Judy Rabinovitz, Esq.
          Anand Balakrishnan, Esq.
          Daniel Galindo, Esq.
          Stephen B. Kang, Esq.
          Spencer E. Amdur, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          FOUNDATION
          IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad St., 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2660
          Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
          E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org
                  jrabinovitz@aclu.org
                  abalakrishnan@aclu.org
                  dgalindo@aclu.org
                  skang@aclu.org
                  samdur@aclu.org

VEROS CREDIT: Torres Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jose Torres, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Veros Credit LLC, Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 30-02023-01309051-CU-BT-CXC was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on April 20,
2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-00688-DOC-DFM to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Veros Credit -- https://www.veroscredit.com/ -- is a leading
provider of auto financing solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD APC
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: (916) 239-4778
          Email: gharoutunian@justice4you.com
                 andersonberry@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Genevieve Rae Walser-Jolly, Esq.
          Scott J. Hyman, Esq.
          SEVERSON AND WERSON APC
          19100 Von Karman Avenue Suite 700
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Phone: (949) 442-7110
          Fax: (949) 442-7118
          Email: grw@severson.com
                 sjh@severson.com

               - and -

          Erik Wayne Kemp, Esq.
          SEVERSON AND WERSON APC
          595 Market Street, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 398-3344
          Fax: (415) 956-0439
          Email: ek@severson.com


WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Yslas Seeks May 2 Extension to File Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL YSLAS and MICHAEL
SPRAGUE, on behalf of themselves and all other the Plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES,
INC., d/b/a SAM'S CLUB, and SAM'S CLUB, a division of WAL-MART
STORES, INC. Case No. 1:22-cv-01880-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending their time to
reply in support of motion for conditional certification to and
including May 2, 2023.

On July 29, 2022, the Plaintiff Cheryl Yslas filed her class and
collective action complaint on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated past and present employees of The Defendants.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleged violations of Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), the Colorado Minimum and Pay Standards Order
(COMPS) and the Colorado Wage Act. On November 22, 2022, the
Plaintiff requested leave to file a First Amended Complaint which
sought to add Michael Sprague as a Named Plaintiff and add and
clarify other allegations.

On December 5, 2022, Judge N. Reid Neureiter, on referral from the
District Court, granted The Plaintiff's motion and entered the
First Amended Complaint (FAC) on the record.

On January 4, 2023, The Defendants answered the FAC. On January 7,
2023, The Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

On April 4, 2023, the Defendants submitted the response in
opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for conditional
certification.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 18, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L4gYtJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          7900 E. Union Avenue, Suite 1100
          Denver, CO 80237
          E-mail: sengelson@billhornlaw.com
                  jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


WALT DISNEY: Nielsen Files Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENALE NIELSEN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WALT
DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., Inc., a Florida Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. e 8:21-cv-02055-DOC-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying the action for class-treatment.

Walt Disney Parks operates amusement parks and kids parks.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ne0wPD at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel J. Muller, Esq.
          Anthony F. Ventura, Esq.
          VENTURA HERSEY & MULLER, LLP
          1506 Hamilton Avenue
          San Jose, CA 95125
          Telephone: (408) 512-3022
          Facsimile: (408) 512-3023
          E-mail: dmuller@venturahersey.com
                  aventura@venturahersey.com

                - and -

          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES
          MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          135 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3210
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
          E-mail: nhagman@caffertyclobes.com

WARBY PARKER: Pham Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Cindy Pham, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly-situated employees v. WARBY PARKER
INC., a Delaware Corporation; WARBY PARKER RETAIL, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23CV412400
was removed from the Santa Clara County Superior Court, State of
California, to the United States District Court for the Nothern
District of California on April 19, 2023, and assigned Case No.
5:23-cv-01884.

In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against
Warby Parker: Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to
Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;
Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay All Wages Due to
Discharged and Quitting Employees; Failure to Furnish Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Maintain Required Records;
Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred
in Discharge of Duties; and Unfair and Unlawful Business
Practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Harris M. Mufson, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166-0193
          Phone: 212.351.4000
          Facsimile: 212.351.4035
          Email: HMufson@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213.229.7000
          Facsimile: 213.229.7520
          Email: ksmith@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Katie M. Magallanes, Esq.
          Jessica M. Pearigen, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Phone: 949.451.3800
          Facsimile: 949.451.4220
          Email: KMagallanes@gibsondunn.com
                 JPearigen@gibsondunn.com


WEST-STAR NORTH DAIRY: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against West-Star North
Dairy, et al. The case is styled as Edgar Romero Garcia, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. West-Star North
Dairy, Rhonda Lee Slegers, Rick Wielenga, Bennet Gary Slegers, Case
No. BCV-23-101229 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 20, 2023).

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

West Star North Dairy was founded in 2005. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of dairy products.[BN]

WINNCOMPANIES LLC: Rubio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WinnCompanies LLC.
The case is styled as Emilio Rubio, and all others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public v. WinnCompanies LLC,
Case No. BCV-23-101208 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 19,
2023).

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

WinnCompanies -- https://www.winncompanies.com/ -- is As a leader
in property development and management.[BN]


XWELL INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xwell, Inc. The case
is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Xwell,
Inc. doing business as: Treat, Case No. 1:23-cv-02951 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 20, 2023).

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

XWELL -- https://www.xwell.com/ -- is a leading global health and
wellness holding company operating three distinct brands: XpresSpa,
Treat, and XpresCheck.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


YUM! BRANDS INC: Gravitt Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yum! Brands, Inc. The
case is styled as Jessica Gravitt, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Yum! Brands, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-00201-DJH (W.D. Ky., April 21, 2023).

The nature suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property
Damage.

Yum! Brands, Inc. -- https://www.yum.com/ -- formerly Tricon Global
Restaurants, Inc., is an American fast food corporation listed on
the Fortune 1000.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN PHILLPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (865) 247-0047

               - and -

          John C Whitfield, Esq.
          WHITFIELD COLEMAN MONTOYA, PLLC
          518 Monroe Street
          Nashville, TN 37208
          Phone: (615) 921-6500
          Fax: (615) 921-6501
          Email: jtyson@milberg.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM
          2754 Erie Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Phone: (513) 381-2333
          Fax: (513) 766-9011



                            *********

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 ***