---

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

              Wednesday, May 10, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 94

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Hall Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Hayden Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Hudgins Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Lee Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Nichols Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams

3M COMPANY: Swofford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Tierney Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Trujillo Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Wainwright Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Rosa Suit Transferred to S.D. California

ACCURATE DOOR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hipolito Claims
ADIDAS AG: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 27
ADIDAS AG: Sells Stock at Inflated Prices, HRSA-ILA Suit Claims
ADISER ORLANDO: Mercado Sues Over Restaurant Cooks' Unpaid Wages
ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Shumway Files Suit in D. Arizona

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Customer Service Reps File Labor Class Action
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Hartwig Alleges
AMERICAN HONDA: Gonzalez Files Suit in C.D. California
APPARATUS LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ASHWORTH COLLEGE: Thompson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida

AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Suit Over COVID Vaccine-Related Injuries
AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Recino Suit Removed to S.D. California
B.A.C. MUSICAL: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BALTIMORE AIRCOIL: Arroyo Suit Removed to E.D. California
BANK OF AMERICA: Aseltine Sues Over Secret Inbound Wire Charges

BETZ & SONS INC: Llewellyn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BHRS GROUP LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLACK BUFFALO: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLINDS CHALET: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRIDGE INVESTMENT: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

BRIGHT SOLAR: Class Cert. Bid Stayed in Bales Class Action Suit
BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Summary Judgments in Messer Suit Partly Upheld
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bid for Discovery Conference Denied
BUILDERS SOURCE: Underpays Concrete Truck Drivers, Herranz Claims
C&S HOLMES INC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CALDIGIT INC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CALIFORNIA STATE: District Court Stays Anders Suit Pending Appeal
CALIFORNIA: Anders Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Deane Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
CENTERRA GROUP: Williams 401(k) Plan Suit Seeks to Certify Class

CENTURION PROPERTY: Displaced Residents Sue Over Building Problems
CHICAGO CUBS: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Unwanted Texts
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Denies McMahon's Class Certification Bid
CHRISTANSEN BROTHERS: Hernandez FLSA Class Certification Denied
CHURCH CHURCH: Bid to Approve Settlement in Hollins Suit Denied

CLOUD BASED PERSONAL: Charman Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS': $3.3M Deal in 401(K) Suit Granted Prelim OK
COINBASE GLOBAL: Sued Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY: Wins Partial Judgment in US Sugar Suit
COMPETITION AUTO: Rosa Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

CONIFER VALUE-BASED: Tang Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
COOLBIZ LLC: Roberts Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
CORSAIR GAMING: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Settlement in Corker Suit Wins Prelim. OK
COTY INC: Court Narrows Claims in Meza Class Action

COX COMMUNIATIONS: Seymour FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
CPT GROUP: Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set July 14
CREDIT SUISSE: S.D. New York Dismisses Gomez Securities Class Suit
D'ARGENT FRANCHISING: Williams Suit Wins Collective Certification
DELTONA, FL: Faces Class Suit Over Flooding After Hurricane Ian

EDGIO INC: Esfandiari Sues Over Artificially Inflated Stock Prices
ELITE CARE: Parker Sues Over Unlawful Denial of Wages
ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Battery Price Conspiracy
EVERQUOTE INC: Woodburn Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
FABLE PETS: Thompson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York

FARMERS INVESTMENT: Barrios Files Suit in D. Arizona
FASHIONABLE INC: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FORTRA LLC: Aubie Files Suit in D. Minnesota
FRESNO COUNTY, CA: Dismissal of Some Anderson Claims Recommended
FRITO-LAY INC: Bid to Transfer Venue in Hill Suit Granted in Part

FRITO-LAY INC: Hill FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due June 27
GAME TIME SUPPLEMENTS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GEICO: Cantu Sues Over Disclosure of Video Viewer's Personal Info
GENERAL CONFERENCE: Joseph et al. Sue Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme

GINA M. RAIMONDO: Georgia Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Walden Suit
GLOBAL RESOURCES: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOOD CLEAN LOVE: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOOGLE LLC: Defeats Proposed Video Privacy Class Action
HAIR CLUB FOR MEN: Zapata Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

HEALTH GARDEN: Som-Dotson Suit Removed to C.D. California
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Class Deal in Sanchez Suit Has Final Nod
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Final Judgment Entered in Sanchez Suit
HUMBLE BRANDS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK: Keeling Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia

IDEA NEST: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
IDEAL CONCEPTS: Knueppel Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
IK MULTIMEDIA US: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INFINITY LASER: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
INTERNALDRIVE INC: Righetti Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL: Sanabria Files Suit in N.D. California
JAY-BEE OIL: Appeals Ruling in Smith Suit to 4th Cir.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settlement Led to Refusal of Suit Discontinuance
KAO USA: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KIA CORP: Car Owners Face Repair Concerns After Car Theft Suit

KIEL JAMES PATRICK: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LITTLE GIANT LADDER: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LITTLE MAN: Faces $100-M Class Action Suit Over Loss of Cars
LIVEPERSON INC: Straub Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
LOBEL FINANCIAL: Williams Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia

LOUISVILLE, KY: Objection Hearing in $1.5-M Settlement Set July 19
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Tricks Consumers to Buy Items, Lovinfosse Says
MADE IN ITALY: Faces Gonzalez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla.
MANDARICH LAW: Davis Loses Appeal From Granting of Bid to Strike
MARYMOUNT MANHATTAN: Reynolds to File Revised Docs on Class Deal

MATTHEW CHRISTIANSEN: West Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
MEMPHIS, TN: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Whitworth Suit
MHM HEALTH: Scheidt Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
MICHAEL KORS: Becerra Suit Removed to S.D. California
MINT CENTER: De Ordonez Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS: Misclassifies Drivers, Hines Suit Alleges
MOLECULAR PARTNERS: Lead Roles Named in Freudiger Securities Suit
MONDELEZ INT'L: Summa's New York Claims in Wallenstein Suit Tossed
MONUMENT INC: Sued for Sharing Patient Data to Third Parties
MORGAN WALLEN: Burcham Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi

MOUNTAIN CREST: Faces Solak Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
MUSIC EXPRESS: Barsegyan Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
MX TECHNOLOGIES: Uses Counterfeit Marks on Bank Apps, Lincoln Says
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Seeks $1.4B Damages in Antitrust Class Suit
NATURE'S FUSIONS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

NATURE'S PATH FOODS: Lee Files Suit in S.D. California
NEW YORK BEVERAGE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN: Simon Sues Over Illegal Disclosure of PII
NEW YORK: Appeals Court Order in Allen Suit to 2nd Circuit
NEW YORK: Class Action Suit Over Dental Health Settled

NEWELL BRANDS: Schmitt Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
NEXT LEVEL PIZZA: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: CEO Sued for $25-M East Palestine Derailment
NYC FIREPLACES: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
OLD-GROWTH AGAIN: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

OREGON ONE: Byrne Wins Relief From Final Class Settlement Approval
OWNEZ ASSET: Appeal Filed in Garcia Suit
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Averts Class Action Over Fitness Class
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
PETSMART LLC: Jenkins Suit Alleges Fair Workweek Law Violations

PICTSWEET CO: Court Orders Anciola to Arbitrate Individual Claims
PROHEALTH CARE: E.D. Wisconsin Allows Doe to Proceed Anonymously
QUEBEC: Flooding Victims File Class Suit Over 2019 Dike Break
RANGE RESOURCES: Kroll Discusses Ruling in Gas Royalty Class Suit
REMART OF SOUTH: Garay Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Laborers

SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Over Unpaid Overtime
STANFORD TRUST: Trial in Ponzi Scheme Suit Set July 22, 2024
STANLEY BLACK: Onge Sues Over False Labeling of Vacuums
STOP & SHOP: Faces Class Action Over Flushable Wipes
SUN LIFE: Bid to Amend Class Suit Over Insurance Policies Denied

TFORCE LOGISTICS: Court Dismisses Lim Class Suit With Prejudice
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Mexico Judge Reveals Refund Class Suit
TMX FINANCE: Johnson and Davis Sue Over Alleged Data Breach
TRADEWEB MARKETS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Suits
TRAVELERS COMPANIES: New Jersey Policyholders File Class Action

UNIQUE HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Kyle Suit Says
UNISWAP LABS: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Violations
UNITED STATES: Garcia Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
UNITED STATES: Suit Over Discriminated Pregnant Workers Certified
VIESTE SPE: Bid for Class Certification in Crossfirst Suit Denied

WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Class Suit on Systemically Dysfunctional Jail
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Averts Class Action Over Pricing Tactics
WASTE CONNECTIONS: E.D. Arkansas Refuses to Remand Allen Suit
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in Woodall Suit
WOLFPACK WORKFORCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cassiani Alleges

ZILLOW GROUP: Settlement in Securities Suit Has Prelim. Approval

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Hall Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Frank Douglas Hall; Christopher Alphonse
Jones; Dennis Edward Holladay; Rodney Herschel Heimbigner; Sam G
Marcum; Dwight Henderson; Michael Paul Marlo; Donald Neal Griffis
Sr; Vance Leland Higbee; Jamie Anthony Licursi; Michael Anthony
Greco; Robert Lee Haislah Jr; Charles Martindale; Todd Leo Mcbride
Ii; Paul John Homrighausen; Stephen Glenn Mathis; Joseph James
Maggio; John Michael Kirkman; Rayburn Daniel Hill; Howard
Kirkpatrick; Ronald Mckithen; Jack King Hines Jr; Vincent Paul
Kalwasinski; Lester David Klock; Scott James Guthrie; John Vincent
Lipari; Tony Lee Holcombe; John Alden Loring; Bryan Keith Hinson;
William George Hopper; Justin E Karch; George W Harrold; Carl
Morgan Griffith; Jimmie Lee Holmes; Radford Leroy Hembree; Griffith
Garterell Jones; Thomas Ray Mccullough; Edward Carl Hammack;
Clarence Junius Goode Jr; Alexander Michael Grinenko Sr; Daniel
Charles Lauder; Rick Allen Lewis; Matthew Morgan Mcintosh; Dale L
Golding; Tony Miles; Robert Louis Grillo; Joseph Jablonski; Spencer
Perrin Kennedy; John Kish; Donald L Hughes; Allen Kairis; Steven E
Marrs; Joseph Doyle Marley; Frank C Judon; James Andrew Killinger;
Charles Thomas Jackson; Timothy Lee Martin; Leonard Ray Mcdonald;
Theron J C Merritt; Joe Albert Harkema Jr; Barnard Shattuck Kemter;
David George Leist; Donald Maxwell Golightly; Rodney Anthony
Horton; Angel L Mendoza; Jerry Johnson; Robert Laverne Goodson; Ray
Anthony Hofman; Kenneth Michael Keller; Ray Norman Lough; Earl C
Harris Jr; Aaron Walker Lowman; Scott Lee Grant; Richard Peter
Kroebel; Charles Thomas Lawrence Jr; Gary Garrod Meadowcroft;
Vincent Anthony Mccabe; William Edward Mcgrath; Stephen Lamarr
Hines; Steven Lopez; Wayne Alan Jorstad; Richard Martinez; George
Steven Lockwood; Leroy Dean Lay; Harry A Henneborn; Steve Anthony
Miles; Michael Matthew Jones; Bobby Allen Gilstrap; Sammy William
Hukkanen; Paul Steven Gutierrez; James Robert Luton; Tommy O'brian
Gore; Robert Stoner Guthrie; Harry Irvin Magee; Royce Edward
Harper; Jimmie W Loats Sr; Kenneth Wayne Kingsley; Franklin Austin
Kelley Sr; Robert Jones; Perry Grier; William W James Jr; Derwin
Clifton Jones; Thurman David Logan; Thomas William Hensel Jr;
Richard Gilbert Medina; Darl Wayne Jewell Jr; Frank Spencer
Harriman; Anthony Wayne Graham; Charles Edward Hislop Jr; Jerry
Matthew Keltner; Greg Evan Johnson; John Edward Meierdierck; John
Edward Mcsparran Jr; Bernard Henry Mccoy; Edward Wayne Mcdaniel Sr;
Wallace Werneigk Goodey Iii; Robert Lee Hartzler; Daniel Dean
Marsh; Boyd William Gottstein; Michael A Lucas; Roderick Keith
Leverett Sr; Steven R Hinton; Dylan Lee James; James William
Lofland Sr; Robert Karcher; and others 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; 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC. MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES CO., LLC. MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC. SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case No. 2023CP3800185 was
removed from the Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit,
Orangeburg County, South Carolina, to the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina on April 26, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01745-RMG.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 701-8520
          Email: dring@mayerbrown.com


3M COMPANY: Hayden Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Walter Edward Hayden, John Lawrence Kemp,
Gregory David Kaser, John Fred Ketzel, Glenn Adrian Martin,
Mitchell Todd Hume, Preston Lee Jenkins Sr, Marvin Levern Hinds,
Kermit Major Ludwig Sr, Leonard Bernard Green, Robert Emmet Kelly,
John Marvin Golden, Brian James Goetting, Joseph Gerard Mcelligott
Jr, Christopher Joel Goodman, Charles Bradley Holmes, Jerry Lee
Kluchka, Muncko Kruize, Norman Robert Higgins, Robert Jacobs, Gary
Lynn Meeks, Michael Joseph, Joel Henry Hansen, Timothy Kling,
Alfred Miller, John Roy Lott, Bobby Ray Horrell, James Samuel
Mccrea, Donald William Helt, Dale Edward Hall, William Henry
Harrison, Ronnie Lanthrip, John Levy, Charles Edward Groover,
Martin Andrew Mccollugh, Brandon Jones, Gordon Cyril Kelley,
Michael Ralph Meadows, Fred Wayne Johnson Jr, James Mckinley
Langston, Timothy James Massaro, David Arthur Keefe, Douglas Alan
Hubbard, Raymond James Knepper Sr, Randy Martin, Gerard Gregory
Mandreger, Troy Edwin Lunsford, Stanley Edward Kordecki Jr, Jerome
Robinson Mccaa, Robert William Hollimon Jr, Raymond Ignatius
Lareau, Kirk Anthony Mclaughlin, David Martin Mallory, Juan King,
Daniel Alfred Gray, Roger Stephen Lilly, Bobby Lane Hall, Willie
Lee Long Jr, John Allan Hoffman, Peter Michael Holmes, Kenneth
Janzekovich, Zebulon Taylor Horton, Jerry Jernigan, Brandon John
Leonard, Alphonso Marvin Holloman Jr, James Howard Mayes Jr, Bryan
Gregory Knowles, Patrick Boykin Mcduffie, Daniel Patrick Martin,
John Patrick Mcgaffin, Michael Eugene Hawkins, William Berkeley
Jones, Robert Kinsey, Timothy M Keene, Ricky Wayne Mccarthy, Thomas
M Mcwilliams, Gary Lee Kahler, Richard Alan Mathews, Warren Louis
Hauser, Victor Aviel Lopez, Edward Lopez King, Roger Keen Hoover,
Ronald Mccrorey, James Frederick Hatfield Sr, Robert Earl Holmes,
Michael Kelly Hines, Joe Nathan Henderson, Christopher Holloway,
Lawrence John Mccourt, Jon Christopher Hurst, Christopher Mark
Manazir, Garland Forest Hare, William Jeffery Hayes, Roy Dewayne
Massey, Joe Gilliam Little Jr, Andrew Dale Leif, John Clinton Lynn,
Kemper Neal Meade, Booker T Magee, Clarence John Loston, Joseph
Holland Jr, Lance Meyer, Randolph William Hennig, Raymond Wayne
Leclair, Curtis Buddy Lee, Ronald Charles Green, Stephen Kempf Jr,
David Allen Hart, David Bettencourt Mendonca, George William Ings,
Robert Gillespie, Raymond Joseph Herrera, Larry Joseph Lamson,
Lucian Doyle Lawley, Clyde Albert Griffin, Frank Lee Kelly, Alec
Graham Halstead, Joseph Adam Kazlauskas Jr, Adam H Madewell, Cecil
Ray Lawrence, Jack Anthony Guido, Allan David Mattson, Scot Harvey,
and others 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;
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.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC. MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC. MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC. SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case
No. 2023CP2800116 was removed from the Fifth Judicial Circuit,
Kershaw County, South Carolina, to the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina on April 26, 2023, and assigned
Case No. 2:23-cv-01746-RMG.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 701-8520
          Email: dring@mayerbrown.com


3M COMPANY: Hudgins Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Stanny Ray Hudgins; Philip Wendell Gould;
Frank Joseph Micalizzi; Ernest Theodore Gutierrez; William T Lowe;
James Patrick Hovis; Michael Kelley; Jeffrey Hammons; Terrance
Edward Marks; William Schwertley Harter; Charles E Kirtley; George
Joseph Hosch Jr; Marcus Lynn Johnson; Carleton Bruce Landry;
Darrell Gene Hand Sr; David Michael Long; Scott Ray Mcnalley;
Fernando A Martinez; Mark Andrew Holmes; Jared Christopher
Martinez; Clarence Mchenry Jr; David Keith Hitt; Lorien Eugene
Horn; Lorenzo Hutchins; Nick L Mcalpine; Derrick Humphrey; Fred
Kwapisz; Louis Kingsley; Joseph George Hudeck Jr; Robert Michael
Gorman; Jerome Jones; Wayne P Hockensmith Ii; Warren Jack Keegan
Ii; Joseph James Kelly; Gary Horne; Stephen Gregory Holmes; Timothy
Robin Laurain; Henry Michael Miano; John Lawrence Hamm Jr; Lyle
Harry Lindberg; Walter Mcpherson; Christopher Andrew Hanley; John
James Kerns; Edward Jimenez; Dennis Ray Judd; Jacob Lee Mayes;
Jerry Luster Martin; Glenn Michael Gowitzke; Anthony Glover; Martin
Stephen Hladick; Willie B Hines; David Medina; John Hokavar;
Stevenson Kelley; Gary M Lohmeier; Steve A Macheichok; Steven
Randall Kroll; Jodey Michelson; Scott W Kaveloh; Jose Antonio
Loquiao; William Herbert; Sheldon T Griffin; Robert William Jones;
Daniel Paul Mcmillan; David Earl Meek; Mitchell Jacobs; Victor E
Hinds; Phillip A Johnston; Lance J Ideker; William I John; William
E Hamilton; Kevin Horkan; Michael Hathorn; Scott Heinrich; Willis
Hampton; Timothy Raymond Hedges; Benjamin Lawton Hall; John W
Graves; Rodolfo Gutierrez; James S Hull; Johnson Griffin; Steven B
Knox; Dale Helphrey; Ronald C Liles; Joseph Gregory Litcher;
Frederick Carl Hoke; Aloysius Donald John; Joseph Frank Guerrieri;
Larry James Miller; John Steven Mcduff; Timmy Joe Holcomb; James D
Harguth; David Harris; William David Horton; Jon A Lloyd; Roy
Grimm; Dean Scott Hodge; Brian Hayes; Donald Helms; Brenton P
Lebish; Gerald Halli; Brian Marsh; Kenneth E Henry; Thomas
Kirkpatrick; John Manzi; Alex Kincy; Merle Lloyd; Danny Leis; Paul
Lagala; Ray James; Richard Long; Jc Lambert; Robert Gutel; Phillip
Kirk; Scott Lundgren; Steven Kufner; Richard Gromacki; Lawrence
Maze; Danny Lindsay; Gregory L Haney; Stephen Kuljis; Charles
Jones; Glen Haws; Jimmy Lambert; Karl Hampton; David Kausak; and
others 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;
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.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC. MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC. MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC. SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case
No. 2023CP4000711 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Fifth
Judicial Circuit, Richland County, South Carolina, to the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina on April
26, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01747-RMG.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 701-8520
          Email: dring@mayerbrown.com


3M COMPANY: Lee Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sidney Michael Lee; Marshall Earl Harris;
Demetrius Lenard Houston; Reginald Shawn Hill; Sean Ennis King;
Jeffrey Gene Lashmet; Clinton Leonard Mccoy Sr; Christopher Leon
Jones Sr; Charles Thomas Livingston; Ronald Eric Kanterman;
Clarence Edward Leware; John Bryan Keegan; Michael Duane Matus;
Brenden Hayward Johnson; Eric Richard Harrison; Tommy Karl Kennedy;
Howard Mckenny Lewis Sr; Irvin C Knight; Stanley William Goglia Jr;
David P Lance; John Dee Haughey; Dennis Lee Harfst; Dorsey Kemp;
Robert Brent Haines; Jeffrey Greg Hill; Larry Michael Lisowski;
Verner Paul King; Kenneth Steven Lundie; Johnny Wade Lee; Charles
Edward Henderson; Matthew Gerald Madson; Lorenzo John Mackey;
Dwight Thomas Gray; Robert Earl King; Willie Earl Latimore; Robert
David Lopez; James George Lumb; John Flavious Loy; Kenneth Donell
Ivery; Richard Clark Gilliland; Kenneth Lee Johanning; Michael B
Labourdette Sr; William Edgar Lawson Jr; Thomas Mangiameli; Michael
Vincent Miller; Gregory Wayne Goodwin; Ronald James Hawley; William
Eugene Helton; Joe Bruce Mcglothlin; Clayburn Lee Jones; Charles
Ervin Johnson; David Henry Hirt; Robert James Johnson; Michael Ivy;
Robert Frank Krans Jr; Herman Barley Johnson Sr; Robert Jenkins;
William Glenn Mattox; Michael Douglas Hammett; Merlin Lee
Haakinson; Frank Eugene Mcewen Jr; Floyd Kenneth Lacy; Loyd Raymond
Hunter; Johnny Roy Kinser; Elisha Hutchinson Jr; Thomas James
Heise; Manfred H Jones; Peter Gerd Irrgang; Gregory George Lukas;
Randall James Glanville; Robert John Kelly; Dean Henry Holmes;
Jeffrey Scott Gillson; Robert Dean Gleason; Paul Michael Jarrell;
Robert Michael Hindman; Jackie Emanuel Graves; Michael George
Imparato; Joseph T Labruzza Jr; George Loushe Hayes; Benedict
Steven Mikolinski; Marcus Roy Lane; Thomas Wayne Harrison; John
James Mcmanus; Andrew Scott Maley; Thomas David Mathis; Edward
Ronald Marks; Jimmy Lee Haney; Mark Steven Mcdowell; Fred Mcbryde;
Daniel Ernest Henry; Howard Harry Hamilton; Alan Francis Mceachern;
Francis Ray Glandon; Melvin Andrew Juhl; Ernie Malcolm Hester;
Bryan Keith Langley; Clarence Richard Lloyd; Jose Miguel Gonzalez;
Joseph William Janik; Randall Ray Mathews; Curtis Charles Hoppert;
Jerry Ray Hart; Roger Lawrence Hots Jr; Philip James Maldari;
Richard Allen Mctague; James Kent Haskins; Thomas Wayne Harp;
Daniel Lewis Holladay; Richard Lee Hood; Patrick Joseph Merwin;
Thomas John Merwin; James Buford Landreneau; Richard Park Mayhugh;
Darron Jerome Mackins Sr; Glen Edward Henderson; Theodore Francis
Keating; Earl Thomas Mcgrew; David Martin Lowe; Craig Michael
Gotham; David Head Sr; Michael Conrad Meixner; Joseph Duane Long;
John L Mayes; Stanley Earl Lynn; and others 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; 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.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC. MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES CO., LLC. MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC. SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case No. 2023CP4300234 was
removed from the Third Judicial Circuit, Sumter County, South
Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina on April 26, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-01749-RMG.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 701-8520
          Email: dring@mayerbrown.com


3M COMPANY: Nichols Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Nichols as, Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor
of the Estate of ROBERT NICHOLS, deceased, 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-01692-RMG (D.S.C., April 24, 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 Courtney Nichols is an adult resident of the State of
South Carolina. The Plaintiff is the duly-appointed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Robert
Nichols, who 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
liver 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


3M COMPANY: Swofford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Swofford, 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-01303-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: Tierney Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Tierney, 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-01304-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: Trujillo Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sammy Trujillo, 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-01305-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: Wainwright Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Wainwright, 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-01306-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


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Rosa Suit Transferred to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Natalia La Rosa, Phoebe Caneda, Keya
Johnigan, Brianna McKay, Emily Depol, Amie Adair, Prushti Dave,
Nichelle White, Arlene Bergum, Stephanie Morales, on behlaf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, SPD
Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmBH, Church & Dwight Co, Inc., Target
Corporation, Walgreen Co., Alere, Walmart Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05435 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on April 26, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00765-AJB-BGS to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

Abbott Laboratories -- https://www.abbott.com/ -- is an American
multinational medical devices and health care company with
headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent S. Colasurdo, Esq.
          Molly Magnuson, Esq.
          UMBERG ZIPSER LLP
          1920 Main Street, Ste. 750
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (949) 679-0052

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
          Natalie Pang, Esq.
          Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9154
          Email: jrotter@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Mark A Finkelstein, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Phone: (949) 851-3939
          Fax: (949) 553-7539
          Email: mafinkelstein@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Daniella Quitt, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: (212) 935-7400

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua A. Kipnees, Esq.
          William F. Cavanaugh, Esq.
          Rhick Bose, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 336-2000
          Fax: (212) 336-2222

               - and -

          Eileen Miriam Patt, Esq.
          Norman Christopher Simon, Esq.
          Ryan Gander, Esq.
          KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL
          1177 Avenue Of The Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 715-9100
          Fax: (212) 715-8000

               - and -

          Baldassare Vinti, Esq.
          Jeffrey Hart Warshafsky, Esq.
          Qian Jennifer Yang, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          Eleven Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 969-3502
          Email: bvinti@proskauer.com
                 jyang@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Evan M. Mandel, Esq.
          Robert Allen Glunt, Esq.
          MANDEL BHANDARI LLP
          80 Pine Street
          33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 269-5600
          Fax: (212) 336-2222

               - and -

          Pamela Lauren Schoenberg, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 521-5400
          Fax: (212) 521-5450

               - and -

          Ethan Price Davis, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 318-1200
          Fax: (415) 318-1300
          Email: edavis@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Kristen Renee Fournier, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          1185 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 790-5342

               - and -

          Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING
          110 N Wacker Drive, Suite 3800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 764-6911


ACCURATE DOOR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Hipolito Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JORGE HIPOLITO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACCURATE DOOR & CONSTRUCTION OF NY, INC., a
New York corporation, and MICHAEL DEPOMPEIS, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03444 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2023)
arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the New York Labor Law, and the spread of
hours and overtime wages of the New York Commissioner of Labor.

The Plaintiff was employed as a welder from 2015 through August
2022 and from December 2002 through the present. Accordingly, he
worked approximately 52 hours per week during his employment with
the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff was not paid any overtime
premium for hours worked over 40 in each week, in violation of the
FLSA and NYLL, the suit claims.

Accurate Door & Construction of NY, Inc. is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the state of New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ADIDAS AG: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 27
----------------------------------------------------------
Did you lose money on investments in adidas? If so, please visit
adidas AG Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco
at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com to discuss your rights.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP on May 3 announced that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
or acquired the securities of adidas AG ("adidas", "Adidas" or the
"Company") (OTC PINK: ADDDF, ADDYY) between May 3, 2018 and
February 21, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Oregon and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

adidas is a sports brand and engages in the design, distribution,
and marketing of athletic and sporting lifestyle products. In
November 2013, adidas announced the beginning of a partnership with
Kanye West, whereby West would endorse adidas shoes (the
"Partnership").

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements throughout the Class Period. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) in
addition to other misconduct, Kanye West made anti-Semitic comments
in front of adidas staff, and even suggested naming an album after
Adolf Hitler; (2) adidas was aware of his behavior, and failed to
warn investors that it was aware of that behavior, and had
considered ending the Partnership as a result of it; (3) adidas
failed to take meaningful precautionary measures to limit negative
financial exposure if the Partnership were to end as a result of
West's behavior; and (4) adidas overstated the risk mitigation
measures it took with regard to Yeezy shoes in the event that it
terminated the Partnership.

On November 27, 2022, The Wall Street Journal released an article
entitled "Adidas Top Executives Discussed Risk of Staffs 'Direct
Exposure' to Kanye West Years Ago." The article discussed tensions
behind the scenes as a result of West berating adidas staff and
engaging in other misconduct, and also revealed that West made
anti-Semitic comments in front of adidas staff, including his
desire to name an album after Adolf Hitler.

On this news, ADDYY fell $2.02 per ADR, or 3.13%, to close at
$62.34 on November 28, 2022. ADDDF fell $0.81 per ADR to close at
$126.44 on November 28, 2022.

Then, on February 9, 2023, adidas warned that it could shift from a
profit to a loss if it should fail to sell its inventory of Yeezy
shoes, following its termination of the Partnership. Specifically,
it said that it expected sales to fall at a high single-digit rate
in currency-neutral terms because of the "significant adverse
impact of not selling the existing stock" of Yeezy products.
Failure to sell the stock of Yeezy's (valued at 1.2 billion euros)
would accordingly lower Company revenue by 1.2 billion euros (or
about $1.29 billion), and operating profit by 500 million euros."

On this news, ADDYY fell $7.40, or 8.96%, to close at $75.16 on
February 9, 2023. ADDDF fell $21.83, or 13.22%, to close at $143.23
on February 9, 2023.

Then, on February 21, 2023, S&P Global announced that it was
downgrading adidas to "'A-/A-2' From A-1' On Deteriorating Credit
Metrics; Outlook Negative."

On this news, ADDYY fell $3.56, or 4.62%, to close at $73.59 on
February 21, 2023, and ADDDF fell $4.85, or 3.17%.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 27, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased or acquired adidas securities, and/or would like
to discuss your legal rights and options please visit adidas AG
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212)
951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2023 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

Contact Information:

Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]

ADIDAS AG: Sells Stock at Inflated Prices, HRSA-ILA Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
HRSA-ILA FUNDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADIDAS AG, KASPER RORSTED, and HARM
OHLMEYER, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00629-IM (D. Ore., April 28,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business,
operations, and prospects in order to trade Adidas securities
between May 3, 2018 and February 21, 2023. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) in addition to other
misconduct, Kanye West made anti-Semitic comments in front of
adidas staff, and even suggested naming an album after Adolf
Hitler; (2) Adidas was aware of his behavior, and failed to warn
investors that it was aware of that behavior, and had considered
ending the partnership as a result of it; (3) Adidas failed to take
meaningful precautionary measures to limit negative financial
exposure if the partnership were to end as a result of West's
behavior; (4) Adidas overstated the risk mitigation measures it
took with regard to Yeezy shoes in the event that it terminated the
partnership; (5) as a result, the Defendants' public statements
were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times, says
the suit.

When the truth emerged, Adidas stock price fell 3.13 percent, to
close at $62.34 on Nov. 28, 2022. It further declined 4.62 percent,
to close at $73.59 on Feb. 21, 2023, the suit alleges.

Adidas AG is a manufacturer of athletic and sporting lifestyle
products headquartered in Germany. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Esq.
         RANSOM, GILBERTSON, MARTIN & RATLIFF, LLP
         5441 S. Macadam Ave., Suite 301
         Portland, OR 97239
         Telephone: (503) 226-3664
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: RGMR1500@gmail.com

                 - and -

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA
         275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 lrosen@rosenlegal.com

ADISER ORLANDO: Mercado Sues Over Restaurant Cooks' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX O. MERCADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADISER ORLANDO LLC, d/b/a BURGER KING, JUAN
CARLOS PEDRAGLIO, and ANDERSON PINHEIRO, Defendants, Case No.
6:23-cv-00792 (M.D. Fla., April 28, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and retaliatory
discharge in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a cook at Burger King restaurant in
Kissimmee, Florida from February 9, 2023, to March 3, 2023.

Adiser Orlando LLC, doing business as Burger King, is a fast-food
restaurant company located in Osceola County, Florida. [BN]

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

ALLSTATE VEHICLE: Shumway Files Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Vehicle and
Property Insurance Company. The case is styled as Peter Shumway,
Naomi Shumway, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Case
No. 2:23-cv-00699-DLR (D. Ariz., April 25, 2023).

The nature of suit stated as Insurance Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company --
https://www.allstate.com/ -- operates as an insurance firm. The
Company provides property and casualty insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES PSC
          110 W Vine St., Ste. 300
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Phone: (800) 614-1957

               - and -

          J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
          MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Blvd., Ste. 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Phone: (615) 354-1144

               - and -

          Michaile Berg, Esq.
          BERG LAW
          8710 E Vista Bonita Dr.
          Scottsdale, AZ 85255
          Phone: (480) 745-7445
          Email: mberg@berg.law

               - and -

          Thomas Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
          SNODGRASS LAW LLC
          100 S 5th St. Ste. 800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 448-2600
          Email: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Customer Service Reps File Labor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pyok reports that American Airlines is facing a class action
lawsuit over allegations that it unlawfully made customer service
representatives at a call center in Tempe, Arizona, do unpaid work
because it required workers to boot up their computers and be
signed in and ready to start taking calls before their paid work
day officially started.

The lawsuit is being brought by Skylar Hartwig who has worked as
customer relations service representative at the Dallas Fort
Worth-based airline since 2015.

For the past eight years, Hartwig claims supervisors told him and
his colleagues that they were required to boot up their work
computers and sign into a variety of applications in order to be
ready to start work before the official start of their shifts.

Supervisors instructed employees at the Tempe call center to start
this process 15 minutes before they would officially start to be
paid, and if they managed to log in within that time frame, they
would be required to start taking calls straight away.

In late 2022, Hartwig started to record the short periods of time
that he was ‘working' without being paid and presented these
records to his bosses. American Airlines says it was prepared to
pay Hartwig for the times he kept his own records but refused to
pay him for additional hours worked prior to October 2022.

Hartwig claims American Airlines has breached the Fair Labor
Standards Act which is designed to prevent employers from taking
advantage of workers.

The question of whether employers can ask workers to boot up
computers and sign into various IT systems before they start
getting paid has cropped up time and time again, resulting in a
fair amount of case law on the subject - especially in relation to
call center employees.

In broad terms, courts will look at whether the extra work that
employees are being asked to be is considered 'de minimis' - in
other words, is it just so trivial or inconsequential that the
legal system shouldn't need to address the complaint?

In 2021, the 10th Circuit Appeals court backed call center
employees, concluding that if workers regularly have to boot up
their computers for the same amount of time, then that counts as a
work task that should be paid.

Other courts have suggested that 10 minutes or more of pre-work
system setup is the point at which employees should be paid for
these activities. [GN]

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Hartwig Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Skylar Hartwig, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. American Airlines Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00696-SMB (D. Ariz., April
25, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Skylar Hartwig was employed as a customer relations
service representative, a job which is not exempt from the overtime
pay requirements. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to compensate
Plaintiff Hartwig for his overtime hours worked as required by the
FLSA.

American Airlines Group, Inc. is an airline and a Delaware
corporation doing business and employing persons in Maricopa
County, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Brown, Esq.
          Joshua Ernst, Esq.
          ERNST, BROWN and DRAPER, PLCC
          3303 E Baseline Road, Suite 101A
          Gilbert, AZ 852234-279
          Telephone: (602) 324-9673
          E-mail: TBrown@ebdlawyers.com
                  JERnst@ebdlawyers.com

AMERICAN HONDA: Gonzalez Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Honda Motor
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Omar Gonzalez, Johnathan
Nesbitt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-03082 (C.D.
Cal., April 24, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. -- http://www.honda.com/--
is the North American subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Pitoun, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Phone: (213) 330-7150
          Fax: (213) 330-7152
          Email: christopherp@hbsslaw.com


APPARATUS LLC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apparatus, LLC. The
case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Apparatus, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03154
(E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2023).

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

Apparatus -- https://apparatusstudio.com/ -- is a New York based
interdisciplinary design studio that explores the relationship of
lighting, furniture, objects and spaces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


ASHWORTH COLLEGE: Thompson Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ashworth College. The
case is styled as Sandra G. Thompson, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Ashworth College, Case No.
8:23-cv-00902-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 25, 2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Ashworth College -- https://www.ashworthcollege.edu/ -- is a
private for-profit online college based in Peachtree Corners,
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (331) 307-7646
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com


AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Suit Over COVID Vaccine-Related Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reports that Australians are seeking compensation for
being "allegedly injured from Covid vaccines," says Sky News host
Rowan Dean.

"500 Australians have joined a class action lawsuit . . . the
landmark lawsuit has been launched against the federal government,
against the TGA and against the Department of Health and alleged
negligence by the TGA in its approval and monitoring of COVID-19
vaccines," Mr Dean said. [GN]

AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Recino Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Juliana Recino, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Aya Healthcare, Inc., Aya Healthcare
Services, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-02023-00011786-CU-FR-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on April 24, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00750-MMA-MSB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Aya Healthcare -- https://www.ayahealthcare.com/ -- is a leading
provider of healthcare staffing, servicing over 1,400 healthcare
facilities in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shalini Dogra
          DOGRA LAW GROUP
          2219 Main Street, Unit 239
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Phone: (424) 279-4151
          Email: shalini@dogralawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kendra S. Canape, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Phone: (949) 255-6950
          Fax: (949) 474-2060
          Email: kcanape@grsm.com


B.A.C. MUSICAL: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B.A.C. Musical
Instruments, LLC. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf
of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. B.A.C.
Musical Instruments, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03430-KPF (S.D.N.Y.,
April 24, 2023).

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

B.A.C. Musical Instruments, LLC -- https://www.coolisbac.com/ -- is
a musical instrument store in Kansas City, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


BALTIMORE AIRCOIL: Arroyo Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lorenzo Arroyo, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Baltimore Aircoil Company, Inc.,
Amsted Rail Company, Inc., Amsted Residual, LLC, Amsted
Corporation, Case No. MCV089017 was removed from the Madera
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California on April 26, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00641-ADA-BAM to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated Other Labor.

Baltimore Aircoil Company, Inc. -- https://baltimoreaircoil.com/ --
is a leading producer and exporter of evaporative cooler and heat
transfer equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          William Wilkinson, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Phone: (818) 230-7502
          Fax: (818) 230-7259
          Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
                 statavos@justicelawcorp.com
                 wwilkinson@justicelawcorp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Cody Thomas Stroman, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          345 California Street, Ste. 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 248-1522
          Email: codystroman@foxrothschild.com

               - and -

          Steven Woodrow Moore
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          1225 17th Street, Suite 2200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 383-7665
          Fax: (303) 292-1300
          Email: swmoore@foxrothschild.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Aseltine Sues Over Secret Inbound Wire Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a class action
lawsuit claims Bank of America has concealed that it charges a $15
fee when a personal accountholder receives wired funds into their
account in a case -- captioned Aseltine v. Bank of America, N.A.
The 22-page lawsuit says that despite the bank's contractual
promise to disclose all fees, it has misled accountholders and
secretly "tacked on" these incoming wire transfer charges. Per the
case, these so-called "junk" fees are "unavoidable" and "deducted
directly from consumer accounts without consent or notice."

The suit shares that although Bank of America promises to "list[]
the fees associated with [an] account and ways to avoid them when
applicable," none of its account documents indicate the existence
of an incoming wire transfer fee or an associated charge amount, as
required by federal law.

Instead of disclosing the details of the fee at issue, Bank of
America "coyly" leaves it up to consumers to find out more
information by speaking with a banker, the case claims. In its
"Personal Schedule of Fees" document, the defendant states that it
"may change the fees for wire transfers and drafts at any time" and
suggests that consumers "[visit] a financial center or call us …
for current fees," the complaint relays.

Further, BoA's "Online Banking Agreement," which apparently
provides an "all-inclusive list of fees" for every type of wire
transaction, "tellingly" fails to mention a charge for incoming
wire transfers, the filing contends.

"Bank of America's total exclusion of incoming wire transfers from
its supposedly all-inclusive fee chart must mean one thing: there
will be no fees on incoming wire transfers," the lawsuit argues.

According to the suit, accountholders are "shocked" to learn that,
without warning, they have been charged this "hefty" fee after
receiving a wire deposit. In fact, the charge at issue is
"especially problematic" because consumers play no part in
receiving inbound transfers, which is why many banks charge no such
incoming wire fee, the case explains.

"Because [the fees at issue] are a major source of income for Bank
of America; because consumers assessed such fees have no control
over them; and because Bank of America has hoped consumers will not
notice such fees when they receive wires … Bank of America has
engaged in an effort to obscure and hide the presence and amount of
its Incoming Wire Transfer Fees."

The plaintiff, a California resident and personal accountholder,
received an inbound wire transfer in October 2022, the complaint
says. The man was surprised to learn that, despite Bank of
America's contractual promises, he was charged $15 for the
transaction without notice or consent, the filing shares.

The lawsuit looks to represent any Bank of America personal
accountholders in the United States who were charged incoming wire
transfer fees during the applicable statute of limitations period.
[GN]

BETZ & SONS INC: Llewellyn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Betz & Sons, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Scott Llewellyn, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Betz & Sons, Inc., Does 1 Through
100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23606077 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., April 25, 2023).

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

Betz & Sons, Inc.is a general contractor in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP
          11846 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 100
          Studio City, CA 91604-2620
          Phone: 213-493-6300
          Fax: 213-723-2522
          Email: tuvia@abramsonlabor.com


BHRS GROUP LLC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BHRS Group, LLC. The
case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BHRS Group, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03470
(S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2023).

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

BHRS Group, LLC -- https://bhrsgroup.com/ -- is a distribution
service in Lakewood, New Jersey.[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


BLACK BUFFALO: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Black Buffalo, Inc.
The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Black Buffalo, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03475 (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2023).

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

Black Buffalo -- https://blackbuffalo.com/ -- is the world's only
smokeless chewing tobacco alternative that delivers the same
experience as traditional dip pouches and long cut.[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


BLINDS CHALET: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blinds Chalet LLC.
The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Blinds Chalet LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-03509 (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2023).

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

Blinds Chalet LLC -- https://www.blindschalet.com/ -- offers custom
blinds, shades, and shutters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (917) 796-7437
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com


BRIDGE INVESTMENT: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bridge Investment
Group Holdings, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kiara Brigette
Torres, individually, and on behalf of of all others similarly
situated v. Bridge Investment Group Holdings, LLC, Does 1 through
10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23606109 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., April 24, 2023).

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

Bridge Investment Group -- https://www.bridgeig.com/ -- is a
leading, vertically integrated real estate investment manager,
diversified across specialized asset classes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
          Phone: 213-232-3128
          Fax: 213-232-3125
          Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com


BRIGHT SOLAR: Class Cert. Bid Stayed in Bales Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bales v. Bright Solar
Marketing LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00496 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Marcia Morales Howard entered an order staying briefing on the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification pending resolution of
the motion for summary judgment.

The Defendant is relieved of the obligation to respond to the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification until further order.

The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.



BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Summary Judgments in Messer Suit Partly Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TONY A. MESSER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. BRISTOL COMPRESSORS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, trading as Bristol
Compressors, Defendant-Appellee, and GARRISON INVESTMENT GROUP, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 21-2363 (4th Cir.), the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms in part, vacates in part,
and remands for further proceedings, the district court's orders
granting motions for partial summary judgment.

The other Plaintiffs-Appellants are PHILIP E. BARBROW; BENJIE G.
HICKS; KENDALL W. LUTTRELL; DARRELL G. MURRAY; DENNIS J. STILTNER;
TIMOTHY M. WAMPLER; MICHAEL L. PARKER; CHARLES E. VESTAL; JIMMY
AMBERGEY; DAVE S. BOOHER; JOANNE T. BOOHER; JOHN S. BOOKER; DAVID
BROWNING; SUMMER CARMACK; WILLIAM C. CHURCH; MELVIN E. CLARK; JOYCE
DAUGHTERY; HOMER L. DAVIS; PATRICIA C. EADS; DAVID ESTEP; JAMES D.
FOSTER; DENNIS A. FRALEY; CURTIS D. HAYDEN; PENNY HELTON; GAYLORD
K. HOBBS, JR.; GARY HOUSER; SHERRIE HUBBARD; MICHAEL LEONARD; GEARL
LOWE; MANDY MARTIN; STEWART MAXFIELD; DAVID C. McCLAIN; FLOYD D.
MCMILLAN; JACKIE L. MULLINS; TOMMY MULLINS; DOROTHY M. ORR; DAVID
O'QUINN; LARRY J. RICHARDS; DANNY L. SALTZ; KAREN P. SCYPHERS;
JAMES E. SMITH; JAMIE STOUT; ROBERT L. SULLINS; TIMOTHY A. THOMAS;
ALISON WALLS; JEFF WAMPLER; DAVID A. STOVALL; and KEVIN N.
MUMPOWER.

The Plaintiffs, a group of former employees of Bristol Compressors
International, LLC ("BCI"), appeal the district court's orders
granting three motions for partial summary judgment that BCI filed
in the Plaintiffs' class action lawsuit under the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 ("the WARN Act").

At issue here are three questions: first, whether BCI validly
eliminated its severance plan prior to the termination of the
Plaintiffs' employment; second, whether certain Plaintiffs waived
their claims against BCI by signing a Stay Bonus Letter Agreement
("SBLA"); and third, whether four Plaintiffs ("the Four") received
adequate notice under the WARN Act prior to the termination of
their employment.

First, the Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by
granting BCI's motion for partial summary judgment related to the
elimination of BCI's employee severance plan. It is undisputed that
the severance plan was an employee benefit plan covered by ERISA.

Here, the severance plan was wholly contained within BCI's employee
handbook, and the plan could be amended or eliminated pursuant to
the same procedure as any other portion of the handbook. On July
27, 2018, BCI's Board of Directors ("the Board") signed a
"Unanimous Written Consent" document ("the board resolution")
relating to the winding down and liquidation of BCI.

Although BCI's Human Resources department (HR) had previously been
asked to "implement" changes to the employee handbook once those
changes had been "decided and authorized by management" --
including prior modifications to the severance plan -- no further
action was taken to effectuate the elimination of the severance
plan. Shortly thereafter, BCI began to lay off employees as it
prepared to close its manufacturing facility.

At issue here is whether the board resolution was sufficient to
terminate the severance plan, or whether the elimination of the
plan required further action on the part of HR. The district court
found that the board resolution effectively eliminated the
severance plan.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Curtiss-Wright Corp. v.
Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73, 78 (1995), the district court reasoned
that the provisions of the handbook stating that "the Company"
reserved the right to eliminate provisions of the handbook meant
that the Board, as the "ultimate decision-maker for" BCI (J.A.
1259), had the power to eliminate the severance plan without any
additional action from HR. And because HR lacked the power to
unilaterally amend the handbook, the district court determined that
the provision of the handbook regarding amendments prepared by HR
was merely an administrative procedure designed to communicate
changes to employees.

The Court of Appeals concludes that, on the facts of this case, the
district court's reliance on Schoonejongen was misplaced. The fact
that the provisions discussing the Board's right to eliminate
portions of the handbook could have been read, in the absence of
any other procedural requirements, to establish a procedure by
which the Board could effectuate that right cannot be used to read
another sentence establishing such a procedure out of the handbook.
Nor does it matter that HR did not have the power to unilaterally
eliminate handbook provisions; that does not change the fact that,
according to the terms by which the severance plan could be altered
or amended, the Board was required to have HR effectuate its
elimination of the plan in writing.

Because the facts, construed in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiffs, show that the Board did not follow that written
procedure for eliminating the severance plan, the district court
erred by finding that BCI was entitled to summary judgment on this
issue, the Panel holds.

Next, the Plaintiffs challenge the district court's grant of
summary judgment to BCI on all claims by those employees, who
signed the SBLA -- which contained a provision under which the
signatory employees waived their right to participate in the
instant litigation -- on the basis that the SBLA is
unconscionable.

The Court of Appeals concludes that the district court did not err
by finding the Plaintiffs had not met their burden to show that the
SBLA was unconscionable. Because the Plaintiffs failed to establish
a gross disparity in consideration as to the hourly employees,
their unconscionability argument as to those employees' agreements
must fail.

As to the salaried signatory employees, although the district court
found there was a more substantial disparity in value as to the
additional consideration they received, it also found that the
Plaintiffs nonetheless did not meet their burden to establish the
kind of oppressive influences necessary to render the SBLAs
unenforceable. Thus, the Court of Appeals concludes that the
district court did not err by finding that the SBLA was
enforceable.

Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by
granting BCI summary judgment on the Four's WARN Act claims.

Here, BCI initially notified employees on July 31 that it expected
its facility to close by or about Aug. 31, 2018, and that their
employment with BCI could end as soon as July 31, 2018. On Aug. 1,
BCI notified its employees through a Questions and Answers ("Q&A")
document that the facility will close and that their last day of
employment will be on or before Sept. 30, 2018. The Four, however,
were not terminated until Oct. 19, 2018, and BCI's manufacturing
facility did not close until November.

As the district court correctly concluded, because BCI postponed
the termination of the Four's employment past September 30, they
were entitled to additional notice under 20 C.F.R. Section 639.10,
the Court of Appeals says. It is undisputed that they did not
receive any additional notice prior to their last day of
employment. The district court, however, found that BCI was not
liable for its violation of Section 639.10 because the Four
remained employed for more than 60 days after BCI published the
July 31 notice; there was no evidence that they suffered any
prejudice from the lack of additional notice; and the notice they
received served the purpose of the WARN Act: to allow them adequate
time to prepare for losing their jobs.

The Court of Appeals concludes that the district court erred in
finding that BCI was entitled to summary judgment on the Four's
claims. BCI did not simply omit information from the notice it
provided; it failed to provide notice to which the Four were
entitled, and it failed to identify a statutory or regulatory basis
for excusing its failure to do so. The Court of Appeals concludes
that the district court erred by finding as a matter of law that
BCI was not liable to the Four on their WARN Act claims.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacates the district court's
grant of summary judgment to BCI on the severance plan issue and
the Four's WARN Act claims, affirms the grant of summary judgment
as to the employees who signed the SBLA, and remands for further
proceedings.

The Court of Appeals dispenses with oral argument with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mvvcr8s7 from Leagle.com.

ON BRIEF: Mary Lynn Tate -- mtate@law.gwu.edu -- TATE LAW PC, in
Abingdon, Virginia, for the Appellants.


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Bid for Discovery Conference Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN BRIGHT, as Curator
of the ESTATE OF LEONARD FOOTE, and BARBARA J. ADAMS, as Power of
Attorney for DAVID G. ADAMS, on their own behalf and all other
similarly situated, v. BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00374 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Barbara D. Holmes
entered an order denying unopposed motion for discovery conference
filed by Plaintiff Megan Bright, to the extent that the Court does
not believe that a discovery conference is necessary to rule upon
the issues detailed in the joint discovery dispute statement.

The Court will also deny the Plaintiffs' request to compel
Brookdale to produce the information sought in connection with
class certification discovery.

The Court agrees with Brookdale that documents related to its
purported corporate efforts to increase censure, sales, and
occupancy at its facilities are not relevant at the class
certification phase. It is not clear how this information would be
implicated at the class certification stage, except to possibly
"disprove" an argument that Brookdale may (or may not) make in
opposition to class certification. Instead, the information that
could be gleaned from these documents -- and that, according to
Plaintiffs, has already "shown communications between corporate
managers and facility managers concerning their efforts to increase
sales and occupancy" -- is whether and how Brookdale's corporate
office-controlled efforts to increase sales and occupancy at the
individual facilities.

Brookdale Senior is an operator of senior living communities
throughout the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/449LRpb at no extra charge.[CC]


BUILDERS SOURCE: Underpays Concrete Truck Drivers, Herranz Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NOEL HERRANZ and DIMAS A. VIZCAINO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BUILDERS SOURCE LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-00793 (M.D. Fla., April 29, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate
the Plaintiffs and similarly situated drivers overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Herranz and Vizcaino worked for the Defendant as
concrete truck drivers in Florida from September 12, 2022, to April
03, 2023 and from February 27, 2023, to April 11, 2023,
respectively.

Builders Source LLC is a construction firm doing business in
Florida. [BN]

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

C&S HOLMES INC: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C&S Holmes, Inc. The
case is styled as Yordaliza Taveras, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. C&S Holmes, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03466 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2023).

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

C&S Holmes offers outdoor gear manufacturer and e-commerce retailer
of backpacks, sleeping bags, tents, cots, pads and other camping
and hiking gear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALDIGIT INC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CalDigit, Inc. The
case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CalDigit, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03483
(S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2023).

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

CalDigit -- https://www.caldigit.com/ -- is a hardware manufacturer
and online retailer specializing in Thunderbolt and USB-C
technology docking stations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIFORNIA STATE: District Court Stays Anders Suit Pending Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAYLOR ANDERS, HENNESSEY EVANS, ABBIGAYLE ROBERTS,
MEGAN WALAITIS, TARA WEIR and COURTNEY WALBURGER, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CALIFORNIA
STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00179-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California:

   a. denies without prejudice the Defendants' motions for leave
      to file a sur-reply and a supplemental sur-reply in
      opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification, and a motion to dismiss one of the
      Plaintiffs' two remaining claims for lack of subject matter
      jurisdiction; and

   b. sua sponte stays the action pending resolution of the
      Plaintiffs' pending appeal of the Court's orders denying
      certification of a class encompassing all women's sports.

Plaintiffs Taylor Anders, Hennessey Evans, Abbigayle Roberts, Megan
Walaitis, Tara Weir and Courtney Walburger have brought a motion
for certification of a class specific to women's lacrosse. They
filed the putative class action on Feb. 12, 2021 seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief in connection with effective
accommodation, financial aid and equal treatment claims under Title
IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681 et
seq. ("Title IX") and related regulations. The First Amended
Complaint ("FAC") was filed on May 3, 2021, adding Walburger as a
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") on Aug. 12,
2021, and on Aug. 26, 2021, the Defendants brought a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's financial assistance claim. On Oct. 29,
2021, the Court issued an order dismissing the financial assistance
claim with prejudice, leaving the effective accommodation claim and
the equal treatment claim for potential class certification.

On Feb. 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
certification of a class comprising "all present and future women
students and potential students at Fresno State who participate,
seek to participate, and/or are deterred from participating in
intercollegiate athletics there." The Court denied the motion on
Aug. 16, 2022 with leave for the Plaintiffs to seek certification
of a class specific to women's varsity lacrosse.

On Aug. 30, 2022, the Plaintiffs brought a "renewed" motion to
certify a class that was virtually identical to the class they
sought to certify in their Feb. 25, 2022 motion, as well as a
motion for reconsideration of the Court's Aug. 16, 2022 order
denying class certification. The Court denied those motions on Nov.
22, 2022, again granting leave to seek certification of a class
specific to women's lacrosse.

On Dec. 6, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal as to the
Court's Aug. 16, 2022 and Nov. 22, 2022 orders denying class
certification. On Dec. 12, 2022, Magistrate Judge McAuliffe issued
an order affirming a prior determination that merits discovery is
premature while the issue of class certification is pending.

On Jan. 18, 2023, the Plaintiffs informed Magistrate Judge
McAuliffe that they intended to bring another motion for class
certification in this Court without withdrawing their petition for
permission to appeal the Court's class certification orders. On
Jan. 27, 2023, they filed a motion in this Court seeking
certification of a class specific to women's lacrosse. On Feb. 27,
2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Plaintiffs
permission to appeal and issued an order requiring the parties to
fully brief the appeal by the end of July 2023.

On March 3, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion under Rule 12(b)(1)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' equal treatment claim for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

Briefing for Plaintiffs' pending class certification motion— --
which includes motions by the Defendants for leave to file a
sur-reply and to supplement the sur-reply -- was completed on March
31, 2023. Briefing for the Defendants' motion to dismiss was
completed on March 27, 2023.

Judge Ishii states that the Plaintiffs' pending motion for
certification of a class specific to women's lacrosse is the fourth
motion for class certification that has come before the Court. The
action was pending for a year before the Plaintiffs first sought
class certification and more than a year has passed since the
parties started actively litigating the issue. The Ninth Circuit's
ruling on the Plaintiffs' appeal could moot the pending class
certification motion (as well as the Defendants' motions for a
sur-reply and supplemental sur-reply), and it appears that the
appeal will be fully briefed within the next three months.

Judge Ishii sees no harm to any party in staying the action for the
relatively short period of time likely required for the Ninth
Circuit to decide the Plaintiffs' appeal and, in his view, it would
be a waste of resources (and disorderly) to decide a fourth class
certification motion while the Ninth Circuit is itself addressing
the proper scope of certification. Further, he say it appears the
appeal could have implications for the Defendants' motion to
dismiss, which essentially requires the Court to determine, under
mootness exceptions for class actions, whether there was a live
class equal treatment claim at the time class certification was
denied.

Judge Ishii, therefore, administratively denies without prejudice
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Defendants'
motions for a sur-reply and a supplemental sur-reply, and the
Defendants' motion to dismiss. He stays the action until the
pending appeal has been resolved.

All pending dates are vacated until further notice. Judge Ishii
orders the Plaintiffs to inform the Court within 10 days of an
order resolving their appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2023 Order is available
at https://rb.gy/x2c4y from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA: Anders Class Cert. Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR ANDERS, HENNESSEY
EVANS, ABBIGAYLE ROBERTS, MEGAN WALAITIS, TARA WEIR and COURTNEY
WALBURGER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO and BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No.
1:21-cv-00179-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
denying pending motions without prejudice and staying case pending
appeal as follows:

    1. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is denied without
       prejudice;

    2. The Defendants' motion for leave to file a sur-reply in
       opposition to The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is
denied
       without prejudice;

    3. The Defendants' motion for leave to supplement its sur-reply
in
       opposition to The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is
denied
       without prejudice;

    4. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied without
       prejudice;

    5. This action is stayed pending issuance of a dispositive
order
       on The Plaintiffs' pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court
of
       Appeals;

    6. All pending dates are vacated until further notice; and

    7. The Plaintiffs are ordered to inform the Court within 10
days
       of an order resolving their appeal.

The Plaintiffs Taylor Anders, Hennessey Evans, Abbigayle Roberts,
Megan Walaitis, Tara Weir and Courtney Walburger have brought a
motion for certification of a class specific to women's lacrosse.

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on February 12,
2021 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in connection with
effective accommodation, financial aid and equal treatment claims
under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of a class
comprising "all present and future women students and potential
students at Fresno State who participate, seek to participate,
and/or are deterred from participating in intercollegiate athletics
there."

On August 30, 2022, The Plaintiffs brought a “renewed” motion
to certify a class that was virtually identical to the class they
sought to certify in their February 25, 2022, motion, as well as a
motion for reconsideration of the Court's August 16, 2022, order
denying class certification.

On January 18, 2023, the Plaintiffs informed Magistrate Judge
McAuliffe that they intended to bring another motion for class
certification in this Court without withdrawing their petition for
permission to appeal the Court's class certification orders.

On January 27, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion in this Court
seeking certification of a class specific to women's lacrosse.

On February 27, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted
The Plaintiffs permission to appeal and issued an order requiring
the parties to fully brief the appeal by the end of July 2023.

On March 3, 2023, Defendants filed a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of The
Plaintiffs' equal treatment claim for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Np6DuY at no extra charge.[CC]

CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Deane Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Financial
Corporation. The case is styled as DeShawn Deane, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00556 (E.D. Va., April 26, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for the Electronic
Fees Transfer Act.

Capital One Financial Corporation is an American bank holding
company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and
savings accounts, headquartered in McLean, Virginia with operations
primarily in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather Whitaker Goldstein
          VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 7376
          Asheville, NC 28802
          Phone: (828) 258-2991
          Fax: (828) 257-2773
          Email: hgoldstein@vwlawfirm.com


CENTERRA GROUP: Williams 401(k) Plan Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN WILLIAMS, et al., v.
CENTERRA GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-04220-SAL (D.S.C.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying all
claims in the action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(1).

The Plaintiffs move that the class be defined as follows:

    "All participants and beneficiaries of the Centerra Group, LLC

    401(k) Plan from December 4, 2014 until January 1, 2019,
excluding
    Defendants and members of the Benefit Plan Committee of
Centerra
    Group, LLC, and the Investment Committee of Centerra Group,
LLC.

The Plaintiffs further move that the Court appoint each of them as
a representative of this class.

Finally, The Plaintiffs move that the Court appoint their lead
attorneys, Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP, as class counsel under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), and appoint their local
counsel, Beth B. Richardson of Robinson Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC,
as local class counsel.

Centera Group provides military services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 25, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40PDbBA at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Beth Burke Richardson, Esq.
          ROBINSON GRAY STEPP & LAFFITTE, LLC
          1310 Gadsden Street
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 929-1400
          Facsimile: (803) 929-0300
          E-mail: brichardson@robinsongray.com

                - and -

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Troy A. Doles, Esq.
          Heather Lea, Esq.
          Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
          Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON LLP
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO, 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5934
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  tdoles@uselaws.com
                  hlea@uselaws.com
                  ssoyars@uselaws.com
                  kstruckhoff@uselaws.com

CENTURION PROPERTY: Displaced Residents Sue Over Building Problems
------------------------------------------------------------------
Roxanne Egan-Elliott of Times Colonist reports that displaced
residents who were told to vacate their 11-storey apartment
building in Langford on April 24, 2023 are banding together to
fight for fair compensation as they scramble to find new homes in a
tight housing market.

Ashley MacDonald, one of the former residents of RidgeView Place,
is organizing - discussions with other evacuees about ­pursuing a
class-action lawsuit against those responsible for the building's
problems.

"We're not going away. And when we do find housing, and in a month
or two when ­everything is settled down and we have our stuff,
hopefully, and we can all look back and maybe have a laugh at this
nightmare, we're still not going to go away, because this wasn't
our fault," she said.

MacDonald said she ­understands that everyone makes mistakes, but
"this is a pretty big one."

The property owner, ­Centurion Property ­Associates Inc.,
informed residents ­April 24, 2023 that they had to vacate their
apartments because the ­company had received notice from the
Engineers and ­Geoscientists of B.C. about ­serious concerns with
certain structural elements of the ­building. It was the second
time in less than four years that the building was evacuated after
an investigation by the provincial engineering regulatory body.

Centurion and the City of Langford were informed by the regulatory
body on April 17 of an investigation into the ­engineer
responsible for ­remediation work on the ­building. Residents
weren't notified until one week later on April 24, after an
­independent engineer retained by ­Centurion to inspect the
building last ­weekend recommended that ­tenants vacate.

Centurion has offered $2,500 per unit in "compassionate
assistance," and promised to return damage deposits and refund rent
from April 24 to 30. Residents who were paying through direct
deposit have so far only received an initial $1,000 from Centurion,
MacDonald said.

She's frustrated that compensation hasn't come quicker, given that
Centurion was aware of concerns for a week before ordering an
evacuation and the company handled a similar ­evacuation in 2019.

"There is no rhyme or reason why all of that money, these cheques
couldn't have been ready to go on April 24, 2023, latest April 25,
2023," she said.

Centurion did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

MacDonald said it's ­difficult to determine what fair
­compensation for tenants would look like until all the costs
incurred -- from moving to lost wages -- can be assessed.

"Stress isn't a big enough word" for this week's ­challenges,
MacDonald said. She and her seven-year-old son and her father have
been bouncing between hotels in Langford and Victoria, paying out
of pocket until April 27, 2023, when provincial funding came
through to support displaced residents with lodging for up to five
nights.

MacDonald took only her essential belongings on­ April 24, 2023
when the notice to vacate was issued, filling her car with clothes,
toiletries, toys, dog ­supplies, groceries and ­sentimental
items. The rest of her belongings -- her furniture, kitchenware, a
fridge full of food -- are still in the building, because she
doesn't know if it's safe to return.

"It's like fleeing. It was not moving out," said MacDonald, who
learned April 28, 2023 afternoon that she had secured a new place
to live.

Others have been lucky enough to quickly find new homes or
short-term situations. Nic Roach and her husband crashed with a
co-worker who she had only known for a few months before securing a
new place on April 27, 2023 through a work connection.

Vitian Esparza and her ­family of four are moving to a house in
Saanich, which will mean commuting about 20 minutes to Langford for
work and her son's school and paying much higher rent, around
$4,000 versus about $2,600 for a three-bedroom apartment at
RidgeView Place.

A fundraiser for the displaced residents had raised j'ust over
$7,000 through 39 donations as of April 28, 2023 afternoon.

A City of Langford spokes­person said the tenants of 54 of the
building's 90 units have so far registered for provincial emergency
support.

Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon said this week he hopes the province's
offer of five days of supports including lodging and food -- as
well as a ­community navigator to help residents find
accommodations -- will help for now and that the local ­government
will also step up.

"There's no specific playbook for this type of thing, but we're
doing our best to work with local government to support people
through what is a really challenging time," he said. Kahlon said
the province is aware some individuals may need support for a few
more days.

The Advanced Education Ministry has also reached out to the
Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., said Kahlon, "to get a sense
of what their responsibility is here."

The minister said he's not ­concerned the problems seen with
RidgeView Place are ­widespread in B.C. The province "some of the
best ­engineering firms and ­professionals in the world," he
said.

"I do think it's very isolated to this incident, but there's always
lessons to be learned and we certainly will be doing that. "

"That's why we reach out to the [Engineers and Geoscientists of
B.C.] to say, 'What happened here, where were the errors made? And
what can we do to further mitigate that if that is a concern? "

The sudden eviction is ­especially difficult during a housing
shortage, with limited affordable-housing options and rising cost
of living, he said.

"When you have such a lack of housing available, the challenge
becomes even greater." [GN]

CHICAGO CUBS: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Unwanted Texts
---------------------------------------------------------
TCPAWorld reports that well folks, today is a fairly dark day in
TCPAWorld and for the MLB.

A stain upon our national heritage and pastime–the beloved game
of baseball–has been rendered in the form of a class action
lawsuit that just reeks.

And against the beloved Cubbies, no less.

The perennial lovable losers who briefly met with success in recent
years only to falter back into their little league-esque capering
of late, are facing a massive new lawsuit, and its just a crying
shame.

We can't just "let the kids play" these days. No… we have to sue
them over a handful of text messaages.

Its just not ok.

But in seriousness, there is a lesson here for everyone. So listen
up.

Plaintiff COLIN LATEANO -- who I assume is a Cardinals fan -- has
filed suit against the Cubs in federal court in Chicago alleging
the Cubs sent him text messages trying to sell him ballgame tickets
without express consent.

Lateano is suing the Cubs under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) -- a federal statute that prevents robocalls (and texts)
to cell phone without consent.

He is suing the Cubs on his own behalf, as well as on behalf of
everybody else who received similar texts -- and he wants to
collect millions of dollars from the Cubs for sending these texts!

That'll cool off your hot dog.

According to the Plaintiff's complaint he received at least the
following unwanted texts from the Cubs:

"You've got first dibs on Cubs Tickets! Secure your ticket
pack today: http://bit.ly/3HTsjwqText STOP to cancel."
Sent on Feb 2, 2023.
"It's game time! Cubs single game tickets on sale now.
Secure tickets for the best matchups, giveaways & more!
https://atmlb.com/3lMz2al Text STOP to cancel." Sent on
February 24, 2023.
Welcome to the Chicago Cubs SMS alerts! Don't miss
Opening Day on 3/30 vs. Brewers. Grab your tickets
today! https://gr.order.cubs.com/6Gscbd." Sent on March
24, 2023.

Plaintiff claims he received these texts despite the fact that he
had previously texted "Stop" to the Cubs in the past.

He seeks to represent a class consisting of:

All persons in the United States (1) subscribing to a residential
telephone number (2) to which Defendant sent at least two text
messages within a 12 month period (3) promoting its goods for
sale (4) at least 30 days after receipt of a "stop" reply (5)
within
four years of the date of the Complaint.

Plaintiff estimates there are "thousands" of individuals in the
class meaning that Plaintiff seeks to recover at least
$3,000,000.00 from the Cubs -- the TCPA carries of penalty of up to
$1,500.00 per illegal text message.

Its a pretty bleak day in America when a class action lawsuit gets
filed against a beloved national institution like the Chicago Cubs.
Let's hope this case is soundly defeated -- and quickly.

That being said, everybody out there who uses text messages to
connect with your customers (or fan bases) needs to be aware of the
TCPA and the requirement to swiftly honor stop requests. The TCPA
applies to numbers on the national DNC and also to cell phone
numbers if certain technology is being used.

Always consult a lawyer -- like the brilliant folks at Troutman
Amin, LLP -- before engaging in any new outreach to consumers! Or
you may end up sued for millions by plaintiff's lawyers like the
poor Cubs.

The case is COLIN LATEANO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO CUBS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC,
Defendants (sic.) N.D.Ill. Case no. 1:23-cv-2757. [GN]

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Denies McMahon's Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled BRIDGET MCMAHON and JAMES RICE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC. trading and doing business as
CHIPOTLE, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-1448 (W.D. Pa.), Judge
William S. Stickman, IV, of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion:

   (1) denying Chipotle's Motion to Exclude Opinions and
       Testimony of Matthew E. Pohl;

   (2) denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;
       and

   (3) denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Rothman
       Gordon, P.C., as Class Counsel.

Plaintiffs James Rice and Bridget McMahon filed a putative class
action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
alleging that Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., t/d/b/a
Chipotle, provided inadequate change to customers. On Aug. 20,
2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint against
Chipotle in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County alleging
that Chipotle misappropriated consumer funds and engaged in unfair
trade practices by providing inadequate change to customers.

On Sept. 25, 2020, Chipotle removed the action to this Court.
Plaintiffs Megan Fox and McMahon filed a Motion for Remand, which
the Court denied. After initial discovery, the Court granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Withdraw Class Representative,
Amend Class Action Complaint, and Substitute/Allow Intervention of
New Class Representative.

The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on Jan. 26,
2022, withdrawing Fox as the class representative and substituting
Rice as the new class representative. Rice testified that, on Oct.
10, 2020, he was shortchanged by Chipotle at its store in
Warrington Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Without any prior
communication with the Plaintiffs' counsel or the class
representatives, Rice contacted the Plaintiffs' counsel about the
alleged shortchanging.

Based on deposition testimony and messages revealed during
discovery, Chipotle filed a Motion for Sanctions alleging that the
Plaintiffs' counsel, Frank Salpietro, Esq., initiated this lawsuit
through "unethical solicitation and gross abuse of the class action
device." The Court denied Chipotle's Motion for Sanctions, but
noted that, "if the alleged unethical conduct is raised at a future
stage, the Court will consider it at that time."

In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that McMahon and
Rice both received inadequate change after making cash payments at
Chipotle restaurants and that Chipotle has instituted a company
policy and/or practice, or has otherwise acquiesced in a practice,
whereby its employees do not return the full amount of change due
to a consumer, but instead round down the change due, return the
lower amount to the consumer, and pocket the difference.

Based on this alleged shortchanging, the Plaintiffs claim that
Chipotle breached its agreement with customers, violated the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
("UTPCPL"), and converted funds belonging to class members.

The Class members include "all individuals who, on or after January
1, 2020, purchased any item(s) from a Chipotle fast casual
restaurant in Pennsylvania using cash, and were given change of
less than the difference between the amount of cash tendered and
the purchase price of the item(s)."

In support of its Motion for Class Certification, the Plaintiffs
rely on the expert testimony and report of data analyst Matthew E.
Pohl. Pohl offers opinions on the number of customers shortchanged
by Chipotle, the rate of customers shortchanged by Chipotle, and
the ascertainability of shortchanged customers. These conclusions
are largely based on Pohl's review of Chipotle's electronic data
and of one day of video footage from fifteen Chipotle stores turned
over as part of the discovery process.

Chipotle argues that Pohl's testimony should be excluded because it
does not satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 702's "reliability"
requirement. Chipotle also argues that Pohl's methodology is
unreliable because his chosen sample of Chipotle stores is too
small to be statistically significant or representative and because
it was selected with an eye towards attempting to locate other
potential instances of change shorting (and consequently, not
towards getting a real estimate of potential class size).

In addition to pointing out potential flaws in Pohl's methodology,
Chipotle also identifies opinions in Pohl's report that rely on
certain assumptions. Most notably, Pohl assumes that if a Chipotle
cashier did not provide coins to a cash-paying customer, the
customer must have been shortchanged. However, to satisfy Rule
702's reliability requirement, Pohl's testimony does not
necessarily have to be correct, it must only be based on "good
grounds."

While Pohl's opinions and report rely on certain assumptions, those
assumptions are based on procedures and analysis rather than on
subjective belief or unsupported speculation, Judge Stickman says.
Given this, Pohl's testimony is based on "good grounds" and is
sufficiently reliable to satisfy the standards set forth in Rule
702. As such, Judge Stickman holds that Pohl's testimony is
admissible and will be considered in deciding the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.

Having denied Chipotle's motion to exclude the expert testimony of
Pohl, the Court turns to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

Judge Stickman finds that the Plaintiffs satisfy: numerosity
requirement under Rule 23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; commonality requirement under Rule 23(a)(2); and
typicality requirement under Rule 23(a)(3). The Court is also
satisfied that Rice and McMahon are adequate representatives of the
proposed class.

For each of the Plaintiffs' claims, the Court holds that the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated that questions common o
class members predominate over any individual questions. The
Plaintiffs have also satisfied Rule 23(b)'s superiority
requirement.

Judge Stickman notes that because Chipotle's data and video footage
cannot show that any given customer was shortchanged, the
Plaintiffs are left relying on declarations from class members to
establish that they fit within the class definition. Because these
declarations cannot be corroborated, determining whether any given
class member fits within the objective criteria of the class would
require an individual inquiry into the circumstances of their
transaction and the credibility of their testimony.

Given the necessity of these individual inquiries, Judge Stickman
finds that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the ascertainability
requirement. As it stands, the Plaintiffs have not identified any
reliable method by which the identities of class members can be
ascertained pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). Hence, class certification
is not appropriate.

Because the putative class cannot be certified, the Court need not
examine whether Rothman Gordon, P.C., should be appointed as class
counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated April 3,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mte9cb8r from
Leagle.com.


CHRISTANSEN BROTHERS: Hernandez FLSA Class Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEVERO JOHN HERNANDEZ, et
al., v. CHRISTANSEN BROTHERS GENERAL ENGINEERNG, INC., et al., Case
No. 5:22-cv-00836-AB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte
Jr. entered an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and certification of fair labor standards act (FLSA)
collective action.

First, the named Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue the "facially
deficient" wage statement claims, so certification of any
subclasses based on those claims is denied.

Second, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not shown that CBGE
engaged in any of the "uniform practices" upon which their theory
of commonality for all of their classes and subclasses depends. The
Court finds that in the absence of such a showing, the Plaintiffs
have not satisfied the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a). The
Rule 23 Motion is therefore denied in its entirety.

Finally, the Plaintiff have not satisfied the more stringent second
stage of the analysis necessary to attain certification of the FLSA
claims as a collective action, so that Motion is also denied.

The Plaintiffs commenced this action for alleged wage and hour
violations in state court, initially asserting only state law
claims. The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint added a federal
claim, triggering federal jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs allege Defendants' failure to pay overtime and
minimum wage Under FLSA and Cal. Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs are Defendants' field employees, defined as: all of
the Defendants' nonexempt employees in the following positions:
Foreman, Operator, Pipelayer, Laborer, Cement Mason, Teamster,
Driver, and similarly titled positions.

The Defendant Christensen Brothers General Engineering, Inc.
performs general contractor, highway and street construction
business, and heavy construction.

Caleb Christensen is the owner, president, or operator of Defendant
CBGE.

The Plaintiffs define the classes as follows:

    The Class:

    "All Field Employees employed by Defendant Christensen Brothers

    General Engineering, Inc. from November 18, 2016 up to and
through
    the date of the order granting class certification."

    a. Subclass I (Unpaid Wage Subclass):

       "All Field Employees employed by Defendant CBG from
November
       18, 2016, up to and through the date of the order granting
       class certification, who were subject to the(1) Travel Time

       Practice, (2) Underreporting Practice, (3) Misclassifying
       Practice, and/or (4) Meal Period Practice."

    b. Subclass II (Overtime Subclass):

       "All Field Employees employed by Defendant CBG from November

       18, 2016, up to and through the date of the order granting
       class certification, who were subject to the (1) Travel Time

       Practice, (2) Underreporting Practice, (3) Misclassifying
       Practice, and/or (4) Meal Period Practice and who were not
paid
       at least 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for time worked
in
       excess of eight (8) hours in a workday and/or forty (40)
hours
       in a workweek."

    c. Subclass III (Meal Period Subclass):

       "All Field Employees employed by Defendant CBG from November

       18, 2016, up to and through the date of the order granting
       class certification, who were not paid premium meal period
       wages for shifts for which they were subject to the (1) Meal

       Practice, (2) Late Meal Period Practice, and/or (3) worked
       shifts over 10.0 hours without receiving an uninterrupted
30-
       minute meal period prior to the start of the tenth hour of
       work."

    d. Subclass IV (Rest Period Subclass):

       "All Field Employees employed by Defendant CBG from November

       18, 2016, up to and through the date of the order granting
       class certification, who were not paid premium rest period
       wages for shifts for which they were subject to the Rest
Period
       Practice."

    e. Subclass V (Prevailing Wage Subclass):

       "All Field Employees employed by Defendant CBG from November

       18, 2016, up to and through the date of the order granting
       class certification (1) who were subject to the Travel Time

       Practice and/or Underreporting Practice, and/or (2) who's
job
       classification was misclassified by Defendant CBG while
working
       on public works projects.

    f. Subclass VI (Itemized Wage Statement Subclass):

       "All members of Subclass I, II, III, IV and/or V who meet
the
       criteria for class membership for the time period from
November
       18, 2019, up to and through the date of the order granting
       class certification, and who also received a wage statement

       from Defendant CBG during this same time period."

    g. Subclass VII (Facially Deficient Wage Statement Subclass):

       "All Field Employees employed by Defendant CBG from November

       18, 2019, up to and through the date of the order granting
       class certification, and who received a wage statement that
(1)
       did not contain the address for the employer, and/or (2) did

       not contain the inclusive dates of the period for which the

       employee is paid."

    h. Subclass VIII (Waiting Time Subclass):

       "All members of Subclasses I, II, III, IV and/or V who
       separated their employment from the Defendant CBG from
November
       18, 2017, up to and through the date of the order granting
       class certification."

    i. Subclass IX (Reimbursement Class):

       "All Field Employees employed by Defendant CBG from November

       18, 2016, up to and through the date of the order granting
       class certification, who were not reimbursed for expenses
that
       were necessary to carry out their duties, including (1) the
use
       of their cellular phone for work purposes, (2) work boots,
(3)
       safety vests, and/or (4) hard hats.

    j. Subclass X (Unfair Competition Subclass):

       "All Field Employees employed by Defendant CBG from
November
       18, 2016, up to and through the date of the order granting
       class certification, who were subjected to Defendants’
       unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices
       identified in Subclasses I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII,
and
       IX."

    FLSA Class:

    "All Field Employees who were employed by Defendant CBG and
    Defendant Caleb Christensen from November 18, 2017, up to and
    through the date of the order granting collective action
    certification and who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant
to
    FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)."

Christensen Brothers is a construction company based in Apple
Valley, CA and specializes in Project Management, Masonry, and
Demolition.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Lh4cYW at no extra charge.[CC]

CHURCH CHURCH: Bid to Approve Settlement in Hollins Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Jon E. DeGuilio of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, denies the
motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement in the
lawsuit titled BETH HOLLINS, Plaintiff v. CHURCH CHURCH HITTLE +
ANTRIM, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-304 JD (N.D. Ind.).

In the proposed settlement agreement, the parties agree to relief
in the amount of $4,000 for the class, $1,000 for the class
representative, and a ceiling of $14,000 in attorneys' fees and
costs. The Court denies the motion without prejudice, as
insufficient information has been submitted to the Court to allow
it to determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.

According to the allegations in the Complaint, Defendants Church
Church Hittle + Antrim and Elizabeth Barnes attempted to collect an
alleged $81.52 medical debt incurred by Plaintiff Beth Hollins. The
Defendants were allegedly collecting this debt on behalf of
creditor Aberdeen Ventures. On Aug. 19, 2019, the Defendants sent
Hollins two letters in which they threatened or implied that
litigation might be instituted against her. However, according to
the Complaint, the Defendants never actually intended to initiate
litigation.

Plaintiff Beth Hollins brought one claim under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), asserting this claim
individually and on behalf of a putative class. On Jan. 7, 2021,
the Plaintiff, as an individual and representative of the class,
filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of a class settlement
and certification of a putative class for settlement purposes.

According to the settlement, this putative class consists of:

     (a) all individuals (b) to whom defendant Church Church
     Hittle + Antrim sent a letter seeking to collect a medical
     or healthcare debt stating (i)[W]e may . . . take legal
     action against you for the collection of the above amount,
     or (ii) [W]e may file suit against you or (iii) [client]
     does not wish to file suit against you. However, if you do
     not pay or make payment arrangements, we will proceed as
     necessary; (c) on behalf of Aberdeen Ventures d/b/a
     Immediate Care Center, (d) which letter was sent at any time
     from Aug. 18, 2019, through and including Sept. 8, 2020.

The settlement provides for relief to class members in the amount
of $4,000, which will be distributed evenly among the class
members, who submit a claim form and do not exclude themselves from
the settlement. The settlement separately provides for $1,000 to
Beth Hollins as the Plaintiff and Class Representative. Finally,
the settlement provides that the Plaintiff may petition the Court
for approval of attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $14,000
and that the Defendants will pay those fees as the Court deems
reasonable up to $14,000.

The Defendants have not filed any objection to the motion for
preliminary approval of the class settlement.

Judge DeGuilio says the Court lacks the information necessary to
evaluate the strength of the Plaintiff's case on the merits. The
parties assert that they have analyzed the legal and factual issues
presented in this action, the risks and expense involved in
pursuing this Litigation to conclusion, the likelihood of
recovering damages in excess of those obtained through this
settlement, the protracted nature of litigation, and the costs and
possible outcomes of one or more procedural and substantive
appeals.

These are all insufficient conclusory statements, Judge DeGuilio
points out. Counsel, as they are well aware, must actually provide
the Court with evidence to enable the Court to conduct its
analysis.

Judge DeGuilio holds that counsel must supplement their motion with
information allowing the Court to assess the range of possible
outcomes in this case.

The Court is also concerned with this settlement given that it (1)
requires class members to submit a valid claim form, and (2) only
provides for a recovery of about $2.34 per class member. If a claim
form is required, the $2.34 per class member is misleading, and
relies on the flawed assumption that every class member will submit
a valid claim, Judge DeGuilio says.

The Court questions why requiring the class to fill out claim forms
in this instance is necessary. The proposed class consists of
"approximately 1,710 people" who were sent a letter by the
Defendants featuring allegedly misleading language. Given that the
conduct underlying the Complaint involved mailing letters to
individuals at certain addresses, it seems likely that the parties
would be able to identify which individuals are entitled to payout
based on this information alone. Where a defendant holds
information that would allow it to pay claims automatically, other
district courts have found the requirement that class members
submit a claim form unreasonable.

Currently, the Plaintiff's counsel includes no explanation as to
why this claim process is reasonable, Judge DeGuilio notes. The
Court does not see why it is necessary or reasonable given the
small monetary value of the proposed settlement to each class
member and the fact that the Defendants appear to have information
that will enable them to determine who is a class member and then
send payment directly to those class members.

In any future motion for preliminary approval, Judge DeGuilio says
the Plaintiff's counsel should provide an explanation explaining
why direct payment without requiring a claims form would be
unreasonable.

In a common fund case, when determining the reasonableness of
proposed attorneys' fees, Judge DeGuilio says a district court may
choose either the percentage method or the lodestar method.

In the proposed settlement, the Defendants agree to pay attorney
fees that the Court deems reasonable up to $14,000. However, Judge
DeGuilio notes, in the motion for preliminary approval, the
Plaintiff's counsel fails to provide the Court with any analysis
under either the percentage method or the lodestar method
explaining why such a fee is reasonable. Rather, in a conclusory,
boilerplate paragraph, the Plaintiff's counsel assert that the
percentage method laid out in Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., 772 F.3d 778,
780 (7th Cir. 2014) and Redman v. Radioshack Corp., 768 F.3d 622,
630 (7th Cir. 2014) does not apply because the FDCPA is a fee
shifting statute and the fees being awarded to the Class would not
come from the Class Recovery but rather by payment directly from
the Defendants, pursuant to the fee shifting provision of the
FDCPA.

Judge DeGuilio finds that the Plaintiff cites no authority for the
proposition that the percentage method as set forth in Pearson and
Redman does not apply. While it makes sense why the parties do not
want such a method to apply (after all, if the percentage method is
applied to the potential $14,000 fee, the attorneys take an
extraordinary 74% fee), an explanation with citations to pertinent
case law is needed.

The Plaintiff fails to explain why equitable principles, allowing
for application of either the percentage method or the lodestar
method, do not apply to the settlement in this case, Judge DeGuilio
points out.

The settlement agreement also purports to say that the amount of
attorneys' fees is in addition to and separate from the Class
Recovery. Perhaps by using this language, Judge DeGuili says the
Defendants were trying to sidestep the application of equitable
principles that typically apply to common fund cases. However, the
Court is unsure what this line of argument signifies beyond a mere
formalistic turn of phrase or why it counsels against applying the
same equitable principles that the Seventh Circuit applied in
Florin v. Nationsbank of Georgia, N.A., 34 F.3d 560, 564 (7th Cir.
1994).

Furthermore, if the Plaintiffs' counsel are not receiving their
fees from a common fund based on equitable principles, it is
unclear what entitles counsel to attorneys' fees. Because the
Defendants do not admit fault and deny liability, there has been no
determination that the Defendants are liable for actual or
statutory damages, Judge DeGuilio opines

The Court notes that even if it cannot use equitable principles to
analyze the reasonableness of the fee award and the percentage
method as cited in Redman and Pearson, the Plaintiff's counsel fail
to provide any information to show its requested fees are
reasonable under the lodestar method. Counsel does not provide the
Court with any breakdown of the hours expended working on this
case, the position of the individual who billed the hours, or the
rate billed.

The Court needs some sort of evidence filed in this manner,
especially because this case appears to have settled only three
months after filing the Complaint and because the Plaintiff's
counsel appears to have used largely boilerplate language in their
motion for preliminary approval.

Again, that the Court needs further information and argument should
not come as a surprise to the Plaintiff's counsel, Judge DeGuilio
notes. If counsel has case law in support of their position, they
should cite it if they choose to refile their motion.

For these reasons, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion seeking
preliminary approval without prejudice. Any refiled motion for
preliminary approval is due within 21 days after the entry of this
order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated April 3,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mscfd9s8 from
Leagle.com.


CLOUD BASED PERSONAL: Charman Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cloud Based Personal
Loan Locator, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Thane Charman,
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cloud
Based Personal Loan Locator, Inc. doing business as: Personal Loans
Now, Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-00748-DMS-DEB (S.D.
Cal., April 24, 2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Cloud Based Personal Loan Locator, Inc. doing business as Personal
Loans Now -- https://www.cloudbasedpersonalloans.com/ -- assist in
many ways; from paying off existing debt, home repairs or even a
family emergency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yuri Simpson, Esq.
          LIFELINE LEGAL, LLP
          9665 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 345
          San Diego, CA 92123
          Phone: (858) 560-4335
          Fax: (619) 512-5123
          Email: yuri@lifelinelegal.com

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS': $3.3M Deal in 401(K) Suit Granted Prelim OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that the Coca-Cola Bottlers'
Association received preliminary court approval for a $3.3 million
class settlement with workers who challenged the fees and
investment options in the association's 401(k) plan.

The settlement will be paid by the association's insurer and is
expected to benefit more than 64,000 people covered by the
Coca-Cola retirement plan since February 2015, excluding certain
defendants, according to the workers' settlement motion. Class
members will receive distributions in their 401(k) accounts or by
check, with each member receiving an amount that corresponds to
their level of investment in the plan, according to the filing.
[GN]

COINBASE GLOBAL: Sued Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Field, writing for CoinGeek, reports that a proposed class
action complaint filed in a California Court claims digital asset
exchange Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) broke the law in its collection,
storage, and use of biometric data.

A May 1 filing with the District Court for the Northern District Of
California accuses digital asset exchange Coinbase of keeping the
biometric data collected from customers in the account creation
process without notifying them in writing that it would be doing
so. According to the lawsuit, such retention is illegal based on
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

Coinbase requires users to upload scans of a valid identity card
and a selfie, which it uses to create a biometric template of a
user's face in order to confirm a facial match. This is to comply
with Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements by which, as a listed
company in the U.S., Coinbase must abide.

Brought by Michael Massel and "on behalf of all others similarly
situated," the case hinges on the BIPA Act, which demands that
companies with operations in the State of Illinois may not obtain
or possess an individual's biometrics unless it:

-- Informs that person in writing that biometric information will
be collected or stored.
-- Informs that person in writing of the specific purpose and
length of time for which it is being collected, stored, and used.
-- Receives a written release from the person for the collection of
his or her biometric data.
-- Publishes publicly available written retention schedules and
guidelines for permanently destroying the data.

The plaintiff alleges that Coinbase has fallen foul of all these
rules by storing and using the biometric data without written
permission or notification and that in the absence of such
permissions, the company should have permanently destroyed the
biometric information after completing the KYC compliance
procedures.

The complaint states that the reason the digital asset exchange
keeps biometric data is because it "wrongfully profits" from the
information and "disseminates its users' biometric data to, amongst
other things, further enhance Coinbase and its online app-based
platform."

Another primary concern of the class action is focused on the
safety of the data, claiming that Coinbase "would have no
protection against identity theft if the company's biometric data
database was hacked."

The suit seeks $5,000 per intentional and reckless violation of
BIPA or statutory damages of $1,000 per violation -- if the court
finds that Coinbase's violations of BIPA were not willful -- as
well as attorneys' fees and court costs of the class action.

However, if the suit is rubberstamped, its most interesting
consequences may come via discovery, as Massel's suit promises that
it will seek to ascertain 'all of the ways in which Coinbase
disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated' the data.

This latest legal case will be an unwelcome distraction for the
company, coming as it does a week after the U.S. digital asset
giant filed a suit against the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC). Coinbase aims to force the financial markets regulator to
respond to a petition lodged with the court last July, asking the
SEC for regulatory clarity and rules specific to the unique nature
of digital assets.

The petition was an attempt to fend off any impending SEC charges
in the light of a Wells notice that Coinbase received from the
commission in March 2022 informing the company that an enforcement
action should be expected. [GN]

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY: Wins Partial Judgment in US Sugar Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment in the lawsuit
styled United States Sugar Corporation, Plaintiff v. Commerce and
Industry Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 22-21737-Civ-Scola
(S.D. Fla.).

The matter is a coverage dispute between United States Sugar
Corporation ("US Sugar") and its then-general commercial liability
insurer, Commerce and Industry Insurance Company's ("C&I"). The
dispute arose over US Sugar's defense of a putative class-action
lawsuit relating to US Sugar's practice of pre-harvest sugarcane
burning (the "Underlying Lawsuit"). US Sugar defended the
Underlying Lawsuit successfully, despite C&I's refusal to provide a
defense under the insurance policy that US Sugar held with C&I at
the time. Now, US Sugar seeks to recoup the "Defense Expenses" it
incurred defending the Underlying Lawsuit through a breach of
contract claim based on the Policy.

The Court previously ruled on US Sugar's motion for judgment on the
pleadings that US Sugar is entitled to reimbursement of its Defense
Expenses, finding that "US Sugar's Defense Expenses incurred
defending the Underlying Lawsuit erode the Policy's Self-Insured
Retention." That "Self-Insured Retention" limit, which functions
much like a typical insurance deductible, establishes that US Sugar
is responsible for the first $1 million of its Defense Expenses.
Above that $1 million, C&I is responsible for reimbursing US Sugar
for any Defense Expenses relating to the Underlying Lawsuit,
pursuant to the Court's prior decision. The Court reserved ruling
on what qualified as Defense Expenses in its previous order,
leading to the present motion.

C&I raises two arguments on summary judgment, seeking to narrow the
field of potential Defense Expenses that US Sugar may recoup.
First, C&I argues that all expenses that US Sugar claims that were
incurred before the filing and tendering of the Underlying Lawsuit
do not qualify as Defense Expenses and are not covered by the
Policy. Second, C&I asserts that its duty to defend US Sugar in the
Underlying Lawsuit ended with the filing of the second amended
complaint in that suit, because the second amended complaint
included allegations of damages occurring in 2014, before the
Policy was in effect, and the damages would, therefore, be
considered to have manifested before the Policy period. Therefore,
C&I claims, it cannot be responsible for any of US Sugar's Defense
Expenses after the filing of the second amended complaint in the
Underlying Lawsuit.

The Court addresses each of C&I's arguments in detail and in turn.
First, the Court finds that C&I is correct, based on the terms of
the Policy and on Florida law, that US Sugar is not entitled to
reimbursement for any expenses incurred before the filing of the
Underlying Lawsuit because those expenses do not qualify as
"Defense Expenses" and were not submitted to C&I for approval.
Second, the Court finds that C&I was still required to defend US
Sugar in the Underlying Suit after the filing of the second (and
the third) amended complaint, so C&I is obligated to reimburse all
of US Sugar's Defense Expenses above the $1,000,000 Self-Insured
Retention Limit.

For the reasons stated, the Court grants in part and denies in part
C&I's motion for partial summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8rpxea from Leagle.com.


COMPETITION AUTO: Rosa Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Rosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. COMPETITION AUTO WORKS INC., Case No. 708503/2023 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., April 24, 2023), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages pay that Defendant owe him and similarly
situated current and former employees of Defendant under the New
York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of
Labor Regulations ("NYLL").

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated
former and current employees overtime wages when they worked more
than 40 hours per workweek in violation of the NYLL. The Plaintiff
was an hourly-paid employee. The Plaintiff's regular rate of pay
was $17.85 per hour. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40
hours in a single workweek. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff
and similarly situated former and current employees at a rate of at
least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours
worked after forty hours in a singled workweek., says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a tow truck driver
from October 2021 to October 2022.

The Defendant is domestic business corporation that operates an
automobile repair shop located in Astoria, New York and provides
roadside assistance services pursuant to a contract with the
American Automobile Association ("AAA").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONIFER VALUE-BASED: Tang Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Tang, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CONIFER VALUE-BASED CARE, LLC, CONIFER HEALTH
SOLUTIONS, LLC, CONIFER REVENUE CYCLE SOLUTIONS, LLC, and TENET
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00870-S (N.D. Tex., April
25, 2023), is brought arising from the Defendants' failure to
protect highly sensitive data.

As part of the services Tenet and Conifer provide their customers,
they store a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable
information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about their customers' current and
former patients. But Tenet and Conifer lost control over that data
when cybercriminals infiltrated their insufficiently protected
computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). PII and PHI
is collectively referred to as "Sensitive Information."

The Defendants were unaware cybercriminals had accessed its network
for nearly four months before the breach was discovered. In other
words, Defendants had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop,
or mitigate breaches of their systems—thereby allowing
cybercriminals unrestricted access to patients' Sensitive
Information.

On information and belief, cybercriminals were able to breach
Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train
their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable
security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's Sensitive
Information. In short, Defendants' failures placed the Class's
Sensitive Information in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy
targets for cybercriminals. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim,
having received a legally required breach notice, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff resides in La Canada Flintridge, California, where he
intends to remain.

Conifer provides hospitals and healthcare systems with "revenue
cycle and value based care solutions that optimize financial
performance, improve business outcomes and elevate the healthcare
experience."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: 214-744-3000
          Facsimile: 214-744-3015
          Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Phone: (201) 391-7000
          Fax: (201) 307-1086
          Email: memert@kgglaw.com
                 ggraifman@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          865 Howe Ave
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Phone: (916) 239-4778
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          Email: aberry@justice4you.com


COOLBIZ LLC: Roberts Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Keith Roberts, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees v. COOLBIZ, LLC, a California limited liability company,
CALIFSUBS, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV09238 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 25, 2023), is brought pursuant to California Labor Code and
the Private Attorneys General Act as a result of the Defendants
failure to pay proper compensation.

The Defendants failed to provide employment records; failed to pay
overtime and double time; failed to provide rest and meal periods;
failed to pay minimum wage; failed to keep accurate payroll records
and provide itemized wage statements; failed to pay reporting time
wages in violation of California Code of Regulations; failed to pay
split shift wages in violation of California Code of Regulations;
failed to pay all wages earned on time; failed to pay all wages
earned upon discharge or resignation; failed to reimburse
necessary, business-related expenses; failed to provide notice of
paid sick time and accrual, all in violation of Labor Code and the
applicable Wage Orders, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of
Sandwich Artist on March 2021.

The Defendants are multinational fast food franchise that
specializes in submarine sandwiches.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Diana Zadykyan, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 1-818-696-2306
          Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
          Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 diana@hbklawyers.com


CORSAIR GAMING: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corsair Gaming, Inc.
The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Corsair Gaming, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03431-RA (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2023).

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

Corsair Gaming, Inc. -- http://www.corsair.com/-- is an American
computer peripherals and hardware company based in Milpitas,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Settlement in Corker Suit Wins Prelim. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRUCE CORKER, et al., on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-CV-00290-RSL (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with the
addition of an email notice requirement.

Judge Lasnik preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement and
the terms embodied therein. He finds that the proposed Settlement
Class, composed of all persons and entities who commercially farmed
Kona coffee in the Kona District and then sold their coffee from
February 27, 2015 to the date of this order, likely meets the
requirements for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
and 23(b)(3).

Judge Lasnik concludes that the Settlement Agreement meets the
criteria for preliminary settlement approval and is deemed fair,
reasonable, and adequate, such that notice to the Settlement Class
is appropriate.

Judge Lasnik appoints (i) the Plaintiffs as the Class
Representatives for the Settlement Class; (ii) Nathan Paine, of
Karr Tuttle Campbell, and Jason Lichtman, Daniel Seltz, and Andrew
Kaufman, of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, as the Class
Counsel; and (iii) JND Legal Administration as the Settlement
Administrator.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) and 23(c)(2)(B), Judge Lasnik
approves the proposed Notice, attached as Exhibit 2 to the
Plaintiffs' Motion. The Notice will be sent via first class U.S.
Mail and email to all members for whom address information is
available and posted on the Class Settlement Website. He also
approves the Publication Notice, attached as Exhibit 3, which will
be published in the West Hawaii Daily. Notice to the Class Members
will include delivery of Notice by first class U.S. Mail and email
and publication in the West Hawaii Today, which will begin within
42 days of the entry of the Order.

As soon as practicable, the Settlement Administrator will update
the Class Settlement Website. The Class Settlement Website will (1)
post, without limitation, the Third Amended Complaint, the
Settlement Agreement, and Notice; (2) notify Class Members of their
rights to object or opt-out; (3) inform Class Members that they
should monitor the Class Settlement Website for developments; and
(4) notify Class Members that no further notice will be provided to
them once the Court enters the Final Order and Judgment, other than
updates on the Class Settlement Website. Furthermore, the
Settlement Administrator will establish an email account and P.O.
Box to which Class Members may submit questions regarding the
Settlement Agreement. It will monitor the email account and P.O.
Box and respond promptly to administrative inquiries from Class
Members and direct new substantive inquiries to Class Counsel.

No later than 21 days after entry of the Order, the Notice
Administrator will update the toll-free telephone number that the
Class Members can call to receive additional information about the
Settlement Agreement. The toll-free number will be operational
until at least the effective date of the Settlement Agreement.

As provided for in the Settlement Agreement, all costs associated
with implementing Notice, including fees and costs of the
Settlement Administrator, will be paid out of the Settlement Fund.

No later than 84 days after entry of the Order, the Class Counsel
will file its application for attorneys' fees and the Class
Representatives' request for service awards.

No later than 14 days before the Final Approval Hearing, the
Settlement Administrator will file an affidavit with the Court
confirming its implementation of Notice in accordance with this
Order.

Any Class Member may comment on, or object to, the Settlement
Agreement, the Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and
costs, and/or the request for the Plaintiffs' service awards.

The following summarizes the dates and deadlines set by the Order:

     a. Notice of Settlement to be Disseminated by first class U.S.
Mail and email - June 9, 2023

     b. Update of Settlement Website - May 16, 2023

     c. Update of Toll-Free Number - May 16, 2023

     d. Deadline for the Class Counsel's application for attorneys'
fees and the Class Representatives' request for service awards -
July 18, 2023

     e. Notice Administrator affidavit of compliance with notice
requirements - Sept. 7, 2023

     f. Deadline to have postmarked and/or filed a written
objection to the Settlement or request exclusion - Aug. 1, 2023

     g. Final Approval Hearing - Sept. 21, 2023, at 11:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2023 Order is available
at https://rb.gy/tvo6c from Leagle.com.


COTY INC: Court Narrows Claims in Meza Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE MEZA, v. COTY,
INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-05291-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Nathanael M. Cousins entered an order granting in part and denying
in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss Meza's putative class
action complaint.

   -- The Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss with
respect
      to (1) Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief, (2)
Plaintiff's
      claims regarding Outlast Active Foundation, (3) Plaintiff's
      claims regarding the Rimmel Product.

   -- The Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss with
respect
      to Plaintiff's claims regarding the durational claims of the

      CoverGirl Product. The Plaintiff may file an amended
complaint
      on or before May 19, 2023. The amended complaint may not add
any
      claims or parties without leave of Court.

The Defendant proffers a full spectrum of defenses against the
Plaintiff's claims that its sunscreen labels mislead consumers into
believing the products provide 24-hour protection against the
harmful effects of the sun. While the pleadings display several
deficiencies, the crux of Plaintiffs claims are sound.

The Plaintiff alleges she purchased Defendant's CoverGirl Extreme
3-in-1 Foundation several times between 2018-2022. The Plaintiff
includes additional products -- the Rimmel Lasting Finish 25HR
Foundation.

The Court collectively refers to these goods as the "Products. "
The salient feature of the Products in this case are the durational
claims. The CoverGirl Product includes a "24 HR" claim on its front
label, whereas the Rimmel Product has a "25 HR" claim.

In addition, the labels also contain claims to the SPF level of the
Products. As the photographs depict, the durational claims are
placed above the SPF statements.

The Plaintiff does not contest the accuracy of the Products' SPF
levels. Instead, the Plaintiff asserts the Products' labels are
misleading because the average consumer will interpret the claims
to mean the Product will provide coverage for 24 or 25 hours
without the need to reapply.

The Plaintiff alleges violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law (UCL), California's False Advertising Law (FAL), and
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

Coty is an American-French multinational beauty company.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LBY3XB at no extra charge.[CC]


COX COMMUNIATIONS: Seymour FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Seymour, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. Cox Communiations, Inc., Case No.
2023-CA-001638 was removed from the 1st Circuit Court, Okaloosa
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Florida on April 25, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-08871-TKW-ZCB to
the proceeding.

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

Cox Communications, Inc. --
https://www.cox.com/residential/home.html -- is an American digital
cable television provider, telecommunications and home automation
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th St., Suite 1700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 628-5793
          Fax: (954) 507-9974
          Email: jen@jibraellaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nicole Rory Topper, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          500 East Broward Blvd., Suite 2100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Phone: (954) 512-1800
          Fax: (954) 512-1818
          Email: nicole.topper@blankrome.com

               - and -

          Michael Roy Esposito
          BLANK ROME LLP - TAMPA FL
          100 S Ashley Drive, Suite 600
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 255-2324
          Fax: (813) 433-5352
          Email: michael.esposito@blankrome.com


CPT GROUP: Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set July 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you were charged and paid a surcharge on certain non-grocery
items at a Safeway store located within the City of Portland,
Oregon between September 9, 2019, and July 22, 2020, you could get
compensation from a class action settlement.

CPT Group, Inc., on May 2 announced a proposed Settlement in a
class action lawsuit called Long, et al. v. Safeway, Inc., State of
Oregon, Multnomah County Circuit Court, Case No. 19CV45421 (the
"Settlement").

What is this about? Plaintiffs allege that Safeway, Inc. improperly
charged customers a surcharge on certain non-grocery items at the
Safeway stores located within the City of Portland between
September 9, 2019, and July 22, 2020, relating to the 1% Clean
Energy Surcharge that the City of Portland enacted in 2019. Safeway
denies all allegations of wrongdoing, and the Court has not
determined who is right. Instead, the parties have decided to
settle this case.

Who is affected? Consumers who purchased certain non-grocery items
at a Safeway store located within the City of Portland and paid a
surcharge on those non-grocery items between September 9, 2019, and
July 22, 2020, may be a member of the Settlement Class.

What does the Settlement provide? The Settlement provides monetary
relief.

Monetary Relief: If approved, a Settlement Fund will be created
totaling up to $8,750,000.00. Settlement Class Member cash payments
will come out of this Settlement Fund. Those individuals included
in the Settlement will be eligible to make a claim to receive up to
$200.00 cash payment.

How do I file a claim? To receive a cash payment, go to
www.OregonClassAction.com to file or download a Claim Form. You can
also write Safeway Surcharge Settlement; c/o CPT Group, Inc, 50
Corporate Park, Irvine, CA 92606, or email
SafewaySurcharge@cptgroup.com. All Claim Forms must be submitted
online or postmarked by July 1, 2023.

What are my other options? You can do nothing, exclude yourself, or
object to the Settlement.

Do Nothing: If you do nothing, you will give up your right to sue
or continue to sue Safeway for the claims in this case.

Exclude Yourself: If you exclude yourself or remove yourself from
the Class, you will keep your right to sue or continue to sue
Safeway for the claims in this case. Exclusion requests must be
postmarked by July 1, 2023.

Object: If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, you may
object to it or tell the Court what you don't like about the
Settlement. Objections must be postmarked by July 1, 2023.

For details about your rights and options and how to exclude
yourself or object, go to www.OregonClassAction.com.

What happens next? The Court will hold a hearing on July 14, 2023,
at 9:00 AM PST before Judge Henry Kantor at the Multnomah County
Circuit Courthouse, 1200 SW First Ave, Portland, Oregon 97204 to
consider the final approval of the Settlement, payment of
attorneys' fees to class counsel, incentive awards for the class
representative, and other related issues. You may appear at the
hearing in person or through your attorney at your own cost, but
you are not required to do so.

How do I get more information? For more information and to view the
full notice, go to www.OregonClassAction.com, or contact the
Settlement Administrator by writing write Safeway Surcharge
Settlement; c/o CPT Group, Inc, 50 Corporate Park, Irvine, CA
92606, emailing SafewaySurcharge@cptgroup.com, or calling
1-888-440-1319.[GN]

CREDIT SUISSE: S.D. New York Dismisses Gomez Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of Mondaq reports that on March 31, 2023,
Judge John P. Cronan of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action
asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
a financial institution that offered certain Exchange Traded Notes
(the "ETN") linked to a natural gas price index. Gomez v. Credit
Suisse AG, No. 22 Civ. 115 (JPC) (BCM), 2023 WL 2744415 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 31, 2023).

Plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to adequately disclose the
risk of a "short squeeze" (in which short sellers are forced to
sell their positions at a loss due to rising prices of the
underlying securities), and further that it engaged in a
manipulative scheme when it announced that it was suspending the
issuance of and delisting the ETN. The Court held that plaintiff
failed to adequately allege an actionable misrepresentation and
failed to establish scienter or scheme liability. The Court granted
leave for plaintiff to file an amended complaint but emphasized
that plaintiff should only do so if she could remedy the many
pleading deficiencies identified in the Court's decision. The Court
initially observed that the offering materials for the ETN in fact
broadly cautioned that: (i) only sophisticated investors should
transact in the ETN, which was leveraged and designed to be held
for less than one day; (ii) while the ETN was designed to track the
performance of an index, the price of the ETN could diverge from
the index and would also reflect supply and demand for the ETN
itself; and (iii) defendant had the discretion to suspend the
issuance of the ETN or delist it, which could cause an imbalance in
supply and demand with potentially unpredictable effects. Defendant
also regularly disclosed its own holdings of the ETN in its SEC
filings, which reflected that it held more shares in its inventory
than were outstanding on the market. When defendant announced that
it intended to delist the ETN, it further cautioned that this
decision could affect the market value of ETN through the time of
its delisting.

With respect to plaintiff's allegations that defendant's press
release announcing the suspension and delisting failed to
adequately disclose the risk of a short squeeze, the Court
explained that the offering materials for the ETN warned of that
specific risk. The Court also emphasized that "the Offering
Documents repeatedly made clear, sometimes with bold for emphasis,
that the trading price for the ETNs may at any time vary
significantly from the Indicative Value." While plaintiff argued
that more detailed warnings about a potential short squeeze should
have been disclosed, the Court rejected that contention, explaining
that "the securities laws do not require issuers to predict the
precise manner in which disclosed risks will manifest themselves."
The Court also noted that plaintiff did not allege that defendant
did anything to alter the supply of ETNs in the market after the
press release, and plaintiff also did not allege that short
squeezes always occur in the event of a delisting—and that, in
fact, the complaint alleged that delisting of another ETN had the
opposite effect on market prices. Moreover, the Court observed that
the risk of a short squeeze in the particular ETN at issue had been
reported in publicly available sources as early as 2019.

The Court also rejected plaintiff's claim that defendant had
engaged in market manipulation by delisting the ETN. The Court held
that the complaint "does not even allege that [d]efendant in fact
manipulated the market for [the ETN], let alone facts to plausibly
support an inference of such manipulation." The Court emphasized
that defendant had warned investors that it had the discretion to
suspend the ETN and that doing so could adversely affect supply and
demand and cause prices to rise. Thus, the Court held that the
delisting "was neither manipulative nor deceptive." Moreover, the
Court held that the complaint "contains nowhere near enough details
to properly allege the who, what, when, where and why of the
[alleged] fraudulent scheme."

Finally, the Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege
scienter under either a "motive and opportunity" theory or "strong
circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness."
While plaintiff contended that defendant had a financial motive to
delist the ETN, the Court concluded that "[i]t would be a stretch
to impute a motive to defraud investors of roughly $135,000 to a
company the size of [defendant], especially when the Complaint
lacks any detail whatsoever as to who at [defendant] was involved."
Moreover, the Court observed that defendant could have made more
money by selling its own holdings into the short squeeze, which
made an inference of scienter "even less plausible." Further, the
Court noted that defendant earned investor fees on outstanding ETNs
and could have earned more from such fees by keeping the ETN open
than by delisting it.

In addition, the Court rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant
behaved recklessly because it possessed unique facts suggesting a
short squeeze was imminent, as plaintiff failed to allege which of
defendant's employees allegedly possessed such information. The
Court also emphasized that defendant decided to delist not only the
ETN at issue but also a number of other ETNs and took steps to give
investors time to cover their short positions, as well as providing
clear warnings of the impact of these decisions. [GN]

D'ARGENT FRANCHISING: Williams Suit Wins Collective Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA WILLIAMS, ET AL.,
V. D'ARGENT FRANCHISING, L.L.C., ET AL.,  Case No.
1:20-cv-01501-JPM (W.D La.), the Hon. Judge Joseph H.L.
Perez-Montes entered an order  granting the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a collective action.

  -- Within seven days of the date of this Order, the parties will

     jointly file a proposed notice for the Court's consideration.

  -- The Plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling is denied.

  -- The Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery is granted and that

     Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees is denied.

Because Plaintiffs have shown the putative class members are
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify collective
action is granted.

Because the Plaintiffs failed to show extraordinary circumstances
precluded the putative class members from filing their own timely
lawsuits, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Equitable Tolling is denied.

Because Plaintiffs have not alleged an extraordinary circumstance
that actively misled and prevented the putative plaintiffs from
timely filing their lawsuits, the Plaintiffs' motion for equitable
tolling is denied.

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

DELTONA, FL: Faces Class Suit Over Flooding After Hurricane Ian
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Lindsay of Fox 35 Orlando reports that dozens of homeowners
have filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the City of
Deltona over its alleged role in severe flooding following
Hurricane Ian.

The plaintiffs claim Deltona officials opened a dam in an effort to
protect Deltona homes, and the decision resulted in the worst
flooding the Stone Island area experienced in decades. Several
neighbors were stranded in their homes for weeks.

Many were brought food and other important items via canoe at the
height of the flooding. Others weren't able to return to their
houses at all. There are over 40 people listed on the lawsuit,
though some of them live under the same roof.

One of the lead attorneys on the case, Andrew Doyle said the
plaintiffs are seeking financial compensation for what they went
through. "Damage and destruction to their structures. Loss of
personal property. Loss of landscaping, temporary housing.
Decreased property valuation," he said.

According to the document, the water levels rose several feet over
the course of a single day following the opening of the flood
control. They contend the city was supposed to get approval from
St. Johns Water Management District. They claim the dam was opened
without that permission.

Amanda Rohr has lived in the neighborhood for about seven years.
She said the flooding is typically ankle-level. Toward the end of
last year, some neighbors experienced up to knee-high flooding
inside their homes.

"It was terrifying to drive just to get to our house," she said.
"It's just not right for them to dump it as if we mean nothing."
Rohr is not listed on the lawsuit. She said her home did not take
on enough damage to constitute the legal process, though she does
approve of her neighbors' decision to step forward.

The plaintiffs are asking for an excess of $50,000 each in this
case. The legal team representing them released the following
statement:

"Many of the residents of Stone Island suffered catastrophic losses
and damage to their homes following the City’s operation of the
flood control structure with the knowledge that the water would be
directed into the property of the residents of Stone Island.

"We have seen, firsthand, the harm that the City's decision caused.
This is a tight-knit community of primarily long-term residents and
the very face of their community has been changed, possibly
forever.

"In bringing this suit, we are simply asking that the City
compensate the residents of Stone Island for the losses that the
residents have sustained based on the City's action. And for some,
those numbers may well be significant, but decisions have
consequences, even for a municipality."

A Deltona spokesperson declined to comment due to the pending
litigation. [GN]

EDGIO INC: Esfandiari Sues Over Artificially Inflated Stock Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mehran Esfandiari, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Edgio, Inc. f/k/a Limelight
Networks, Inc., Robert Lyons, Daniel Boncel, and Stephen Cumming,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00691-DJH (D. Ariz., April 25, 2023)
arises out of the Defedants' violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Between Feb. 11, 2021 and March 12, 2023, the Defendants allegedly
misled the investing public, thereby inflating the price of Edgio's
securities, by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements
and/or omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make
Defendants statements not false or misleading.

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 Sept. 30, 2022, up to approximately $16.7 million for
the twelve-month period ended Dec. 31, 2021, and up to
approximately $6.6 million for the twelve-month period ended Dec.
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, says the suit.

Edgio provides software solutions for companies. Edgio's services
include digital content delivery, online video delivery, cloud
security, edge computing, cloud storage, and professional services.
On June 16, 2022, the Company changed its name from Limelight
Networks, Inc. to Edgio, Inc. This company is incorporated under
the laws of Delaware with its principal executive offices located
in Phoenix, Arizona. Its common stock is traded on the NASDAQ
exchange under the symbol EGIO.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D. Lammers, Esq.
          RUSING LOPEZ & LIZARDI, P.L.L.C.
          6363 North Swan Road, Suite 151
          Tucson, AZ 85718
          Telephone: (520) 792-4800
             
                 - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
         
                  - and -

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 914-5007

ELITE CARE: Parker Sues Over Unlawful Denial of Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Teresa Parker, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. ELITE CARE AND STAFFING LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01564
(E.D. Pa., April 24, 2023), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
("VPMWA"), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law
("WPCL"), to recover damages for Defendant's unlawful denial of
wages of over 100 employees, depriving them of appropriate
compensation of hours worked to which they should have been
entitled during their employment.

As a Certified Nursing Assistant, the Plaintiff was assigned to one
family that she enjoyed taking care of. The Plaintiffs work with
this family ranged from helping with day-to-day tasks as well as
assisting with daily medical needs. The Plaintiff also had taken
her client to doctors' appointments. The Plaintiff regularly worked
in excess of 40 hours. In fact, the Plaintiff regularly worked at
least 48 hours a week. Plaintiff was paid $13 per regular hour
worked. During the Plaintiffs employment with the Defendant, the
Defendant regularly failed to pay the Plaintiff proper overtime
wages. The Plaintiff would be paid $13 per over time hour instead
of time and a half, which would be $19.50 per hour. As a result of
not being paid proper wages, the Plaintiff resigned from her
position in April 2022. To date, the Plaintiff still has not
received proper compensation for all hours worked, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant in March 2021 as a
Certified Nursing Assistant.

The Defendant is a Limited Liability Company with a business
located in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Manes, Esq.
          MANES & NARAHARI, LLC
          One Oxford Centre
          301 Grant St, Suite 270
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 626-5570
          Fax: (412) 650-4845
          Email: dm@manesnarahari.com


ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Battery Price Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Competition Policy International reports that consumers and
retailers have filed three proposed class action lawsuits against
Energizer and Walmart, alleging that they conspired to increase the
prices of disposable batteries.

Energizer is facing complaints alleging that they agreed, under
pressure from Walmart, to increase wholesale battery prices for
other retailers beginning in January 2018 and enforce a policy
prohibiting those retailers from undercutting Walmart's prices.

Energizer, the largest U.S. disposable battery maker, reportedly
warned Walmart's competitors of potential consequences if they sold
their products for lower prices at checkout than Walmart, the
world's largest retailer.

According to the complaints, Energizer and Berkshire Hathaway-owned
Duracell, who dominate the disposable battery market with an 85
percent share, raised their prices beyond what could be explained
by inflation or changes in demand.

Energizer aimed to regain sales lost in 2013 after Walmart
terminated its exclusive battery contract with Sam's Club. To
achieve this, Project Atlas was created to ensure that Walmart's
prices remained the lowest. The complaints stated these facts.

Walmart said it takes "allegations like this seriously and will
respond in court as appropriate," in a statement to Reuters.
Energizer did not respond to a request for comment on April 29,
2023. Duracell is not a defendant. [GN]

EVERQUOTE INC: Woodburn Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Woodburn, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EVERQUOTE, INC., a Delaware registered
corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10889-LTS (D. Mass., April 25, 2023),
is brought against the Defendant to stop the Defendant from
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing
telemarketing calls and text messages without consent to consumers
who registered their phone numbers on the National Do Not Call
registry ("DNC").

The Plaintiff did not request any auto quote or any information
from the Defendant, and never consented to receiving telemarketing
calls or text message solicitations from or on behalf of the
Defendant. The unauthorized telephonic sales text messages that the
Plaintiff received from Defendant, have harmed the Plaintiff in the
form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed
the use and enjoyment her phone, in addition to the wear and tear
on the phone's hardware (including the phone's battery) and the
consumption of memory on the phone. Seeking redress for these
injuries, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Classes of
similarly situated individuals, bring suit under the TCPA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is the subscriber and the sole user of the cell phone
number ending with 8212.

EverQuote is a for-profit technology company that provides an
insurance marketplace to consumers comparing insurance quotes from
multiple companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason R. J. Campbell, Esq.
          CHARLESTOWN LAW GROUP
          The Schrafft Center Power House
          529 Main Street, Suite P200
          Charlestown, MS 02129
          Phone: (617) 872-8652
          Email: jcampbell@charlestownlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4
          Coral Gables, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 469-5881
          Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


FABLE PETS: Thompson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fable Pets, Inc. The
case is styled as Andrea Thompson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Fable Pets, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03507-VSB (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Fable -- https://fablepets.com/ -- designs, develops, and delivers
innovative, problem-solving products to enrich the lives of humans
and pets.[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
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


FARMERS INVESTMENT: Barrios Files Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Investment
Company. The case is styled as Maria Barrios, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Investment
Company doing business as: Green Valley Pecan Company, Case No.
4:23-cv-00194-EJM (D. Ariz., April 24, 2023).

The nature of suit stated as Other Personal Property for the
Federal Trade Commission Act.

Farmers Investment Co. distributes food products. The Company
specializes in providing pecans. Farmers Investment serves
customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
          PEREZ LAW GROUP PLLC
          7508 N 59th Ave.
          Glendale, AZ 85301
          Phone: (623) 826-5593
          Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC - CHICAGO,
IL
          227 W Monroe St., Ste. 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com


FASHIONABLE INC: Campbell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fashionable, Inc. The
case is styled as Jovan Campbell, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Fashionable, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03486 (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2023).

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

Fashionable, Inc. (ABLE) -- https://fashionable.com/ -- is an
American retailer of women's clothing and accessories.[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


FORTRA LLC: Aubie Files Suit in D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fortra LLC. The case
is styled as Marc Aubie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fortra LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-01155-DWF-TNL
(D. Minn., April 24, 2023).

The nature of suit stated as Other P.I. for Other Contract.

Fortra -- https://www.fortra.com/ -- is a cybersecurity
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Fax: (612) 336-2940
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                 pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com


FRESNO COUNTY, CA: Dismissal of Some Anderson Claims Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California issued a Findings and
Recommendations recommending that the Officer Defendants' motion to
dismiss be granted in part and denied in part in the lawsuit
captioned DORIS ANDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF FRESNO,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01134-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

Currently before the Court are the Defendants' various motions to
strike and dismiss that were referred to the assigned Magistrate
Judge for the preparation of findings and recommendations.

On July 23, 2021, Plaintiffs Doris Anderson, individually and as
the successor in interest for the decedent Jah-Quavious Anderson,
and James Jenkins, initiated this action. The action was filed
against the County of Fresno ("County"), California Forensic
Medical Group, ("CFMG"), HIG Capital LLC ("HIG"), Fresno County
Sheriff-Coroner Margaret Mims ("Mims"), and Fresno Director of
Public Health David Pomaville ("Pomaville").

On Oct. 4, 2021, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the
Court extended the time for all Defendants to file a responsive
pleading; tolled the statute of limitations with respect to claims
against Defendant Pomaville until the close of fact discovery in
exchange for dismissal of Defendant Pomaville without prejudice;
and continued the scheduling conference. On Oct. 12, 2021, the
Court dismissed Defendant Pomaville pursuant to a notice of
dismissal.

On Nov. 2, 2021, the Court again continued the deadline to file
responsive pleadings pursuant to the parties' stipulation. On Dec.
1, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (the
"FAC"), the operative complaint in this action. The FAC added
Defendants Jami Carter, Chris Garcia ("C. Garcia"), Frank Ponce,
Moises Franco, Meng Cha, Linda Thao, Ka Her ("Her"), Anthony
Sanchez ("A. Sanchez"), Rachel LeBoeuf, David Ventura, Dillon Owens
("Owens"), Jose Alanis ("Alanis"), Jonathan Sanchez ("J. Sanchez"),
Genevieve Garcia ("G. Garcia"), and Maria Guerrero. Summons were
issued on Dec. 6, 2021. On Dec. 22, 2021, the Court granted a
stipulated request extending the time for Defendants CFMG and HIG
to respond to the first amended complaint.

On Dec. 22, 2021, Defendants County and Mims (collectively the
"County Defendants") filed a motion to strike portions of the
Plaintiffs' FAC. Additionally on this same date, the County
Defendants filed an answer. On Jan. 18, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the motion to strike. On Jan. 19, 2022, the Court
granted a stipulated request to extend the time for CFMG and HIG to
respond to the first amended complaint. On Jan. 19, 2022, waivers
of service were returned executed for G. Garcia, Guerrero, A.
Sanchez, C. Garcia, Ventura, Owens, Ponce, Carter, J. Sanchez,
Alanis, Her, Thao, Cha, Franco, and LeBoeuf. On Jan. 25, 2022, the
County Defendants filed a reply to the opposition to the motion to
strike.

On Feb. 14, 2022, HIG filed a motion to dismiss and motion to
strike. On the same date, Defendants CFMG, G. Garcia, and Guerrero
("CFMG Defendants"), filed a motion to dismiss. While the motions
were initially set for hearing for March 15, 2022, then assigned
District Judge Dale A. Drozd advised the parties that all civil
motions set for hearing would be decided on the papers without a
hearing. On March 1, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed oppositions to both
motions to dismiss. On March 7, 2022, the Court granted a
stipulated request to extend the time for the Plaintiffs to file
reply briefs.

On March 14, 2022, Defendants Carter, C. Garcia, Ponce, Franco,
Cha, Thao, Her, Sanchez, LeBoeuf, Ventura, Owens, Alanis, and J.
Sanchez (collectively the "Officer Defendants"), filed a motion to
dismiss, setting the motion for hearing on April 19, 2022. Judge
Drozd again informed the parties that the motion would be decided
on the papers.

On March 21, 2022, replies were filed to the oppositions to both
the HIG and CFMG motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2022, the
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Officer Defendants' motion to
dismiss. On April 7, 2022, the Officer Defendants filed a reply
brief.

On Aug. 31, 2022, this action was reassigned to District Judge Ana
de Alba. On Sept. 12, 2022, the District Judge referred the County
Defendants' motion to strike, Defendant HIG's motion to dismiss &
strike, Defendants CFMG, G. Garcia, and Guerrero's motion to
dismiss, and the County Officer Defendants' motion to dismiss, to
the assigned Magistrate Judge for the preparation of findings and
recommendations and/or other appropriate action.

The operative complaint is the first amended complaint filed on
Dec. 1, 2021. Twenty-nine-year-old Jah-Quavious ("Quabo") Anderson
(hereinafter, "Mr. Anderson" or "Decedent"), suffered from a
chronic seizure disorder that he successfully controlled with
medication and by avoiding seizure triggers, including undue heat.
On June 22, 2020, Mr. Anderson arrived at Fresno County Jail. At
the time, CFMG contracted with the County of Fresno to provide
healthcare services to inmates. During his intake, Mr. Anderson
informed the medical staff about his history of epilepsy. Because
this was not Mr. Anderson's first incarceration, CFMG employees had
access to Mr. Anderson's prior medical history, including
documentation that reflected his condition and needs for medication
and housing in a well-ventilated, air-conditioned physical
environment.

It reached 103 degrees in Fresno on the day Mr. Anderson arrived at
the Jail. Despite his medical history and need for a
well-ventilated, air-conditioned physical environment, CFMG
employees and jail staff housed him in general population in a cell
that faced the sun, instead of in a medical ward with the
ventilation and air conditioning necessary for someone with his
condition.

Mr. Anderson complained to at least five officers that his cell was
intolerably hot, putting him at an increased risk for seizures and
asked to be moved to a cooler cell. He filled out an Inmate Request
form, in which he stated, "I have a seizure disorder (epilepsy) and
heat triggers my seizures. I was placed in a cell that is extremely
hot and would like to be swapped or moved cells. I'm getting hot
flashes 'symptoms of on coming seizure.'"

During the early hours of June 24, 2020, Mr. Anderson's cellmates
woke up to him having a severe seizure. They used the emergency
intercom to request help. Jail officers arrived at Mr. Anderson's
cell and asked CFMG medical staff to respond. G. Garcia and
Guerrero, registered nurses employed by CFMG, arrived in response
to that call. The custody staff and nurses dismissed the seizure
diagnoses and incorrectly attributed the symptoms to drugs or
excited delirium.

For approximately 25 minutes after officers were first notified of
the seizure, custodial staff, and nurses Guerrero, and G. Garcia,
aggravated Mr. Anderson's condition by continuously moving and
trying to restrain him, first in a device that is used to evacuate
people with physical disabilities and then in a disciplinary
restraint chair, rather than a medical gurney. Mr. Anderson stopped
breathing. At that point, paramedics were called--25 minutes after
Mr. Anderson began continuously seizing. He was pronounced dead
shortly upon arriving at the hospital.

The FAC alleges 12 causes of action against 19 Defendants for the
death of Mr. Anderson: (1) Fourteenth Amendment claim for
deliberate indifference to serious medical needs pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 19832; (2) Fourth Amendment excessive force claim
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; (3) Fourteenth Amendment claim
for failure to protect from harm pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983; (4) Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim for
deprivation of the right to familial relationship pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983; (5) Monell liability claim pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983; (6) a claim under Title II of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12131, et seq. (the
"ADA"); (7) a claim pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act; (8) failure
to furnish/summon medical care; (9) wrongful death; (10)
negligence; (11) Bane Act claim, California Civil Code Section
52.1; and (12) battery.

As agreed to by stipulation following the initial hearing, the
parties have clarified which Defendants each of the causes of
action apply to. This is relevant to the Defendants' arguments that
the Plaintiffs have engaged in "shotgun" pleading, and their
motions to dismiss arguing the Plaintiffs have insufficiently
identified which Defendants each claim apply to.

The Plaintiffs and Defendant CFMG filed a stipulated agreement to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' sixth claim for relief, brought under Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, against CFMG with leave
to amend their Complaint to allege a claim for relief under Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act instead. HIG did not
join in the stipulation, and proffered at the hearing that it
declined to join in the stipulation pending the Court's rulings on
the pending motions.

The following causes of action are brought against Defendant County
of Fresno: (5) Monell; (6) ADA; (7) Rehabilitation Act; (8) failure
to furnish medical care; (9) wrongful death; (10) negligence; (11)
Bane Act; and (12) battery.

The only cause of action against Sheriff Mims is the fifth cause of
action for Monell liability.

The following causes of action are brought against Defendants
Carter and Franco: (1) Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference
to serious medical need; (3) Fourteenth Amendment failure to
protect from harm; (4) Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process
and deprivation of right to familial relationship; (8) failure to
furnish medical care; (9) wrongful death; (10) negligence; and (11)
Bane Act.

The following causes of action are brought against Defendants C.
Garcia, Ponce, Cha, Thao, Her, A. Sanchez, LeBoeuf, and Alanis: (1)
Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical
need; (2) Fourteenth Amendment excessive force; (3) Fourteenth
Amendment failure to protect from harm; (4) Fourteenth Amendment
substantive due process and deprivation of right to familial
relationship; (8) failure to furnish medical care; (9) wrongful
death; (10) negligence; (11) Bane Act; and (12) battery.

The following causes of action are brought against Defendants
Ventura, Owens, and J. Sanchez: (1) Fourteenth Amendment deliberate
indifference to serious medical need; (3) Fourteenth Amendment
failure to protect from harm; (4) Fourteenth Amendment substantive
due process and deprivation of right to familial relationship; (9)
wrongful death; (10) negligence; and (11) Bane Act.

The following causes of action are brought against Defendants CFMG
and HIG: (5) Monell liability; (6) ADA, though stipulated to
dismiss with leave to amend; (7) Rehabilitation Act; (9) wrongful
death; and (10) negligence.

The following causes of action are brought against the Defendants
G. Garcia and Guerrero (the "Nurse Defendants"): (1) Fourteenth
Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical need; (2)
Fourteenth Amendment excessive force; (3) Fourteenth Amendment
failure to protect from harm; (4) Fourteenth Amendment substantive
due process and deprivation of right to familial relationship; (9)
wrongful death; and (10) negligence.

The following motions are before the Court: (A) the County
Defendants' motion to strike references to the 2015 Consent Decree
issued in Hall v. County of Fresno, case no. 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM
("Hall"); (B) the Officer Defendants' motion to dismiss various
causes of action; (C) CFMG and the Nurse Defendants' motion to
dismiss various causes of action; and (D) HIG's motion to dismiss
causes of action five, six, seven, nine, and ten, and motion to
strike the request for punitive damages.

The factual allegations in the Plaintiffs' complaint begin with a
section entitled: "Fresno County Jail's History of Inadequate
Correctional and Medical Care." In this section, the Plaintiffs
cite to and mention a 2015 consent decree that was reached in Hall
v. County of Fresno, case no. 1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM (the "Consent
Decree"). The Plaintiffs also cite to and mention a remedial plan,
which was created pursuant to the Consent Decree (the "Remedial
Plan"). The County Defendants argue this is improper as the Consent
Decree contains a provision restricting the "use" of the Consent
Decree. The County Defendants further argue reference to the
material is immaterial, impertinent, and unduly prejudicial, thus,
subject to the motion to strike.

On Dec. 13, 2011, a class-action and request for injunctive and
declaratory relief was filed against Sheriff Margaret Mims, among
other defendants, and the County of Fresno was eventually
substituted in Mim's place. In Hall, the class was approved as:
"all prisoners who are now, or will in the future be, confined in
the Fresno County Jail."

The County Defendants proffer the first amended complaint in Hall
alleged that the conditions in the Fresno County Jail violated the
constitutional and statutory rights of all prisoners, who were or
will be housed in the jail; that the parties agreed to a process
whereby experts would inspect the jail and issue reports and
recommendations; that based on those recommendations, the parties
engaged in extensive settlement negotiations and executed the
Consent Decree in May of 2015; that as part of the Consent Decree,
the parties agreed to a detailed Remedial Plan that the County of
Fresno was responsible for implementing; and the Remedial Plan
covered all the substantive areas in dispute such as health care,
personal safety, and disability discrimination.

Based on the plain language of the durational term provision, the
record in Hall, and the parties' arguments, the Court concludes the
Consent Decree was no longer in effect four years after it was
entered, or Oct. 30, 20219.

The Court also considers whether paragraph 22's "use" restriction
is subject to the durational provision. First, the Court finds
language in the Consent Decree that weighs in favor of finding the
restriction in paragraph 22 to not be applicable to Mr. Anderson,
at least as applied to his time in Fresno County Jail in June of
2020. The class as defined in the Consent Decree is as follows:
"The plaintiff class consists of all prisoners who are now, or at
some time in the future during the terms of this Consent Decree
are, incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail."

Second, there is language that weighs in favor of finding the Court
no longer has jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Consent
Decree, which lends to finding the use restriction is no longer in
effect.

Thus, in consideration of the plain meaning of the relevant
provisions, the absence of a separate definition of "use" or a
separate durational term as applied to paragraph 22, the Court
finds the use restriction provision no longer operative, and
additionally that Mr. Anderson would not have been a member of the
class when he entered the Fresno County Jail in June of 2020.
Therefore, based only on the existence of and the terms of the
Consent Decree, the fact it is not sealed, and that Mr. Anderson
does not appear to be a member of the class under the terms of the
Consent Decree, at least as to his last interaction with the jail,
the Court recommends denying the County Defendants' motion to
strike.

The County Defendants contend, among other things, that the Hall
Consent Decree amounts to a class action settlement, paragraph 22
was part of the settlement, and for the Court to not enforce such
would provide a disincentive for future settlements.

The Court does not find this argument availing as this should only
provide an incentive to draft more clearly defined terms for
settlement, and the Court finds no compelling reason to find jail
inmates who were not yet part of the class at the time, nor even
part of the class under the defined durational term, should be
subject to such unclear use restriction provision that is no longer
in effect. The Court also doubts that but for that provision, in
light of all the risk associated with a class action litigation,
that no settlement would have occurred.

Accordingly, the Court recommends the County Defendants' motion to
strike be denied. The Court also recommends denying the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss First, Second, Third, Fourth, Eighth, Ninth,
Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Causes of Action for Shotgun
Pleading.

While the Plaintiffs' complaint may contain deficiencies as to
specific causes of action as applied to specific Officer
Defendants, Judge Boone holds that the Defendant' wholesale motion
to dismiss does not sufficiently demonstrate under the elements of
such causes of action, why each cause of action is deficient as to
a particular Officer Defendant under the facts that are alleged in
the complaint. The Court does recommend granting other components
of the Officer Defendants' motion, with leave to amend.

The Court, therefore, recommends denying the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the first, second, third, fourth, eighth, ninth, tenth,
eleventh, and twelfth causes of action for shotgun pleading, be
denied without prejudice to renewal as to a forthcoming amended
complaint.

For all of the explained reasons, Judge Boone recommends that:

   1. The County Defendants' motion to strike references to the
      Consent Decree be denied;

   2. The Officer Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in
      part and denied in part as follows:

      a. The Officer Defendants' motion to dismiss the first,
         second, third, fourth, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh,
         and twelfth causes of action for shotgun pleading be
         denied;

      b. The Officer Defendants' motion to dismiss the first and
         third causes of action for improperly pleading both
         Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations be granted to
         the extent the claims should be dismissed as brought
         under the Eighth Amendment, without leave to amend;

      c. The Officer Defendants' motion to dismiss the fourth
         cause of action be denied as to Defendants Ventura and
         Owens, and granted as to Defendants Franco, Ponce, Thao,
         Cha, Her, C. Garcia, Carter, LeBeouf, Alanis, A.
         Sanchez, and J. Sanchez with leave to amend;

      d. The Officer Defendants' motion to dismiss the eighth
         cause of action for wrongful death be denied; and

      e. The Officer Defendants' motion to dismiss the Bane Act
         claim be granted in part and denied in part, in that
         Plaintiff Doris Anderson's Bane Act claim brought as the
         successor in interest to the Decedent Mr. Anderson
         should not be dismissed, but Plaintiff Doris Anderson's
         and Plaintiff James Jenkins' Bane Act claims, to the
         extent they are brought as individual claims on their
         own behalf for their own injuries, should be dismissed
         without leave to amend;

   3. The CFMG Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part
      and denied in part as follows:

      a. CFMG Defendants' motion to dismiss the first through
         fifth causes of action for shotgun pleading be denied;

      b. CFMG Defendants' motion to dismiss the first cause of
         action against G. Garcia and Guerrero be granted with
         leave to amend;

      c. CFMG Defendants' motion to dismiss the Monell claim
         against CFMG be granted with leave to amend;

      d. CFMG Defendants' motion to dismiss the third cause of
         action for excessive force against G. Garcia and
         Guerrero on the basis of qualified immunity be granted
         with leave to amend; and

      e. CFMG Defendants' motion to dismiss the sixth cause of
         action be withdrawn as moot in light of the stipulation
         of the parties;

   4. Defendant HIG's motion to dismiss be granted with leave to
      amend;

   5. Defendant HIG's motion to strike punitive damages be
      denied; and

   6. The Plaintiffs be granted leave to file a second amended
      complaint under the parameters outlined in these findings
      and recommendations.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District
Judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 304. Within twenty-one
(21) days of service of these recommendations, any party may file
written objections to the findings and recommendations with the
Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Findings and Recommendations dated
April 3, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3apute39 from
Leagle.com.


FRITO-LAY INC: Bid to Transfer Venue in Hill Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled BRIAN HILL, JASON MATHIS, and CRUZ VASQUEZ,
each individually and on behalf on all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FRITO-LAY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:22-CV-518
(E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III, of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, grants in part
the Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue or, in the Alternative, to
Stay.

The case arises out of a timekeeping system, Kronos, that was
inoperable for months, impacting employers nationwide. During that
time, employees allege that Defendant Frito-Lay, Inc., failed to
compensate employees with overtime pay, which is legally required
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and various state
statutes when the employees work more than 40 hours a week.

In 2021, Plaintiffs Brian Hill, Jason Mathis, and Cruz Vasquez
(collectively, "Hill") were employed by Frito-Lay and used Kronos,
a timekeeping software that was implemented by Frito-Lay, to record
the amount of hours they worked each week. In November 2021, Kronos
was hacked, and the entire system was rendered inoperable until
"February or March of 2022" ("Kronos Blackout"). Hill alleges that
during the Kronos Blackout, numerous employees, including
themselves, regularly worked over forty hours a week but did not
receive 1.5 times their regular rate of pay.

On June 22, 2022, Hill filed the current lawsuit, which included
individual actions under the FLSA, the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act,
the Washington Minimum Wage Act, the Washington Wage Rebate Act, as
well as a putative collective action under the FLSA on behalf of
all others similarly situated (the "Hill lawsuit").

However, almost five months earlier, on Jan. 31, 2022, Emanuele
Stevens filed a similar lawsuit regarding the Kronos Blackout
against three defendants--PepsiCo Inc., Bottling Group, LLC, and CB
Manufacturing Co.--which included individual actions under the FLSA
and the Ohio overtime compensation statute, a putative class action
proposing a state class of Ohio employees, as well as a putative
collective action under the FLSA on behalf of all others similarly
situated (the "Stevens lawsuit"), complaint at 13-18, Stevens v.
PepsiCo Inc., et al., No. 7:22-CV-802 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2022). The
complaint has since been amended, adding plaintiffs, defendants,
and various claims, combining numerous related cases that were
transferred to the Southern District of New York.

The live complaint in the Stevens lawsuit currently has eighteen
(18) named plaintiffs and twenty-two (22) named defendants,
including Frito-Lay. The claims now include a putative class action
with three proposed classes. There is a national class, which
represents a class of individuals with factually similar claims
under the wage-and-hour statutes of various state labor laws, a
California subclass, and a New York subclass, which both have
statutory penalties available to employees for an employer's
failure to provide accurate wage statements and violating unfair
competition laws. Additionally, the plaintiffs are still asserting
a putative collective action under the FLSA. It is alleged that the
FLSA collective action and the national class could consist of
69,809 employees, assuming every employee affected by the Kronos
Blackout selects to opt in to the collective action or decides not
to opt out of the national class.

On Aug. 19, 2022, Frito-Lay filed the pending motion, requesting
the Court to transfer the entire Hill lawsuit to the Southern
District of New York based on the first-to-file rule, or as an
alternative, stay the case "pending the approval and administration
of the Stevens settlement." On Sept. 2, 2022, Hill opposed the
motion and filed a response, arguing that the first-to-file rule
should not apply to the Hill lawsuit and that a stay should not be
granted. On Sept. 9, 2022, Frito-Lay filed a reply.

Frito-Lay requests that the Court transfer the Hill lawsuit to the
Southern District of New York because a "substantially similar"
case--the Stevens lawsuit--was filed almost six months prior and is
currently being adjudicated in that court. In the alternative,
Frito-Lay requests that the Court stay the pending case to prevent
requiring it to concurrently adjudicate the Hill lawsuit in Texas
and the Stevens lawsuit in New York.

Ultimately, the Court finds that the first-to-file rule and related
equitable principles do not support a transfer of all claims in
this case. However, given the status of the Stevens lawsuit, the
Court recognizes that as of date, Hill has likely lost certain
opportunities to participate in the Stevens lawsuit.

Therefore, the Court's conclusion will include options for each
plaintiff and will allow them to choose how to proceed.

Judge Mazzant finds that allowing the plaintiffs to choose between
the two options is the best option in equity, as they can join a
collective action under the FLSA, as they intended to do with the
pending lawsuit, or pursue their individual claims, because they
likely opted out of the national class in the Stevens lawsuit
operating under the idea that their pending claims would be heard
by this Court.

Additionally, the Court finds that this result adheres to the
policy goals of the first-to-file rule. Judge Mazzant opines that
the first-to-file rule aims to avoid duplication, "rulings which
may trench upon the authority of sister courts," and a "piecemeal
resolution of issues that call for a uniform result," citing In re
Toyota Hybrid Brake Litig., 2020 WL 6161495, at *5. This decision
prevents any duplication, will not allow for any conflicting
rulings between the two courts, and will not result in a "piecemeal
resolution," because the Plaintiffs in the Hill lawsuit will either
pursue the collective action or their individual claims, and they
will be prohibited from doing both.

The remaining claims in the Hill lawsuit are the individual claims
pursued by the three Plaintiffs under the FLSA and the relevant
Arkansas and Washington statutes. Frito-Lay requests that the Court
should "stay the Hill case pending the approval and administration
of the Stevens settlement." The Court finds that this is
appropriate.

The Court will use its inherent authority to stay the case for a
few reasons. First, it is possible that Frito-Lay will not have to
continue with the Hill lawsuit because if all the Plaintiffs choose
to join the collective action in the Stevens settlement, the claims
in the Hill lawsuit will have to be dismissed under the doctrine of
res judicata. Additionally, even if the Plaintiffs in the Hill
lawsuit choose to pursue their individual claims in the Hill
lawsuit, the Court will at the very least stay the proceedings to
allow Frito-Lay to finish the Stevens lawsuit. The Court finds no
issue with this because it is the Court's understanding that the
Stevens lawsuit is near its close.

In sum, because of the current status of the two pending lawsuits,
the Court finds it appropriate to transfer the collective action
under the FLSA to the Southern District of New York, as that court
will be better suited to decide how the case will proceed. As to
the remaining claims, the Court will stay the proceedings, pending
the conclusion of the Stevens lawsuit.

The Court, therefore, orders that the Defendant's Motion to
Transfer Venue or, in the Alternative, to Stay will be granted in
part. The collective action claim for FLSA violations under the
Plaintiff's "Second Claim for Relief" will be transferred.

The clerk will sever this action and transfer the severed case to
the Southern District of New York because of the related case,
Stevens v. PepsiCo Inc., et al., Case No. 7:22-CV-802.

All remaining claims and pending deadlines in this case are stayed
pending the resolution of the Southern District of New York's
related case.

The parties will notify the Court within seven (7) days of the
Southern District of New York's issuance of a Final Judgment and
include a description of the court's ruling as to the proposed
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
April 3, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mprnxbkz from
Leagle.com.


FRITO-LAY INC: Hill FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brian Hill, Jason Mathis and Cruz Vasquez, each
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FRITO-LAY, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-00518 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 26,
2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:23-cv-03494-NSR to the
proceeding.

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

Frito-Lay -- https://www.fritolay.com/ -- is an American subsidiary
of PepsiCo that manufactures, markets, and sells corn chips, potato
chips, and other snack foods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Jon Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alison Rae Ashmore, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          1717 Main Street, Suite 4200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 462-6400
          Fax: (866) 781-2975


FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due June 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc. ("Fulcrum" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: FULC). The lawsuit alleges Fulcrum made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and compliance policies, including: (i) the preclinical
data submitted in support of the Company's drug candidate,
FTX-6058, showed safety concerns regarding potential hematological
malignancies; (ii) the foregoing safety concerns increased the
likelihood that the FDA would place a clinical hold on preclinical
studies of FTX-6058; and (iii) accordingly, the Company had
overstated FTX-6058's clinical and/or commercial prospects.

If you bought shares of Fulcrum between March 3, 2022 and March 8,
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/fulcrum/ to learn more.

The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is June 27, 2023.

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]

GAME TIME SUPPLEMENTS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Game Time
Supplements, LLC. The case is styled as Omar Rodriguez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Game Time Supplements, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03440-VSB (S.D.N.Y.,
April 25, 2023).

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

Game Time Supplements LLC is a company that operates in the Health,
Wellness and Fitness industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GEICO: Cantu Sues Over Disclosure of Video Viewer's Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE CANTU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO, d/b/a/ www.geico.com; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03125 (C.D.
Cal., April 25, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violation of
the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988.

Allegedly, the Defendants use videos to collect viewers' personally
identifiable information so they can later retarget them for
advertisements. When Plaintiff watched videos on the Website,
Defendants disclosed information that allowed Google to readily
identify Plaintiff's video-watching behavior. Defendants did so
knowingly and for the purpose of retargeting Plaintiff in
connection with Google advertising campaigns. Defendants did not
obtain the informed, written consent of Plaintiff to disclose PII
concerning Plaintiff to third parties, says the suit.

GEICO is a private American auto insurance company with
headquarters in in Chevy Chase MD. It owns, operates, and or
controls the website: www.geico.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
        Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
        Meghan E. George, Esq.
        LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
        21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340
        Woodland Hills, CA 91364
        Telephone: (323) 306-4234
        Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
        E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                     abacon@toddflaw.com
                     mgeorge@toddflaw.com

GENERAL CONFERENCE: Joseph et al. Sue Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
LORFILS JOSEPH, STEPHANIA NOEL, MARIE LYNDA LAURORE, WILMAC
LAURORE, DIEUDONNE LOUIS JEUNE, MARIE YVES MEHN, BOILEAU MEHN,
NADAB ETIZARD, PHONISE ETIZARD; AND ELLESHIA NEWKIRK, On behalf of
themselves and all other Investors of Eminifx similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GENERAL CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF 7TH DAY ADVENTIST
aka (CGC et al, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-21552-RNS (S.D. Fla.,
April 25, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' acts of fraud, civil
conspiracy, and civil violations Federal Racketeer and Corrupt
Organizations Act, and the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

Allegedly, the Defendants have developed and operated a Ponzi
scheme to defraud Plaintiffs. These Defendants used their positions
as pastors and religious leaders of the Seventh Day Adventist
Church to illegally and wrongfully lure their parishioners to
invest in a Ponzi scheme using EMINIFX, a company duly licensed in
the State of New York as the corrupt vehicle for the Fraud, says
the suit.

General Conference Corporation of the Seventh-Day-Adventist is a
Delaware not-for-profit corporation who owns and manages the
affairs of the Seventh-Day Adventist Churches around the world.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Wil Morris, Esq.
         MORRIS LEGAL, LLC
         2800 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 530
         Miami, FL 33137
         Telephone: (305) 444-3437
         Facsimile: (305) 444-3457
         E-mail: wilm@morrislegalfla.com

                 - and -

        Ralph Francois, Esq.
        FRACOIS & ASSOCIATES, PC
        4800 Hollywood Boulevard Suite 450
        Hollywood, FL
        E-mail: Lawyerfrancois@gmail.com

GINA M. RAIMONDO: Georgia Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Walden Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marc T. Treadwell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia, Macon Division, denies the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the case, EUGENE WALDEN, III, Plaintiff, v. GINA M.
RAIMONDO, Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-304 (MTT) (M.D.
Ga.).

On Dec. 29, 2022, Raimondo moved to dismiss Walden's complaint for
failure to state a claim. In support of her motion to dismiss,
Raimondo repeatedly indicates that it is hard to understand what
discrimination Walden complains of. She says is difficult to know
precisely on which protected classes the Plaintiff alleges
discrimination. Regarding the class action Walden states he opted
out of, Raimondo's counsel appears unaware of the class action and
refers to it simply as "a different lawsuit."

Judge Treadwell holds that it is difficult for him to assume
Raimondo's counsel does not understand what conduct Walden
allegedly encountered during his employment with the 2010 U.S.
Census. It is also difficult to assume Raimondo's counsel is
unaware of the lawsuit Walden repeatedly references. The Department
of Commerce, of which Raimondo is the Secretary, was the defendant
in that lawsuit. And if Raimondo's counsel was unaware of that
fact, Walden surely provided enough information to understand what
conduct the class action concerned and what similar conduct forms
the basis of his claims.

Because Raimondo failed to demonstrate Walden has failed to state a
claim based on alleged employment discrimination, Judge Treadwell
denies her motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2023 Order is available
at https://rb.gy/n5o89 from Leagle.com.


GLOBAL RESOURCES: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Resources
Registry, LLC. The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Global Resources
Registry, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03481 (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2023).

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

Global Resources Registry, LLC --
https://www.globalresourceregistry.com/ -- offers mattresses and
Sleep accessories from Europe available immediately in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOOD CLEAN LOVE: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Good Clean Love, Inc.
The case is styled as Yordaliza Taveras, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Good Clean Love, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-03463 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2023).

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

Good Clean Love -- https://goodcleanlove.com/ -- specializes in the
production of natural and non-toxic sexual wellness solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOOGLE LLC: Defeats Proposed Video Privacy Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Google
LLC defeated a proposed class action alleging it retained
information about users' video-watching histories in violation of
video-privacy laws in New York and Minnesota.

Neither of the laws on which the plaintiffs based their claims --
the New York Video Consumer Privacy Act and the Minnesota Video
Privacy Law -- contained a private right of action for Google's
alleged violations, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the US District
Court for the Northern District of California said on May 1.

Finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim as a matter of
law, Rogers granted Google's motion to dismiss without leave to
amend. [GN]


HAIR CLUB FOR MEN: Zapata Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hair Club for Men,
LLC. The case is styled as Laura Zapata, an Individual; on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated and the general public
v. Hair Club for Men, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0004251 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 26, 2023).

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

Hair Club for Men, LLC -- https://www.hairclub.com/ -- offers hair
replacement, transplantation, therapy, and hair loss prevention
service.[BN]

HEALTH GARDEN: Som-Dotson Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sarah Som-Dotson, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Health Garden of NY, Inc. doing
business as: Health Garden USA erroneously sued as Health Garden of
NY, Inc., Case No. 23STCV02680 was removed from the Los Angeles
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on April 24, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03083-DSF-KS to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Health Garden -- https://healthgardenusa.com/ -- is the only
company offering a full line of non- GMO, gluten-free, kosher,
low-glycemic sweeteners and condiments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jocelyn A Julian, Esq.
          Anthony E. Sonnett, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP
          633 West Fifth Street Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 250-1800
          Fax: (213) 250-7900
          Email: jocelyn.julian@lewisbrisbois.com
                 anthony.sonnett@lewisbrisbois.com


HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Class Deal in Sanchez Suit Has Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PABLO SANCHEZ, and VIOLET ALVAREZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEARST
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 3:20-cv-05147-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California enters
Revised Judgment on Final Approval of Settlement.

The Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the Joint
Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release of
Claims dated Dec. 1, 2022. All capitalized terms used, but not
defined therein, will have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

Final Judgment is entered with respect to the Released Claims of
all Settlement Class Members, Class Representatives, and Aggrieved
Individuals -- and each of their respective executors,
administrators, representatives, agents, heirs, successors,
assigns, trustees, spouses, or guardians. The Released Claims in
the Action are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice with each
side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees, except as provided
by the Settlement and the Court's orders. Nothing in the Revised
Judgment is intended to waive or prejudice the rights of
individuals who have timely excluded themselves.

Entry by the Clerk of the Court of the Order and Final Judgment is
directed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2023 Revised Order is
available at https://rb.gy/2j82m from Leagle.com.

Jahan C. Sagafi -- jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP,
San Francisco, CA, Theanne Liu -- tliu@outtengolden.com --
(admitted pro hac vice), OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, New York, NY, Robert
Ottinger -- robert@ottingerlaw.com -- Finn Dusenbery (admitted pro
hac vice), THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C., San Francisco, CA, Attorneys
for the Plaintiffs, the Class, and Aggrieved Employees.


HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Final Judgment Entered in Sanchez Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California enters Order and Final Judgment in the case,
PABLO SANCHEZ, and VIOLET ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-05147-VC (N.D. Cal.).

On April 20, 2023, a hearing was held on the unopposed motion of
Plaintiffs Sanchez and Alvarez for final approval of the settlement
set forth in Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement
and Release of Claims dated Dec. 1, 2022. On Dec. 19, 2022, the
Court granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlement set
forth in the Settlement Agreement between the Plaintiffs,
individually and as class representatives on behalf of Class
Members, and Defendant Hearst. It also granted conditional
certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes and
set a date for the Final Approval Hearing.

Judge Chhabria has reviewed the papers filed in support of the
motion for Final Approval. He finds that the Agreement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable, and in the best interests of the
Settlement Class Members.

For the purposes of settlement only, Judge Chhabria certifies for
settlement purposes only the following California Rule 23 Class:
All persons who have entered into written contracts with Hearst
solely pursuant to a home delivery agreement in the State of
California regarding distribution of newspapers, including, but not
limited to, the San Francisco Chronicle, at any time from July 27,
2016, through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order entered by
the Court on Dec. 19, 2022, and who do not submit a timely and
valid Opt Out.

Judge Chhabria confirms the prior appointments of Plaintiffs
Sanchez and Alvarez as the Class Representatives for the Class
Members, and the counsel of record representing the Plaintiffs in
the Action as the Class Counsel.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Judge Chhabria
approves the Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement and
finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable,
and adequate to the Parties. Accordingly, the Settlement embodied
in the Agreement is finally approved in all respects, there is no
just reason for delay, and the Parties are directed to perform its
terms.

By the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement will be
implemented on the following timeline:

     a. Defendant to fund Settlement - Effective Date + 15 days

     b. Settlement Administrator to send Service Awards - Effective
Date + 30 days

     c. Settlement Administrator to transfer Court-Approved
Attorneys' Fees and Costs to Plaintiffs' Counsel - Effective Date +
30 days

     d. Settlement Administrator to mail Individual Class -
Effective Date + 30 days

     e. Payment and Individual PAGA Payment checks Settlement
Administrator to pay LWDA portion of Total PAGA Settlement Payment
- Effective Date + 45 days

     f. Any remaining funds to be redistributed to Class Members
who claimed their settlement checks shares - 30 days post
expiration date of Settlement

Judge Chhabria approves the release provisions as contained and
incorporated in Section 6 and its subparts of the Agreement. The
Settlement Class Members, Aggrieved Individuals, and Class
Representatives will be deemed to have, and by operation of the
Judgment will have, fully, finally and forever released,
relinquished and discharged all Released Claims (including unknown
claims) against the Released Parties.

The Plaintiffs and the Class Counsel have moved for an award of
attorneys' fees in the amount of $332,500 and reimbursement of
costs and expenses in an amount not to exceed $40,000, specifically
requesting $32,383.19 in costs and expenses. Judge Chhabria finds
that an award of $332,500 in attorneys' fees and $32,383.19 in
litigation costs and expenses is fair and reasonable, and he
approves of the Class Counsel attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
in these amounts. The Court will withhold 10% of these attorneys'
fees until after the Post-Distribution Accounting has been filed.

Plaintiffs Sanchez and Alvarez have moved for service awards of
$15,000 each in recognition of the work they performed, the value
they created, and the risk they incurred in leading this
litigation. Judge Chhabria finds that service awards for the
Plaintiffs of $15,000 each is fair and reasonable, and he approves
of the service awards in this amount. He directs the Settlement
Administrator to disburse these awards to Sanchez and Alvarez as
provided in the Settlement Agreement.

After the settlement funds have been distributed to class members
(including a second distribution, if applicable) and after the time
has passed for cashing checks, the parties will file a
Post-Distribution Accounting, which provides the following
information: The total settlement fund, the total number of class
members, the total number of class members to whom notice was sent
and not returned as undeliverable, the number and percentage of
claim forms submitted, the number and percentage of opt-outs, the
number and percentage of objections, the average and median
recovery per claimant, the largest and smallest amounts paid to
class members, the method(s) of notice and the method(s) of payment
to class members, the number and value of checks not cashed, the
amounts redistributed to each Settlement Class Member (to the
extent there are any remaining funds), the administrative costs,
the attorneys' fees and costs, the attorneys' fees in terms of
percentage of the settlement fund, and the multiplier, if any.

The parties should post the Post-Distribution Accounting, including
the easy-to-read chart, on the settlement website when they file it
on the docket.

The Court may hold a hearing following submission of the parties'
Post-Distribution Accounting.

Final Judgment is entered with respect to the Released Claims of
all Settlement Class Members, Aggrieved Individuals, and Class
Representatives, and the Released Claims in the Action are
dismissed in their entirety with prejudice with each side to bear
its own costs and attorneys' fees, except as provided by the
Settlement and the Court's orders. Nothing in the Order and Final
Judgment is intended to waive or prejudice the rights of Settlement
Class Members who have timely excluded themselves.

Without affecting the finality of the Judgment in any way, the
Court retains continuing jurisdiction over the administration,
consummation, enforcement, and interpretation of the Agreement, the
Final Judgment, and for any other necessary purpose.

The Parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Agreement.
Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to
reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of
the Agreement.

Entry by the Clerk of the Court of the Order and Final Judgment is
directed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2023 Order is available
at https://rb.gy/0o8b0 from Leagle.com.

Jahan C. Sagafi -- jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP,
Theanne Liu (admitted pro hac vice), OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, New York,
NY, Robert Ottinger -- robert@ottingerlaw.com -- Finn Dusenbery
(admitted pro hac vice), THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C., San Francisco,
CA, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, Proposed Class Members, and
Aggrieved Employees.


HUMBLE BRANDS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humble Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Yordaliza Taveras, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Humble Brands, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-03465-PAE-KHP (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2023).

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

Humble Brands -- https://humblebrands.com/ -- is an online store
that sells deodorants and scents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK: Keeling Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Huntington
National Bank. The case is styled as Teresa Keeling, in her own
right and as representative of a class of persons similarly
situated v. The Huntington National Bank, Case No. 3:23-cv-00352
(S.D.W. Va., April 24, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Breach of
Contract.

Huntington -- http://www.huntington.com/-- provides online banking
solutions, mortgage, investing, loans, credit cards, and personal,
small business, and commercial financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin Sheridan, Esq.
          KLEIN & SHERIDAN
          3566 Teays Valley Road
          Hurricane, WV 25526
          Phone: (304) 562-7111
          Fax: (304) 562-7115
          Email: bsheridan@kswvlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason E. Causey, Esq.
          BORDAS & BORDAS
          1358 National Road
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Phone: (304) 242-8410
          Fax: (304) 242-3936
          Email: jcausey@bordaslaw.com

               - and -

          Jed Robert Nolan, Esq.
          NOLAN CONSUMER LAW
          P. O. Box 654
          Athens, WV 24712
          Phone: (304) 207-0066
          Email: jed@protectwvconsumers.com


IDEA NEST: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Idea Nest, LLC. The
case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Idea Nest, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03488
(S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2023).

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

Idea Nest -- https://www.ideanest.co/ -- is an e-commerce retail
company who believes the things you buy are an extension of who you
are.[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


IDEAL CONCEPTS: Knueppel Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ideal Concepts, Inc.
The case is styled as Perla Knueppel, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Ideal Concepts, Inc., Case No.
5:23-cv-01552 (E.D. Pa., April 24, 2023).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Ideal Concepts, Inc. -- https://www.idealconcepts.com/ -- started
in the insurance sales and technology industry in 2005.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq.
          BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          403 South Allen Street, Suite 210
          State College, PA 16801
          Phone: (814) 234-2626
          Fax: (814) 237-8700
          Email: jjackson@bower-law.com


IK MULTIMEDIA US: Matzura Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IK Multimedia US,
LLC. The case is styled as Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. IK Multimedia US, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-03432-JPO (S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2023).

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

IK Multimedia -- https://www.ikmultimedia.com/ -- is a musicians
first solutions for iRig interfaces, controllers, microphones,
iLoud micro monitors, UNO synth, and studio software like
AmpliTube, SampleTank, T-RackS and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal

INFINITY LASER: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Infinity Laser Spa,
Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Infinity Laser Spa, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03158 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2023).

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

Infinity Laser Spa -- https://infinitylaserspa.com/ -- offers the
best laser hair removal services in NYC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


INTERNALDRIVE INC: Righetti Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against InternalDrive, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Michelle Righetti, individually, and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v.
InternalDrive, Inc., d/b/a iD Tech, Does 1-50, Case No. CGC23606075
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 25, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Contract/Warranty."

iD Tech Camps -- http://www.idtech.com/-- is a summer computer
camp, based in Campbell, California, that specializes in providing
computer technology education to children ages 7 through 19.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
          WYNNE LAW FIRM
          80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G
          Larkspur, CA 94939


INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL: Sanabria Files Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International Travel
Network, LLC. The case is styled as James Sanabria, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. International Travel Network, LLC,
Case No. 2023CA000742A (Fla. Cir. Ct., Citrus Cty., April 26,
2023).

The case type is stated as "Other-Business Transaction."

International Travel Network, LLC (ITN) -- https://itncorp.com/ --
is a major US travel consolidator with a growing network of 1200
subagents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arun Ravindran, Esq.
          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 203-4573
          Email: aravindran@hedinhall.com
                 fhedin@hedinhall.com


JAY-BEE OIL: Appeals Ruling in Smith Suit to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------
JAY-BEE OIL & GAS, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order in the lawsuit entitled Allen E. Smith, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jay-Bee Oil
& Gas, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00101-JPB-JPM, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West
Virginia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the West Virginia Circuit Court, Tyler
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia, alleges that the Defendants unlawfully deducted
post-production expenses from royalty payments owed to the
Plaintiff and putative class members in violation of the express
terms and conditions of their respective oil and gas leases. The
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, conversion, misrepresentation, fraud and concealment,
civil conspiracy, and negligence.

The appellate case is captioned Jay-Bee Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Brenda
Hopper, Case No. 23-161, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 19, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents BRENDA LEA HOPPER, co-executrix of Allen E.
Smith's Estate, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

            J. Michael Benninger, Esq.
            BENNINGER LAW
            154 Pleasant Street
            P.O. Box 623
            Morgantown, WV 26507
            Telephone: (304) 241-1856

                     - and -

            William E. Ford, III, Esq.
            FORD LAW OFFICE
            8545 Pinehaven Avenue, SE
            Hobe Sound, FL 33455
            Telephone: (304) 626-3116

                     - and -

            Brian Alexander Glasser, Esq.
            Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
            Brian R. Swinger, Esq.
            Victor Shawn Woods, Esq.
            BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
            209 Capitol Street
            Charleston, WV 25301
            Telephone: (304) 345-6555

                     - and -

            Jenny Lynn Hayhurst, Esq.
            Timothy R. Linkous, Esq.
            LINKOUS LAW, PLLC
            10 Cheat Landing
            Morgantown, WV 26508
            Telephone: (304) 554-2400

Defendants-Petitioners JAY-BEE OIL & GAS, INC., et al., are
represented by:

            Charles R. Bailey, Esq.
            Josef Armand Horter, Esq.
            BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC
            P.O. Box 3710
            Charleston, WV 25337
            Telephone: (304) 345-4222

                     - and -

            Kelsey Leiper Imam, Esq.
            Drake Lawsage, Esq.
            Vi T. Tran, Esq.
            FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
            1000 Louisiana Street
            Houston, TX 77002
            Telephone: (713) 276-5500

                     - and -

            Michael D. Leffel, Esq.
            FOLEY & LARDNER
            P.O. Box 1497
            Madison, WI 53701-1497
            Telephone: (608) 257-5035

                     - and -

            Shane William McDonald, Esq.
            FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
            1000 Louisiana Street
            Houston, TX 77002
            Telephone: (713) 276-5009

                     - and -

            Charles Michael Seely, Esq.
            FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
            1000 Louisiana Street
            Houston, TX 77002
            Telephone: (713) 276-5979

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settlement Led to Refusal of Suit Discontinuance
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MarketScreener reports that in 2017, proposed class actions
concerning allegedly defective hernia mesh were brought against
Johnson & Johnson and other manufacturers in British Columbia,
Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec. In January 2018, the Superior
Court of Quebec agreed to stay the Quebec class action in favour of
the class action filed in Ontario.

Further to the suspension, Plaintiffs' lawyers from the four
provinces and the manufacturers' lawyers attempted to settle the
class actions without success. However, discussions did lead to a
series of confidential individual settlements with 52 class members
across the country, which provided for a negotiated confidential
global settlement sum. As a condition of these individual
settlements, the plaintiffs in the various class actions agreed
that they would seek the permission of the provincial courts, where
required, to discontinue the proposed class actions.

Under the terms of the agreements, the defendants agreed to attempt
to settle the claims of other claimants, and to do this during a
period of 180 days from the beginning of the judgment granting the
discontinuance of the class actions.

Motions to Discontinue the Class Actions

In both British Columbia or Saskatchewan, there is no requirement
for court approval of a discontinuance of a class action. In
Ontario, the Superior Court of Justice authorized the requested
discontinuance. That left only Quebec.

Evidently, both plaintiffs and the defendants agreed with the
proposed discontinuance. The parties relied on the case law under
article 585 of the Code of Civil Procedure3, which provides that a
discontinuance should be allowed if it does not prejudice the
interests of the putative class members and if it does not affect
the integrity of the judicial system.

Intervention of the Fonds d'aide aux actions collectives

The Fonds d'aide aux actions collectives ("FAAC"), the publicly
funded class action assistance fund, argued that the motion before
the Court should not be granted as the "discontinuance" in question
was not in reality a discontinuance but rather a settlement or a
transaction that should be governed by the far more complex rules
and requirements, including detailed notices to class members,
governing a class action settlement, including allowing it to
potentially benefit from funding depending on the terms of the
settlement which were not disclosed.

The Superior Court Ruling

The Superior Court agreed with the FAAC and refused to authorize
the discontinuance.4

In essence, the Court ruled that the individuals settled for a sum
of money and that the manufacturers had obtained a release, the
essential elements of a transaction pursuant to Quebec civil law.
Moreover, the parties failed to argue or convince the Court that
there the motion for authorization to institute a class action was
futile and should no longer go ahead. Importantly, this was not a
case where the entirety of the claims were satisfied.

And although 3,100 putative class members had come forward, the
Court ruled that there was no evidence that notices or
advertisements on social media or elsewhere reached potential class
members. It was argued that articles and bulletins were published,
but the Court held that this was not sufficient. The Court also
disagreed with the precedents that the parties relied upon, noting
that they had never been cited.

The parties submitted that the publication of a notice of
discontinuance was sufficient, but the Court disagreed, finding
that there should be an attempt to reach the class members before
the notice of discontinuance. The parties argued that the
individuals who would manifest themselves after the publication of
the notices could either settle with the manufacturers or file a
new motion for authorization to institute a class action. The Court
was not convinced, noting that this argument was "absurd."

Lastly, the Court held that the confidential character of the
individual settlements, the details of which were not disclosed,
was problematic by itself.

The Court thus decided that the discontinuances were in fact a
transaction requiring court approval and the discontinuance was
refused. The Court added and suggested that the parties could come
back before the Court for another attempt at a discontinuance if
further evidence or arguments could support such a request.

For now, it appears plaintiff did not heed the Court's suggestion,
choosing instead to seek leave to appeal the Superior Court's
decision.

Conclusion

This appeal will be closely watched across the country. Should the
Superior Court's decision stand, it will no doubt raise important
considerations and concerns for parties seeking to settle and
dispose of individual claims covered by proposed class actions
filed across Canada. Indeed, the risk that a discontinuance may be
refused by the courts in Quebec will likely deter further
initiatives to settle individual claims in exchange for a release
where the settlement is conditional on the discontinuance of
related class actions across the country, and specifically in
Quebec. It would appear that the finality of claims required by
settling defendants cannot be guaranteed where such agreements are
reached, at least for now. [GN]

KAO USA: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kao USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Omar Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Kao USA, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03443 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2023).

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

Kao Corporation -- https://www.kao.com/americas/en/ -- is a
chemical and cosmetics company headquartered in
Nihonbashi-Kayabacho, Chuo, Tokyo, Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KIA CORP: Car Owners Face Repair Concerns After Car Theft Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Sweeney and Amanda Maile of ABC News report that Kia and
Hyundai owners whose cars were damaged or stolen in the wake of a
social media video teaching people how to easily steal the cars are
now waiting months for repairs after a shortage of parts.

Many of the cars are recovered within a few days after the thieves
are done with their joyrides. Often the back window is smashed and
the steering column is damaged or destroyed, making those parts the
hardest to find.

Stefan Mantyk's 2018 Kia Rio was stolen in Michigan on Feb. 10.
Police recovered the damaged car a week later but he says the
vehicle is now sitting at the dealership.

"They had everything else fixed but then they found out that the
steering column lock was broken. It turned out that the entire
steering column top needed to be replaced," Mantyk told ABC News.

Gregg Van Slyke, a 76-year-old retiree from Portland, is in a
similar situation. His 2012 Hyundai Sonata was stolen early in the
morning on Super Bowl Sunday. Police recovered the car later that
day but it's since been parked at the dealership waiting on parts.

Both Mantyk and Van Slyke are victims of the so-called "Kia
Challenge" -- a viral social media challenge that sparked a surge
in thefts of Kia and Hyundai cars across the United States. Thieves
targeted certain Kia and Hyundai models manufactured between 2011
and 2022 that lack anti-theft controls. Would-be thieves use
screwdrivers and USB cables to steal the vehicles.

Twenty-three states have called on automakers to "take swift and
comprehensive action" to curb the rise in thefts. Wisconsin
Attorney General Josh Kaul said there were 6,970 Kia and Hyundai
vehicles reported stolen in Milwaukee in 2021, up from a total of
895 in 2020 -- a nearly 800% increase. Thefts of the cars declined
slightly in 2022.

In Minneapolis, thefts of Kia and Hyundais increased by 836% in
2022 over the previous year. And in St Louis County, thefts surged
1,090% from 2021 to 2022.

Eighteen attorneys general have also called on the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to recall some Kia and
Hyundai vehicles. "Thefts of these Hyundai and Kia vehicles have
led to at least eight deaths, numerous injuries and property
damage, and they have diverted significant police and emergency
services resources from other priorities," the agency said.

In response to the thefts, Kia and Hyundai have rolled out a free
software upgrades for their vehicles not equipped with
immobilizers. The automakers have also been distributing steering
wheel locks for local law enforcement to give to drivers.

Mantyk said he was able to get a rental car from his insurer after
his was stolen. But after 30 days he needed to find another way to
get around.

"I'm an independent contractor, so I go from job to job and not
having my own vehicle for a while made it very difficult to get to
jobs. I had to pass on work," Mantyk said. "I ended up buying a car
for like a thousand bucks just so I could get from point A to point
B. I don't know how reliable it is."

Van Slyke said he needs to drive to and from doctors' appointments
three times a week. His insurance gave him a rental for just 10
days.

"My insurance rental ran out, so I had to give up that car and then
I used Lyft for a while and then I was able to harass my dealership
into finally getting the loaner car," Van Slyke said. "I'm very
grateful for that because I have medical appointments that I need
to go to and it was getting pretty difficult to get around."

He added, "The service representative that I've been talking to
doesn't know when or if they'll get a part to replace it, because
there's been so much demand due to the high theft of Hyundais
nationwide. So we're kind of stuck there."

Both Mantyk and Van Slyke said they have no idea when they’ll get
their cars back.

The dealership doesn't know "when the parts are going to be coming
in because Kia corporate doesn't give them any information as to
when they're getting parts in," Mantyk said.

Van Slyke said he has since joined a class-action lawsuit against
the automakers.
When asked about the parts shortages, Kia told ABC News some of
these parts have been out of production for years and supply chain
issues have been exacerbating the problem. The company, however, is
"doing all we can to assist and working with our dealers to make
sure any and all available parts are being redistributed to where
needed most."

Hyundai told ABC News it was "aware of minimal reported instances
of some parts on back-order" and it "constantly monitors and
proactively manages its parts supply chain to ensure a stable
supply of parts delivered to our customers."

Mantyk and Van Slyke said they don't know if they'll continue to
drive their cars once they get them back.

"Once I have my car, what am I supposed to do with it? Because I
can't drive it anywhere less it gets stolen," Mantyk said.

Mantyk said he's made three car payments since his Kia was
initially stolen.

"My biggest frustration is probably the whole fact that I'm paying
on a car that I can't keep. I can't sell it because it'll just get
stolen from somebody else," he said.

Van Slyke said he hopes Hyundai will recall his vehicle and replace
the ignition system, saying he's worried it would get stolen again
in the future.

"I believe that if I get the car back again, I will attempt to sell
that car and buy a car that's not so high on the theft list," Van
Slyke said. [GN]

KIEL JAMES PATRICK: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kiel James Patrick,
LLC. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Kiel James Patrick, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-03478 (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2023).

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

Kiel James Patrick, LLC -- https://kieljamespatrick.com/ -- creates
timeless locally designed fashion and accessory pieces.[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


LITTLE GIANT LADDER: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Little Giant Ladder
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Yordaliza Taveras,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03464 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 25, 2023).

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

Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC --
https://www.littlegiantladders.com/ -- offers ladders, cages, and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LITTLE MAN: Faces $100-M Class Action Suit Over Loss of Cars
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathianne Boniello of New York Post reports that two Manhattanites
who stored their pricey rides at a doomed Financial District
parking garage have filed a $100 million class-action lawsuit over
the loss of their cars.

Robert Galpern, the landlord of a nearby Fulton Street building,
had parked his customized, $60,000 Toyota Highlander at the garage
before it was destroyed, said his lawyer, Migir Ilganayev.

"He paid for it, he bought it and now it's not there any more,"
Ilganayev said.
While Galpern expects to put in an insurance claim on the vehicle,
"they're not going to pay him what he paid for the car. Who is
responsible for that? It's the owners, the operators, the managers
of that garage, because that building was very old and run down and
had way too many cars on that roof."

Another Financial District resident, building superintendent
Boguslaw Zapolnick, lost his $40,000 2023 Mazda, said the attorney,
adding Zapolnick had complained for years of dust and falling
cement at the garage.

Too many cars on the roof, along with heavier electric vehicles,
may have been a factor in the collapse of the structure -- which
had a long history of violations.

The pair accuse garage owners 57 Ann Street Realty Associates, Alan
and Jeffrey Henick, Little Man Parking LLC and Enterprise Ann
Parking LLC of negligence and "reckless and wanton disregard for
human life and property," according to court papers.

It's one of three lawsuits filed after the disastrous April 18
incident, which left one person dead and five others hurt.

Pierre Vancol, 50, a worker who survived the sudden crumpling of
the three-story parking garage, filed his own lawsuit April 25,
2023 in Brooklyn Supreme Court against the garage owners.

Luis Farfan, of the Bronx, is also suing in Bronx Supreme Court
after claiming he was injured in the incident. Both Farfan and
Vancol are seeking unspecified damages. [GN]

LIVEPERSON INC: Straub Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Straub, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
v. LIVEPERSON, INC., ROB LOCASCIO, and JOHN COLLINS, Case No.
1:23-cv-03078 (E.D.N.Y., April 24, 2023), is brought on behalf of
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded LivePerson securities between May 10, 2022 and March 16,
2023, inclusive (the "Class Period") and to recover compensable
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

On May 10, 2022, after market hours, the Company filed with the SEC
its first quarter report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2022 (the "1Q22 Report"). Attached to the 1Q22 Report were
certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX")
signed by Defendants LoCascio and Collins attesting to the accuracy
of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to
the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the
disclosure of all fraud.

On August 9, 2022, after market hours, the Company filed with the
SEC its second quarter report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2022 (the "2Q22 Report"). Attached to the 2Q22 Report were
SOX certifications signed by Defendants LoCascio and Collins
attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of
any material changes to the Company's internal control over
financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud.

On November 7, 2022, after market hours, the Company issued a press
release announcing its third quarter financial results, which ended
September 30, 2022, on Form 8-K. The third quarter financial
results failed to identify any suspension of Medicare reimbursement
from its subsidiary, WildHealth.

On November 8, 2022, after market hours, the Company filed with the
SEC its third quarter report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2022 (the "3Q22 Report"). Attached to the 2Q22 Report
were SOX certifications signed by Defendants LoCascio and Collins
attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of
any material changes to the Company's internal control over
financial reporting and the disclosure of all fraud.

The statements were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects,
which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: LivePerson failed to address any
material weaknesses with internal controls; LivePerson's third
quarter financial statements, ended in September 30, 2022 failed to
disclose WildHealth's suspension of Medicare reimbursement; as a
result, LivePerson's fourth quarter 2022 revenue would be affected;
and as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased LivePerson securities during the Class
Period and was economically damaged thereby.

LivePerson, Inc. delivers mobile and online messaging solutions
through Conversational Artificial Intelligence ("AI").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 686-1060
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 lrosen@rosenlegal.com


LOBEL FINANCIAL: Williams Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lobel Financial
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as B. Williams,
individually, on behalf of himself, the general public and on
behalf of all other persons and class similarly situated, that is,
a class of claimants whose rights were violated as were Williams v.
Lobel Financial Corporation; Lobel Loss Damage Waiver Department,
Lobel Insurance Maintenance Department, Lobel Repossession
Department, individually, a subsidiary of Lobel Financial
Corporation; Priscilla Marie Arango, Zenen Vargas, Harvey Lobel,
Gary Dean Lobel, David Lobel, Murray Alan Lobel, Alex Aportillo,
individually and in their official capacities; Fox Recovery
Services formerly known as: TRS Recovery Services; Marian Molina,
Mark Ignacio Macias, Sergio Castillo; Califronia Department of
Motor Vehicles; 2012 Chrysler Town and Country Touring Van; Steve
Gordon, John Does, Jane Does, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 8:23-cv-00723-SB-ADS (N.D.W. Va., April 26, 2023).

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

Lobel Financial Corporation -- https://www.lobelfinancial.com/ --
operates as a consumer finance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


LOUISVILLE, KY: Objection Hearing in $1.5-M Settlement Set July 19
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Riley of WDRB.com reports that Metro Government and the
Louisville Metro Police Department agreed to settle a class-action
lawsuit accusing the city of overcharging people for years whose
vehicles have been towed.

A federal judge agreed to a $1.5 million settlement in March,
according to court records, with $650,000 -- the amount after
attorney fees and other costs -- of that paid out to people
overcharged from 2008-21.

The lawsuit was filed in 2019, claiming the city illegally
overcharged and collected excessive fees and forfeitures for
towing, impounding and auctioning vehicles taken to the city's tow
lot on Frankfort Avenue.

The suit also targeted former Public Works Director Vanessa Burns,
who it said violated a city ordinance by nearly tripling storage
fees over several years.

The city acknowledged that it had been overcharging people, but
that it was an "unintended mistake," according to court documents.

The lawsuit claims Metro Government collected millions of dollars
in illegal fines and fees collected from tens of thousands of
vehicle owners and that many people had their vehicles auctioned
off because they couldn't afford to pay.

U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings ordered the city
in March to provide attorneys for the plaintiffs a list of everyone
who would be entitled to collect funds from this settlement.

People who were overcharged should receive notice of the
settlement, according to court records.

A hearing has been scheduled on July 19 for any members of the
class-action lawsuit who want to object to the settlement.

The lawsuit claimed the tow lot was authorized to charge $10 for a
towing fee, $10 storage fee for the first week and then $5 for each
addition day. But through a "hidden-back door increase," the city
collected millions of dollars of unlawful and unauthorized fees on
tens of thousands of vehicle owners, according to the lawsuit.

Both sides agreed to the settlement to avoid a long, costly
litigation, according to the proposed settlement.

Attorneys representing the vehicle owners could not immediately be
reached for comment.

A spokesman for the Jefferson County Attorney's Office, which
represents the city in litigation, said the judge has not finalized
the agreement and he could not discuss pending litigation. [GN]

LOWE'S COMPANIES: Tricks Consumers to Buy Items, Lovinfosse Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELEANOR LOVINFOSSE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00574 (E.D. Va., April 28, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Virginia Consumer
Protection Act of 1977 and State Consumer Fraud Acts, breaches of
express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability/fitness for a
particular purpose, and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, misleading, and
deceptive practices of representing add-on items as required for
use of the actual products. The Plaintiff bought a washing machine
in or around 2022 from the Defendant's website. The Plaintiff
either did not notice the added water hose when she checked out the
washing machine and/or she noticed it and that it was designated as
"Required for Use." When the Plaintiff received the washing
machine, she saw that she did not need the extra water hoses that
she was tricked into paying for. Had the Defendant not told her and
other customers that an unnecessary item was necessary, the
Plaintiff and consumers would not have bought those items, says the
suit.

Lowe's Companies, Inc. is a home improvement store operator, with a
principal place of business in Mooresville, North Carolina, Iredell
County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Courtney Weiner, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC
         1629 K. St. NW, Ste. 300
         Washington, DC 20006
         Telephone: (202) 827-9980
         E-mail: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com

                 - and -

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

MADE IN ITALY: Faces Gonzalez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN A. GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MADE IN ITALY WYNWOOD LLC and
LUCIA MARINELLI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-21597 (S.D. Fla.,
April 29, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and
retaliatory discharge in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and for breach of contract.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt cook from
approximately March 04, 2020, until March 31, 2023.

Made in Italy Wynwood LLC is a restaurant operator based in Miami,
Florida. [BN]

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

MANDARICH LAW: Davis Loses Appeal From Granting of Bid to Strike
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District, affirms the
order granting the special motion to strike in the lawsuit styled
MARLA MARIE DAVIS, Plaintiff and Appellant v. MANDARICH LAW GROUP,
LLP, et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. H049881 (Cal.
App.).

Plaintiff Marla Marie Davis brought a putative class action against
Defendants Mandarich Law Group, LLP, Ryan Earl Vos, and Elizabeth
Grace Sutlian-Mardikian, alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in August 2014 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Defendants moved to compel arbitration, which the district
court granted in March 2015; the Plaintiff demanded arbitration in
June 2015. The parties proceeded to individual arbitration, from
which Defendant Sutlian-Mardikian was dismissed, and an arbitration
award was entered in favor of the remaining Defendants in October
2016. The district court confirmed the arbitration award.

The Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from
the district court's judgment confirming the arbitration award. The
Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment due to a question about whether
the Plaintiff had Article III standing, and remanded the matter to
the district court with instructions to answer that question (Davis
v. Mandarich Law Group (9th Cir. 2020) 790 Fed.Appx. 877, 878
(Davis)). The district court determined that the Plaintiff did not
have standing, and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff then brought this action in California state court,
alleging once again that the Defendants improperly used section 98
declarations in collection matters in violation of the FDCPA.

The Defendants moved to strike the complaint under California's
anti-SLAPP statute (strategic lawsuits against public
participation, Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16). The
Defendants moved to strike the complaint under section 425.16,
arguing that the Plaintiff's claim arose from litigation-related
activity and that it lacked merit. They also asserted several
defenses in the motion, including res judicata. The trial court
granted the anti-SLAPP motion, finding the Plaintiff's claim barred
by res judicata based on the arbitration award.

The Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's order granting the
special motion to strike.

Finding no error, the Court of Appeals affirms the order.

Judge Adrienne Grover, writing for the Panel, finds that the trial
court properly determined that the Plaintiff did not meet her
burden of producing evidence which, if credited, would overcome the
res judicata defense. Nor has the Plaintiff provided any authority
suggesting the defense does not apply in this case.

Judge Grover notes that the arbitration here concerned all three
Defendants, and was intended to resolve the very claim that the
Plaintiff now seeks to relitigate.

Because her FDCPA claim is precluded by the arbitration award, the
Plaintiff cannot meet her burden to show a probability of
prevailing on that claim, the second prong of the anti-SLAPP
analysis, Judge Grover opines. The res judicata defense to the
Plaintiff's suit is, therefore, dispositive as to the anti-SLAPP
motion, and as a result, the Court of Appeals does not reach the
remaining defenses asserted or the substantive merits of the
Plaintiff's claim.

The order granting the special motion to strike is affirmed.
Respondents are awarded their reasonable costs on appeal by
operation of California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).

Greenwood, P. J. and Wilson, J., concurs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4z3v2uz8 from Leagle.com.


MARYMOUNT MANHATTAN: Reynolds to File Revised Docs on Class Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK REYNOLDS, et al., Plaintiffs v. MARYMOUNT
MANHATTAN COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 22 Civ. 6846 (LGS)
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York directs the Plaintiff to file
revised materials incorporating the changes discussed at the
conference and that comport with the parties' settlement
agreement.

On March 10, 2023, the Plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of
a class action settlement. On April 25, 2023, a conference was held
regarding the Plaintiff's motion.

For the reasons discussed at the conference, Judge Schofield
directs the Plaintiff to file on May 9, 2023, revised materials
incorporating the changes discussed at the conference and that
comport with the parties' settlement agreement. Such materials
include the claim form, the proposed order preliminarily approving
the settlement, and the long-form and short-form notices.

For each document, the Plaintiff will file a clean copy and a
redline showing changes from the version previously filed on ECF.
He will also email a courtesy copy in Word format of the proposed
order to Schofield_NYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov. He will file a
proposed order for final approval with its motion for final
approval and email a courtesy copy in Word format to the Chambers
email address.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2023 Order is available
at https://rb.gy/1vcvt from Leagle.com.


MATTHEW CHRISTIANSEN: West Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Matthew
Christiansen, et al. The case is styled as West Virgina Parents for
Religious Freedom, Andrew Waldron, Pator Chris Figaretti, Judd Uhl,
individually and on behalf of their minor children, and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Dr. Matthew Christiansen, in his
official capacities as the State Health Officer and Commissioner of
the Bureau of Public Health; Belinda Moss, in her official capacity
as the Principal Administrator of Cheat Lake Elementary School;
Mindy Wilson, in her official capacity as the Principal
Administrator of the Jefferson Elementary Center; Case No.
5:23-cv-00225-FL (N.D.W. Va., April 26, 2023).

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

Dr. Matthew Christiansen is a psychologist at Avera Medical Group
Family Medicine Mitchell.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron Siri, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq.
          Suzanne Heywood, Esq.
          Walker D. Moller, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: (212) 532-1091
          Fax: (646) 417-5967
          Email: aaron@sirillp.com
                 ebrehm@sirillp.com
                 sheywood@sirillp.com
                 wmoller@sirillp.com

               - and -

          Christopher Wiest, Esq.
          25 Town Center Blvd., Suite 104
          Crestview, KY 41017
          Phone: (513) 257-1895
          Fax: (859) 495-0803
          Email: chris@cwiestlaw.com

               - and -

          John H. Bryan, Esq.
          JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          611 Main Street
          P O Box 366
          Union, WV 24983
          Phone: (304) 772-4999
          Fax: (304) 772-4998
          Email: jhb@johnbryanlaw.com


MEMPHIS, TN: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Whitworth Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ROBERT L. WHITWORTH, ET AL. v. CITY OF
MEMPHIS, ET AL., Case No. W2021-01304-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App.), the
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Jackson, affirms the order
granting the City's motion to dismiss.

On March 21, 2021, Appellant Robert L. Whitworth filed a complaint
for damages against Appellee the City of Memphis in Shelby County
Chancery Court ("the trial court"). A day later, an amended
complaint was filed to add four additional Plaintiffs, Patricia A.
Possel, Robert E. Possel, Sue G. Ward, and Denson Ward, III
(together with Mr. Whitworth, "Appellants") and to include class
action allegations. The Appellants, thereafter, sought leave to
amend their complaint a second time, which was granted by consent.
The second amended complaint is, therefore, the operative complaint
for purposes of the appeal.

The Appellants sued the City of Memphis for breach of contract,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and promissory
estoppel related to inadequate garbage collection services provided
by the City. Residents also sought a constructive trust and a
declaratory judgment.

The City filed a motion to dismiss on June 4, 2021. Therein, the
City argued that each of the Appellants' five claims failed for
different reasons. The City further argued that Appellants could
not show they were entitled to a constructive trust and or a
declaratory judgment. So the City asked that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety.

A hearing on the City's motion was held on Sept. 12, 2021. The
trial court then entered an order granting the City's motion on
Oct. 8, 2021. The trial court dismissed the breach of contract
action upon its conclusion that the provision of garbage collection
services was a government function that did not create an
enforceable contract between the City and its residents. The trial
court dismissed the residents' other contractual claims on the
basis that they were barred by sovereign immunity. Finally, the
trial court dismissed the claims for constructive trust and
declaratory judgment upon its conclusion that they did not state a
claim for relief under the circumstances.

The Court of Appeals affirms.

The Appellants raise a single issue in this appeal, as taken from
their brief: "Do residents have contractual and/or equitable causes
of action against a municipality that promises to provide trash
collection services for a line-item fee and, after receiving
payment, fails to adequately provide the promised services?"

As the Court of Appeals perceives it, the sole issue in this appeal
is whether the trial court erred in granting the City's motion to
dismiss, says Judge J. Steven Stafford, writing for the Panel.

The Appellants' first cause of action is for breach of contract.

Given that the garbage collection at issue here is a government
service, Judge Stafford says the Panel cannot conclude that it
bestows any rights on residents that may be enforced via a breach
of contract action. Importantly, Tennessee law is clear that
municipalities are generally immune from suit for actions arising
from their government functions.

The Appellants' attempt to frame this action as a breach of
contract cannot alter the fundamental truth that their claim
relates the performance of a government function by the City, Judge
Stafford opines. Simply put, the City collected fees as authorized
by statute and ordinance to perform a government function. Thus,
the Court of Appeals concludes that the Appellants can prove no set
of facts demonstrating the existence of an enforceable contract
between themselves and the City. As such, their breach of contract
action must fail.

The Appellants next argue that the trial court erred in dismissing
their claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair
dealing. Judge Stafford notes that there must be a contract to
contain the covenant.

Because there was no contract between the Appellants and the City,
there was no duty of good faith and fair dealing for the City to
breach. As such, the trial court did not err in dismissing this
claim, Judge Stafford holds.

The Appellants next assert that the trial court was incorrect to
dismiss their equitable claims--that is, their claims for unjust
enrichment, implied contract, and promissory estoppel. The City
asserts that these claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign
immunity. In the alternative, the City contends that each claim was
properly dismissed for failure to make out a prima facie case.

Judge Stafford opines that the Appellants have made no effort in
their appellate brief to point to a single statute or ordinance
that they assert explicitly evinces the City's consent to be sued
for unjust enrichment, implied contract, and/or promissory
estoppel.

Under the circumstances, the Court of Appeals concludes that
sovereign immunity applies to bar the Appellants' claims for unjust
enrichment, implied contract, and promissory estoppel. The trial
court, therefore, did not err in dismissing these claims. All other
arguments relative to these claims are pretermitted.

The Appellants next assert that the trial court erred in dismissing
their claim for a constructive trust. Neither party disputes the
requirements of this claim.

Judge Stafford finds the Appellants' allegations and their
arguments on appeal are insufficient to make out a prima facie
claim for a constructive trust. Here, the Appellants' allegations
essentially amount to a claim that the City required residents to
pay a fee for a service that was substandard. The City allegedly
failed to provide these services in an appropriate manner.

The Appellants have cited no analogous caselaw to suggest that this
situation falls within one of the recognized situations where a
constructive trust may be imposed. As such, Judge Stafford holds
that the trial court did not err in dismissing this claim.

The Appellants finally assert that the trial court erred in
dismissing their declaratory judgment claim.

In dismissing this claim, the trial court ruled that the Appellants
could not obtain a declaratory judgment because there was no
"private contractual rights" created by the offering of trash
services by the City. On appeal, the City further argues that the
Appellants' declaratory judgment claim is merely duplicative of its
other claims, which have been dismissed on other grounds.

The Court of Appeals agrees that this claim was properly
dismissed.

The Court of Appeals holds that the judgment of the Shelby County
Chancery Court is affirmed, and this cause is remanded to the trial
court for all further proceedings as may be necessary and
consistent with this Opinion. Costs of this appeal are taxed to the
Appellants, Robert L. Whitworth, Patricia A. Possel, Robert E.
Possel, Sue G. Ward, and Denson Ward, III, for which execution may
issue if necessary.

J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the court,
in which KENNY ARMSTRONG and CARMA DENNIS MCGEE, JJ., joined.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/7e4zudnp from Leagle.com.

Frank L. Watson, III -- fwatson@watsonburns.com -- William F. Burns
-- bburns@watsonburns.com -- William E. Routt --
wroutt@watsonburns.com -- in Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellants
Robert L. Whitworth, Denson Ward, III, Patricia A. Possel, Robert
E. Possel, and Sue G. Ward.

Christopher L. Vescovo -- cvescovo@lewisthomason.com -- Stephen W.
Vescovo -- svescovo@lewisthomason.com -- and Isaac S. Lew --
ilew@lewisthomason.com -- in Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellees,
City of Memphis.


MHM HEALTH: Scheidt Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jessica Scheidt, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, INC., d/b/a
CENTURION HEALTH, Case No. D-117-CV-2023-00014 was removed from the
First Judicial District Court of New Mexico, to the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico on April 24, 2023,
and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00350.

According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to recover
"unpaid wages, overtime compensation, and other applicable
penalties" pursuant to the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act
(NMMWA).[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alfred A. Park, Esq.
          PARK & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          3840 Masthead St NE,
          Albuquerque, NM 87109
          Phone: (505) 246-2805
          Email: apark@parklawnm.com

               - and -

          Peter N. Hall, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          1180 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 1800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Phone: (404) 817-8412
          Email: Peter.Hall@llklaw.com

               - and -

          Flynne M. Dowdy, Esq.
          Rachel Tom-Quinn, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          511 Union Street, Suite 2700
          P.O. Box 198966
          Nashville, TN 37219-8966
          Phone: (615) 244-6380
          Fax: (615) 244-6804
          Email: Flynne.Dowdy@hklaw.com
                 Rachel.Tomquinn@hklaw.com

MICHAEL KORS: Becerra Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jacob Becerra, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MICHAEL KORS STORES (CALIFORNIA),
LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
37-2023-00012218-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
the California Superior Court, County of San Diego, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
April 26, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00767-TWR-BLM.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts nine causes of action for:
failure to pay all overtime wages; meal period violations; rest
period violations; paid sick leave violations: untimely payment of
wages; wage statement violations; waiting time penalties; failure
to provide records; and unfair competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth M. Levy, Esq.
          Catherine S. Feldman, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Phone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          Email: elevy@seyfarth.com
                 cfeldman@seyfarth.com

MINT CENTER: De Ordonez Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Guadalupe Suazo De Ordonez, and all similarly
situated individuals v. MINT CENTER LLC, d/b/a MINT WELLNESS CENTER
MIAMI, and MINT DESIGN, LLC, Case No. 2023-017493-CC-25 was removed
from the County Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
on April 24, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-21530-XXXX.

On March 15, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her State Action against
Mint for overtime wages pursuant to the Fair labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard J. Diaz, Esq.
          RICHARD J. DIAZ, P.A.
          3127 Ponce de Leon Blvd.
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 444-7181
          Email: rick@rjdpa.com

MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS: Misclassifies Drivers, Hines Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARQUIS HINES and RONALD HINES on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC formerly
known as LogistiCare Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00273-HEH (E.D. Va., April 25,2023) arises out of the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as
Virginia State law.

Allegedly, Plaintiffs and many of Defendant's other transportation
drivers were misclassified as independent contractors. They were
expressly prohibited from working for competitors and were required
to put a ModivCare decal on their vehicles. They regularly worked
over 40 hours per week and were allegedly not paid overtime for
those hours over 40. Some or all of them worked during weeks where
they were made to expend out-of-pocket costs that were for
Defendant's benefit and were not paid for all miles driven. Taken
together, these expenditures and failure to pay all monies owed
meant that in certain weeks, Plaintiffs, and others similarly
situated, earned less than the minimum wage, says the suit.

ModivCare Solutions, LLC is a provider of patient transportation,
remote patient monitoring, meal delivery, and personal in-home care
throughout the U.S. Its parent company, ModivCare, Inc., is a
public company with stock trading on Nasdaq under the ticker MODV.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brittany M. Haddox, Esq.
          Thomas E. Strelka, Esq.
          STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW
          4227 Colonial Avenue
          Roanoke, VA 24018
          Telephone: (540) 283-0802
          E-mail: brittany@strelkalaw.com
                  thomas@strelkalaw.com

                  - and -

          Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          BUTLER CURWOOD,PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648-4848
          E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
                  zev@butlercurwood.com

MOLECULAR PARTNERS: Lead Roles Named in Freudiger Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York appoints James Merritt and The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A., as Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel in the lawsuit styled
MARIANNE S. FREUDIGER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. MOLECULAR PARTNERS AG, PATRICK
AMSTUTZ, ANDREAS EMMENEGGER, WILLIAM M. BURNS, AGNETE FREDRIKSEN,
STEVEN H. HOLTZMAN, SANDIP KAPADIA, VITO J. PALOMBELLA, MICHAEL
VASCONCELLES, and DOMINK HOCHLI, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-05925-ER (S.D.N.Y.).

The lawsuit is securities class action filed against Defendants
Molecular Partners AG, Patrick Amstutz, Andreas Emmenegger, William
M. Burns, Agnete Fredriksen, Steven H. Holtzman, Sandip Kapadia,
Vito J. Palombella, Michael Vasconcelles, and Domink Hochli
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), on July 12, 2022, a notice was issued to potential class
members of the action informing them of their right to move to
serve as lead plaintiff within 60 days of the date of the issuance
of said notice.

On Sept. 12, 2022, James Merritt ("Movant") moved the Court to
appoint him as Lead Plaintiff and to approve his selection of The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as Lead Counsel.

Judge Ramos notes that the PSLRA provides, inter alia, that the
most-adequate plaintiff to serve as lead plaintiff is the person or
group of persons that has either filed a complaint or has made a
motion in response to a notice and has the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the Class and satisfies the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

The Court finds that the Movant has the largest financial interest
in this action and prima facie satisfies the typicality and
adequacy requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

Accordingly, the Court appoints the Movant as Lead Plaintiff for
the class and his choice of counsel is approved.

The Lead Counsel, after being appointed by the Court, will manage
the prosecution of this litigation. The Lead Counsel is to avoid
duplicative or unproductive activities and is vested by the Court
with the responsibilities that include: (1) preparing all
pleadings; (2) directing and coordinating the briefing and arguing
of motions in accordance with the schedules set by the orders and
rules of this Court; (3) initiating and directing discovery; (4)
preparing the case for trial; and (5) engaging in settlement
negotiations on behalf of Lead Plaintiff and the Class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxcja5u from Leagle.com.


MONDELEZ INT'L: Summa's New York Claims in Wallenstein Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID WALLENSTEIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. MONDELEZ
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-06033-VC
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in
part the motion to dismiss filed by Nabisco and other Defendants
named in the complaint.

Two plaintiffs, David Wallenstein and Montgomery Summa, allege that
the packaging for Wheat Thins crackers is misleading because it
falsely characterizes the crackers as "100% WHOLE GRAIN."
Wallenstein is from California, and he asserts two claims under
California law on behalf of a proposed class of California
consumers. Summa is from New York, and he asserts three claims
under New York law on behalf of a proposed class of New York
consumers.

Nabisco and the other Defendants named in the complaint have filed
a motion to dismiss. They contend there is no personal jurisdiction
in California as to the New York claims, and they contend that
neither Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the packaging is
misleading.

In its motion, Nabisco argued only fleetingly for dismissal of
Summa's New York claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. Judge
Chhabria says the argument was fleeting because Nabisco recognized
that the Court previously rejected the contention that a plaintiff
must, in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California et al., 137 S.Ct. 1773
(2017), establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant as to
the potential claims of absent class members. But he expressed a
desire to take another look at the issue and invited supplemental
briefing.

Upon further review, Judge Chhabria says an application of
Bristol-Myers to absent class members runs counter to the Court's
traditional understanding of the judiciary's authority to
adjudicate class actions, and there are good legal arguments for
why Bristol-Myers should not be applied in this fashion. Even if a
court need not evaluate personal jurisdiction for the claims of
absent class members, he says there is no serious dispute that each
named plaintiff in a proposed class action must establish personal
jurisdiction. There is no argument, in light of Bristol-Myers, that
there is personal jurisdiction over Summa's New York claims in
California.

In addition, although counsel for Wallenstein and Summa gives lip
service to the idea of a multistate class, Judge Chhabria says the
complaint contains no actual claim on behalf of a multistate class.
There is no personal jurisdiction in California over the claims
asserted by Summa.

Summa asserts that none of these matters because the Court could
exercise pendent party personal jurisdiction as to his New York
claims, since there is personal jurisdiction as to Wallenstein's
California claims. But Judge Chhabria says it's difficult to see
how that could be right. A rule that an out-of-state named
plaintiff need not establish personal jurisdiction merely because
an in-state named plaintiff has done so with respect to a similar
claim would appear to render Bristol-Myers meaningless. The Court
therefore has no discretion to exercise pendent jurisdiction over
Summa's claims, and even if it did, Judge Chhabria would decline to
do so.

The issues pertaining to Nabisco's Rule 12(b)(6) challenge are much
more straightforward. Nabisco argues that the phrase "100% Whole
Grain" is not misleading because it is only ever used immediately
before the word "wheat," supposedly making it clear to consumers
that only the wheat ingredients -- and not all grain ingredients --
are whole grain.

Judge Chhabria finds that the argument is borderline silly.
Reasonable consumers would read the packaging to mean that the
product contains no grain ingredients that aren't whole. To charge
the reasonably prudent consumer with an understanding of the
different types of grains and with the knowledge that cornstarch is
a refined grain would be to replace the reasonable consumer
standard with something more demanding.

Dismissal of Summa's claims for lack of personal jurisdiction is,
of course, without prejudice to his asserting them in New York or
another location (if any) where he could establish jurisdiction and
venue. At the upcoming case management conference, Judge Chhabria
directs the counsel for Wallenstein to be prepared to discuss
whether they wish to proceed with this complaint or to file an
amended one consistent with his ruling.

The motion to dismiss Summa's New York claims for lack of personal
jurisdiction is granted, but the motion to dismiss the California
claims is denied, because Wallenstein has adequately alleged that
the packaging is misleading.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2023 Order is available
at https://rb.gy/8g5ue from Leagle.com.


MONUMENT INC: Sued for Sharing Patient Data to Third Parties
------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that online
alcohol counseling and treatment company Monument Inc. transmits
the protected health information and personally identifiable
information of its patients to unauthorized third parties, a new
class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Elaine Malinowski claims Monument uses a tracking pixel
embedded in its website to allegedly send private information to
third parties such as Meta or Google without their users' knowledge
or consent.  

Malinowski argues information "unlawfully intercepted and
transmitted" by Monument includes patients' full names, birthdates,
email addresses, telephone numbers, IP addresses and unique digital
identification numbers, among other things.

"Defendant's disclosure of Representative Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information constitute as gross violation of
common law and statutory data privacy laws," the Monument class
action states.

Malinowski wants to represent a nationwide class and Florida
subclass of Monument patients who had their private health
information and personally identifiable information transmitted to
unauthorized third parties.

Monument disclosed improper data sharing in March letter, class
action says
Malinowski claims Monument admitted in a report to the United
States Department of Health and Human Services that the information
of at least 108,584 individuals had been unlawfully disclosed to
third parties without the individual's knowledge or consent.

Monument would later disclose the alleged presence of the tracking
pixel and its "widespread and blatant disclosures" of its patients'
private health information and personally identifiable information
in a March letter, the Monument class action alleges.

Malinowski claims Monument is guilty of unjust enrichment, breach
of implied contract, breach of confidence and invasion of privacy,
and of violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, among other things.

Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and
injunctive relief along with an award of actual, statutory, nominal
and consequential damages for themselves and all class members.

Data breaches affecting the healthcare industry increased slightly
during February, according to a report from the HIPAA Journal.

Has Monument shared your private health information or personally
identifiable information without your knowledge or consent? Let us
know in the comments!

The plaintiff is represented by Joel H. Robinson of Robinson Yablon
Cooper & Bonfante LLP, Scott Edward Cole of Cole & Van Note and
Daniel Srourian of Srourian Law Firm PC.

The Monument health class action lawsuit is Malinowski, et al. v.
Monument Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03411, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. [GN]

MORGAN WALLEN: Burcham Files Suit in N.D. Mississippi
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morgan Wallen, et al.
The case is styled as Brandi Burcham, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated v. Morgan Wallen, John Does 1-20, Case No.
3:23-cv-00116-SA-RP (N.D. Miss., April 24, 2023).

The nature of suit stated as Other Contract for Personal Injury
Venue.

Morgan Cole Wallen -- http://morganwallen.com/-- is an American
country music singer and songwriter.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Casey Langston Lott, Esq.
          LANGSTON & LOTT, P.A.
          P.O. Box 382
          Booneville, MS 38829
          Phone: (662) 728-9733
          Email: clott@langstonlott.com


MOUNTAIN CREST: Faces Solak Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SOLAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOUNTAIN CREST CAPITAL LLC, SUYING LIU, DONG
LIU, NELSON HAIGHT, TODD MILBOURN, and WENHUA ZHANG, Defendants,
Case No. 2023-0469 (Del. Ch.., April 28, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated current
and former stockholders of Mountain Crest Acquisition Corp. II
(MCAD), brings this verified class action complaint against the
Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty with regards to the
company's merger with MCAD Merger Sub, Inc. and Better
Therapeutics, Inc. MCAD failed to disclose that it had far less
cash per share to invest in the merger than it purported to have.
The board knew or should have known that the merger would be a
losing proposition for MCAD stockholders, but nevertheless approved
and recommended the merger because it was highly lucrative for the
sponsor and the board members themselves. As a result, the
Plaintiff and the Class were harmed by being deprived of the
information they needed to exercise, or to choose not to exercise,
their redemption rights in an informed manner prior to the merger,
the Plaintiff asserts.

Mountain Crest Capital LLC is a special purpose acquisition
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
         Andrew A. Ralli, Esq.
         COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
         The Nemours Building
         1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 984-3800
         E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
                 aralli@coochtaylor.com

                 - and -

         Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
         Benjamin D. Baker, Esq.
         NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
         1250 Broadway, 27th Fl.
         New York, NY 10001
         Telephone: (212) 619-5400

MUSIC EXPRESS: Barsegyan Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Armen Barsegyan, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees v. MUSIC EXPRESS, INC., a California corporation, and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23BBCV00915 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 26, 2023), is brought pursuant to
California Labor Code and the Private Attorneys General Act as a
result of the Defendants failure to pay proper compensation.

The Defendants failed to provide employment records; failed to pay
overtime and double time; failed to provide rest and meal periods;
failed to pay minimum wage; failed to keep accurate payroll records
and provide itemized wage statements; failed to pay reporting time
wages in violation of California Code of Regulations; failed to pay
split shift wages in violation of California Code of Regulations;
failed to pay all wages earned on time; failed to pay all wages
earned upon discharge or resignation; failed to reimburse
necessary, business-related expenses; failed to provide notice of
paid sick time and accrual, all in violation of Labor Code and the
applicable Wage Orders, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of
Driver on May 01, 2022.

The Defendants are provider of limousine chauffeured ground
transportation services in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Diana Zadykyan, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: 1-818-696-2306
          Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
          Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 diana@hbklawyers.com


MX TECHNOLOGIES: Uses Counterfeit Marks on Bank Apps, Lincoln Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVIN LINCOLN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MX TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00806-KJN (E.D. Cal., April 28, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Racketeering Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act and the California Anti-Phishing
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has engaged in a pattern
of racketeering activity by trafficking counterfeit marks of
financial institutions in connection with MX's bank account linking
services by using such counterfeit marks on fake login screens on
various financial technology ("FinTech") apps. The Defendant used
counterfeit marks by (i) using marks on login pages in connection
with its bank account linking service, (ii) the marks MX used were
identical with marks owned by financial institutions that were
registered on the principal register, (iii) MX's use of its marks
were in connection with the same services for which the marks owned
by financial institutions were registered on the principal register
for-namely, Class 36 services, which include financial, monetary,
and banking services, and financial information, data, advice, and
consultancy services, (iv) MX's use of these identical marks were
likely to, and did in fact, cause confusion, mistake and deception,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff and Class members were injured by the Defendant's
actions. This injury included the loss of their regulatory
indemnification rights by handing over their bank account
credentials to a third-party, the loss over the economic value of
their financial data, and increased risk of identity theft, which
necessitates ongoing costly credit monitoring services.

MX Technologies, Inc. is a software-as-a-service company with its
principal place of business in Lehi, Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
         Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com
                 bscott@bursor.com

                 - and -

         Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (212) 989-9113
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Seeks $1.4B Damages in Antitrust Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz of USA Today reports that Attorneys for the NCAA
and the nation's top college conferences wrote in legal filings
April 28, 2023 night that current and former college athletes are
seeking more than $1.4 billion in damages in an antitrust lawsuit
that is challenging the association's remaining rules regarding
athletes' ability to make money from their names, images and
likenesses.

The filings did not specify whether that figure takes into account
the tripling of damages awards that occurs in successful antitrust
cases. If it does not, then more than $4.2 billion could be at
stake in the case.

The figure was presented in the NCAA and conferences' arguments to
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken that she should deny the
athletes' bid for class-action status for their damages claims.
Lawyers for the athletes formally sought class certification in
October in a request that was partially redacted, and backed by
reports from economic experts that were filed under seal.

The NCAA and the conferences specifically cited those reports in
their filings April 28, 2023 night.

If Wilken denies class-action status, any damages awarded in the
case would be limited to the claims of the three named plaintiffs:
Arizona State men’s swimmer Grant House; former Oregon women's
basketball player Sedona Prince, who has said she is transferring
to TCU; and former Illinois football player Tymir Oliver.

If Wilken grants class-action status, any damages awarded would be
based on the collective claims of thousands of athletes.

The huge amount of money potentially in play comes from the
athletes' contention that they are entitled to a share of the
billions of dollars in college sports TV revenue not only now, but
also reaching back to 2016. They also say they are entitled to
compensation they say they would have received in connection with
video games and other name, image and likeness (NIL) deals they
would have been able to make if NCAA rules had allowed them.

The claims are based on outcomes of prior antitrust litigation
against the NCAA and the NCAA’s substantial loosening of its
rules concerning athletes’ ability to make money from their NIL.
The NCAA rules change came after many states had passed laws that
allowed college athletes to get compensation from endorsements,
public appearances and signing autographs, among other ventures.

The largest shares of the damages are being sought for all current
and former athletes in football, men's basketball and women's
basketball who have received full athletic scholarships and play,
or have played for a school in one of the Power Five conferences
since June 15, 2016. That date is four years prior to when the suit
was initially filed, the reach-back period allowed under antitrust
law.

Damages also are being sought for athletes in all other NCAA
Division I sports who were playing before July 1, 2021 and have
been paid for the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) since
that date, which was when the NCAA's substantially loosened NIL
rules went into effect.

However, the NCAA and the conferences wrote in April 28, 2023
night's filings that the reports of the athletes' economic experts
are so flawed in their methodologies and assumptions that they do
not allow the plaintiffs to meet the legal requirements for the
damages claims to proceed on a class-action basis. The NCAA and the
conferences also argued that those defects are so pronounced that
Wilken should exclude the reports from her consideration of the
request for class certification.

The reports came from Ed Desser, a media consultant, and Dan
Rascher, a University of San Francisco sport management professor
who also has been an expert witness on the economics of
major-college athletics for plaintiffs in other antitrust cases
against the NCAA.

The plaintiffs' lawyers can file a reply to these contentions, but
must do so by July 21. Wilken has scheduled a hearing on class
certification for Sept. 21.
According to April 28, 2023 night's filing:

-- Desser concluded that value of the use of athletes' NIL in
college sports TV contracts is 10% of the total broadcast revenue
for each conference.

-- Desser also determined that of the dollar amount connected to
that percentage in a multi-sport media deal, 75% can be attributed
to football, 15% to men's basketball and 5% to women's basketball,
5% to Olympic sports.

-- Rascher said in his report that the 10% allocation would result
in each conference allocating that portion of its revenue to
full-scholarship football, men's basketball and women's basketball
players according to Desser's breakdown, with football and men's
and women's basketball players on each team being paid the same
amount.

The NCAA and the conferences included a table showing what the
broadcast-related payments "for the 2021 academic year" would be
for scholarship athletes in each of those three sports in each of
the Power Five conferences, although the names of the conferences
were redacted.

In first conference, football players would get $32,400; men's
basketball players $64,400 and women's basketball players $9,500.

In the second, it was $26,000 for football, $57,200 for men's
basketball, $6,800 for women's basketball.

In the third, the splits were: $42,500; $74,000; $14,100.

In the fourth, the splits were: $37,200; $77,400; $12,600.

In the fifth, the splits were: $29,800; $55,000; $8,900.

The NCAA and the conferences, citing legal declarations from an
array of conference executives and school administrators and
reports from their own experts, argued that the Desser-Rascher
model "assumes away all individual issues" and "ignores legal
roadblocks."

The existence of what the NCAA claims are individual issues when it
comes to appropriately determining damages -- if any -- would make
it improper for Wilken to allow collective resolution of claims
through a class action instead of requiring athletes to pursue
personal claims.

For example, the NCAA wrote that under the Desser-Rascher model: "A
starting quarterback and third string lineman in the same
conference would receive the same amount, while the most famous
women’s basketball players would receive less than lesser-known
backup football players. This is nonsensical and certainly not what
a star player would argue is appropriate in an individual
lawsuit."

As for one of several legal roadblocks that the NCAA and the
conferences contend are being ignored, they point to federal
gender-equity law. The Desser-Rascher model, they wrote "awards 96%
of damages to men and just 4% to women. That disparity would
violate Title IX, and there is no reason to believe that schools or
student-athletes would accept such an inequitable and unlawful"
arrangement. [GN]

NATURE'S FUSIONS: Taveras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nature's Fusions,
LLC. The case is styled as Yordaliza Taveras, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nature's Fusions, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-03467 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2023).

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

Nature's Fusions -- https://www.naturesfusions.com/ -- is a
community that bases itself on pure, natural products harvested
sustainably and ethically.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATURE'S PATH FOODS: Lee Files Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nature's Path Foods,
Inc. The case is styled as Rebecca Lee, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. Nature's Path
Foods, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00751-H-MSB (S.D. Cal., April 24,
2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Breach of
Warranty.

Nature's Path Foods -- https://naturespath.com/ -- commonly known
as Nature's Path, is a privately held, family-owned producer of
certified organic foods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caroline S. Emhardt, Esq.
          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Melanie Rae Persinger, Esq.
          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          Trevor Matthew Flynn, Esq.
          FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Phone: (619) 215-1741
          Fax: (619) 331-2943
          Email: caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                 jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                 melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
                 paul@pauljosephlaw.com
                 trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com


NEW YORK BEVERAGE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Beverage
Wholesalers, Corp. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. New York Beverage
Wholesalers, Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-03480 (S.D.N.Y., April 26,
2023).

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

New York Beverage Wholesalers, Corp. --
https://newyorkbeverage.com/ -- is the largest local beverage
center in NY City since 1996 specializing in residential and
commercial delivery of water, teas, sodas, juices, beers, 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


NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN: Simon Sues Over Illegal Disclosure of PII
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Simon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEW YORK-PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. and THE
NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Case No. 1:23-cv-03428
(S.D.N.Y., April 24, 2023), is brought to address Defendants'
outrageous, illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing
Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential personally identifiable
information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")
(collectively referred to as "Private Information") to third
parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook").

Recognizing these facts, and in order to implement requirements of
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
("HIPAA"), the United States Department of Health and Human
Services ("HHS") has established "Standards for Privacy of
Individually Identifiable Health Information" (also known as the
"Privacy Rule") governing how healthcare providers must safeguard
and protect Private Information.

In spite of their unique position as a massive and trusted
healthcare provider, Defendants knowingly configured and
implemented a software device known as a Tracking Pixel to collect
and transmit information from nyp.org (the "Website" or "Online
Platforms") to third parties, including information communicated in
sensitive and presumptively confidential patient searches such as
through the "Find a Doctor" tab (the "Disclosure"). The Defendants
encourage patients to use their Online Platforms for booking
medical appointments, locating physicians and treatment facilities,
communicating medical symptoms, searching medical conditions and
treatment options, signing up for events and classes, and more.

The Plaintiff and other Class Members who used Defendants' Website
thought they were communicating only with their trusted healthcare
provider. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, however,
Defendants have embedded the Facebook Tracking Pixel (the "Pixel"
or "Facebook Pixel") on their Website, surreptitiously forcing
Plaintiff and Class Members to transmit to Facebook every click,
keystroke, and intimate detail about their medical treatment.
Operating as designed and as implemented by Defendants, the Pixel
allows the Private Information that Plaintiff and Class Members
submit to Defendants to be unlawfully disclosed to Facebook
alongside the individual's unique and persistent Facebook ID
("FID"). In addition to the Facebook Pixel, Defendants also
installed and implemented Facebook's Conversions Application
Programming Interface ("CAPI") on Website servers.

Despite willfully and intentionally incorporating the Facebook
Pixel and CAPI into their Website and servers, Defendants have
never disclosed to Plaintiff or Class Members that it shared their
sensitive and confidential communications and Private Information
with Facebook. Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware that their
Private Information was being surreptitiously transmitted to
Facebook as they communicated with their healthcare provider via
the Website, or stored on Defendants' servers to be later
transmitted to Facebook so it could be used for targeted
advertising and marketing purposes.

The Defendants further made express and implied promises to protect
the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and maintain
the privacy and confidentiality of communications that patients
exchanged with the Defendants. The Defendants owed common law,
statutory, and regulatory duties to keep the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' communications and medical information safe, secure, and
confidential, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a current patient of Defendants.

The Defendants operate a healthcare system based in the State of
New York that consists of 10 hospitals and campuses in New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          Winston Hudson, Esq.
          Laura Edmondson, Esq.
          THE JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Ave., Suite 300
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 372-1300
          Email: chris@yourattorney.com
                 tyler@yourattorney.com
                 winston@yourattorney.com
                 ledmondson@yourattorney.com

               - and -

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 636-6481
          Fax: (317) 636-2593
          Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                 athomas@cohenandmalad.com


NEW YORK: Appeals Court Order in Allen Suit to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------
DR. CAROL MOORES is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Peter Allen, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Carl Koenigsmann, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-8173, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against the
Defendants for alleged violations of the 1983 Prisoner Civil
Rights.

The appellate case is captioned Moores v. Allen, Case No. 23-626,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed
on April 19, 2023. [BN]

Defendant-Petitioner DR. CAROL MOORES ANDRE HALL is represented
by:

            Oriana L. Kiley, Esq.
            WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA LLP
            One Commerce Plaza
            Albany, NY 12260
            Telephone: (518) 487-7728

Plaintiffs-Respondents PETER ALLEN, et al., on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Amy Jane Agnew, Esq.
            LAW OFFICE OF AMY JANE AGNEW, P.C.
            24 5th Avenue
            New York, NY 10011
            Telephone: (973) 600-1724

NEW YORK: Class Action Suit Over Dental Health Settled
------------------------------------------------------
Andy Newman of The New York Times reports that a class-action suit
that was settled on May 1, 2023 will bring about a change that is
as potentially transformative as it is mundane: coverage of common
but costly dental procedures for the five million adults in New
York State who are on Medicaid, including implants, root canals and
replacement dentures.

A class-action lawsuit will expand the state's Medicaid rules,
which lawyers argued were "structured to pull your teeth rather
than save them."

Matthew Adinolfi, who has no top teeth and had no love life for
over a decade, will be able to get implants so that he can kiss a
woman without fear of his dentures falling out.

Blanca Coreas, who can't eat anything firmer than mashed potatoes
without her gums bleeding, will be able to take a bite of grilled
meat.

Lillian Velazquez has now gotten the root canal that was denied for
nearly five years.
The suit, filed in 2018 in federal court against the State Health
Department, which oversees Medicaid in New York, charged the state
with denying thousands of low-income New Yorkers medically
necessary treatment.

Medicaid programs, which vary from state to state, are not required
to cover dental care; several states do not. But under federal law,
if a state Medicaid program does cover an optional category of care
-- such as dentistry, prescription drugs or optometry -- it must
cover all medically necessary care in that category.

The suit argued that dental health was essential not just to
overall physical health but also to psychological well-being and
the ability to find or keep a job.

"You need to have teeth to function in our society," said Belkys
Garcia, a lawyer with the Legal Aid Society, which filed the suit.
"It impacts everything in your life -- your relationships, how
people see themselves, how others see you."

For decades, Ms. Garcia said, New York's coverage rules for
Medicaid were "structured to pull your teeth rather than save
them." And because one of the main jobs of a tooth is to hold its
neighbors in place, an extraction often has a domino effect: Losing
teeth leads to losing more teeth.

"Once you start missing one tooth, the teeth start shifting," said
Victor Badner, chairman of dentistry at Jacobi Medical Center, a
city-run hospital in the Bronx. Dr. Badner filed a declaration in
the case describing the dental needs of one of the plaintiffs.

Under the newly covered benefits, he said, "The vast majority of
patients who otherwise would end up losing more teeth may instead
be able to save them."

New York already had "one of the more generous" Medicaid dental
programs in its range of services covered, said Colin Reusch,
director of policy for Community Catalyst, a health care consumer
advocacy group. But he added: "The devil's in the details in terms
of how these policies come into play for people who are in urgent
need of specific care."

Under the old rules, root canals and crowns on back teeth were
covered only if a diseased tooth was essential to anchoring a
denture or if extracting it was medically inadvisable. Replacements
for broken or lost dentures were covered only if the dentures were
at least eight years old. Implants were not covered at all.

The suit's lead plaintiff, Frank Ciaramella, died in 2020. In 2018,
his dentures were destroyed after he sneezed; they fell out and
were run over by a car. Under the old limits, he was not eligible
for new dentures until 2024.

Mr. Adinolfi, 65, former New York City cabdriver who is on
disability for a back injury and lives upstate near Plattsburgh,
had all but three teeth pulled around 2010 after contracting a
mouth infection so severe doctors feared it would spread to his
organs.
"It was either pull the teeth out or die," he said.

The dentures he received through Medicaid never fit and would not
stay in place, making them impossible to eat with. He eventually
paid for a permanent bridge for his lower front teeth, but could
not afford one in back. Years of using his upper gums to chew down
on his bottom denture have left the gums damaged. He needs implants
to hold his upper denture in place, but Medicaid did not cover
them.

As bad as the discomfort and difficulty eating have been, the
effect on his social life has been at least as bad.

He did not have a relationship for over 10 years "because I just
get to a point where you want to take it to the next level, and
then that's it," Mr. Adinolfi said. "If I take the denture out you
can notice how sucked-in my face is -- it's just very embarrassing
on my part." (He now has a girlfriend for the first time since his
teeth were pulled.)

The settlement obligates New York Medicaid to cover implants,
replacement dentures and most root canals if a dentist authorizes
the procedures.
The settlement also does away with a rule that denied coverage for
many procedures to people who still had four matched upper and
lower pairs of back teeth, which the state had "considered adequate
for functional purposes."

Mary Eaton, a lawyer with Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, which
joined Legal Aid's suit, said that the dental problems addressed by
the rules were "issues that everybody faces, regardless of your
economic status."

But Medicaid recipients tend to have more, and more complex, health
problems than the population at large, often the result of lifelong
poverty and inadequate medical care. Ms. Garcia said she had seen
many clients "take on terrible credit card debt" to pay for basic
dental procedures.

The gaps in Medicaid's dental coverage also worsened racial health
disparities. Ms. Garcia said that Black and brown adults suffer
from untreated dental disease at nearly twice the rate as white
adults.

The State Health Department, which twice attempted to get the case
dismissed, said in a statement May 1, 2023 afternoon that the
settlement "recognizes the importance of oral health and affirms
the state's commitment" to people on Medicaid. [GN]

NEWELL BRANDS: Schmitt Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SCHMITT is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
his lawsuit entitled Matthew Schmitt, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Newell Brands Inc., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3-20-cv-16240, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed the putative class action on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated against the Defendants for alleged violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"), N.J. Stat. Ann. 56:8-1
et seq.; negligent misrepresentation; fraud; and unjust
enrichment.

According to the Plaintiff, the car seat's product manual orders
the consumer to "STOP using this car seat and throw it away 10
years after the date of manufacture," and further that Graco's
website explains that its "car seats can be used safely only for a
defined period of time, typically 7 to 10 years." When the car seat
arrived, however, it purportedly had a sticker affixed to the seat
that indicated it had been manufactured on March 7, 2019.

Thus, the Plaintiff alleges that the car seat he purchased was
"nearly one-and-a-half years old by the time it arrived," and that
the useful life of the car seat had depreciated by 15%. In this
regard, he asserts that he purchased the car seat intending to use
it for ten years, not only for his current child, but with hopes of
utilizing it for future children as well. According to him, had he
known that the car seat was substantially expired, he would not
have purchased the product, and therefore, the Defendants'
unconscionable commercial practices, deceptions, fraud, and
misrepresentations caused him and thousands of other consumers in
New Jersey and throughout the United States financial injury.

On Feb. 1, 2021, the Plaintiff filed First Amended Complaint
("FAC"), asserting five causes of action: (1) violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"), N.J. Stat. Ann. 56:8-1 et
seq.; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) fraud; (4) unjust
enrichment; and (5) "money had and received." He seeks economic
damages on behalf of himself and purchasers like him, representing
the difference in value between a new car seat with a discrete
amount of useful life (i.e., what was promised) and a car seat with
a substantially reduced life (i.e., what was received). He also
seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendants from engaging in
this practice and requiring them to provide purchasers with
accurate statements regarding the car seat purchased.

On Feb. 16, 2021, the Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Zahid N. Quraishi on Mar. 28, 2023.

Judge Quraishi opined that the FAC fails to allege sufficient facts
to support Plaintiff's claims that the Defendants misrepresented
the car seat he purchased. With respect to the car seat purchased
by the Plaintiff, the FAC alleges merely, upon information and
belief, that a similar statement, if not the very same statement,
was found on the Graco website for the SlimFit(TM) Platinum 3-in-1
Car Seat.

Accordingly, Judge Quraishi finds that the Plaintiff lacks standing
to seek monetary damages.

Judge Quraishi also concluded that the Plaintiff does not having
standing to seek injunctive relief. He says the Plaintiff alleges
only that he would like to be able to purchase a Graco Car Seat in
the future but would like to be able to know what the useful life
of the product he is purchasing is. First, the Plaintiff's
allegation that he "would like to be able to" purchase another
Graco car seat in the future is precisely the type of vague,
speculative allegations of future harm that courts have routinely
rejected. Second, because his allegations reveal that he knows of
the Defendants' purported practices, the Plaintiff's request for
injunctive relief amounts to a "'top me before I buy again' claim"
that precludes Article III standing. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
does not have standing to seek injunctive relief.

For these reasons, Judge Quraishi granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiff's FAC without prejudice based
on a lack of standing. The Plaintiff was given leave to amend his
FAC within 30 days from the date of the accompanying Order
consistent with the guidance provided in the Opinion.

The appellate case is captioned Matthew Schmitt v. Newell Brands
Inc., et al., Case No. 23-1738, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 19, 2023. [BN]

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

            Christopher M. Malikschmitt, Esq.
            DRESSEL/MALIKSCHMITT
            11 East Cliff Street
            Ground Floor
            Somerville, NJ 08876
            Telephone: (848) 202-9323

Defendants-Appellees NEWELL BRANDS INC., et al., are represented
by:

            Malerie Roddy, Esq.
            ARENTFOX SCHIFF
            233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 7100
            Chicago, IL 60606
            Telephone: (312) 258-5563

NEXT LEVEL PIZZA: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Next Level Pizza,
Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Next Level Pizza, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-03160 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2023).

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

Next Level Pizza, Inc., doing business as Oath Craft Pizza Inc,
operates as a chain of restaurant. The Company offers craft pizza,
snacks, and soft drinks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: CEO Sued for $25-M East Palestine Derailment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gauntner of 21 WFMJ reports that an inmate who was sitting in
a prison cell nearly 20 miles from East Palestine when a Norfolk
Southern train hauling toxic chemicals went off the tracks is suing
the chief executive of the railroad for $25 million.

A lawsuit filed by 30-year-old Josh Turner in U.S. District Court
against Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw claims that the spillage of
vinyl chloride in the February 3rd derailment and subsequent
decision for a controlled burn sent toxic chemicals into the
environment.

Turner, who is serving a four-year sentence for robbery and
felonious assault at the Ohio Penitentiary on Coitsville-Hubbard
Road in Youngstown, alleges in the partially hand-written complaint
that he has been suffering from rashes, headaches, chest pain,
wheezing, and breathing problems which he attributes to impact of
vinyl chloride.

Claiming that prison officials have made no effort to provide
inmates with bottled water, Turner alleges that his constitutional
rights are being violated.

Alan Shaw has not filed a response to the suit, which is just one
of nearly thirty civil lawsuits filed against the railroad by
residents, businesses, and government entities since the
derailment.

The various class action suits have claimed that people living or
working as close to two miles from the derailment, to as far as
thirty miles away should be able to become party to the
complaints.

A federal judge has asked law firms involved in more than 20 of the
cases to come up with criteria that can be compiled into a single
complaint.

Turner's case has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Jonathan
Greenberg. [GN]

NYC FIREPLACES: Black Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NYC Fireplaces and
Outdoor Kitchens, LLC. The case is styled as Jahron Black, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NYC
Fireplaces and Outdoor Kitchens, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03167
(E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2023).

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

NYC Fireplaces & Outdoor Kitchens -- https://www.nycfireplaces.com/
-- is a family owned fireplace store which includes an elite team
of in-house craftsmen, installers, technicians and designers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


OLD-GROWTH AGAIN: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Old-Growth Again
Restoration Forestry, Inc. The case is styled as Justin Bullock, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Old-Growth
Again Restoration Forestry, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03491 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 26, 2023).

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

Old-Growth Again Restora on Forestry (OGA) is a "hands-on"
California company restoring logged forestlands to their ancient
form while prac cing ecologically and economically restora ve
forestry.[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


OREGON ONE: Byrne Wins Relief From Final Class Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon grants the Plaintiff's motion for relief in
the lawsuit titled ROBERT D. BYRNE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OREGON ONE, INC., an
Oregon corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01910-SB (D. Or.).

Plaintiff Robert Byrne moves for relief from the Court's order and
judgment granting final approval of the parties' class action
settlement pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) or
60(b)(6).

On Sept. 29, 2016, Byrne, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, filed this action against Defendant Oregon One, Inc.,
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"). Byrne's claims focused on the debt collection letters
that Oregon One sent to him and other individuals, and Oregon One's
response to his attempt to dispute and obtain information regarding
his purported debt.

Following almost two years of contested litigation, Byrne filed an
unopposed motion on July 13, 2018, to approve preliminarily a class
action settlement, conditionally certify a proposed settlement
class, direct notice, and set a final approval hearing. On Aug. 6,
2018, the Court granted Byrne's motion and set a final approval
hearing date of Dec. 10, 2018. After the designated administrator
provided notice to class members, Byrne filed an unopposed motion
for final approval of the class action settlement.

Based on its review of the parties' settlement agreement and
filings, as well as relevant legal authorities and arguments the
parties presented at the Dec. 10, 2018 hearing, the Court
determined that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate
and that granting final approval was in the best interests of the
class, and awarded attorney fees to Byrne's counsel in the total
aggregate amount of $90,000, and a class representative fee payment
of $3,500 to the Plaintiff, as outlined in the Stipulation as to
Class Counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees, Expenses and
Class Representative Service Award.

The parties also agreed that Oregon One would cease collection of
the class members' unpaid debts and the balance remaining on any
judgments obtained against them, that Byrne was entitled to $1,000
in statutory damages and a class representative fee of $3,500, and
that each of the remaining 157 class members would receive checks
in the amount of $54.14 (i.e., the remaining $8,500 of the $13,000
in settlement funds for class members would be divided equally
among 157 people). Byrne verified that Oregon One's net worth was
approximately $350,000 and, therefore, the class members could only
be awarded $3,500 in "damages at trial" because the FDCPA caps the
total amount of statutory damages recoverable by the class to the
lesser of $500,000 or one percent of the net worth of the debt
collector.

The Court also entered an order granting Byrne's unopposed motion
for final approval and entered final judgment that was consistent
with and according to the terms of the order granting final
approval. The order granting final approval provided that the Court
retained continuing jurisdiction over, among other things, the
distribution of the settlement payments, Class Representative
Service Awards, processing of claims permitted by the Agreement,
and all parties to this Action and class members for the purpose of
enforcing and administering the Agreement.

On Feb. 25, 2019, a few months after the Court entered final
judgment, Oregon One filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in
federal court. On Sept. 23, 2019, class counsel filed proofs of
claim in the bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of themselves, Byrne,
and the absent class members. On Aug. 19, 2022, the bankruptcy
court docketed the trustee's final report and proposed payments to
the applicants for compensation, including $1,066.76 for Byrne,
$2,016.09 for the class members, and $21,335.08 for class counsel.
Class counsel later received checks for their payment and the class
members' $2,016.09 payment, and Byrne received his $1,066.76
payment.

On Oct. 25, 2022, Byrne filed the pending motion for relief from
the Court's order and judgment granting final approval of the
settlement agreement. Byrne's motion addresses the appropriate
manner in which class counsel should distribute the class members'
$2,016.09 payment, which class counsel has deposited in a trust
account pending resolution of this motion.

Judge Beckerman notes that Byrne appears to seek to establish that
pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5), prospective application of the Court's
order and judgment granting final approval of the settlement
agreement is no longer equitable. The Court agrees.

The Court finds that it has jurisdiction to enter the relief Byrne
seeks, because Judge Beckerman retained continuing jurisdiction
over implementation of the settlement agreement and distribution of
the settlement payments.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, Oregon One was
obligated to pay class members $8,504.69, or $54.14 per class
member. In light of Oregon One's bankruptcy, dissolution, and
breach of the settlement agreement, class counsel received only
$2,016.09 to distribute to the class members, or $13.62 per class
member. The settlement agreement required Oregon One to pay for
class notice and the distribution of funds to the class members,
but Oregon One is now dissolved. The settlement agreement was clear
that Byrne, the class members, and class counsel will have no
responsibility or liability relating to payment of administrative
costs of the settlement.

Even if Byrne, the class members, or class counsel were inclined to
pay for the administration and distribution of the $2,016.09
payment in question to the 157 class members, class counsel
represents that those costs would exceed the distribution.
Accordingly, class counsel proposes two possible solutions: (1)
distribute the class members' payment to Byrne, which would result
in a total recovery to Byrne of approximately $1,500 less than he
was originally entitled to recover pursuant to the settlement
agreement, or (2) distribute the class members' payment to the
National Association of Consumer Advocates ("NACA"), a consumer law
nonprofit organization, as a cy pres award.

In light of the fact that the costs to administer and distribute
the remaining payment are likely greater than the payment itself,
there is no party responsible for paying those costs, and the
payment to class members would amount to only $13.62 per class
member, the Court finds that class counsel may instead distribute
the $2,016.09 payment to Byrne. The settlement agreement obligated
Oregon One to pay Byrne $1,000 in statutory damages and a $3,500
class representative fee, for a total payment of $4,500. To date,
he has received only $1,066.76, and the additional $2,016.09 would
result in a total payment of $3,082.85, which is less than the
$4,500 he is due.

Although the settlement agreement anticipated a cy pres fund, the
parties intended that the fund would result from the residual of
the settlement fund after the class administrator made all payments
set forth in this Agreement. Because Oregon One has not made all
payments set forth in the settlement agreement, there is no
residual to distribute.

The Court, therefore, finds that distributing the remaining
$2,016.09 to Byrne is more consistent with the terms of the
settlement agreement, and is the most fair, reasonable, and
adequate solution to the unfortunate circumstances present here.

For these reasons, the Court finds that applying the terms of the
parties' settlement agreement, as incorporated in this Court's
order approving the settlement agreement and final judgment, is no
longer equitable as the result of Oregon One's bankruptcy,
dissolution, and breach of the settlement agreement, that the
balance of the equities supports distributing the $2,016.09
settlement payment to Byrne, and that Byrne sought this relief
within a reasonable time.

Therefore, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5), the Court relieves the
parties and their legal representatives from distributing the
$2,016.09 payment to class members and authorizes class counsel to
distribute that payment to Byrne.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated April 3,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4pvvawm6 from
Leagle.com.


OWNEZ ASSET: Appeal Filed in Garcia Suit
----------------------------------------
An appeal has been filed in the lawsuit styled Christian E. Cazares
Garcia, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ownez Asset Management, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 49D12-2304-PL-015770, in the Indiana Superior
Court Marion County.

The case type is stated as PL - Civil Plenary.

The appellate case is captioned Christian E. Cazares Garcia, et al.
vs. Ownez Asset Management, LLC, et al., filed on April 18, 2023.
[BN]

Plaintiffs CHRISTIAN E. CAZARES GARCIA, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Brandon Eric Tate, Esq.
            Matthew Ross Land, Esq.
            Benjamin Albert Spandau, Esq.
            WALDRON TATE BOWEN SPANDAU LLC
            156 E. Market St.
            Indianapolis, IN 46204
            Telephone: (317) 296-5294

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Averts Class Action Over Fitness Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge on
May 2 refused to let Peloton Interactive Inc (PTON.O) customers
pursue a class action accusing the bike and treadmill maker of
misleading them about the "ever-growing" size of its library of
on-demand fitness classes.

In a 74-page decision, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman in Manhattan
said individual issues predominated over common issues affecting
the many thousands of customers in the proposed class, and
therefore the customers could not sue as a group.

The decision is a victory for New York-based Peloton, because class
actions can allow for greater recoveries at lower cost than when
plaintiffs sue individually.

Lawyers for the customers had no immediate comment.

Peloton had been accused of enticing people to buy its products
based on its improper commitment to provide an "ever-growing" or
"growing" library of on-demand classes.

Customers sued after Peloton decided in March 2019 to purge more
than half of its estimated 12,000 classes, following litigation by
music publishers that accused the company of streaming songs
without proper licensing.

According to the customers, Peloton knew this could happen, yet
kept charging full price for products containing copyrighted songs
by Adele, Beyoncé, Luke Bryan, Drake, Ariana Grande, Madonna,
Justin Timberlake, Jay Z and other artists.

Liman said the customers could not sue on a theory they were
induced to pay premium prices because some might not have seen
Peloton's challenged statements. He also said the customers did not
measure the damages attributable to those statements.

In opposing class certification, Peloton said its prices remained
constant for more than a year after it removed classes, and that
not everyone saw its "ever-growing" or "growing" claims because it
did not advertise them widely.

Peloton settled the licensing lawsuit by the National Music
Publishers' Association and 14 members in February 2020.

The case is Passman et al v Peloton Interactive Inc, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of  New York, No. 19-11711. [GN]

PEOPLECONNECT INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE GEOFFREY ABRAHAM,
ALICE ZHANG, WAYNE TSENG, and JAMAAL CARNEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PEOPLECONNECT,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-09203-EMC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Milton Chen entered an order granting
administrative motion to file portions of the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and related documents under seal.

Peopleconnect provides online social network services.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nc4EQ3 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
                  mappel@forthepeople.com

PETSMART LLC: Jenkins Suit Alleges Fair Workweek Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAMAYAH JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PETSMART, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 230403033
(Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., April 28, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Philadelphia Fair
Workweek Employment Standards.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the Fair
Workweek Law by failing to: (a) provide compliant written good
faith estimates of employees' work schedules; (b) provide 14-day
notice of employees' work schedules; (c) pay required penalties and
Predictability Pay and obtain written consent when the Defendant
changed employees' work schedules with less than 14-day notice; and
(d) offer new shifts to current employees before hiring new
employees.

The Plaintiff worked as an hourly paid employee at the PetSmart
store located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania from June 2022 through
November 2022.

PetSmart, LLC is a big box retailer based in Phoenix, Arizona.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
         WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
         1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 656-3600
         Facsimile: (215) 567-2310
         E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com

                 - and -

         Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
         Krysten Connon, Esq.
         LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC
         729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
         Boston, MA 02116
         Telephone: (267) 256-9973
         E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
                 kconnon@llrlaw.com

                 - and -

         Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
         WERMAN SALAS, PC
         705 8 St. SE, Ste. 100
         Washington, DC 20003
         Telephone: (202) 830-2016
         E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com

PICTSWEET CO: Court Orders Anciola to Arbitrate Individual Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSE ANCIOLA, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PICTSWEET COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01754-JFW (Ex)
(C.D. Cal.), Judge John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California orders the parties to arbitrate
the Plaintiff's individual claims against Pictsweet.

Based on the parties' Stipulation re Arbitration of Plaintiff's
Individual Claims and Dismissal of Class Claims, and pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and 41(a)(2), Judge Walter orders Anciola and
Pictsweet to arbitrate the Plaintiff's individual claims against
Pictsweet asserted in the Complaint pursuant to the terms of the
Mutual Agreement Regarding Arbitration and Class Claims. The
statute(s) of limitations in the arbitration for any and all of the
Plaintiff's claims asserted in the Class Action will relate back to
the filing date of the original Complaint in the Class Action (that
is, Dec. 29, 2022).

All class claims contained in the Complaint and all requests for
relief on behalf of the putative class, including but not limited
to certification of any class, are dismissed without prejudice.

There is no prevailing party for purposes related to this
dismissal, no party will be entitled to recover attorneys' fees
and/or costs based on this dismissal, and each party will bear its
own attorneys' fees and/or costs incurred in connection with the
stipulation for dismissal and this dismissal.

Judge Walter says no notice of the Order to the putative class is
required because arbitration of the Plaintiff's individual claims
will not bind, and dismissal without prejudice of the class claims
will not adversely affect the rights of, the putative class.

The Clerk will administratively close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2023 Order is available
at https://rb.gy/emxo8 from Leagle.com.


PROHEALTH CARE: E.D. Wisconsin Allows Doe to Proceed Anonymously
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brett H. Ludwig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin allows the Plaintiff to proceed anonymously
in the lawsuit entitled JOHN DOE, Plaintiff v. PROHEALTH CARE,
Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-0296-bhl (E.D. Wis.).

On March 3, 2023, the Plaintiff, using the pseudonym "John Doe,"
filed this class action lawsuit against Defendant ProHealth Care,
alleging that the Company illegally disclosed clients' personally
identifiable information (PII) and protected health information
(PHI) to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta
("Facebook"). He also moved to proceed anonymously.

ProHealth Care has not opposed the motion, but regardless, Judge
Ludwig points out that a district court judge has an independent
duty to determine whether exceptional circumstances justify a
departure from the normal method of proceeding in federal courts,
citing Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 112
F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997). Because Doe has demonstrated
exceptional circumstances, his motion will be granted.

John Doe considers himself "particularly vulnerable" because
publication of his real name alongside any of his improperly
released PII and PHI would make him a prime target for "identity
theft, medical identity theft, fraud and financial loss,
discrimination, stigma, mental anguish and other negative
consequences."

The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
appears to agree, Judge Ludwig says. In recently released guidance
materials, HHS warns that "an impermissible disclosure of PHI may
result in identity theft, financial loss, discrimination, stigma,
mental anguish, or other serious negative consequences to the
reputation, health, or physical safety of the individual or to
others identified in the individual's PHI."

Accounting for all of these factors, the Court finds that Doe has
rebutted the presumption of public identification and should be
allowed to proceed anonymously.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/336pb8dz from Leagle.com.


QUEBEC: Flooding Victims File Class Suit Over 2019 Dike Break
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lowrie of The Canadian Press reports that Sylvie Bechard had
only owned her little brick house for six months when her neighbour
came banging on her door on the night of April 27, 2019. The dike
holding back the Lake of Two Mountains had been breached, and
floodwaters were rushing toward her home.

"She said 'Sylvie, we have to evacuate, the dike has given out.
We're being flooded, '" Bechard recalled recently.

Four years after flooding forced the evacuation of more than 6,000
residents of Ste-Marthe-sur-le-Lac, Que., and damaged hundreds of
homes, there is plenty of anger from residents who say they’re
still suffering from the financial and emotional consequences.
Earlier this month, a class-action lawsuit against the municipality
and the province on behalf of flooding victims was authorized to
move forward.

Bechard remembers the days that followed the breach, when Armed
Forces or police would take her by boat down the flooded streets of
the town northwest of Montreal to retrieve a few belongings. When
she was finally able to return, 11 days later, the scene was
"hell," she said.

While the ground floor was high enough to be spared, her basement
had filled with five feet of stagnant water, destroying her living
room, two bedrooms, and all her photos, clothes and personal
effects. "Everything I accumulated in my life was there," she said
in an interview.

Richard Lauzon, another Ste-Marthe resident, also saw his life
plans washed away with the 2019 flooding. Lauzon owned two homes in
the community: one for himself and one that was intended for his
elderly parents.

One house was demolished due to flood damage. The other he sold at
a loss after becoming tired of what he describes as the lack of
responsiveness from the municipal and provincial governments to
questions about being compensated for the repairs.

"I worked all my life to own something of my own, and at the end I
find myself with nothing," said Lauzon, who is now a renter in
another city.

Lauzon is the lead plaintiff in the class-action, which alleges
that authorities knew the dike could break and didn't act quickly
enough to prevent it. It has not yet been judged on the facts.

Lauzon cites a 2017 report by private firm Axio Environnement,
which found that significant repairs were needed in order to
counter the effects of erosion and prevent a rupture." (The dike)
was neglected, and one day or another, it was going to happen," he
said.

Officials have said in the past that the town's mayor had requested
an environmental assessment, and work was expected to begin soon
when the dike broke. Premier François Legault said at the time
that nobody had believed the situation was at imminent risk of
rupture.

The lawyer heading the class action says he has yet to finalize a
dollar figure for the claim. But he wants to ensure residents are
fully reimbursed for the cost of the repairs or loss of their
homes, as well as for the others harms they've suffered, including
psychological.

While many residents received provincial compensation for damage to
their homes, Lauzon said it wasn't enough to cover the full cost.
He said he was given $131,000 for his ruined three-bedroom home, a
figure he calls "ridiculous."

April 30, 2023, the neighbourhood shows signs of what happened.
Vacant lots sit among the older homes that still stand and others
that are newly built.

The dike that holds back the lake has been rebuilt higher, with a
walking path on top and sloping sides that feature large rocks on
one side, and grass on the other. On a recent visit, the brown
waters lapped about halfway up the side of the dike, not close to
the top, but still far higher than the homes sitting on the other
side.

One of the vacant lots once contained the house where Josee Ares
once lived with her young family.

In a phone interview, she said the house had initially not appeared
to be too badly damaged by the flood. But the next year, cracks
started appearing throughout the foundation due to what an engineer
would later tell her was water damage, as well as the movement of
the ground, which had become unstable.

What followed was a three-year back-and-forth with the city over
the future of the house, which she eventually concluded needed to
be demolished. She said her mental health took a hit as she dealt
with contractors, engineers, and government officials while trying
to work, raise her young son and take care of her partner.

When the demolition permit was granted last summer, all she felt
was relief.
"I thought I'd be emotional because it was my first home, where my
son was born. There are so many memories," she said. "But what was
bigger was the liberation from all that. "

Bechard, for her part, spent $40,000 on renovations to make her
home habitable. While she eventually received $50,000 in
compensation from the province, she said it wasn’t enough to
restore her home to its previous state, and it didn’t take into
account the emotional stress that caused her to take a year off
work.

She wasn't keen on the class action so decided to band together
with another group of residents to hire a lawyer to seek
compensation from the city and province. She said she's hoping to
be awarded $150,000.

Last year, Bechard sold her house. Since then she's become a nomad,
splitting time between friends' homes and travelling. Instead of
buying another house, she decided to upgrade her RV.

"That way if I'm on the edge of a lake and the water rises, I can
just leave," she said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 30,
2023. [GN]

RANGE RESOURCES: Kroll Discusses Ruling in Gas Royalty Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kroll discussed the ruling in the case styled Frederick v. Range
Resources-Appalachia, LLC No. 1:08-CV-288-SPB, 2023 WL 2025089
(W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2023) (Baxter, J.)

A class of plaintiffs holding oil and gas royalty interests brought
a lawsuit against the producer, Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC,
alleging improper cost deductions were made to their payments owed.
The parties settled and entered into an agreement, but
post-settlement actions did not conform to this agreement. After
extended litigation on a Rule 60(a) motion, objections were raised
by two groups of members over supplemental settlement and fee
awards, which were denied and appealed. Separately, a motion for
one group of objectors' fees was also filed and the Court denied
this motion.

On appeal, the Court looked to a Third Circuit precedent, which
held that objectors may be entitled to fees when they improve the
settlement, whether in the judicial process or as an economic
benefit.

First, the Court set forth its own knowledge of the case
proceedings thus far and noted that determinations at the trial
court stage are to be afforded special deference under case law.
The Court rejected objectors' contentions that (1) class counsel
provided inadequate representation and held a conflict of interest,
(2) that there was insufficient support for the fee award, (3) that
the fee award was disproportionate to the results achieved and (4)
that alternatively, the objectors should be able to opt out of the
supplemental settlement.

The Court found that none of these arguments had prevailed and that
the objectors therefore did not substantially improve the
settlement or materially affect the Court's analysis, whereas other
factors in the proceedings were far more prominent in improving the
settlement.

The Court also found that the objectors' arguments were shared by
other objectors who were not themselves seeking a fee award. For
this reason, the movant objectors' involvement could not be
distinguished as an independent contribution in improving the
settlement. [GN]

REMART OF SOUTH: Garay Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Laborers
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRANCO T. GARAY, ROBERTO GIL, and YANCCO REYES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REMART OF
SOUTH FLORIDA LLC and ARTURO A. PINO MARTINEZ, Defendants, Case No.
9:23-cv-80718 (S.D. Fla., April 29, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as construction laborers
approximately between December 06, 2021, and March 16, 2023.

Remart of South Florida LLC is a construction and remodeling
company doing business in Palm Beach County, Florida. [BN]

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

SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-00791 (M.D. Fla., April 28, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages and retaliatory discharge in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a construction worker from approximately
April 25, 2022, to March 24, 2023.

Southern Development & Construction, Inc. is a construction firm
doing business in Florida. [BN]

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

STANFORD TRUST: Trial in Ponzi Scheme Suit Set July 22, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Bruce of The Advocate reports that a Baton Rouge-based Ponzi
scheme that cost hundreds of victims their retirement savings could
finally face a civil trial in state court by next summer.

It's been 15 years since a class-action lawsuit involving 900
investors in the Stanford Trust Co. was filed in the 19th Judicial
District Court. Following a hearing earlier this month, during
which attorneys addressed a laundry list of issues in the case, the
presiding judge rescheduled the trial to begin July 22, 2024.

Chief Judge Donald Johnson had originally set trial for March 2025.
He pushed it up about seven months after conferring with attorneys
during the April 19 hearing, court records show.

During the hearing, Johnson urged legal teams representing the
plaintiffs and defending state agencies to make more headway in
setting depositions, notifying witnesses and handling any other
pre-trial matters.

"I think we can get all this done and be ready for a trial next
summer," he said. "The perception is that somehow we're delaying a
resolution here. I get that inference, that somehow this has taken
too long to resolve. I don't want that. Let's go ahead and close
out this litigation no later than the summer of next year."
The trial is expected to last two weeks.

The class-action suit accuses the state's Office of Financial
Institutions, or OFI, of failing for years to protect investors who
fell victim to R. Allen Stanford's investment scheme.

Stanford orchestrated the scheme for two decades while chairman of
the offshore Stanford International Bank, embezzling $7 billion to
finance his personal businesses and lavish lifestyle, according to
testimony in a criminal case that resulted in a 110-year sentence.

Stanford Trust was based in Baton Rouge, and the Stanford Group Co.
-- another Stanford entity -- had offices in downtown Baton Rouge.
Victims of the Ponzi scheme invested their retirement savings as
rollover IRAs in fraudulent certificates of deposit (CDs) that
financial advisers told investors were safely held at Stanford
International Bank in the Caribbean islands.

But Allen Stanford was stealing the victims' investments worldwide.
Local victims lost about $250 million collectively, according to
attorneys representing hundreds of the Louisiana plaintiffs.

A hearing in the case is set for 9 a.m. May 10 in Johnson's
courtroom. Attorneys will argue several motions including one to
split the trial into two phases -- first to consider liability,
then a second one to determine damages if OFI is found liable.

The state wants to have the damages portion bifurcated into
separate trials before different juries to set the amount each of
the plaintiffs should be awarded. The plaintiffs' attorneys say the
case should be argued before a single jury to decide collectively.
[GN]

STANLEY BLACK: Onge Sues Over False Labeling of Vacuums
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ST. ONGE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STANLEY BLACK & DECKER, INC.,
d/b/a DEWALT, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00516 (D. Conn., April
25, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's alleged false labeling and
packaging of DeWalt-brand wet/dry vacuums.

Allegedly, the Defendant labeled the Vacuums with false and
misleading horsepower ratings because such representations are
highly material to consumers and serve to differentiate the Vacuums
from competitors' vacuums. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks relief
in this action individually, and as a class action on behalf of
similarly situated purchasers of Defendant's products, for: (i)
breach of express warranty; (ii) breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability; (iii) unjust enrichment; (iv) negligent
misrepresentation; (v) fraud; (vi) violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (vii) violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law; and (viii) violation of California's False
Advertising Law.

Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. is a Connecticut corporation, with its
principal place of business at 1000 Stanley Drive, New Britain. The
company manufactures, sells, and distributes DeWalt-brand products,
and is responsible for the advertising, marketing, trade dress, and
packaging of DeWalt wet/dry vacuums. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
         REARDON SCANLON LLP
         45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
         West Hartford, CT 06107
         Telephone: (860) 955-9455
         Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
         E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com

                  - and -

         Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
         Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com
                 ndeckant@bursor.com

STOP & SHOP: Faces Class Action Over Flushable Wipes
----------------------------------------------------
WBZ-News reports that a Beverly man is suing Stop & Shop, claiming
the store's brand of flushable wipes aren't, in fact, flushable.

The class-action lawsuit says the Stop & Shop and Always My
Baby-branded wipes say they are flushable in large type on the
package, but in small print on the bottom of the package,
disclaimers give a long list of ways the wipes aren't actually
flushable. In fact, the lawsuit alleges, the wipes do not quickly
break apart, clogging toilets or causing sewer damage.

"There is no value to consumers for purportedly "flushable" wipes
that are not actually flushable," the suit states.

The suit aims to represent anyone who purchased the wipes within
the statute of limitations, which could be hundreds of thousands of
people. The suit is asking for reparation and a jury trial. [GN]


SUN LIFE: Bid to Amend Class Suit Over Insurance Policies Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Almazora of WP reports that a group of plaintiffs seeking to
amend their action against Sun Life over decades-old universal life
insurance policies have hit a roadblock in Ontario's Superior Court
of Justice.

According to a decision dated April 27, the group led by Eldon Fehr
bought universal life insurance policies in the '80s and '90s from
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The bulk of MetLife's Canadian
business was acquired in 1998 by Mutual Life Insurance Co., which
was subsequently renamed Clarica Life Insurance Company and later
amalgamated with Sun Life.

The plaintiffs alleged that on several occasions, Sun Life repriced
its Universal Flexiplus policies to increase the monthly cost of
insurance (COI) and administration fees on them. Those charges are
deducted from an accumulation fund within the policies, a feature
that allows policyholders to generate savings on a tax-deferred
basis.

They contended the repricings were "based on factors that were not
permitted under the policy terms," and that Sun Life "administered
the policies in such a way as to conceal its (alleged) breach of
contract."

Fehr and other policyholders also sought to amend their action with
a new common issue, questioning Sun Life's decision effective March
2001 to increase the "investment spread" annual rate charged
against Flexiplus policyholders' accumulation fund balances from
1.25% to 1.75%.

"[T]hey allege that, in addition to increasing the COI and
administrative fees, the insurer took a greater share of the
investment profits by increasing the investment spread, all to
shore up the profitability of the policies," the decision said.
"They argue that the increase in the investment spread was not
detectable by the policyholders as it was subsumed in the broader
market interest rate fluctuations affecting investments in the
accumulation funds, and the policyholders were never advised of the
investment spread increase by the insurer."

Sun Life denies any breach of contract and does not accept the
plaintiffs' arguments about how it administered the insurance
policies.

The presiding judge found that the plaintiffs weren't able to show
a link between how interest rate spreads are determined and rates
for daily interest, in contrast to the evidence supporting Sun
Life's argument that they're not related.  

The plaintiffs, the judge added, did not attempt to argue that the
investment spread levels impaired their "ability to obtain
vanishing premium benefits and avoid policy depletion or lapse."

The judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the action,
ruling that it was "out of time."  

The defendants sought all-inclusive partial indemnity costs of
$471,896.65, while plaintiffs' costs outline supported partial
indemnity costs of $50,705.79.

"I fix the reasonable partial indemnity costs of this motion at
$75,000, all-inclusive," the judge said. "The plaintiffs shall pay
this amount to the defendants within 30 days." [GN]

TFORCE LOGISTICS: Court Dismisses Lim Class Suit With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Kronstadt of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California enters Final Judgment in the case, SANTIAGO
LIM individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TFORCE LOGISTICS, LLC, and TFORCE FINAL MILE WEST,
LLC Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04390-JAK (AGRx) (C.D. Cal.), and
dismisses the case with prejudice.

On April 18, 2023, an order was entered on the Plaintiff's Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, the Plaintiff's
Motion for Service Award, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's
Fees and Costs.

As discussed in the Final Approval Order, the action has been
settled in its entirety and the following Orders have been made
regarding the Class Action Settlement and related matters:

       1. The Final Approval Motion is granted as to certification
of the Settlement Class defined as: All persons who, according to
Defendants' business records or records provided to them by SCI,
(i) prior to and including Dec. 31, 2019, signed an Independent
Contractor and/or Owner Operator Agreement (either in their
individual capacity or as the owner of a business entity) with
Dynamex Operations West, Inc., TForce Final Mile West, LLC, TForce
Logistics West, LLC, BeavEx, Inc., JNJW Enterprises, Inc., Velocity
Express Leasing, Inc., or Velocity Express, LLC, or, after Dec. 31,
2019, signed an Owner Operator Agreement (either in their
individual capacity or as the owner of a business entity) with
Subcontracting Concepts CT, LLC (SCI), (ii) were based in
California, (iii) personally performed at least one delivery in
California through Dynamex Operations West, Inc., TForce Final Mile
West, LLC, or TForce Logistics West, LLC, from Feb. 15, 2015
through Nov. 15, 2022, where the delivery was not performed on an
indirect basis through the person's engagement or association with
a Delivery Service Professional (DSP), Master Contractor, Agent,
Carrier, or other form of contractor, and (iv) did not have more
than one indirect driver working or associated with them at the
same or different times during the Class Period. The Class Period
is from Feb. 15, 2015, through Nov. 15, 2022.

       2. The Final Approval Motion is granted as to the fairness,
adequacy, and reasonableness of the Settlement. Distribution of the
Gross Settlement Fund in the manner set forth in the Court's
previous Preliminary Approval Order is approved subject to the
terms of the Final Approval Order.

       3. The Service Award Motion is granted as to an award of
$13,750 to Plaintiff Santiago Lim for the reasons discussed in the
Final Approval Order.

       4. The request by Settlement Class Member Villaverde for an
award equal to the amount that will be paid to Plaintiff Lim is
denied because it is procedurally deficient and without legal
basis, as discussed in the Final Approval Order.

       5. Attorney's Fees of $4.35 million, plus attorney's costs
as to an award of $74,600, are granted as reasonable for the
reasons discussed in the Final Approval Order.

Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, and subject to
continuing jurisdiction with respect to any issues that arise as to
the implementation of the Settlement and related matters, the Clerk
of the Court is directed to enter the Final Judgment dismissing the
action with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2023 Final Judgment is
available at https://rb.gy/u9bxf from Leagle.com.


TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Mexico Judge Reveals Refund Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Genevieve Lewis, writing for Ticketing Business News, reports that
the Federal Consumer Prosecutor's Office (Profeco) in Mexico has
revealed that a judge from Mexico City has admitted a class action
lawsuit against Ticketmaster and concert promoter OCESA.

According to a press release from Profeco, the collective action is
the result of multiple consumer claims that have accumulated since
2021, such as the unilateral cancellation of tickets;
non-compliance with conditions originally offered by suppliers and
a refusal to refund the full amount paid by customers including
service charges.

The Ninth District Judge in Civil Matters of the First Circuit,
Guillermo Campos Osorio, described the collective action as
'appropriate'.

At present, 521 consumers are represented within the lawsuit. In
December, the Attorney General's Office also filed a class action
lawsuit -- originally on behalf of 434 consumers -- against
Ticketmaster and OCESA, which controls 64.5% of entertainment
services in Mexico, according to Profeco.

The release added: "These situations reflect a widespread
non-compliance in the provision of the entertainment service with
respect to various musical, cultural, sports, artistic and
recreational events, violating the rights of consumers."

Profeco is further calling on any consumers that have been affected
by the cancellation of tickets, refusal of access or refund for the
cancellation for any cultural, sports or entertainment event from
2021 until now, to get in contact.

In December last year, fans of Puerto Rican rapper Bad Bunny were
reportedly turned away from a concert in Mexico City, after issues
surrounding tickets being cancelled by Ticketmaster despite being
valid.

In a statement at the time, Ticketmaster Mexico said: "Ticketmaster
apologises to fans and announces refunds to legitimate
ticket-holders who were unable to access today's [Friday] Bad Bunny
concert." [GN]

TMX FINANCE: Johnson and Davis Sue Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHAPLIN JOHNSON and BRENDA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE
SERVICES, INC. AND TMX FINANCE, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-00108-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., April 25, 2023) arises out of the
Defendants' negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, and violations of the Georgia Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

On March 30, 2023, TMX disclosed a cyber-attack that began in
December 2022 and resulted in the exfiltration, between February 3,
2023 and February 14, 2023, of the personally identifiable
information (PII) approximately 4,822,580 consumers. The Defendant
unlawfully breached its duties to Plaintiffs by failing to
implement industry protocols and exercise reasonable care in
protecting and safeguarding the PII of Plaintiffs when the PII was
within Defendant's possession or control, says the suit.

TMX Finance, LLC, is the parent company of TMX Finance Corporate
Services, Inc. TMX Finance, LLC was founded in Savanah GA in June
2010 and was previously known as TMX Holdings, LLC. Through its
wholly owned subsidiary, TMX Finance Corporate Services, Inc., TMX
Finance, LLC operates several consumer credit and lending
businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN AND MORGAN
          200 Stephenson Ave, Suite 200
          Savannah, GA 31405
          Telephone: (912) 443-1006
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

                  - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX BUSINESS DIVISION
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  rmaxey@ForThePeople.com

                  - and -

          SAMUEL M. WARD, Esq.
          Stephen R. Basser, 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 -

          Andrew J. Heo, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          E-mail: aheo@barrack.com

                  - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
          2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300
          Houston, TX 77042
          Telephone: (800) 551-8649
          Facsimile: (501) 286-4659

TRADEWEB MARKETS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tradeweb Markets Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2023 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the consolidated antitrust class
suits in the the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

The Company has been named as a defendant, along with other
financial institutions, in two consolidated antitrust class actions
relating to trading practices in United States Treasury securities
auctions. The cases were dismissed in March 2021, with the Court
granting the Plaintiffs leave to further amend the complaint by no
later than May 14, 2021.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on or about May 14, 2021,
and the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14,
2021.

By order dated March 31, 2022, the Court granted the Company's
motion and dismissed all of the claims against it in the amended
complaint.

The Court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a
further amended complaint.

On April 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the
decision and filed their opening brief on the appeal in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on August 18, 2022.


The Company filed its brief in response on November 17, 2022.

Plaintiffs filed their brief in reply in further support of their
appeal on December 14, 2022.

The parties have requested oral argument on the appeal, which
request is currently pending, and no date for oral argument has yet
been set.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the District Court's
decision on appeal and assert its meritorious defenses to the
allegations.

Tradeweb Markets Inc. is a leader in building and operating
electronic marketplaces for its global network of clients across
financial ecosystem. The company's network is comprised of clients
across the institutional, wholesale and retail client sectors,
including many of the largest global asset managers, hedge funds,
insurance companies, central banks, banks and dealers, proprietary
trading firms and retail brokerage and financial advisory firms,
as
well as regional dealers. The company is based in New York, New
York.



TRAVELERS COMPANIES: New Jersey Policyholders File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for PropertyCasualty360, reports that a
class action lawsuit in Camden, New Jersey, federal court claims
The Travelers Companies and subsidiary St. Paul Protective
Insurance are shortchanging New Jersey policyholders who bring
personal injury protection (PIP) claims.

When policyholders bring claims under their PIP coverage with
Travelers and St. Paul, the amount of coverage is reduced by the
deductible, typically $500, and the co-payment, which varies, the
suit claims. [GN]




UNIQUE HOME: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Kyle Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Kyle, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v.  UNIQUE HOME CARE SERVICES, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00682-JPW (M.D. Pa., April 25, 2023) arises out of
the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.

Plaintiff Kathryn Kyle is a former employee of Defendant who was
employed as a home health aide from on or about October 2022 until
on or about February 10, 2023. She typically worked five days per
week and nine hours per day, for approximately 45 hours per work
week. However, Defendant allegedly failed to pay her the mandated
overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 hours per work week in
violation of FLSA and PMWA. In addition, the Defendant also made
unlawful deductions from the paychecks of Plaintiff in violation of
the WPCL, the Plaintiff asserts.

Unique Home Care Services, LLC is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania with a principal place of business located at 264 S.
Progress Avenue, Harrisburg, Pennyslvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Benjamin Salvina, Esq.
        MARZZACCO NIVEN & ASSOCIATES
        945 East Park Drive, Suite 103
        Harrisburg, PA 17111
        Telephone: (717) 231-1640
        Facsimile: (717) 231-1650
        E-mail: bsalvina@klnivenlaw.com

UNISWAP LABS: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Aislinn Keely of The Block reports that a user of decentralized
exchange Uniswap filed a class-action lawsuit against Uniswap Labs,
the startup that develops and maintains the protocol as well as its
popular frontend website.

The complaint contends that if Uniswap Labs had registered with the
SEC and met the burden of securities laws, investors would be
better protected from fraudulent activity.
Cases like this often never reach oral arguments inside a
courtroom, but the case still spotlights fundamental questions
about decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms that regulators have
yet to address. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Garcia Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
LINDA CABELLO GARCIA is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing her lawsuit entitled Linda Cabello Garcia, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05984-BJR, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.

The Plaintiff brings a complaint against the Defendants for USCIS's
denial of her adjustment-of-status application based on her failure
to submit a completed medical exam. The Plaintiff also seeks
class-wide relief to declare unlawful and enjoin USCIS's policy or
practice of requiring medical examinations for U-Visa
adjustment-of-status applicants.

On Feb. 28, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a
claim, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Barbara J. Rothstein on Apr. 17, 2023. The Court concluded that it
does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the Plaintiff's claim.

The appellate case is captioned Linda Cabello Garcia v. USCIS, et
al., Case No. 23-35267, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 19, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant LINDA CABELLO GARCIA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Matt Adams, Esq.
            Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, Esq.
            Aaron Korthuis, Esq.
            NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
            615 2nd Avenue
            Suite 400
            Seattle, WA 98104
            Telephone: (206) 816-3850
                       (206) 816-3872

                   - and -

            Jason Baumetz, Esq.
            ALASKA IMMIGRATION JUSTICE PROJECT
            431 West 7th Avenue
            Anchorage, AK 99501
            Telephone: (907) 279-2457

Defendants-Appellees UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES, et al., are represented by:

            Nickolas Bohl, Esq.
            DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
            700 Stewart Street
            Seattle, WA 98101
            Telephone: (206) 553-4639

                     - and -

            Hans Harris Chen, Esq.
            DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
            P.O. Box 868
            Ben Franklin Station
            Washington, DC 20044

UNITED STATES: Suit Over Discriminated Pregnant Workers Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Katz of Government Executive reports that the Homeland
Security Department has allegedly discriminated against certain
pregnant women for years by forcing them to forfeit some of their
duties, according to a lawsuit filed by a group of employees who
were recently certified to bring their case as a class action.

The employees all worked at Customs and Border Protection's Office
of Field Operations at the time of the alleged discrimination. They
brought their case before a field office of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, which found in a recent ruling that any
pregnant employee required to enter "temporary light duty," or TLD,
since July 2016 would be eligible to join the class.

According to agency policy and protections afforded by the 1978
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, pregnant employees should only enter
light duty status if they request it. Instead, the complainants
said, their supervisors required them to surrender some duties as
soon as their pregnancies were disclosed. They said temporary light
duty status offers fewer chances for overtime and other
differential pay, lowers the chances of promotions, allows for
fewer training opportunities, makes preferred schedules more
difficult to earn and requires the surrendering of their right to
carry a firearm. In some cases, they added, employees then have to
requalify to carry their gun.

Pregnant employees were treated differently than others who went
onto the temporary status, they said, as they were never provided
an opportunity to prove they could still carry out their normal
duties.

"As soon as I let my supervisor know I was pregnant, I was
immediately sent home and then put on light duty," said Roberta
Gabaldon, a CBP employee and a class agent who helped bring the
case. "There was no conversation about my ability, it was just
assumed. It seemed that the agency believed that my pregnancy would
impede my competency."

CBP countered that the complainants lacked "commonality" that is
required for a class-action case. If mandatory TLD occurred, it
went against agency policy and was required only because
supervisors were acting without proper authority, the agency
argued. There is no "overriding agency policy or practice" of
discrimination, CBP said, adding that the complaints stemmed only
from a handful of offices. Additionally, the agency contended the
employees bringing the case did not meet the "numerosity" threshold
because only 23 individuals delivered sworn testimony that they
were forced onto the light duty status.

CBP conceded that if employees were forced to surrender duties
solely because they were pregnant, it would violate
anti-discrimination laws. The complainants said CBP's policy does
not specifically preclude involuntary TLD for pregnant workers and
the agency failed to properly train its supervisors on its
implementation.

Kevin Rung, an EEOC administrative judge, noted a review of CBP
data found more than 500 pregnant women were placed on TLD since
July 2016. The complainants were not yet responsible for proving
all of them were discriminated against and the roughly two-dozen
sworn testimonies—which came from 11 of CBP's 20 field
offices—were sufficient to certify the class.

"The class agents have submitted sufficient probative evidence that
the agency subjected pregnant employees to a policy that
distinguished pregnancy from other short-term impairments and
involuntarily placed them on TLD because they were pregnant without
regard to whether they can continue to perform the essential duties
of their positions of record," Rung said. He added a class case was
"the most efficient and equitable method of adjudicating claims of
this size."

CBP, which did not respond to a request for comment, must in the
next 30 days "use all reasonable means" to contact all potential
class members to inform them of the class' certification, the EEOC
judge ordered. That should include emailing, hand delivery of a
notice or mailing a notice to their last known address.

"Our clients endured what is all too common in the workplace:
faulty assumptions that a pregnant employee can't carry out their
job duties," said Cori Cohen, a partner at Gilbert Employment Law
who is representing the class. "Through this lawsuit, we seek to
hold the agency accountable for its failures to provide these women
with the opportunities and protections required by law."

She added the class certification "brings us one step closer to
justice."
Gabaldon said she hoped the case would cause CBP to change its
policy.

"I am grateful that our voices are being heard, and hopeful that
this suit will help bring an end to pregnancy discrimination at
CBP," she said. [GN]

VIESTE SPE: Bid for Class Certification in Crossfirst Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Crossfirst Bank, et al., Plaintiffs v. Vieste SPE LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-18-01637-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz.), Judge
Douglas L. Rayes of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The action arises from the Plaintiffs' purchase of $28,935,000 in
industrial development bonds ("Bonds") described in the Defendants'
Official Statement dated April 17, 2013. The operative complaint
alleges aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and
common law fraud claims and makes class action allegations.

Judge Rayes explains that a plaintiff seeking class certification
bears the burden to prove the prerequisites to certifying a class.
A party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate
his compliance with the Rule 23 -- that is, he must be prepared to
prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common
questions of law or fact, etc. The numerosity requirement is
satisfied when the putative class consists of at least 40 members.
Plaintiffs must prove the facts necessary to carry the burden of
establishing that the prerequisites of Rule 23 are satisfied by a
preponderance of the evidence.

The Plaintiffs "believe" that the putative class consists of over
200 members, which they will easily ascertain from the Defendants'
own records in addition to other documents from the bond sale. Yet
the deadline to conduct class certification discovery has passed
and the Plaintiffs -- with several thousand of the Defendants'
documents in hand -- have offered no evidence to support their
numerosity argument. On the contrary, the evidence suggests
otherwise.

The Plaintiffs argue that they need not produce evidence in support
of their numerosity argument as that would require inappropriately
broaching the merits of the claims. But, Judge Rayes says
class-certification analysis may entail some overlap with the
merits of the Plaintiff's underlying claim and he may consider
merits questions to the extent they touch upon the Rule 23
prerequisites.

The Plaintiffs also claim that it's simply too early for the
Defendants to argue, let alone prevail, that evidence supporting
their claims is lacking. But Judge Rayes holds that the Plaintiffs
conducted class-certification discovery and benefited from two
extensions of time to complete it. The time is ripe for the
Defendants to argue that the Plaintiffs have not produced any
evidence to support its numerosity argument.

Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that general knowledge and common
sense indicate that the class is large. This is unavailing,
according to Judge Rayes. He says the Court would expect it
possible to marshal some evidence of the scores of putative class
members after the close of class-certification discovery. The
Plaintiffs have presented no such evidence, either in their motion
for class certification, or in reply to the Defendants' charges
that the Plaintiffs failed to offer any evidence in support of
their numerosity argument.

The Plaintiffs have not proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that the putative class size exceeds seven members, much less the
speculation that the putative class exceeds 200 members. Because
the Plaintiffs have not established numerosity, Judge Rayes need
not address the other Rule 23 requirements and denies class
certification.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 25, 2023 Order is available
at https://rb.gy/hmphf from Leagle.com.


WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Class Suit on Systemically Dysfunctional Jail
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Wm. Moyer of The Washington Post reports that people
incarcerated in D.C. and their advocates filed a federal lawsuit
against the District this week, alleging that the city's Department
of Corrections does not provide prisoners the medical care that the
Constitution demands.

The suit, filed April 24, 2023 in U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, said people "have been and continue to be
seriously injured by the District's deliberate indifference to
their serious medical needs," detailing numerous allegedly
untreated medical, vision and dental complaints from inmates at the
long-troubled D.C. jail and the adjacent Correctional Treatment
Facility.

The suit describes in detail allegations by plaintiffs, identified
only by initials, who suffer significant medical issues. The
attorneys are seeking to have the suit designated as a class
action.

Among other examples, the lawsuit says one heart patient cannot
regularly access medications, resulting in debilitating chest pains
and shortness of breath.

A gunshot victim with damage to his urinary tract who must use
catheters cannot access lubricant to insert them, resulting in pain
and bleeding -- even as a testicular mass he has developed has gone
undiagnosed for more than a year, according to the suit.

And one person who is blind in one eye with limited vision in the
other waited two years for glasses of the wrong prescription, the
suit said. He still cannot access glasses with the correct one.

"The District is deliberately indifferent to its obligation," the
suit said, "and the Jail's provision of health care is systemically
dysfunctional, resulting in people with serious medical needs being
unable to access necessary medical, pharmaceutical, and dental
care."

The suit sought an injunction preventing the unconstitutional
treatment of prisoners and unspecified monetary damages for one of
the plaintiffs.

A Department of Corrections spokeswoman declined to comment, saying
the agency did not discuss pending litigation. The D.C. attorney
general's office also declined to comment.
The D.C. jail has been troubled for decades -- including
allegations of overcrowding, rodents, poor ventilation, flawed
covid response and at least seven suicides last year.

Jacqueline Kutnik-Bauder, deputy legal director of the Washington
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs -- the
nonprofit that filed the suit -- said in an interview that, despite
a long history of poor conditions at the facility, litigation
"seems to be the only way to get the attention of the D.C.
Department of Corrections."

"These are human beings who have serious medical conditions," she
said. "Most of the people in the jail are pretrial and haven't been
convicted of anything."
Republican lawmakers have taken new interest in the facility
because it now incarcerates defendants allegedly involved in the
Jan. 6 insurrection.

About a dozen House Republicans, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor
Greene (Ga.), and two Democrats toured the facility just last
month.

After the visit, Green said she'd heard: "Stories of being denied
medical treatment, stories of assault, stories of being threatened
with rape."

Race influences some lawmakers' interest in jail conditions,
Kutnik-Bauder said. The jail historically incarcerates almost
exclusively Black and Brown people and is currently more than 90
percent people of color, she said. None of the named plaintiffs in
the suit are Jan. 6 defendants.

"Nobody has really cared that much about it," she said of
conditions at the jail. "Now that there are a bunch of White
seditionists being held in the jail, suddenly Congress is
concerned. [GN]

WASTE CONNECTIONS: Averts Class Action Over Pricing Tactics
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cole Rosengren, writing for WasteDive, reports that Waste
Connections is claiming victory after a federal judge dismissed a
Florida customer's efforts to certify a class action lawsuit
against the company over its pricing tactics.

Sunshine Children's Learning Center, based in Tampa, sued the
company in 2021 over alleged breach of contract due to the nature
of its rate increase notifications. A federal judge in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the
motion to certify a class action suit in part because customers
were found to have an individual right to handle contract issues
via their contract terms. If successful, the potential class of
affected commercial waste collection customers could have numbered
more than 20,000.

Waste Connections was represented by the firm Beveridge & Diamond.
The case remains pending, but limited to the individual plaintiff.

"We're pleased with this strong and definitive opinion rejecting
class action status for this case," said Waste Connections
Executive Vice President and General Counsel Pat Shea in a
statement. "Waste Connections honors its contracts and works with
its customers individually to address any concerns regarding rates
and service. The company will vigorously contest efforts to morph a
customer contract concern into a class action lawsuit, and the
federal court's decision vindicates our position."

Sunshine first contracted with a subsidiary of Progressive Waste
Solutions in 2013, before Waste Connections acquired that company
in 2016. In its complaint, Sunshine outlined eight different rate
increases between September 2014 to September 2020. This increased
the customers' overall monthly collection and disposal charge from
$84 to $367.76.

The plaintiff alleged the company had breached its contract due to
the nature of these increases. Waste Connections disputed that
claim and sought to have the case dismissed. The parties failed to
reach a resolution during a mediation process that ended in March.

Waste Connections reports prevailing in similar efforts to start
class action cases against the company in Colorado and South
Carolina during recent years. [GN]

WASTE CONNECTIONS: E.D. Arkansas Refuses to Remand Allen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ALLEN BETH INCORPORATED, Plaintiff v.
WASTE CONNECTIONS US, INC. and WASTE CONNECTIONS OF ARKANSAS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-59-DPM (E.D. Ark.), Judge D.P.
Marshall, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas, Northern Division, denies the Plaintiff's motion to
remand.

The parties disagree about subject matter jurisdiction, standing,
and capacity to sue. An entity named "Sharp Office Supply, Inc." --
note the Inc. -- filed this proposed class action lawsuit against
Waste Connections US and Waste Connections of Arkansas in the
Circuit Court of Sharp County, Arkansas, for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment. It alleges that Waste Connections overcharged
its Arkansas commercial customers in two ways: through authorized
but excessive inflation-related adjustments in service rates; and
through unauthorized fuel surcharges.

Waste Connections removed the case, saying that all the
requirements for diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act were satisfied. Waste Connections also moved to
dismiss, arguing that Sharp Office Supply, Inc., forfeited its
corporate charter before filing this lawsuit. An entity called
"Allen Beth Incorporated" responded with a timely amended complaint
naming itself in place of Sharp Office Supply, Inc. as plaintiff.

Allen Beth seeks remand. It argues that the amount in controversy
does not exceed the $5 million statutory requirement. Waste
Connections disagrees. It says that the amended complaint must be
dismissed because Allen Beth lacks standing to sue or capacity to
sue. The Court regrets its delay in tending to these motions.

The first issue is subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Marshall
notes that there is no dispute about minimal diversity or a class
of at least one hundred members. The question is whether Waste
Connections has shown -- by a preponderance of the evidence -- that
a fact finder might legally conclude that the amount in controversy
(excluding interest and costs) is more than $5 million.
Jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal. The plausibility
of the complaint's allegations is no longer the sole focal point,
though, because the parties have offered proof. The Court has
considered all this evidence.

Based on the Court's legal conclusions specified here, the
preponderance of the evidence establishes that more than $5 million
is in controversy. The applicable time period starts five years
before this suit was filed. Based on the affidavits from Doug
Mooneyham, Waste Connections US's director of operations
applications, and Kendrick Ketchum, Waste Connections Arkansas's
district manager, potential damages for the allegedly illegitimate
fuel surcharges total approximately $2.92 million. This total is
based on an average monthly amount of $46.56 assessed to all
Arkansas commercial customers over the five-year class period,
discounted by the small percentage, who do not pay fuel
surcharges.

Judge Marshall finds that Allen Beth's evidence that its monthly
fuel surcharge was less than the average does not undermine Waste
Connections' calculation.

The allegedly excessive service rate increase damages are harder to
quantify, Judge Marshall says. Waste Connections isn't required to
estimate an average amount the potential class members paid in
excessive rate increase charges over the five-year period; nor must
it provide a formula or methodology for calculating potential
damages. This remains true even though, as Allen Beth points out,
the information is readily available to Waste Connections. Based on
the evidence submitted, and various inferences that the Court
concludes are reasonable, a fact finder could determine that at
least $1 million in rate increase damages is in play.

To begin, Waste Connections estimates that during the five-year
limitations period its total revenue from its Arkansas commercial
customers based on service rates alone (excluding fees) was $9.4
million. It also says, among other things, that Arkansawyers made
more than 26,000 payments to it in the twenty-month period from 1
June 2020 to 31 January 2022 -- averaging approximately 1,300
payments per month.

At this early stage in the case, Judge Marshall says Waste
Connections is not required to establish damages for the proposed
class. It must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, an
estimate of what the law allows. Allen Beth's argument that more
evidentiary certainty is required at this point under CAFA is
mistaken. Waste Connections has carried its burden and shown that
by a preponderance of the evidence a fact finder could reasonably
conclude that more than $5 million is at issue in this case.

Beyond the evidence, Allen Beth argues that various points of law
require a different analysis of the facts. Allen Beth contends
that, given how it has pleaded its case, it is legally impossible
for it to recover as much as Waste Connections contends is in
dispute. Waste Connections has the better of these legal arguments,
Judge Marshall holds.

At this point, because the jurisdictional threshold has been met,
the Court need not address the possibility of post-filing damages.

This brings the Court to the parties' second dispute -- who is the
correct plaintiff? The root of the problem is that this suit was
filed in the wrong name. As best the Court can tell from the record
compiled so far, Sharp Office Supply, Inc., has no connection with
this dispute. Shelly Johnson, Allen Beth's owner and officer, is
clear that Allen Beth did business as Sharp Office Supply -- no
Inc. This was the company that contracted with Waste Connections in
2006. Bank records support Johnson's testimony, as do the contract
and billing records. Therefore, Allen Beth has standing. The
briefing also establishes that it now has capacity to sue.

Allen Beth has belatedly registered the fictitious name Sharp
Office Supply and paid a $300 fine. The company's failure to do so
before filing is immaterial at this point. What Allen Beth has not
done is plead adequately about its fictitious name, the entity
history, and the allowed statutory cure, Judge Marshall opines. The
Court has gathered the facts from the briefing and exhibits. Allen
Beth must fill the pleading gap in a second amended complaint.

Judge Marshall rules that the motion to remand is denied, the
motion to dismiss is granted as modified with leave to amend. The
second amended complaint was due April 21, 2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/32e3mt26 from Leagle.com.


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Court Denies Bid to Intervene in Woodall Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laurie J. Michelson of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denies the
Plaintiffs' motion to intervene in the lawsuit entitled KATRINA
WOODALL, KATANA JOHNSON, KELY DAVIS, and LATOYA HEARST, Plaintiffs
v. WAYNE COUNTY and TERI GRAHAM, Defendants, Case No. 17-13707
(E.D. Mich.).

Four women--Katrina Woodall, Katana Johnson, Kelly Davis, and
Latoya Hearst--were incarcerated at the Wayne County Jail at
various points in 2013 and 2014. They say they were strip-searched
by Jail officers in humiliating ways. More specifically, they
alleged that Officer Teri Graham, who worked the Jail's registry,
strip searched them in groups of five or more, made derogatory
comments about their bodies, allowed men to see them being
strip-searched, and maintained an unsanitary environment. And
because many women claimed they were subject to similar strip
searches, the Plaintiffs accused Wayne County, the municipality in
charge of the Jail, of knowing of a pattern of constitutional
violations yet allowing the violations to continue.

After more than five years of litigation--including two motions for
class certification, an interlocutory appeal, motions for summary
judgment, a motion for reconsideration of summary judgment,
post-summary-judgment depositions, 12 motions in limine, and
extensive settlement negotiations--the case resolved on the eve of
trial.

Or so it seemed. The Plaintiffs have recently moved the Court to
permit eight additional women to intervene in this completed
litigation. The Plaintiffs argue that, in light of the fact that
the named Plaintiffs in this action have resolved their claims
against the Defendants, and given the open issue of class
certification for women, who were housed in the jail on or after
Nov. 14, 2014, several such putative class members now seek to
intervene in this action to assert their claims both individually
and on behalf of the class.

Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that on
timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene, who has a
claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question
of law or fact. To determine timeliness, the Court considers five
factors: (1) the point to which the suit has progressed; (2) the
purpose for which intervention is sought; (3) the length of time
preceding the application during which the proposed intervenors
knew or should have known of their interest in the case; (4) the
prejudice to the original parties due to the proposed intervenors'
failure to promptly intervene after they knew or reasonably should
have known of their interest in the case; and (5) the existence of
unusual circumstances militating against or in favor of
intervention.

Judge Michelson finds that none of these factors favor permitting
intervention in this case.

The first factor--the point to which the suit has progressed--is
perhaps the easiest to decide, Judge Michelson says. Every step
along the litigation continuum has been taken. This case has been
completely resolved. The Plaintiffs entered into an agreement that
fully disposes of their remaining claims in this litigation. So
this factor weighs heavily against allowing intervention.

That brings the Court to the purpose for which intervention is
sought. It is this factor, according to the Plaintiffs, which
weighs so much in their favor that the Court should allow
intervention so intervenors can pursue what they call an "open"
issue.

Here, Judge Michelson explains, the very purpose for
intervention--to pursue class certification for claims from 2014 to
2020--is prohibited by the Sixth Circuit's decision denying class
certification. It cannot be appropriately described as an open
issue.

Put simply, Judge Michelson says, the Sixth Circuit decided class
certification based on more than adequacy of representation. Since
that decision would bar any claims by intervenors to certify such a
class, the purpose factor weighs against intervention.

The third factor--the length of time preceding the application to
intervene during which the proposed intervenors knew or should have
known of their interest in the case--similarly counsels against
allowing intervention, Judge Michelson holds.

And Plaintiffs, without objection, continued litigating this case
to resolution without further indication that a motion to intervene
would be forthcoming. So the third factor also fails to persuade
the Court to grant the motion.

One reading of this timeline is that the Plaintiffs intentionally
waited until their claims were resolved fully before moving to
allow additional plaintiffs to join the litigation, Judge Michelson
notes. That leads the Court to the fourth factor--prejudice to the
other parties. The Plaintiffs ensured that they would not be
prejudiced by this filing by waiting until their claims were fully
resolved. But surprisingly, they also argue that the Defendants
stand to suffer no prejudice by allowing the intervention.

That is untenable--to say the least, Judge Michelson points out.
While it may be true, as the Plaintiffs point out, that the
Defendants had notice of these class claims since the beginning of
the litigation, the intervenors had such notice too, but they did
nothing. And the Defendants are prejudiced by any intervention
because they undoubtedly settled the case with the expectation that
it would be fully and finally resolved.

The Defendants also proceeded in this case with the expectation
that the class-certification issues had been decided after
appealing them to the Sixth Circuit. They filed dispositive motions
and prepared for trial with that expectation in mind. So the
prejudice to the Defendants also weighs against granting the
motion.

In sum, no timeliness factor favors granting a motion to intervene
in this concluded litigation, Judge Michelson holds.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated April 3,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdpcenf4 from
Leagle.com.


WOLFPACK WORKFORCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cassiani Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO E. CASSIANI; KAROLAI AGUILAR; JOHNNY VITORA; and MARCOS
VITORA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. WOLFPACK WORKFORCE LLC; and CARLOS SADA,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00299 (M.D. Fla., April 29, 2023)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
laborers.

WOLFPACK WORKFORCE LLC is a staffing company providing personnel
for the construction industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ZILLOW GROUP: Settlement in Securities Suit Has Prelim. Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants the motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit captioned In re
Zillow Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:17-cv-1387-JCC
(W.D. Wash.).

Class Representatives Johanna Choy, Raymond Harris, and Jo Ann
Offutt, individually and on behalf of the Class, and Defendants
Zillow Group, Inc., Spencer M. Rascoff, and Kathleen Philips have
entered into the Stipulation of Settlement, dated March 31, 2023,
which is subject to review under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and which, together with the exhibits annexed
thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for the proposed
settlement of the class action.

The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, subject to further
consideration at a hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e), which is
scheduled to be held before the Court on Aug. 8, 2023, at 9:00
a.m.

The Court reserves the right to adjourn the Settlement Hearing to a
later date and to approve the Settlement with or without
modification and with or without further notice other than entry of
an Order on the Court's docket. The Court also reserves the right
to approve the Settlement with such modifications as may be agreed
upon or consented to by the Parties and without further notice to
the Class where to do so would not impair Class Members' rights in
a manner inconsistent with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, other applicable rules or regulations, or due process of
law.

The Court approves the form, substance, and requirements of the (a)
Long Notice, (b) Proof of Claim, (c) Summary Notice, and (d)
Postcard Notice, all of which are exhibits to the Stipulation.

Strategic Claims Services is appointed and approved as the Claims
Administrator to supervise and administer the notice procedure, as
well as the processing of claims.

The Escrow Agent may, at any time after entry of this Order and
without further approval from the Defendants or the Court, disburse
at the direction of Class Counsel up to $750,000 from the
Settlement Fund prior to the Effective Date to pay reasonable
Administrative Costs. After the Effective Date, up to an additional
$750,000 may be transferred from the Settlement Fund to pay for any
reasonable and necessary Administrative Costs without further order
of the Court.

Class Counsel, through the Claims Administrator, will make all
reasonable efforts to give notice to nominees or custodians, who
held Zillow securities during the Class Period as record owners but
not as beneficial owners.

All Class Members, who do not submit valid and timely Proofs of
Claim, will be forever barred from receiving any payments from the
Net Settlement Fund but will in all other respects be subject to
and bound by the provisions of the Stipulation and the Judgment, if
entered.

In light of the extensive notice program undertaken in connection
with class certification and the ample opportunity provided to
Class Members to request exclusion from the Class at that time, as
well as the notification they received that there may not be a
second opportunity to opt out, the Court is exercising its
discretion not to allow a second opportunity for Class Members to
exclude themselves from the Class in connection with the Settlement
proceedings.

The Court will consider comments and/or objections to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the Fee and Expense
Application, provided, however, that no Class Member or other
Person will be heard or entitled to contest the approval of the
terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation, or the Fee and Expense Application, or any other order
relating thereto, unless, at least twenty-one (21) days prior to
the Settlement Hearing Date, that Person has: (a) filed said
objections, papers, and briefs, and proof of service.

Any Class Member, who does not object in the manner prescribed
here, will be deemed to have waived all such objections and will
forever be foreclosed from making any objection.

All papers in support of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
and/or the Fee and Expense Application will be filed and served no
later than twenty-eight (28) days before the Settlement Hearing.

Any submissions filed in response to any objections or in further
support of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the Fee
and Expense Application will be filed no later than seven (7) days
prior to the Settlement Hearing.

The Defendants, their counsel, and other Released Parties will have
no responsibility for, or liability with respect to, the Plan of
Allocation, the Fee and Expense Application or any application for
attorneys' fees and interest, or expenses or payments to the Class
Representatives submitted by Class Counsel, and such matters will
be considered separately from the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the Settlement.

All funds held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed and considered to
be in the custody of the Court, and will remain subject to the
jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as such funds will be
distributed or returned pursuant to the Stipulation and Plan of
Allocation and/or further order(s) of the Court.

In the event the Settlement is not consummated in accordance with
the terms of the Stipulation, then the Stipulation and this Order
will be null and void, of no further force or effect, and without
prejudice to any Party, and may not be introduced as evidence or
used in any action or proceeding by any Person against the Parties
or the Released Parties, and each Party will be restored to his,
her, or its respective litigation positions as they existed prior
to October 11, 2022, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation.

The Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the Action to
consider all further matters arising out of, or relating to, the
Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/354zdnwk from Leagle.com.



                            *********

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 ***