---

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

              Friday, June 16, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 121

                            Headlines

ADVANCED MARKETING: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Lamberth Suit
AETNA INC: Judge Certifies Class Suit Over Dummy Code Conspiracy
ALDI INC: Faces Cereal Bar Product Mislabeling Class Action
ALVARIA INC: Smith Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Scheibe Sues Over Fruit Snacks' False Ads

ATLANTA RESTAURANT: Stafford Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
BITWISE: Buffalo Director of Operations Alleges WARN Act Violations
BJ'S RESTAURANT: Fails to Weekly Pay Wages, Lockett Claims
BP EXPLORATION: Bids to Reconsider in Mackles & Other Suits Denied
BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Kalinowski Suit

CALIFORNIA: Court Grants Marrero's Bid to Dismiss Alcantara Suit
CALYX ENERGY: Fails to Properly Pay Operators, Robertson Alleges
CANADA: Faces Proposed Class Suit Seeking $5B Over Housing Crisis
CARPENTERS OF WESTERN: Johnson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
CINCH REAL ESTATE: Order on Arbitration in Citron Suit Affirmed

CITIZEN BANK: Simone Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fee Collection
CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: Objections to Conner's Class Notice Sustained
CREDIT BUREAU: Settles False Credit Reports' Suit for Over $2.7M
CUSTOMER CONNEXX: Cadena Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir.
CYNET HEALTH: Seeks to Recover Telemetry Nurses' Pay Losses

DELTA AIR: Berrin Sues Over Deceptive "Carbon Neutrality" Claims
DOLLAR GENERAL: Wright Sues Over Mislabeled Adhesive Patches
DOUYU INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 8
DR. ERROL GAUM: Former Patients Lose Class Certification Bid
EASTHAMPTON WIRELESS: Underpays Sales Associates, Palacios Claims

ELECTROCORE INC: Dismissal of Securities Class Action Affirmed
ELI LILLY: California Judge Certifies RICO Class Action Suit
ETHEREUMMAX: Two Celebrities Must Face Unfair Competition Claims
FEDEX GROUND: Court Grants Roy's Bid for Production of VMS Data
FRANK J ZITZ: Faces Valle Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages

FUJI FOOD: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Ventura Suit Says
FUTU HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
GOOGLE LLC: Content ID Suit Collapses After Intervention Ruling
GOOGLE LLC: Settles Customers Privacy Class Suit for $23-Mil.
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Faces Class Action Over Odors at Facility

HAITI: S.D. New York Dismisses Amended Complaint in Pierre Suit
HANAM DAEJI: Pirir Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
HARVARD PILGRIM: Patterson Sues Over Unprotected Health Info
HIRERIGHT LLC: Court Grants in Part Hoffman's Bid to Strike Offer
HORIZON THERAPEUTICS: Tepezza MDL Cases for Consolidated Discovery

JPMORGAN CHASE: Agrees to Settle Epstein Class Suit for $290-M
KIN INSURANCE: Arbitration Bid in Fania Suit Taken Under Advisement
LGBCOIN LTD: Norden's Bid for Sanctions in De Ford Suit Denied
LIFE STORAGE: Juan Monteverde Investigates Extra Space Merger
LULIFAMA.COM LLC: Pop's Bid for Better Discovery Responses Granted

MAIMONIDES MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over Diverted Funds for Salaries
MARATHON OIL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Smith Suit Claims
MARYLAND: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Velayas Suit
MENZIES AVIATION: Amaya Files Bid for Class Certification
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Filing for Class Certification Bid Extended

MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Suit Over Faulty Electrical Systems Pending
MERCER UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action in Macon Over Data Breach
META PLATFORMS: Deadline to File Settlement Claims Set Aug. 25
NADLAN MANAGEMENT: Tijero Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
NBCUNIVERSAL INC: Faces Moore Class Action Over Unpaid Internships

NEW YORK, NY: Kings County Justices Sued Over Foreclosure Process
NEW YORK: Kerr Sues Over Motor Vehicle Operators' Unpaid Wages
NINETEEN BAR: Fails to Pay Servers' Proper Wages, Windheim Claims
NOBLE DRILLING: Mann Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
NUWEST GROUP: Hamilton Wins in Part Bid for FLSA Collective Cert.

OLE MEXICAN FOODS: Second Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Hardy's Claims
OPTUMHEALTH CARE: Health Plan Participants Granted Class Status
PACIFICORP: Court Hears Closing Arguments in Wildfire Class Suit
PACIFICORP: Liable for Wildfire Damages, Oregon State Jury Says
PAUL MOSS INSURANCE: Ohio Court Refuses to Dismiss Pavelka Suit

PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 8
PORTUGUESE MINI: Reyes Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Butchers
PRIVILEGE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Sacaquirin FLSA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Class Action in New York Over ACV

RHAPSODY INTERNATIONAL: Atty.s' $1.7MM Legal Fees' Bid Unjustified
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Kilpatrick Townsend Attorneys Discuss Ruling
SENTINELONE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 7
SIX FLAGS: N.D. Tex. Dismisses Putative Securities Class Action
SKH TRADING: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' OT Wages Under FLSA

SMALL BONE: Star Ankle Replacement Device "Defective," Skinner Says
SONY INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of UK Digital Games Class Action
STATE FARM: Faces Class Action Over Luxury Vehicle Repairs
STITCH FIX: Court Appoints Local 338 Funds as Lead Plaintiff
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Restrains Lubiprostone Market, Premera Says

TANKNOLOGY INC: Paskiewicz Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Overtime
TESLA INC: Nearly 240 Black Workers to Join Racism Class Action
TINGO GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 7
TORONTO-DOMINION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 21
TRANSLINK: B.C. Supreme Court Tosses Data Breach Class Action

TURKISH AIRLINES: Aug. 18 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
UNITED RECOVERY: Faces Class Action Over FDCPA Violations
UNITED STATES: King Appeals Summary Judgment Order to Fed. Cir.
VANTAGE DELUXE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Refunds
VANTAGE TRAVEL: Woolf Sues Over Failure to Refund Cancelled Trips

WELCH FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Certain Sinatro Claims
WES INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Laborers' Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA
WHITING OIL: Hystad Ceynar Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honx to Pay $106MM in Ch. 11 to Resolve Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: LTL Renews Suit Alleging Doctor Concealed Evidence


                            *********

ADVANCED MARKETING: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Lamberth Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled BRITTANY LAMBERTH, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED
MARKETING & PROCESSING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:22-cv-2167-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.), Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell
of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division, denies the Defendant's motion for summary judgment,
without prejudice, as premature.

The cause comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Brittany Lamberth's
Motion to Continue and/or Deny Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56(d).

In this putative class action, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Advanced Marketing & Processing, Inc. ("AMP") violated the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by conducting a
plant closing or mass layoff. The Defendant has filed a motion for
summary judgment asserting that AMP did not terminate enough
employees without cause to constitute a mass layoff or plant
closing as defined by the WARN Act.

In her motion, the Plaintiff argues that she cannot respond in
opposition to summary judgment because she has not received
relevant discovery that she requested. She seeks relief under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), which permits the Court to
defer consideration of a motion for summary judgment when a
non-movant demonstrates it cannot present facts essential to
opposing it. The Defendant opposes the motion, arguing that it has
turned over all relevant information that the Plaintiff requested,
and that her claim that she requires more information is founded on
impermissible speculation.

Also before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of
Time to File a Motion for Class Certification, in which she seeks
an extension to July 19, 2023, to move for class certification for
similar reasons. The motion indicates that the Defendant opposes
the relief she seeks. Judge Honeywell holds that this motion is
also due to be granted.

Contrary to the Defendant's arguments, the Plaintiff does not rely
solely on "vague assertions" or "rank speculation" in seeking
relief under Rule 56(d), Judge Honeywell notes. the Plaintiff has
identified specific documents for which she made discovery demands
that the Defendant has not produced: the underlying source material
for the Defendant's spreadsheets, including personnel files and
payroll data.

Judge Honeywell says the Plaintiff evidently disputes the accuracy
of the Defendant's spreadsheets and seeks the source material in
order to discredit them. The accuracy of the spreadsheets is highly
relevant to the motion for summary judgment, which relies on them
to assert that AMP did not terminate enough individuals without
cause to qualify as a mass layoff. The Defendant does not appear to
dispute the fact that it has not turned over the underlying source
materials that the Plaintiff requested. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
has identified specific material that the Defendant has not
produced that bears on the motion for summary judgment.

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to receive this material, or to
compel the Defendant to produce it, is a separate question that is
not before the Court. Judge Honeywell says the Plaintiff must act
diligently and promptly in pursuing the discovery she believes she
needs, with the involvement of the Court if necessary.

At this stage, however, Judge Honeywell finds that the Plaintiff
has adequately alleged her attempts to obtain the requested
materials, which the Defendant's response in opposition makes clear
it has chosen not to produce. The Court is satisfied that the
Plaintiff has shown entitlement to relief under Rule 56(d) to allow
her an "adequate opportunity for discovery" before responding to
the motion for summary judgment.

Moreover, the Court finds that the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment was filed prematurely. The Defendant indicates the parties
"agreed to split discovery into two phases" and file dispositive
motions on the threshold issue before proceeding to discovery on
the remaining issues. But the parties did not receive the Court's
permission to do so.

Judge Honeywell notes that the Case Management and Scheduling Order
does not reflect the parties' proposed bifurcation, and the parties
did not formally move for bifurcation or request a preliminary
pretrial conference in order to discuss their preference for
bifurcation. Successive, piecemeal motions for summary judgment are
disfavored by the Court and may only be filed with the Court's
permission. Therefore, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment
is due to be denied, without prejudice, as premature, pursuant to
Rule 56(d).

In addition, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has demonstrated
good cause for an extension of her time to move for class
certification. As discussed, she has identified specific materials
bearing on class certification issues that are the subject of a
discovery dispute that has yet to be resolved. Her motion to extend
is, therefore, due to be granted.

Accordingly, Judge Honeywell orders that Plaintiff Brittany
Lamberth's Motion to Continue and/or Deny Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56(d) is granted.

Defendant Advanced Marketing & Processing, Inc.'s Motion for
Summary Judgment is denied without prejudice as premature. The
Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Class
Certification is GRANTED. The Plaintiff's deadline to move for
class certification is extended to July 19, 2023.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 22, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/43nv3tdt from Leagle.com.


AETNA INC: Judge Certifies Class Suit Over Dummy Code Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Cass, writing for Becker's Payer Issues, reports that a
federal judge in North Carolina certified class action status June
5 in a lawsuit alleging Aetna and OptumHealth Care Solutions
conspired to use "dummy code" to make administrative fees appear to
be billable medical charges.

The lawsuit, which was originally filed in 2015, alleges the two
insurers tricked plaintiff Sandra Peters, other patients similarly
situated and their employers into paying administrative fees by
disguising them as medical expenses. The lawsuit alleges the
defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The two classes certified by the judge could cover more than 87,000
health plan participants, according to court records.

A judge initially ruled in Optum's and Aetna's favor in 2019, but a
federal appeals court reversed the decision in 2021, finding that
Aetna conducted a "breach of its fiduciary duty" in burying
administrative fees and that Optum utilized unauthorized
transactions.

The Supreme Court denied Optum's bid to drop the lawsuit last year.


Messages sent to Aetna and Optum seeking comment were not
immediately returned. [GN]

ALDI INC: Faces Cereal Bar Product Mislabeling Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wilson, writing for Supermarket News, reports that Aldi is at
the heart of a class action lawsuit for allegedly mislabeling its
own brand fruit and grain bars, according to reporting from
Newsweek.

A lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of Central California on
May 30, 2023 claims that the retailer mislabeled its Millville
Fruit & Grain cereal bars. Aldi says the bars are "naturally
flavored," but the lawsuit alleges there is indeed artificial
flavoring in the bars.

The lawsuit demands just under $10 million in damages for customers
who bought the product in the past four years and additionally
alleges Aldi's packaging violates several California codes.

According to tests, the synthetic flavoring agent "DL malic acid"
was discovered in the cereal bars. Listed in the ingredients is
malic acid, which can be produced naturally, but the lawsuit
alleges that DL malic acid, specifically, is being used, which
would then make it an artificial ingredient.

The lawsuit says this "misrepresented and deceived consumers
regarding the flavoring in the products for the purpose of
enriching itself." The suit also says there is financial motivation
behind labeling products as "naturally flavored", which allegedly
led Aldi to make the claim.

Malic acid, according to the lawsuit, is produced naturally but the
process is expensive and is not done very often in large
quantities.

Aldi did not respond to a request for comment in time for
publication.

Aldi, headquartered in Batavia, Ill., is also dealing with a case
in Illinois that accuses the discount retailer of inflating the
number of half-cup servings on its 42-ounce oatmeal boxes, as
reported by media company Tasting Table. The packaging says
consumers can get about 30 servings out of the box, but a lawsuit
claims that only around 26 are available. The larger claim allows
Aldi to mark the product with a higher price. [GN]

ALVARIA INC: Smith Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALVARIA, INC. and CARRINGTON MORTGAGE
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11205-ADB (D. Mass.,
May 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach
of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment/quasi
contract, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address
Defendants' alleged collective inadequacies in the safeguarding and
supervision of Class Members' private information, including, but
not limited to, Defendants' failure to comply with industry
standards to protect private information and to provide adequate
notice to Plaintiff and Class Members that their PII had been
compromised following the March 9, 2023 attack on Alvaria's
customer environment.

The Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their
private information to Defendants if they had known that Defendants
would breach their obligations, privacy promises, and agreements by
(a) failing to ensure that they had adequate data security measures
in place to protect the private information from compromise and
exfiltration, and/or (b) knowingly providing Plaintiff's and Class
Members' private information to a vendor that utilized inadequate
security measures, says the suit.

Alvaria, Inc. is a business software company with its principal
place of business in Westford, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE, PC
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
          THE JOHNSON FIRM
          610 President Clinton Ave., Suite 300
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 372-1300
          E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com
                  tyler@yourattorney.com

ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Scheibe Sues Over Fruit Snacks' False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB SCHEIBE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00998-RBM-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 30, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, breach of express
warranty, and for violations of the California Business &
Professions Code and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The complaint alleges that Defendant's Arizona Fruit Snacks,
Arizona Green Tea Fruit Snacks, and Arizona Arnold Palmer Half &
Half Fruit Snacks, which are manufactured, packaged, labeled,
advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and
falsely advertised as containing "No Preservatives." By
representing that the products have "No Preservatives," Defendant
sought to capitalize on consumers' preference for less processed
food products with fewer additives, says the suit.

The consumers including Plaintiff especially rely on label claims
made by food product manufacturers such as Arizona Beverages, as
they cannot confirm or disprove those claims simply by viewing or
even consuming the products. The Plaintiff suffered economic injury
by Defendant's fraudulent and deceptive conduct and there is a
causal nexus between Defendant's deceptive conduct and Plaintiff's
injury, the suit asserts.

Arizona Beverages USA, LLC produces and supplies non-alcoholic
beverages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles C. Weller, Esq.
          CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
          11412 Corley Court
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: (858) 414-7465
          Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
          E-mail: legal@cweller.com

ATLANTA RESTAURANT: Stafford Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
CASSANDRA STAFFORD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATLANTA RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC,
d/b/a TGI FRIDAYS, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-61053 (S.D. Fla.,
June 2, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Florida Minimum
Wage Act, and Art. X, Sec. 24 of the Florida Constitution.

According to the complaint, the Defendant committed federal and
state minimum wage violations because it (1) failed to provide
servers and bartenders with statutorily required tip notice federal
and state minimum wage violations; (2) compensated them at the
reduced wage for tipped employees notwithstanding that they are
required to spend more than 20 percent of their workweek performing
non-tipped duties and side work; and (3) attempts to claim a tip
credit during shifts when they are required to spend more than 30
continuous minutes on side work and non-tipped duties. As a result,
the Plaintiff and all similarly situated servers and bartenders
have been denied federal and state minimum wages during various
workweeks within the relevant time period, says the suit.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a server at the TGI
Fridays restaurant located at 80 SW 84th Ave., Plantation, Florida
from in or around June 2021 until on or about April 5, 2023.

Atlanta Restaurant Partners, LLC is the owner and operator of a
restaurant under the name TGI Fridays, located at 80 SW 84th Ave.,
Plantation, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jordan Richards, Esq.
         Michael V. Miller, Esq.
         USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
         1800 SE 10th Ave., Suite 205
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
         Telephone: (954) 871-0050
         E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                 michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com

BITWISE: Buffalo Director of Operations Alleges WARN Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
thebusinessjournal.com reports that the beleaguered Bitwise
Industries was hit with not one but two class-action lawsuits from
former employees  -- one filed in Fresno County Superior Court and
the other in federal court.

The federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of three employees. One of
them is Andre Nunn, who appears to be the highest-ranking Bitwise
employee to take part in a class-action lawsuit against Bitwise and
former co-CEOs Jake Soberal and Irma Olguin.

Nunn is the director of operations for the Bitwise expansion in
Buffalo, New York. The other plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed in the
Eastern District of California on June 6 are Kassandra Jimenez, who
was employed in Fresno as a payroll and compliance accountant and
Kaila Webb, a Maine resident who worked remotely as director of
business analytics, according to the lawsuit.

The complaints against Bitwise in the federal lawsuit are similar
to the suit filed June 7 in Fresno Superior Court by attorneys
Roger Bonakdar and Brian Whelan on behalf eight former Bitwise
employees.

The federal lawsuit alleges that Biwise was in violation of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, which
requires employers to give a 60-day notice before mass layoffs.
Also included in the lawsuit are violations of the California Labor
Code for non-payment of wages and 401(K) contributions.

An attempt to reach a spokesperson for Bitwise was unsuccessful.
The board of Bitwise Industries announced June 3 that Soberal and
Olguin had been terminated and that Ollen Douglass was named
interim president. Other members of the Bitwise Industries board of
directors named in the local class action suit include Mitchell
Kapor, Paula Pretlow, Joseph Proietti and Douglass.

The federal lawsuit seeks certification as a class and a judgement
in favor of plaintiffs and "affected employees" equal to 60 days of
unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday and
vacation pay, pension and 401(K) contributions and other benefits,
as well as interest. It also seeks attorney fees.

There were a reported 900 Bitwise employees nationwide and 400
locally.

The lawsuit was filed by Gail C. Lin with law firm Raisner
Roupinaian LLP in Westlake Village in Los Angeles County.[GN]

BJ'S RESTAURANT: Fails to Weekly Pay Wages, Lockett Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK LOCKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BJ'S RESTAURANT OPERATIONS COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03983 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2023) arises
from the Defendant's alleged violation of the New York Labor Law by
failing to pay the Plaintiff and class their wages weekly and not
later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which
the wages were earned.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from February 17, 2017
until February 6, 2022 as a line cook at the latter's restaurant in
Valley Stream.

BJ'S Restaurant Operations Company is a New York-based full-service
restaurant doing business as BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com

BP EXPLORATION: Bids to Reconsider in Mackles & Other Suits Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana denies the motions for
reconsideration in the lawsuits styled DUKE ALLEN MACKLES v. BP
EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H," et al., Case
Nos. 17-4002, No. 17-3022., 17-4322, 17-4578, 17-4588, 17-4654,
17-4136, 17-4142, 17-3629, 17-3913, 17-3985, 17-4141, 17-4229,
17-4453, 17-4471, 17-4507, 17-4563, 17-4357, 17-3099, 17-3193,
17-3413, 17-3989, 17-3549, 17-3312, 17-3480, 17-3506 (E.D. La.).

Before the Court are nearly identical motions submitted in 26
different cases. The Plaintiffs have filed Motions to Reconsider
the Court's Orders Granting Defendants' Motions in Limine and
Motions for Summary Judgment in each of their cases.

The other cases are: LATONYA SHERELL ANDERSON v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; HAKIM DUMAS v. BP
EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; CODIE JAMES
SCOTT v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H";
CHARLES D. STAPLETON v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.,
SECTION: "H"; JAMES DEWAYNE LAWRENCE v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; ERIC BRADLEY v. BP
EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; REGINA BROWN
v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; KRYSTAL
BARNES v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H";
TONNIE LEE EASTERLING v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.,
SECTION: "H"; JOHNNY ELZEY v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., SECTION: "H"; DONNA BROWN v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; RICARDO WHITE v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; ANTHONY L. MOORE v. BP
EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; LINDA PACE v.
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; DON POOLE,
ET AL. v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H";
FRANK MICHAEL III v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.,
SECTION: "H"; ARLENE HINTON v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.,
ET AL., SECTION: "H"; RAY SYLVESTER BROWN v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; CHERYL LAKISHA FIELDER v.
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; AMANDA
VICTORIA UPCHURCH v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.,
SECTION: "H"; WILLIAM SHEPHARD FAST v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; RICHARD TERRELL MAGEE v. BP EXPLORATION
& PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; CHARLENE JONES v. BP
EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H"; RODERICK
CLIFTON BELTON v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL.,
SECTION: "H"; and WILLIAM ARTHUR BOWDEN, JR. v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H."

Judge Milazzo notes that these 26 cases are among the "B3 bundle"
of cases arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, In Re: Oil
Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on
April 20, 2010, No. 10-md-02179, R. Doc. 26924 at 1 (E.D. La. Feb.
23, 2021). This bundle comprises "claims for personal injury and
wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used
during the oil spill response (e.g., dispersant)."

These cases were originally part of a multidistrict litigation
("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before Judge
Carl Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the Deepwater
Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, but the
B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement or were excluded
from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge Barbier severed the
B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among the judges of this
Court. The cases were reassigned to Section H.

Plaintiffs Eric Bradley; Latonya Sherell Anderson; Regina Brown;
Duke Allen Mackles; Jamie Dewayne Lawrence; Charles D. Stapleton;
Hakim Dumas; Codie James Scott; Krystal Barnes; Tonnie Lee
Easterling; Johnny Elzey; Donna Brown; Ricardo White; Anthony L.
Moore; Linda Pace; Don Poole; Frank Michael III; Arlene Hinton; Ray
Sylvester Brown; Cheryl Lakisha Fielder; Amanda Victoria Johnson
Upchurch; William Shepard Fast; Richard Terrell Magee; Marvin
Jones; Roderick Clifton Belton; and William Arthur Bowden, Jr.,
each filed lawsuits against the Defendants based on their alleged
exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Each Plaintiff was allegedly involved
in cleanup or recovery work after the oil spill, and each contends
that his or her resulting exposure to crude oil and dispersants
caused a litany of health conditions. The Plaintiffs bring claims
for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross
negligence against the Defendants.

Now before the Court in each of the cases are the Plaintiffs'
Motions for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e). They argue that the Court's order granting the Defendants'
Motion in Limine and Motion for Summary Judgment should be
reconsidered because of BP's decision not to collect dermal and
biometric data from cleanup workers. Defendants BP Exploration &
Production, Inc.; BP America Production Company; BP p.l.c.;
Transocean Holdings, LLC; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; Transocean
Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; and Halliburton Energy Services,
Inc. (collectively, the "BP parties") oppose.

The Plaintiffs move the Court for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)
of its order excluding Dr. J. Cook's testimony and granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment. They state that the
affidavit of Dr. Linda Birnbaum, the Director of the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ("NIEHS") creates an
issue of fact "as to whether biomonitoring would have been required
to adequately protect the workers from the known hazards of
exposure to crude oil." The Defendants respond that the Plaintiffs
are rehashing arguments irrelevant to this suit and that they
present no arguments unique to their cases.

Judge Milazzo notes that the Plaintiffs do not identify which of
the four Rule 59(e) criteria they believe are satisfied here. The
Plaintiffs' argument regarding Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit is
irrelevant to the fact that Dr. Cook's opinion is unhelpful and
unreliable.

In its previous Orders, this Court, as well as others in this
district, determined that Dr. Cook's expert report was inadmissible
and these decisions did not depend on the dermal and biometric data
that BP allegedly failed to collect. Specifically, another section
of this Court has held that Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit neither cures
nor explains the deficiencies of Dr. Cook's report.

Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit appears to conflate general causation with
specific causation, as general causation requires evidence
demonstrating that the types of chemicals encountered by the
Plaintiff are actually capable of causing the injuries alleged by
the Plaintiff, Judge Milazzo says. The Fifth Circuit requires
admissible general causation expert testimony in toxic-tort cases,
and Dr. Birnbaum's affidavit does not remedy this deficiency within
Dr. Cook's expert report, the Judge points out.

Considering this, Judge Milazzo holds that the Plaintiffs have not
presented any justification for alteration or amendment pursuant to
Rule 59(e). Moreover, the Court is not alone in this decision, as
another court in this district has also denied reconsideration on
the same grounds.

For these reasons, Plaintiffs' Motions for Reconsideration are
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated May 22,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y459dv5b from
Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Kalinowski Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment in the lawsuit entitled KEVIN KALINOWSKI v. BP
EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL. SECTION: H, Case No. 17-4387
(E.D. La.).

Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by
Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production
Company, BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean
Deepwater Inc., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., and
Transocean Holdings, LLC.

The lawsuit is one among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, No.
10-md-02179, R. Doc. 26924 at 1 (E.D. La. Feb. 23, 2021)). This
bundle comprises "claims for personal injury and wrongful death due
to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill
response (e.g., dispersant)."

The cases were originally part of a multidistrict litigation
("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana before Judge
Carl Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the Deepwater
Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, but the
B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement or were excluded
from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge Barbier severed the
B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among the judges of this
Court. This case was reassigned to Section H.

Plaintiff Kalinowski claims a myriad of medical conditions
resulting from continuous toxic exposure suffered after the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Specifically, he claims to suffer from
"ear aches, headaches, vomiting, blurry vision, and breathing
problems." He asserts claims for general maritime negligence,
negligence per se, and gross negligence with respect to the spill
and its cleanup.

Now before the Court is the Defendants' Second Motion for Summary
Judgment. In April 2022, the Court granted summary judgment
dismissing all of the Plaintiff's claims based on his failure to
produce an expert report before the original Dec. 21, 2021
deadline. However, "in the spirit of cooperation, all parties filed
a consent motion to vacate the ruling to allow Kalinowski more time
to provide an expert report."

Despite this extension, Judge Milazzo says the Plaintiff still has
not provided any expert support for his claims. Accordingly, the
Defendants again argue that the Plaintiff has failed to produce
sufficient evidence to prove that exposure to oil or dispersants
caused his alleged injuries. To date, the Plaintiff has filed no
opposition to the Defendants' Motion.

The Defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that the
Plaintiff cannot prove that exposure to oil or dispersants was the
legal cause of his alleged injuries. They argue that he cannot do
so because he has produced no expert testimony to support his
claims, and in a toxic tort case such as this, expert testimony as
to causation is required.

Having filed no opposition, the Plaintiff provides no response to
this argument.

Judge Milazzo opines that the Plaintiff has the burden of proving
causation. B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of the
claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals
used during the response. She explains that the causal connection
between exposure to oil or dispersants and the Plaintiff's injuries
is not within the common knowledge of a layperson.

The Plaintiff's new deadline for expert disclosures and reports was
March 8, 2023. He neither met this deadline nor moved for its
extension. Additionally, to date, he has failed to oppose BP's
motion or put forth any evidence of causation. Therefore, Judge
Milazzo holds that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element
of his claims against the Defendants, and his claims must be
dismissed.

For these reasons, Judge Milazzo rules that the Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment is granted, and this case is dismissed with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated May 22,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mpee6kke from
Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA: Court Grants Marrero's Bid to Dismiss Alcantara Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ADRIAN RODRIGUEZ ALCANTARA; YASMANI OSORIO
REYNA; MARIA FLOR CALDERON LOPEZ; MARY DOE; on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Petitioners v.
GREGORY ARCHAMBEAULT, San Diego Field Office Director, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Case No.
20cv0756 DMS (AHG) (S.D. Cal.), Chief District Judge Dana M. Sabraw
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California:

   (1) grants in part and denies in part the Federal
       Defendants'/Respondents' motion to dismiss; and

   (2) grants Defendant/Respondent Sixto Marrero's motion to
       dismiss.

The case comes before the Court on the motions for judgment on the
pleadings and/or motions to dismiss filed by the Federal
Defendants/Respondents and Defendant/Respondent Sixto Marrero, the
former Facility Administrator at Imperial Regional Detention
Facility ("IRDF"). The Plaintiffs/Petitioners filed a consolidated
response to the motions, and the Federal Defendants and Defendant
Marrero each filed a reply brief. After the motions were submitted,
the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in support
of their response to the motions, to which all the Defendants
object.

On April 21, 2020, Plaintiffs Adrian Rodriguez Alcantara, Yasmani
Osorio Reyna, Maria Flor Calderon Lopez, and Mary Doe filed the
present putative class action against a number of federal
government officials responsible for the care and custody of
immigration detainees at Otay Mesa Detention Center ("OMDC") and
Imperial Regional Detention Facility ("IRDF"). The COVID-19
pandemic was in its infancy at that time, and this case was one of
numerous cases filed throughout the country concerning the health
and safety of persons in congregate environments like those at OMDC
and IRDF.

Like many of the other plaintiffs/petitioners in those cases, the
Plaintiffs here alleged for themselves and putative class members
that their continued custody in light of the COVID-19 pandemic
violated their rights to substantive due process under the Fifth
Amendment. To remedy that alleged violation, the Plaintiffs sought
various forms of relief, including release from custody, reduction
of the detainee population, and modifications to their conditions
of confinement.

On April 30, 2020, after full briefing and argument, the Court
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of an Otay Mesa
Medically Vulnerable Subclass and issued a temporary restraining
order directing the Defendants to review whether any Subclass
members were suitable for release in light of certain factors and
with certain safeguards. The Defendants complied with that order
and released a number of detainees under the necessary and
appropriate conditions.

Thereafter, the Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction,
which the Court denied. The Court also denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for certification of a subclass of medically vulnerable
detainees at IRDF, and the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction relating to those detainees.

Following those rulings, the Federal Defendants moved to dismiss
this case as moot, and Defendant Christopher LaRose, then the
Warden of OMDC, moved to decertify the Otay Mesa Medically
Vulnerable Subclass. The Plaintiffs also moved for relief from the
Court's order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction, or
in the alternative, for a preliminary injunction regarding the
Subclass members, who remained in detention at OMDC. All of those
motions were denied.

The case then proceeded to discovery, after which the parties began
settlement negotiations. After a few months of negotiations, the
parties filed a joint motion to stay the case so they could focus
on settlement. The Court granted that motion, and the case was
stayed on July 16, 2021. The parties filed five motions to extend
the stay, all of which the Court granted. The last order extending
the stay was entered on Oct. 12, 2022, and that order extended the
stay through Nov. 10, 2022.

On Nov. 11, 2022, at 12:12 a.m., the Federal Defendants filed their
present motion, and approximately seven hours later at 7:27 a.m.,
Defendant Marrero filed his present motion.

In the present motions, the Defendants move for either judgment on
the pleadings or dismissal on the ground of mootness. As indicated,
this is not the first time the Defendants have raised this issue.
The Court was not persuaded that the Federal Defendants' arguments
rendered the case moot, and thus, denied the first motion.

The Defendants continue to rely on the Plaintiffs' release from
detention to support their present argument that the case is moot,
but also rely on two new factors. The first is the resolution of
the Plaintiffs' removal proceedings. The second is the Supreme
Court's decision in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, ___ U.S. ___, 142
S.Ct. 2057 (2022).

Taking the latter argument first, the Supreme Court held in Aleman
Gonzalez that 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(f)(1) "generally prohibits
lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials
to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or
otherwise carry out" certain provisions of federal immigration law.
The parties here appear to agree that this holding applies to the
Plaintiffs' request for class-wide release from detention.
Accordingly, Judge Sabraw holds that that request for relief is no
longer at issue.

The only issue that remains on the present motion is whether the
Plaintiffs' claims are moot in light of their release from
detention and the resolution of their removal proceedings. To meet
that burden, the Defendants must show it is absolutely clear that
the Plaintiffs no longer need the judicial protection sought
through their Complaint.

In this case, the Defendants argue they have met that burden
because the named Plaintiffs were released from custody, and there
is no reasonable expectation that they will be re-detained at OMDC,
IRDF, or anywhere else. As to Plaintiffs Lopez and Doe, both of
whom were detained at IRDF when the Complaint was filed, the Court
agrees their claims are now moot and should be dismissed. The same
result applies to the individual claims of Plaintiffs Alcantara and
Reyna, both of whom were detained at Otay Mesa Detention Facility
("OMDC") when the Complaint was filed, and both of whom have since
been released and whose removal proceedings have been resolved.

However, the termination of Alcantara's and Reyna's individual
claims does not moot this case in its entirety, Judge Sabraw holds.
Alcantara's and Reyna's claims were certified for class treatment,
and that certification decision significantly affects the mootness
determination. Judge Sabraw explains that this is because when a
court certifies a claim for class treatment, the class of unnamed
persons described in the certification acquires a legal status
separate from the interest asserted by the class representative. In
this situation, the termination of a class representative's claim
does not moot the claims of the unnamed members of the class.

Neither the Defendants nor the Plaintiffs addressed this issue in
their briefing on the present motions, Judge Sabraw notes. In the
supplemental authorities cited by the parties, the courts relied on
the Supreme Court precedent to conclude that the named plaintiffs'
release or transfer to other facilities did not render the class
claims moot. Judge Sabraw points out that that same precedent
applies with equal force here, and leads this Court to the same
conclusion, namely, that the class claims arising out of the class
members' detention at OMDC are not moot in light of Alcantara's and
Reyna's release from detention and the termination of their removal
proceedings.

For the reasons set out, Defendant Marrero's motion to dismiss is
granted. The Plaintiffs' claims relating to detention and
conditions of confinement at IRDF are dismissed as moot. The
Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss the individual claims of
Alcantara and Reyna relating to their detention and conditions of
confinement at OMDC is also granted, and those claims are dismissed
as moot. As to the class claims arising out of class members'
detention and conditions of confinement at OMDC, the Federal
Defendants' motion is denied.

The Plaintiffs are directed to file a motion to substitute a new
class representative for the Otay Mesa Medically Vulnerable
Subclass. After that motion is resolved, the Magistrate Judge will
hold a case management conference forthwith to reset all remaining
dates, including a trial date.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 22, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4us5yvaz from Leagle.com.


CALYX ENERGY: Fails to Properly Pay Operators, Robertson Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
BILLY ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALYX ENERGY III, LLC and RIVERSIDE
MIDSTREAM WATER RESOURCES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-00234-CVE-CDL (N.D. Okla., June 7, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as an operator in the Defendants' oilfield
services and facilities business from October 2021 until April
2023.

Calyx Energy III, LLC is an oil & natural gas company, with its
principal place of business located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Riverside Midstream Water Resources, LLC, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Calyx Energy III, LLC, with its principal place of
business located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Philip Bohrer, Esq.
         BOHRER BRADY, LLC
         8712 Jefferson Highway, Ste. B
         Baton Rouge, LA 70809
         Telephone: (225) 925-5297
         Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
         E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com

CANADA: Faces Proposed Class Suit Seeking $5B Over Housing Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Hobson at The Canadian Press reports that the chief of a
remote First Nation in northern Manitoba is proposing a national
class-action lawsuit against the federal government for failing to
address the housing crisis on reserves.

Chief Elvin Flett, of St. Theresa Point First Nation, is seeking $5
billion in compensation, as well as an order that the federal
government comply with its obligation to provide adequate housing
on First Nations.

"Most homes on reserve are falling apart and many are infested with
mould and other toxins. Our lack of housing on reserve forces
generation after generation to cramp together under the same roof,"
Flett told reporters.

"This is about broken promises, including the treaties, and the
honour of the Crown to act and the many promises made to our
people."

Flett, on behalf of himself and his community, and his legal team
at the Toronto-based firm McCarthy Tetrault LLP filed a statement
of claim in Federal Court. The claim names the attorney general of
Canada as the defendant.

In a written statement sent to CBC News, an Indigenous Services
Canada (ISC) spokesperson said the ISC was aware of the First
Nation's news conference and will "continue to work with St.
Theresa Point First Nation and all First Nation communities, to
address and improve housing conditions on reserve."

The statement of claim alleges Canada has "deliberately underfunded
housing on reserves," while simultaneously isolating First Nations
by imposing restrictions on their ability to provide housing for
themselves.

"The resulting catastrophe for First Nations and their members was
not only predictable, it was the defendant's intended result," the
statement claims.

St. Theresa Point is one of four First Nations that make up the
Island Lake region in northeastern Manitoba. The community of 5,200
people is accessible by plane or ice road for six weeks out of the
year.

About 467 families in the community need homes, said Flett.

There are approximately 646 houses in St. Theresa Point with 25 per
cent condemnable due to severe decay and rotting, Flett added.
Others require major repairs averaging in cost from $55,000 to
$86,000.

The community received federal funding last year for 20 two-bedroom
units.

"It's barely a dent in what [St. Theresa Point] needs. It doesn't
keep up with the decay in their house and let alone the growth of
their population," said Michael Rosenberg, counsel for the
community. "The First Nation, like so many others across the
country, falls farther and farther behind."

First Nations housing a 'stain on the conscience': AMC
Flett said some of his community's members, and others from First
Nations across the country, are living in unimaginable conditions
that aren't seen elsewhere.

It's not uncommon for families of 12 to live under one roof. In one
instance in St. Theresa Point, 32 people are living in a
four-bedroom home. Leaders have heard of members sleeping in
shifts, while other families resort to more "precarious housing"
including living out of school buses, shacks, tents and makeshift
cabins.

The state of housing on First Nations has mental and physical
health repercussions, said Flett. Members live with ailments that
leaders say are linked to toxins in the home while overcrowding
affects youth and teens who often don't have access to personal
space.

Grand Chief Cathy Merrick, of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, said
housing on First Nations has been a "stain on the conscience of
[communities] for far too long."

"First Nations people in Manitoba and across Canada have endured
overcrowded, dilapidating and substandard housing, undermining
their health and their well-being."

Rosenberg said the proposed compensation would address inadequate
housing in communities and those who have been injured by their
living conditions.

"It's important to recognize that no one class action will solve
all the problems of housing," he added.

The proposed class action is directed toward the most extreme
housing emergencies in First Nations. Rosenberg said communities
where at least half of the population resides in homes with a
shortfall of two or more bedrooms and are in need of major repairs
may be eligible to sign on.

The community and Flett are inviting other First Nations to join in
the lawsuit.

"Together we must demand the housing that we deserve. . . .
Together we can create a safer and healthier future for First
Nations across Canada."

The Assembly of First Nations estimates more than 600 First Nations
across Canada would be eligible to join the claim, according to
Assembly of First Nations Manitoba Regional Chief Cindy Woodhouse,
adding that "very, very few" are satisfied by their housing.

A judge must certify the class action before it can proceed.[GN]

CARPENTERS OF WESTERN: Johnson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRANCE JOHNSON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Terrance Johnson, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
v. Carpenters of Western Washington Board of Trustees, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01079-JCC, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action -- under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29
U.S.C. Section 1000, et seq. ("ERISA") -- on behalf of union
carpenters in Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, who were
automatically enrolled in two distinct collectively bargained
retirement plans: the (1) Carpenters Individual Account Pension
Plan of Western Washington ("the Contribution Plan"), and the (2)
Carpenters Retirement Plan of Western Washington ("the Benefit
Plan"). The Board and its financial advisor, Callan, managed the
Plans. During the relevant time period, the individually named
Defendants allegedly served on the Board. Those persons, along with
the Board and Callan LLC, are collectively "the Defendants" in the
matter.

The Plaintiffs claim the Defendants mismanaged the Plans by
investing in highly speculative indexes, which incurred over $250
million in losses. These funds, in turn, were managed by non-party,
Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC, an asset management company. The
Defendants invested nearly a fifth of the Plans' assets in two
Allianz hedge funds: AllianzGI Structured Alpha 1000 Plus LLC and
AllianzGI Structured Alpha U.S. Equity 250 LLC. During the 2020
market downturn, 1000 Plus and Equity 250 lost 92% and 54% of their
value, respectively. 1000 Plus closed by the end of March, and the
Plans liquidated their remaining assets in Equity 250 by early
April. Following the crash, the Board filed a civil suit against
Allianz and received $110,390,267 from a settlement agreement in
2022. The Plaintiffs allege this represents less than 45% of the
Plans' losses.

The Plaintiffs filed the suit alleging the Defendants breached
their duty of prudence under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104. Alternatively,
they allege that Callan breached its common law fiduciary duty.
Also, in the alternative, the Plaintiffs allege that Callan
breached its common law duty of due care. The Defendants move to
dismiss all claims.

On May 10, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint without leave to amend
through an Order entered by Judge John C. Coughenour. Judge
Coughenour ruled that the Plaintiffs failed to rebut the Defendants
evidence that demonstrates a lack of harm. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a sufficiently "concrete
injury" to establish Article III standing.

Therefore, Judge Coughenour granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint without leave to amend.

The appellate case is captioned Terrance Johnson, et al. v.
Carpenters of Western Washington Board of Trustees, et al., Case
No. 23-35370, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on May 30, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants TERRANCE JOHNSON, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Hajir Ardebili, Esq.
            Paul B. Derby, Esq.
            John J. O'Kane, IV, Esq.
            SKIERMONT DERBY, LLP
            633 W. 5th Street, Suite 5800
            Los Angeles, CA 90071
            Telephone: (213) 788-4293
                       (213) 788-4500

Defendants-Appellees CARPENTERS OF WESTERN WASHINGTON BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, et al. are represented by:

            William J. Delany, Esq.
            Shaun Gates, Esq.
            David N. Levine, Esq.
            GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
            1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1200
            Washington, DC 20006
            Telephone: (202) 861-6643
                       (202) 857-0620
                       (202) 861-5436

                     - and -

            Michael Clinton Tracy, Esq.
            Sarah N. Turner, Esq.
            GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
            701 5th Avenue, Suite 2100
            Seattle, WA 98104
            Telephone: (206) 695-5135
                       (206) 695-5100

CINCH REAL ESTATE: Order on Arbitration in Citron Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled GUY CITRON and HYEJIN CHOI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. CINCH REAL ESTATE, INC., HOMESURE SERVICES, INC., and WEICHERT
CO., Defendants-Respondents, Case No. A-1221-22 (N.J. Super. App.
Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division,
affirms the enforcement of an arbitration provision.

In this appeal, the Panel considers the Plaintiffs' arguments that
challenge enforcement of an arbitration provision contained in a
home warranty plan. Concluding, as did the trial judge, that the
arbitration provision was conspicuously presented and unambiguously
declared the arbitrability of the disputes asserted in this action,
the Court of Appeals affirms the order under review except that the
Panel remands for a stay of the suit instead of the dismissal
granted by the trial judge.

In the Summer of 2020, Citron and Choi, a married couple, employed
Weichert, to assist them in their search for a home. During that
process, a Weichert agent encouraged the Plaintiffs to purchase a
Weichert Home Protection Plan as offered by Defendants Cinch Real
Estate, Inc., and HomeSure Services, Inc.

In early July, Citron called a hotline administered by Cinch and
HomeSure and purchased a two-year home warranty for $1,147.72. On
July 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs received an envelope containing a
twenty-seven-page booklet. Printed on the outside of the envelope,
in large and bold lettering, was the following: "IMPORTANT: Your
Home Warranty Information is Enclosed. Please Keep Handy."

The booklet's first 11 pages contain welcoming information and
explain the coverage provided and the claim process. The service
agreement is set forth in the booklet's remaining 16 pages, at the
start of which is a table of contents that labels "Dispute
Resolution" as the agreement's section eight starting on the 21st
page. On the page following the table of contents is the service
agreement's introductory portion.

The dispute resolution section, as promised by the table of
contents, begins on the 21st page under a heading, in bold print,
labeled "DISPUTE RESOLUTION." Immediately below that heading is
subsection one, which starts with the word "ARBITRATION" in bold
lettering.

The Plaintiffs closed on their purchase of a home in Califon on
Aug. 27, 2020. On that date the warranty went into effect, yet it
also contained a clause that permitted the Plaintiffs to cancel the
agreement within the following 30 days so long as no claims were
filed within that time.

Judges Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr., and Mark K. Chase, writing for the
Panel, notes that within a month of closing on their home purchase,
the Plaintiffs made a series of claims under the warranty and, on
several occasions, Defendants Cinch and HomeSure dispatched
third-party repair technicians to their home. The Plaintiffs were
dissatisfied with the Defendants' efforts and the results
obtained.

On their own behalf and on behalf of a class of individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs commenced this action against
the Defendants in March 2022. They alleged statutory violations of
the Consumer Fraud Act, the Plain Language Review Act, and the
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. They also
alleged fraud, fraud in the inducement, and the Defendants' breach
of fiduciary duties. The Defendants promptly moved to dismiss,
under Rule 4:6-2(e), based on the arbitration provision. The motion
judge found the arbitration provision enforceable and dismissed the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed this appeal, as was their right, arguing the
arbitration agreement was unenforceable because: the motion judge
erred by failing to recognize that it was "presented in an
improperly obscure and even hidden manner"; the provision itself
was "insufficiently clear and unambiguous to be enforced against
consumers"; the provision contains "internal discrepancies and
self-contradictions" that render it unenforceable; and the motion
judge "misread the course-of-conduct evidence and assigned it
outsized importance."

The Plaintiffs also argue that the judge erred in "enforcing the
delegation clause," i.e., the clause that delegates to the
arbitrator any disputes about arbitrability. Judges Fisher and
Chase find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant further
discussion in a written opinion.

Judges Fisher and Chase note the apparently undisputed fact that
the Federal Arbitration Act applies, meaning that the national
policy in favor of arbitration, which displaces all state law bans
on arbitration of particular claims, AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333, 341 (2011), must be enforced absent the
parties' failure to mutually assent or otherwise reach a meeting of
the minds about arbitration. Whether the parties agreed to
arbitrate is a question that turns on the application of state law
contract principles.

In questioning whether the parties agreed to arbitrate, the
Plaintiffs allude to that part of their agreement which recognized
arbitration is not necessarily the exclusive means for resolving
their disputes. The provision instead acknowledges that, in seeking
relief from the Defendants, the Plaintiffs had three choices; they
could resolve their disputes by settlement or final and binding
arbitration or in and through a small claims court having
jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs claim there is some ambiguity in this either because
of the existence of options or because the limits of the options
are not precisely defined. The Court of Appeals disagrees. Judges
Fisher and Chase opines that the options are clearly stated in
plain language and, because the Plaintiffs opted for neither of the
other two choices -- reaching a settlement with the Defendants or
suing in a small claims court -- they were relegated to the third
remaining option: final and binding arbitration. The Judges find
nothing ambiguous or uncertain in the options the parties agreed
upon to describe how their disputes would be resolved.

More importantly, even though the provision provided the Plaintiffs
with the option of suing in a small claims court, Judges Fisher and
Chase opines that there is no ambiguity that would suggest the
Plaintiffs were permitted to proceed with this class action or to
obtain the benefit of their jury demand. Because both the jury
trial waiver and the preclusion of class actions are unambiguously
stated and prominently presented, they must be enforced.

In the final analysis, like the trial judge, Judges Fisher and
Chase find in the parties' arbitration provision no lack of clarity
in its wording or lack of conspicuousness in its presentation. The
envelope containing the parties' written agreement stated the
importance of the material inside, and the booklet inside
repeatedly directs the reader's attention, with clear and bold
language, to the unambiguous arbitration provision.

Judges Fisher and Chase, thus, conclude that the trial judge did
not err in enforcing the arbitration provision. They do, however,
vacate that part of the order under review that dismissed the
Plaintiffs' complaint. The action should not have been dismissed
but stayed.

Affirmed but remanded in part. The remand is limited to the motion
judge's entry of an order vacating the dismissal of the complaint
and imposing instead a stay. The Court of Appeals does not retain
jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated May 22, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yp5wyxns from Leagle.com.

Robert J. Basil -- robertjbasil@rjbasil.com -- (The Basil Law
Group, PC), David A. Cohen -- davidacohen@rjbasil.com -- (The Basil
Law Group, PC), and Sean Collier -- seancollier@rjbasil.com -- (The
Basil Law Group, PC), attorneys for the Appellants (Robert J.
Basil, David A. Cohen and Sean Collier, on the briefs).

Wong Fleming, PC, and David J. Fioccola -- dfioccola@mofo.com --
(Morrison & Foerster LLP), attorneys for the Respondents (Daniel C.
Fleming -- dfleming@wongfleming.com -- David J. Fioccola, Joseph R.
Palmore -- jpalmore@mofo.com -- (Morrison & Foerster LLP) of the
New York and District of Columbia bars, admitted pro hac vice, and
Diana Li Kim (Morrison & Foerster LLP) of the Connecticut and
District of Columbia bars, admitted pro hac vice, on the brief).


CITIZEN BANK: Simone Sues Over Improper Overdraft Fee Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA DE SIMONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITIZEN BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00482 (W.D.N.Y., June 2, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of contract and violations of the New York
General Business Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of its account
contract and state and federal law by not providing account records
to customers, including the Plaintiff, upon request. In doing so,
the Defendant gives itself license to, upon information and belief,
improperly assess and collect (1) $35 overdraft fees on
transactions that did not actually overdraw the account and (2)
multiple $35 fees on an item. The Plaintiff and similarly situated
customers have been injured by the Defendant's improper fee
maximization practices, says the suit.

Citizen Bank, N.A. is a banking company, with its headquarters
located in Providence, Rhode Island. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
         WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
         700 Broadway
         New York, NY 10003
         Telephone: (212) 558-5500
         E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

                 - and -

         Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
         COHEN & MALAD, LLP
         One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
         Indianapolis, IN 4204
         Telephone: (317) 636-6481
         E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

                 - and -

         J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
         STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
         223 Rosa L. Parks Ave. Ste. 200
         Telephone: (615) 254-8801
         E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com

                 - and -

         Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
         JOHNSON FIRM
         610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
         Little Rock, AR 72201
         Telephone: (501) 372-1300
         E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com

CLEVELAND COUNTY, NC: Objections to Conner's Class Notice Sustained
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SARAH B. CONNER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEVELAND
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, also known as Cleveland County Emergency
Medical Services, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00002-MR-WCM
(W.D.N.C.), Chief District Judge Martin Reidinger of the  U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Asheville Division, ordered that the Defendant's Objections to the
Plaintiff's proposed notice are sustained to the extent they have
been incorporated into the revised proposed notice.

The matter is before the Court on the Defendant's Objections to the
Proposed Collective Action Notice and the Plaintiff's Response to
those Objections.

On April 24, 2023, the Court entered an order conditionally
certifying a collective action for the Plaintiff's FLSA claim
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Court also certified a
class action for the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In that Order,
the Court directed the Defendant to file objections to the
Plaintiff's proposed notice to putative collective action and class
members within 14 days of the entry of the Court's Order.

The Defendant timely filed Objections to the proposed notice on May
8, 2023. On May 9, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Response to the
Defendant's Objections stating that she did not seek to challenge
any of the Defendant's proposed changes to the notice. The
Plaintiff's Response included a revised proposed notice
incorporating the Defendant's proposed changes.

The Court concludes that the Plaintiff's revised proposed notice is
appropriate and will authorize distribution of the notice. The
Plaintiff's original and revised proposed notices both contemplate
a forty-five-day notice period. The Defendant has not indicated any
objection to the Plaintiff's proposed length of the notice period
and the Court concludes a forty-five-day notice period is
appropriate.

The Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and Collective Action also
sought authorization to send a reminder prior to the response
deadline to which the Defendant has also not indicated any
objection and which the Court concludes is appropriate.

To facilitate the distribution of this notice, the Court will also
order the Defendant to produce a computer-readable data file
containing the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone
numbers, and dates of employment of all current and former "24
hours on-48 hours off personnel" for the Defendant anytime during
the period of Nov. 13, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2017.

It is, therefore, ordered that the Defendant's Objections to the
Plaintiff's proposed notice are sustained to the extent they have
been incorporated into the revised proposed notice.

The Plaintiff's revised proposed notice is approved.

It is further ordered that the following procedures are set out for
the facilitation of distribution of the notice:

   (1) Within seven (7) days of the entry of this Order, the
       Defendant will produce the above-defined Employee
       Information in a computer-readable file;

   (2) The revised proposed Class Action Notice and corresponding
       Consent to Join form may be immediately issued to those
       individuals whose names are provided but must be mailed no
       later than seven (7) days following the production of the
       Employee Information;

   (3) Eligible members of the collective and class action will
       be provided forty-five (45) days after the deadline for
       mailing of the Notice to return a Consent to Join form
       opting-in to this litigation and/or to notify Class
       Counsel of the decision to opt-out of the North Carolina
       state law class, unless the Parties agree to permit late
       filings or good cause can be shown as to why the form
       and/or opt-out notification was not returned prior to the
       deadline;

   (4) The Plaintiff may send a reminder to eligible members
       fifteen (15) days before the deadline for returning the
       Consent to Join form; and

   (5) The Notice and Consent to Join forms will be mailed by
       first class mail and/or email, and a copy of this Notice
       will be posted at a location in each of Defendant's CCEMS
       offices where Potential Plaintiffs are likely to view it.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 22, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycryubp7 from Leagle.com.


CREDIT BUREAU: Settles False Credit Reports' Suit for Over $2.7M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Credit
Bureau Connection Inc., would pay more than $2.7 million to settle
a class action alleging it provided false information on credit
reports to automobile dealerships, under a deal given preliminary
approval by a federal court.

Credit Bureau allegedly indicated that some potential buyers were
on a watch list created by the Department of Treasury to enforce
trade sanctions. The settlement would provide payments of $1,000 to
each of the 1,071 class members without the need for a claim form
or any other response.

Plaintiff Sung Gon Kang alleged in the lawsuit, filed in the US
District Court for the Eastern District of California, that he was
denied credit while attempting to buy a car based on information in
a Credit Bureau consumer report matching him with a North Korean
citizen with a similar name.

Treasury Department regulations prohibit car dealers from doing
business with anyone designated as a "Specially Designated
National" on a list maintained by the department's Office of
Foreign Assets Control, the lawsuit said.

Kang claimed that CBC failed to follow reasonable procedures to
guarantee the accuracy of the information it provided to car
dealers, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the
California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto granted Kang's motion on June 1
for preliminary approval of the deal.

Attorneys would separately receive up to $1.62 million in fees and
costs, and Kang would receive up to $15,000 as a service award.

Credit Bureau also would cover the estimated $44,000 cost of
administering the settlement.

A hearing to consider final approval of the deal has been set for
Oct. 25.

Francis Mailman Soumilas PC and Caddell & Chapman represent Kang
and the class. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP and Skaggs
Faucette LLP represent Credit Bureau.

The case is Kang v. Credit Bureau Connection Inc., E.D. Cal., No.
1:18-cv-01359, 6/1/23. [GN]

CUSTOMER CONNEXX: Cadena Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARIENE CADENA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit
entitled Cariene Cadena, et al., individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Customer
Connexx LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00233-APG-DJA, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

This is an employment wage and hour class action based upon the
Defendants alleged failure to pay its non-exempt employees' wages
for all the work completed off the clock and/or improperly rounded
off their time for pay purposes in violations of the Fair Labor
Standard Act. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants maintain
and enforce two core policies that forced non-exempt hourly call
center employees to perform work off-the-clock before and after
their shifts: (1) the Defendants' Timekeeping Policy and (2) the
Defendants' Rounding Policy.

On Oct. 26, 2020, Defendant Customer Connexx filed a motion for
summary judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered
by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on May 22, 2023. The Court further
ordered that Defendant Customer Connexx LLC's motion to decertify
class, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class, Defendant
JanOne's separate motion for summary judgment, and the Defendants'
motion to strike are denied as moot.

The appellate case is captioned Cariene Cadena, et al. v. Customer
Connexx LLC, et al., Case No. 23-15820, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 30, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Cariene Cadena and Andrew Gonzales Mediation
Questionnaire was due on June 6, 2023;

   -- Appellants Cariene Cadena and Andrew Gonzales opening brief
is due on July 24, 2023;

   -- Appellees Customer Connexx LLC and JanOne, Inc. answering
brief is due on August 23, 2023; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants CARIENE CADENA, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
            Leah Lin Jones, Esq.
            Mark Russell Thierman, Esq.
            THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
            7287 Lakeside Drive
            Reno, NV 89511
            Telephone: (775) 284-1500

Defendants-Appellees CUSTOMER CONNEXX LLC, et al. are represented
by:

            Veronica T. Hunter, Esq.
            JACKSON LEWIS, PC
            717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1700
            Houston, TX 77002
            Telephone: (713) 650-0404

                     - and -

            Paul Theodore Trimmer, Esq.
            JACKSON LEWIS, PC
            300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900
            Las Vegas, NV 89101
            Telephone: (702) 921-2460

CYNET HEALTH: Seeks to Recover Telemetry Nurses' Pay Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------
IRISH SISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CYNET HEALTH INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00711 D (E.D. Va.,
May 31, 2023) seeks recovery for the pay losses the Plaintiff and
other travelers experienced as the result of Cynet's predatory
business practices, which Cynet blames on the facilities it
staffs.

The Plaintiff contends that Cynet is knowingly engaging in these
"bait-and-switch" practices to maintain the significant profit
margins it had become accustomed to during the COVID-19 pandemic
and to gain a competitive advantage in the market and with
facilities.

On November 17, 2020, Cynet made an employment offer to Plaintiff
Sison that included a fixed-term travel assignment in Fresno,
California. Cynet's assignment agreement offered her a position as
a telemetry nurse at Saint Agnes Medical Center in Fresno,
California from January 10, 2022, to April 9, 2022, with the
following compensation package: a base hourly pay rate of $85 with
a minimum of 36 scheduled hours per week; an overtime hourly pay
rate of $127.50; an hourly call-back rate of $130; and a weekly
stipend of $1,248.80.

In reliance on the foregoing material terms, Plaintiff Sison
accepted Cynet's offer of employment by executing Cynet's form
Assignment Acceptance on December 14, 2021. Nearing the end of this
assignment, on or before April 7, 2022, Cynet offered Plaintiff
Sison a contract extension for her position as a telemetry nurse at
Saint Agnew Medical Center from April 10, 2022, until July 9, 2022,
with the same compensation package as her initial agreement.

In May 2022, about one month into her extension contract, Cynet
made Irish Sison a "take-it-or-leave-it" demand to accept less pay
or be terminated, effective May 16, 2022. Specifically, Cynet
demanded that she accept a 33% reduction of her base hourly pay
rate from $85 to $65.51 and corresponding cuts in her overtime and
call-back hourly pay rates from $127.50 to $98.27 to complete the
previously agreed-upon assignment. Cynet blamed the pay reduction
on the client/facility.

Additionally, Cynet is underpaying its travel employees for
overtime hours worked. In determining "regular rate," Cynet has
only included its employees' direct hourly cash wage among other
items and has excluded, in violation of the law, other parts of its
employees' compensation packages, thereby resulting in an
artificially low rate of pay for overtime hours worked.

Plaintiff Sison completed her assignment in accordance with her
duties. As a result, she suffered monetary losses. At a minimum,
the difference between the value of the original agreement and the
unilateral pay reduction was more than $6,000, the lawsuit claims.

Plaintiff Sison is a citizen of Nevada who accepted a travel
assignment from Cynet to work at a healthcare facility located in
New Mexico and California.

Cynet is a healthcare staffing firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven T. Webster, Esq.
          WEBSTER BOOK LLP
          300 N. Washington St., Suite 404
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (888) 987-9991
          E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com

                - and -

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
          Crystal Cook Leftridge, Esq.
          K. Ross Merrill, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: 816-714-7100
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
                  ricke@stuevesiegel.com
                  cook@stuevesiegel.com
                  merrill@stuevesiegel.com

DELTA AIR: Berrin Sues Over Deceptive "Carbon Neutrality" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAYANNA BERRIN, an individual on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA AIR LINES INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-04150 (C.D. Cal.,
May 30, 2023) asserts claims on behalf of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated purchasers of Defendant's flights for (i)
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (ii)
violation of California's False Advertising, Business and
Professions Code; and (iii) Unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent trade
practices in violation of California's Business and Professions
Code.

This is a class action lawsuit, brought on behalf of a putative
nationwide class, or alternatively a putative class of California
residents, who have purchased Defendant's flights, against
Defendant for grossly misrepresenting the total environmental
impact of its business operations in its advertisements, corporate
announcements, and promotional materials and thereby attaining
underserved market share and extracting higher prices from
consumers. Since March 2020, Defendant has repeatedly touted itself
as "the world's first carbon-neutral airline" across various
channels including advertisements, press releases, LinkedIn posts,
podcasts, and in-flight napkins, says the suit.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's claim of carbon
neutrality hinges on an underlying set of representations -- that
since March 2020 Defendant's investments in the voluntary carbon
offset market have entirely offset the CO2 emissions from
Defendant's global airline operations, such that Defendant has not
been responsible for releasing additional carbon into the
atmosphere during that time. Allegedly, the Defendant's claims of
"carbon neutrality" are false and misleading; the operation of
Defendant's airline is not carbon neutral, and consumers would not
have purchased tickets on Defendant's flights, or paid
substantially less for them, had they known the claim of carbon
neutrality was false, the suit asserts.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a provider of scheduled air transportation
for passengers and cargo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Haderlein, Esq.
          Krikor Kouyoumdjian, Esq.
          HADERLEIN AND KOUYOUMDJIAN LLP
          19849 Nordhoff St.
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 304-34345
          E-mail: jhaderlein@handklaw.com
                  kkouyoumdjian@handklaw.com

               - and -

          L. David Russell, Esq.
          RUSSELL LAW, PC
          1500 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 500
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (323) 638-7551   
          E-mail: david@russelllawpc.com

DOLLAR GENERAL: Wright Sues Over Mislabeled Adhesive Patches
------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Dollar General Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 5:23-cv-00646-FJS-ML (N.D.N.Y., May 30, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for breaches of express warranty, implied
warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose,
fraud, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the New York
General Business Law, State Consumer Fraud Acts, and the Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant Dollar General sells adhesive
patches promising to deliver 4% lidocaine under the DG Health
brand. The representations include its description as a "Maximum
Strength" "Lidocaine Pain Relief Gel Patch" delivering "Lidocaine
4% [as a] Topical Anesthetic," and invites purchasers to "Compare
it to the active ingredient of Salonpas Lidocaine 4% Pain Relieving
Gel-Patch." The label indicates it provides "Numbing relief" that
is "Fast-acting" through a "Stay-put flexible patch" that "Lasts Up
To 12 Hours," displayed in rifle sights, to the "Neck, Shoulder,
Back, Knee & Elbow." However, the product cannot and does not
adhere for anywhere close to 12 hours, which renders the directions
misleading, because it assumes it will not have detached by then.
This inability to adequately adhere during normal use renders the
adhesion claim misleading due to the significant disparity between
what is promised and what is delivered, says the suit.

The Defendant's false, misleading and deceptive representations and
omissions are material in that they are likely to influence
consumer purchasing decisions. The Plaintiff would not have
purchased the product or paid as much if the true facts had been
known, suffering damages, the suit asserts.

Dollar General Corporation is an American chain of variety stores
headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DOUYU INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against DouYu International Holdings Limited
("DouYu," or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DOYU). The lawsuit alleges
DouYu made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, including: (1) the Chinese
government could become increasingly aggressive towards DouYu
regardless of how effective or sincere its attempts to comply with
Chinese law were; and (2) this increasingly aggressive posture
subjected DouYu to a heightened risk of an investigation and
subsequent government enforcement action and ultimately resulted in
enforcement action.

If you bought shares of DouYu between April 30, 2021 and May 9,
2023, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you
are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey
Holzer, Esq. 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 www.holzerlaw.com/case/douyu/
to learn more.

The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is August 8, 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. [GN]

DR. ERROL GAUM: Former Patients Lose Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Lambie, writing for Saltwire, reports that a Nova Scotia
Supreme Court judge has denied former patients of Dr. Errol Gaum
their bid for class-action status in their legal battle for
compensation from the Halifax-area pediatric dentist.

His alleged victims -- who were children at the time -- had hoped
to argue as one group that Gaum used "substandard behavioural
management techniques" on them that constituted assault, battery,
and negligence. The allegations stem from patients at Gaum's dental
practice, which began in the early 1970s and ended in 2020.

Those techniques allegedly included: telling patients to shut up,
placing a hand over their mouth and nose, slapping and hitting,
using body restraints and leather strap restraints, threats,
denying access to guardians and choking, according to the decision
released on June 6.

The lead plaintiffs in the case were Sunyata Choyce, and Ryan
Binder as litigation guardian of Peyton Binder. Their lawyer, Jamie
MacGillivray, said on June 6 that he represents more than 300 of
Gaum's former patients.

"It's a procedural issue," MacGillivray said on June 6. "It's going
ahead either way."

He's now got to decide whether to appeal the decision or proceed as
a mass tort where everybody is considered an individual claimant,
but they're all on one claim.

"With a class, the court sets up a mini system on how to hear the
claims," MacGillivray said. "But this judge didn't think that was
the best way to do it."

'Supposed to speed things up'
The idea of class actions is they're "supposed to speed things up,"
he said.

"But often, it doesn't seem to, anyway," MacGillivray said. "Our
hope was to use that procedure. Our hope was that it would be
faster than doing them individually through the traditional rules.
But it's tough where it's sort of a medical malpractice and there's
an element of assault. Those types of cases are a little harder to
do as a class."

Gaum operated out of clinics on Spring Garden Road in Halifax, at
Mic Mac Mall in Dartmouth, and on Granville Road in Bedford.

"His licence was temporarily suspended by the Provincial Dental
Board of Nova Scotia in November 2020, pending an investigation of
some complaints that have been made against him," said the decision
released on June 6. "As (Gaum) has pointed out, he has not yet had
an opportunity to respond to same, and no adjudication has
occurred."

MacGillivray argued unsuccessfully that by trying the case as a
class action it would save the courts from having to hear
repetitive testimony from hundreds of witnesses.

"Essentially this method will save an expert from having to testify
on the same issue hundreds of times, and not require hundreds of
separate trials," said a summary of MacGillivray's argument in the
decision released on June 6.

"It will reduce court time for witnesses where many have suffered
from similar events and have similar damages. Settlement would be
facilitated by having the court set a range of general damages
where the cases involve common although not identical injuries."

Failed to meet definition
Gaum's lawyers countered that the dentist's former clients had
failed to meet the definition of a class and that the case must be
dismissed as a result.

Gaum's alleged victims claimed he used behavioural management
techniques "which are unapproved within his (his) field, aberrant
and cruel."

The dentist knew or ought to have known that using those techniques
exposed the patients now trying to sue him "to risks of physical
injury and serious psychological harm," they said in court
documents.

It's clear, Justice Timothy Gabriel said in his written decision,
that Gaum owed a duty of care to his patients.

'The difficulty'
"The difficulty which the plaintiffs face with respect to this
issue stems from the fact that common issues, in this context, must
advance the litigation by avoiding 'duplication of fact-finding or
legal analysis," Gabriel said.

"Here, there will still need to be individual inquiries as to the
circumstances of each class member when they, for example, say they
were told to 'shut up,' or their mouth was covered," said the
judge.

"The same applies for most of the other examples cited by the
plaintiffs as examples of 'substandard and aberrant (behavioural
management techniques).'"

Gabriel pointed to the affidavit of Dr. Peter Copp, a witness for
Gaum's alleged victims who is a dental anesthesia specialist and
general dentist.

Copp told the court "there are clear situations where the use of
physical restraint is inappropriate and falls below the standard of
care, these include the following: a co-operative non-sedated
patient, an unco-operative patient when there is no clear need to
provide treatment at that particular visit, a patient who cannot be
immobilized safely due to associated medical, psychological, or
physical conditions, a patient with a history of physical or
psychological trauma, including physical or sexual abuse or other
trauma that would place the individual at greater psychological
risk during restraint, a patient with non-emergent treatment needs
in order to accomplish full mouth or multiple quadrant dental
rehabilitation, a practitioner's convenience, and a dental team
without the requisite knowledge and skills in patient selection and
restraining techniques to prevent or minimize psychological stress
and decrease of physical injury to the patient, the parent, and the
staff."

Decisions about behavior management techniques "must be based on a
review of the patient's medical, dental, and social history
followed by an evaluation of current behavior," Gabriel said.

Restraint sometimes appropriate
"The clear corollary of what Dr. Kopp is saying in these paragraphs
is that there are some circumstances in which 'physical restraint'
is appropriate. Indeed, all (behavioural management techniques)
must be considered relative to an individual's medical, dental, and
social history, as well as their current behaviour. Even the most
extreme of the (behavioural management techniques) alleged, such as
'slapping or hitting plaintiffs' require an explanation from the
individual plaintiff as to what type of action on Dr. Gaum's part
is alleged to constitute a 'slap' or 'hit,' and the circumstances
under which such was administered."

No standard of care ruling would apply to all of the patients suing
Gaum, said the judge.

"Moreover, and to state the obvious, Dr. Gaum is not precluded from
taking the position that some or all of the alleged (behavioural
management techniques) were never administered by him at all in the
course of his treatment of the patient(s) who have alleged they
were subjected to them."

'Societal attitudes'
The judge pointed out that Copp told the court that "while dentists
continue to use these behaviour management techniques, societal
attitudes toward dealing with children change, the use and
acceptance of a technique by the profession does not assure its
legitimacy."

The judge agreed with The American Association of Pediatric
Dentistry best practices, "which directs that a dentist who treats
children should be able to accurately assess the child's
developmental level, dental attitudes, and temperament to
anticipate the child's reaction to care."

That the association "sees fit to 'update' its best practices
guidelines over time, would imply that these are topics that evolve
in response to things like the customs, academia and/or
technology," Gabriel said.

"The necessary implication is that there is no scope for a blanket
ruling with respect to each (behavioural management technique),
whether or not it is substandard, and/or otherwise fails to meet
the duty of care. A finding that (Gaum's) alleged misconduct was
substandard with respect to one plaintiff based upon an assessment
of the factors of that individual's case cannot be transformed into
a blanket statement that would be applicable to the circumstances
of all class members."

Likely create more complexity
Examining common issues through the lens of a class action "would
likely create more (rather than less) complexity," said the judge.

"There is no way to deal with these issues in a manner that will
eliminate or even decrease the need for separate hearings dealing
with individual factors, such as if the conduct took place at all,
the circumstances surrounding it, the applicable standard of care
at the time (and whether that was breached), the nature of the
injuries sustained, causation, and the factors bearing upon whether
that individual claim is statute barred."

Gaum, who is now 80, is due back in Halifax provincial court next
Monday for a status report on the nine criminal charges he is
facing in regard to allegations of former patients.

Lawyers entered not guilty pleas for him in March, but a trial date
has not been set. [GN]

EASTHAMPTON WIRELESS: Underpays Sales Associates, Palacios Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEAN PALACIOS and DYLAN SALCEDO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EASTHAMPTON WIRELESS INC.
D/B/A AT&T WIRELESS, and TODD POWELL, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-04189 (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide notice of pay rate,
failure to provide paycheck stubs, and retaliation.

Plaintiffs Palacios and Salcedo worked for the Defendants as sales
associates from July 21, 2019 until January 9, 2022 and from August
3, 2020 until January 9, 2023, respectively.

Easthampton Wireless Inc., doing business as AT&T Wireless, is a
retail store located in East Hampton, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Daniele D. De Voe, Esq.
         SAHN WARD BRAFF KOBLENZ PLLC
         333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 601
         Uniondale, NY 11553
         Telephone: (516) 228-1300

ELECTROCORE INC: Dismissal of Securities Class Action Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP on June 6 disclosed that on May 15, 2023,
the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey
unanimously affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a putative
securities class action asserting claims under the Securities Act
of 1933 against a bioelectric medicine company, its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering.
Kuehl v. electroCore, Inc., No. A-1539-21, 2023 WL 3444383 (N.J.
App. Div. May 15, 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that the IPO offering
documents did not disclose sufficient information about the
company's competitors or the challenges the company was facing in
its business. The Court held that a federal forum selection
provision in the Delaware-incorporated company's charter was
enforceable and had not been waived, and therefore affirmed the
action's dismissal with prejudice.

At the time the litigation was commenced, the Delaware Court of
Chancery had held that federal forum selection provisions -- which
required shareholders to consent that any claim under the
Securities Act must be brought in the federal courts -- were
unenforceable. Id. at *2. After the case was originally dismissed
without the lower court providing any reasoning, the Appellate
Division remanded so that the lower court could explain the basis
for dismissal. Id. at *3. In the interim, the Delaware Supreme
Court reversed the Chancery Court and held that federal forum
selection provisions applicable to Securities Act claims were valid
and enforceable. Id. Defendants then sought enforcement of the
federal forum selection provision. Id. The lower court again
dismissed the action and issued a written decision explaining that
dismissal with prejudice was proper on the basis of the forum
selection provision in the company's charter. Id.

On appeal, plaintiffs first contended that defendants had waived
enforcement of the forum selection provision by failing to raise it
in their original motion to dismiss. The Court rejected this
argument, explaining that, at the time of the original motion to
dismiss, such clauses were unenforceable under controlling Delaware
precedent and "defendants were under no obligation to assert the
federal forum selection provision when such a provision was
unenforceable under Delaware law." Id. The Court also noted that
defendants had not withheld the assertion of the federal forum
selection provision as part of a legal strategy and had instead
asserted the defense when it first became available. Id.

In addition, the Court held that enforcement of the federal forum
selection provision was not unreasonable even though the statute of
limitations has expired on plaintiffs' Securities Act claims. The
Court emphasized that there was a parallel federal court action, in
which plaintiffs were members of the putative class, and plaintiffs
had not offered "any reason why [it] fails to provide an adequate
forum for their claims." Id. at *5.

The Court further rejected plaintiffs' argument that enforcement of
the federal forum selection provision was void under the Securities
Act. The Court noted that the United States Supreme Court has held
that the Securities Act does not preclude arbitration agreements,
which are "merely a specialized kind of forum-selection clause."
Id. at *6.

Finally, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the federal
forum selection provision was void as a matter of New Jersey public
policy, noting that New Jersey courts "look to Delaware courts for
guidance on matters of corporate law," and "[w]e are satisfied that
the Delaware Supreme Court's decision . . . is dispositive and
federal forum selection provisions regarding Securities Act claims
are valid and enforceable." Id. Indeed, the Court explained that,
although Delaware law governed the enforceability of a federal
forum clause in a Delaware corporation's charter, even under New
Jersey law the federal forum clause would have been enforceable.
Id. at 3 n.2.

Kuehl v. electroCore, Inc. [GN]

ELI LILLY: California Judge Certifies RICO Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Indianapolis Star reports that a federal judge in California
recently certified a class action lawsuit against
Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly & Company and Japanese company Takeda
Pharmaceuticals, alleging that the pharmaceutical companies engaged
in fraud and violated anticorruption legislation by covering up the
risk of bladder cancer from a diabetes drug.

The most recent order from a federal judge certified a national
third-party payor class, meaning groups who provide an unrelated
individual to receive services, like a health insurance company.
Plaintiffs also requested for a California consumer class, meaning
all consumers and groups in the state of California who paid for
Actos between 1999 and now, but that request was denied.

The previously-filed lawsuit has been underway for several years.
The complaint alleges Takeda and Lilly violated the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which is designed
to fight organized crime. The RICO violation allegation will
potentially allow for treble, or triple, damages to be awarded.

The plaintiffs claim Lilly and Takeda had "reason to know" about
the dangers of bladder cancer from diabetes drug Actos, also known
as pioglitazone, and falsely marketed the drug to avoid losing
money. According to the complaint when the FDA issued its alert
about Actos' link to increased bladder cancer risk in 2011, sales
fell by 80%, a news release from law firm Wisner Baum, who's
representing the plaintiffs, said.

Because of this fall in profits, the companies had more sales than
they should have and the brunt of these sales were borne by health
insurance and medical service providers — the third party payers
in this case.

The plaintiffs include a Minnesota-based union healthcare fund as
well as four named consumers from around the country. Writ large,
the plaintiffs are now the third party payers who purchased an
Actos prescription between July 1, 1999 and Sept. 17, 2010.

The new class action is the latest development in a case that has
been ongoing in some form since 2014. The RICO violation complaint
was originally part of a group of cases, called multidistrict
litigation, that alleged injury or harm from the use of Actos in
the Western District Court of Louisiana.

The jury eventually ordered the two companies to pay a combined $9
billion in punitive damages from one landmark personal injury case,
though that sum was later cut to $36.8 million, of which Lilly was
declared liable for just over $9 million. Takeda eventually agreed
to pay over $2.4 billion in damages to settle the rest of the cases
alleging personal harm.

The Louisiana court ordered this RICO violation case, which alleges
fraud and conspiracy, to be pulled out from the multidistrict
litigation and referred to the Central District Court of California
in 2017.

According to IndyStar archives, Lilly copromoted Actos in the U.S.
with Takeda from 1999 to 2006, though the company no longer markets
the drug.

Wisner Baum's news release said the class action lawsuit will move
forward as soon as possible and that a trial will hopefully take
place next year.

In a statement, a Lilly spokesperson said the company was, in part,
pleased with the court's ruling in denying the California consumer
class, stating that prescribing Actos required specific and
individual evidence. However, the company takes issue with the
court certifying the case as a class action on behalf of the
third-party payers.

"We believe the court erred in certifying the national third-party
payor class, and we intend to appeal this ruling," Lilly's
statement said. "It is important to note that the Court's ruling is
preliminary and is not a determination of liability on merits of
the case. Lilly feels confident that Plaintiff's claims lack merit
and we will continue to vigorously defend this matter." [GN]

ETHEREUMMAX: Two Celebrities Must Face Unfair Competition Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Young, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that celebrity
defendants Kim Kardashian and Floyd Mayweather are back on the hook
for a class action lawsuit that alleges their improper promotion of
the now-defunct crypto token EthereumMax (EMAX).

While the class-action suit was brought against the pair in January
2022 for allegedly promoting a "pump and dump" scheme, it was
dismissed by a federal judge in California in December 2022.

However, in a new ruling on June 6, U.S. District Judge Michael
Fitzgerald refused to throw out the plaintiff's "unfair
competition" claims against reality TV star Kardashian and boxing
champion Mayweather for their role in promoting the EMAX token in
2021.

The judge has now seen it fit to amend the 162-page complaint
alleging that Kardashian, Mayweather, and NBA star Paul Pierce
"were profiting off endorsements at their fans' expense by touting
an investment opportunity that had no legitimate business plan."

"The court is essentially dealing with an entirely new complaint,
with new defendants and several new claims," said Fitzgerald.

Judge Fitzgerald said that hyping a crypto token without disclosing
that you've been paid to do so is an "unscrupulous and thereby
unfair practice."

He added that the celebrity defendants provided no arguments to tip
the balance in their favor.

"Defendants do not offer a single benefit of allowing celebrities
to endorse unvetted products without disclosing that they are being
paid to do so."

However, he cautioned that the class-action lawyers from
Scott+Scott would have to explain how the celebrity's promotion of
the token affected its prices.

Sean Masson of Scott+Scott said that misleading celebrity
endorsements were the very essence of the Emax business model,
according to Reuters.

Kardashian plugged the EMAX token in a June 2021 post on Instagram,
while Mayweather wore the EMAX logo on his boxing trunks in a match
against YouTube star Logan Paul in the same month.

According to its whitepaper, EthereumMax claims to be a "culture
token" that "bridges the gap between the emergence of community
tokens and the well-known foundational coins of crypto," though it
has nothing to do with Ethereum.

In October 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged
Kardashian for unlawfully touting a crypto security. She agreed to
pay $1.26 million in penalties for her involvement in the EMAX
promotion.

The class action sought damages for investors that bought the token
following the celebrity shills though actual amounts were not
specified. [GN]

FEDEX GROUND: Court Grants Roy's Bid for Production of VMS Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
compel the Defendant to produce Vehicle Management System data in
the lawsuit styled JORDAN ROY and JUSTIN TRUMBULL, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FEDEX
GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-30116-KAR
(D. Mass.).

The Plaintiffs seeks the production of Vehicle Management System
("VMS") data concerning the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating ("GVWR") of
the vehicles driven by drivers, who delivered FedEx packages in
Massachusetts and were paid by Independent Service Providers
("ISP"). FedEx has opposed the Plaintiffs' motion, and they have
responded.

In this Fair Labor Standards Act action, the Court has
conditionally certified a collective of similarly situated
individuals, who delivered FedEx's packages in Massachusetts after
Feb. 19, 2015, using vehicles with gross weights of less than
10,001 pounds, who were paid by the ISPs to perform delivery
services on FedEx's behalf, and who were not paid overtime
compensation for all hours worked over forty each week.

FedEx has provided the Plaintiffs with the GVWR data for the
vehicles driven by 156 opt-ins. The Plaintiffs have moved to compel
FedEx to produce their VMS data that contains the GVWR information
related to the remaining 320 opt-ins' vehicles.

Noting that one of FedEx's attorneys stated that FedEx has "never
argued that VMS data is irrelevant," the Plaintiffs focused on
FedEx's anticipated argument that production of the VMS data would
be unduly burdensome. They point to the deposition testimony of
Stephanie Newmont, FedEx's manager of fleet maintenance, to support
their contention that FedEx's IT Services personnel can export VMS
data into spreadsheets from which the requested GVWR information
can be extracted.

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek production of FedEx's VMS
data spreadsheets that are associated with its six or seven
Massachusetts terminals. The Plaintiffs would then employ VLOOKUP
to identify the opt-ins' vehicles.

In its Opposition, FedEx asserts that the information the
Plaintiffs seek is not readily accessible either in the form of the
entire VMS database, or in the form of spreadsheets somehow created
and pulled from the VMS database. FedEx contends that (1) the
Plaintiffs did not request the VMS data and, even if they did, it
is not relevant to whether the opt-ins and the Plaintiffs are
similarly situated; (2) production of the VMS data is unduly
burdensome; (3) the Plaintiffs are entitled to and have received
representative discovery, but they are seeking individualized
discovery; and (4) the Plaintiffs' motive in seeking GVWR data is
to "improperly cull the collective" by removing opt-ins, who drove
vehicles with GVWRs in excess of 10,001 pounds.

FedEx argues that the GVWR data is not included in Request for
Production ("RFP") number 1 in the Plaintiffs' First Set of
Requests for Production because the VMS data does not contain any
driver information. Without driver information, the VMS data is not
relevant to whether the opt-in drivers are similarly situated.

The Plaintiffs disagree with FedEx's argument that RFP number 1,
which requested documents related to drivers' delivery vehicles,
did not encompass a request for the GVWR data. The scanner data
includes the driver's information and the unique FedEx
identification number for the driver's vehicle. The VMS data
contains the unique FedEx identification number and the GVWR for
each vehicle.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs assert, the scanner data and the VMS
data, in combination, identify the GVWR for a driver's vehicle and
fall squarely within RFP number 1's request. To the extent RFP
number 1 does not encompass the GVWR data, the Plaintiffs suggest
that requests for production should not be read in a hypertechnical
manner.

Judge Robertson notes that the Plaintiffs' request for the drivers'
delivery vehicles' GVWR data may be encompassed within their RFP
number 1 either specifically or by implication for the reasons they
asserted.

In Claiborne v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc. (Claiborne),
2:18-cv-01698-RJC, 2021 WL 35633888 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2021), Judge
Colville found that the GVWR data was relevant to whether the
Plaintiffs are "covered employees" under the SAFETEA-LU Technical
Corrections Act, who must be compensated for overtime if they work
more than forty hours per week.

Judge Colville denied the plaintiffs' request for GVWR data for all
30,000 members of the collective, but ordered FedEx to produce any
GVWR information it had already accessed or generated, GVWR
information for all discovery opt-ins, any GVWR information FedEx
accesses or generates in the future for a named plaintiff or
opt-in, and GVWR data for an additional 1,000 opt-ins of the
plaintiffs' choice.

Judge Robertson agrees with Judge Colville that the GVWR data is
relevant and that its production does not unduly burden FedEx. It
is anticipated that FedEx will use GVWR data in the instant case to
support its claim for decertification of those who drove trucks
weighing more than 10,001 pounds.

As to FedEx's contention that the Plaintiffs will use the GVWR data
to remove dissimilar drivers from the collective, Judge Robertson
opines that the potential use of discovery material is not a basis
to deny an otherwise valid request.

For those reasons and in order to maintain consistency between the
parties in Claiborne and in the instant case, Judge Robertson
directs FedEx to produce the GVWR data for the opt-ins for whom the
data has not been produced.

For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel Vehicle Management System (VMS) Data for the opt-in
plaintiffs for whom the GVWR data has not been produced. FedEx is
directed to produce the material within thirty days of this order
unless the parties agree to a different timeframe.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated May 22,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3mtnmtpn from
Leagle.com.


FRANK J ZITZ: Faces Valle Suit Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO VALLE, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. FRANK J ZITZ AND COMPANY INC. (DBA FRANK
J ZITZ TAXIDERMY RENTALS NYC) and FRANK J. ZITZ, individually
Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-04500 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for federal and state claims
relating to unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, as well as
those related provisions in Title 12 of the New York Codes, Rules
and Regulations.

Plaintiff Valle was employed by the Defendants from approximately
June 2003 until August 11, 2022, where he was employed as a laborer
to perform a variety of functions.

Frank J Zitz and Company is a duly organized New York Corporation
engaged in interstate commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          42 Broadway, 12t Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 203-2417

FUJI FOOD: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Ventura Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
LUCIO DE JESUS VENTURA, on behalf of himself and other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. FUJI FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV12086 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles-Central Cty., May 30, 2023) is a Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004, Labor Code representative action brought by Plaintiff
on behalf of the State of California, himself and other current and
former aggrieved employees of Defendants who worked as hourly
non-exempt employees during the relevant time period seeking civil
penalties associated with Defendants' violation of the law.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay wages for all
hours worked at the employees' minimum wage rate or overtime rate,
failure to provide all legally required and legally compliant meal
and rest periods, failure to timely pay earned wages during
employment, failure to provide complete and accurate wage
statements, and failure to timely pay all unpaid wages following
separation of employment.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position
at their location in Los Angeles from August 2021 until August
2022.

Fuji Food Products, Inc. is a food manufacturer based in Santa Fe
Springs, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Danielle E. Montero, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  dmontero@lelawfirm.com

FUTU HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Futu Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: FUTU) between April
27, 2020 and May 16, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Futu investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Futu class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16261 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, that: (1) Futu's business was, quite simply,
illegal as it related to operations in China as a result of its
failure to obtain the proper licenses; (2) it did not fully
disclose to investors that it was engaging in unlawful activity and
instead falsely characterized the applicable Chinese laws as
ambiguous; (3) the foregoing subjected the Company to a heightened
risk of regulatory enforcement; and (4) 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. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 11,
2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16261 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

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

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230612313932/en/

CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq.

Phillip Kim, Esq.

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Content ID Suit Collapses After Intervention Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cooke at completemusicupdate.com reports that the big Content
ID legal battle being led by musician Maria Schneider is over.
Plaintiffs in the long-running litigation dismissed their action -
the day before a trial was due to begin - after the Ninth Circuit
Appeals Court declined to intervene on an earlier decision by the
judge overseeing the case to deny it class action status.

Schneider and others argued that YouTube does not do enough to help
independent creators to stop the unlicensed distribution of their
content on the video site. Because, while YouTube's Content ID is a
sophisticated rights management system, it is only available to
large copyright owning businesses and content aggregators.

Independent creators have to manually monitor and manage the
unlicensed use of their content by users on the YouTube platform.
And the manual system provided by YouTube is defective, the
plaintiff's alleged, meaning that the Google-owned company isn't
fulfilling its obligations under copyright law to ensure that all
and any copyright owners can stop the infringement of their works
on its platform.

There were plenty of twists and turns as Schneider's lawsuit went
through the motions. An initial co-plaintiff had to drop out after
it emerged that he had employed dodgy tactics in a bid to get
access to Content ID. Replacement co-plaintiffs then came on board.
Meanwhile, additional allegations were made that YouTube removes or
alters copyright management information that is often embedded in
content and which can be used in anti-piracy efforts.

Schneider wanted class action status for the lawsuit, which would
mean that any success in court could benefit all independent
creators whose content has been used by third parties without
permission on the YouTube site. But judge James Donato last month
ruled that the case wasn't suitable for a class action, because
each creator's specific copyright claims would need to be
separately assessed.

That decision - described as "manifestly erroneous" by Team
Schneider - had a big impact on the case. Aside from significantly
reducing the reach of any potential judgement in favour of the
copyright owners, it also prompted YouTube to change its defence
strategy.

The change of strategy was because the ruling meant that the Google
company could focus on the specifics of the complaints raised by
each of the plaintiffs in the case rather than having to deal with
more general arguments about YouTube's obligations under copyright
law. A bigger debate in court about YouTube's obligations could
have resulted in wider liabilities or forced more wide-ranging
changes to the way the video site operates.

With all that in mind, Schneider's lawyers tried to get the
decision on class action status overturned, taking the matter to
the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court. They also tried to get the start
date for the trial in the case - which was - pushed back, arguing
that if the decision on class action status was overturned it would
totally change the substance of the debates in court. And so there
was no point starting those debates while a final decision on the
class action status was still to be decided.

However, the Ninth Circuit denied the Schneider side's petition for
permission to appeal the lower court's ruling on class action
status. After some last minute wrangling between the plaintiffs and
defendants, it was confirmed that Schneider et al were dismissing
their action, with prejudice, meaning they can't subsequently file
a new complaint on these issues.

A court filing read: "Pursuant to Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure,
plaintiffs Maria Schneider, Uniglobe Entertainment LLC and AST
Publishing Ltd, and defendants YouTube LLC and Google LLC, hereby
stipulate to the dismissal of the action. All claims that
plaintiffs raised or could have raised in this action are dismissed
WITH PREJUDICE. Each party will bear its own costs, expenses, and
attorneys' fees".

And so an interesting legal battle that raised some legitimate
concerns about how independent creators are able to manage and
police their rights online has come to an end, without those
concerns getting any real consideration in court. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Settles Customers Privacy Class Suit for $23-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Peterson at lifehacker.com reports that Alphabet, Google's
parent company, is worth $1.6 trillion. Thanks to a recently
settled class action lawsuit, you can take a tiny fraction of
Google's money for yourself. It's not for nothing, of course:
Google allegedly abused your data and privacy, and you're entitled
to compensation.

Google's latest class action settlement
According to Top Class Actions, Google recently settled a case for
$23 million. The case argued the search engine giant breached user
privacy by sharing customer data with third-party companies without
those users' consent. Specifically, the company allegedly included
your search terms in the request link that is initiated whenever
you click on a URL in a Google search, revealing those search terms
to the sites you visit. This info is contained in what's called a
"referrer header," which is why this is being called the referrer
header settlement.

Chances are, you qualify for the settlement. If you're a Google
Search user who clicked at least one search result between Oct. 26,
2006 and Sept. 30, 2013, you're entitled to compensation. By the
laws of the internet age, that probably applies to just about
everybody reading this article. If you tell me you don't qualify, I
won't believe you, so unless you're somehow a die-hard Yahoo
person, you've got a small amount of money coming your way.

Of course, you should know you aren't entitled to much. While
Google agreed to pay $23 million in the overall settlement, the
agreement assumes a lot of people qualify for damages. In fact, the
current estimated payout stands at $7.70. The overall payout will
depend on the number of people who actually file in the settlement,
so if it's less than expected, the payout could increase. If more
people file, however, it could be less.

How to submit a claim for the Google settlement
If you were not contacted concerning this settlement, you'll need
to register with the Kroll Settlement Administration. You'll find
that form at this link, where you'll provide data like your name,
address, and email address. You probably won't receive a response
immediately, but when you do, you'll have a Class Member ID. Use
that number when filing your claim here.

Because this is a legal situation, you should only file a claim if
you did indeed click a Google search result in that nearly seven
year timespan. While there are no questions from the firm about
your Google usage, you are submitting under the penalty of perjury.
So if you really have Yahoo'd the internet since 2006, you
shouldn't file.

Also of note: By filing a claim, you give up your right to sue
Google over this privacy breach in the future. If you have no plans
to sue Google, you're probably safe here, but hey, you never know.
Maybe it's more worth keeping in your back pocket than that
estimated $7.70 will be. [GN]

GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Faces Class Action Over Odors at Facility
------------------------------------------------------------
FOX 17 reports that a class action lawsuit has been announced that
names Gov. Whitmer, the City of Kalamazoo, and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) among others. It centers on pollution and
health concerns stemming from Graphic Packaging International
(GPI).

The company has been under investigation by the Michigan Department
of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE)following waves of
complaints from neighboring residents over the odors emitted by the
facility.

MDHHS testing revealed hydrogen sulfide and other VOCs as the cause
of the odors, which can lead to nasal irritation and temporary
headaches.

According to documents obtained by FOX 17, the plaintiffs in this
care are residents of the Northside neighborhood of Kalamazoo. This
complaint is brought on behalf of roughly 8,000 people, all of whom
allegedly "suffered injuries" as a result of pollution around and
caused by GPI.

This civil action is asserting claims under the Constitution and
federal law -- even alleging violations of the U.S. Constitution,
the federal Clean Air Act, and Michigan's Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs assert they are "suffering from intentional
discrimination acted out in a conspiracy to violate their civil
rights, causing them to suffer wrongful deaths, irreparable bodily
harm."

They are requesting a jury trial as well as the following:

An Order declaring the conduct of Defendants unconstitutional,
An Order awarding exemplary and hedonic damages of
$100,000,000.00;
An Order awarding compensatory, economic, and non-economic damages
$500,000,000.00;
An Order awarding actual and reasonable attorney fees and
litigation expenses of $800,000;
An Order granting injunctive relief, mandating the closure of GPI's
1500 N. Pitcher St. Plant and or requiring production decreases to
levels guaranteed to ensure the public's health.
An Order for all such other relief as the court deems equitable and
reasonable.
GPI and EGLE entered a consent agreement in February, which
entailed $109,270 in fines and an order to follow a compliance
plan.
GPI says it expects to finish installing equipment to reduce odors
by the end of the year.

FOX 17 learned GPI also plans to combat hydrogen sulfide emissions
by adding a wet scrubber system to its wastewater treatment plant.
GPI is also looking at the possibility of redirecting some of its
water discharge away from an area deemed to be an odor source.

FOX 17 reached out to Graphic Packaging, who provided a statement
about the lawsuit.

"We are currently reviewing the lawsuit and we will not comment on
pending litigation outside of court. As a general matter, we will
defend ourselves against any false and misleading claims. We are
proud of our work and our record in Kalamazoo and take very
seriously our responsibility as a good neighbor, community partner
and employer to 750 people at our Kalamazoo mill.  

We have invested millions of dollars in facility improvements and
monitoring to address environmental concerns, and we will continue
to build on those enhancements alongside city leaders and state and
federal regulators to promote the health and well-being of our
neighbors in Kalamazoo. For more information about our ongoing
efforts, please visit KalamazooRecycles.com."

For a detailed look at GPI's Odor Action Plan, visit the company's
website. [GN]

HAITI: S.D. New York Dismisses Amended Complaint in Pierre Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York dismisses the amended
complaint in the lawsuit titled MARC PIERRE, et al., Plaintiffs v.
CONSULATE GENERAL OF HAITI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-CV-8504
(LTS) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Marc Pierre, who is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis ("IFP"), brings this action under the Alien Tort Statute,
28 U.S.C. Section 1350. He styles his pleading as a class action
and seeks relief on behalf of Haiti and other individuals,
identifying himself as a "lead Plaintiff."

By order dated Dec. 20, 2022, the Court dismissed the claims
brought on behalf of Haiti and the individual plaintiffs and
granted Pierre 30 days' leave to assert any claims he wished to
bring on his own behalf. On Jan. 20, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a
788-page amended complaint, in which he seeks "to redress the
violation of procedural due process of the International Court of
Justice by the United Nations regarding Uni-lateral Declaration on
Behalf of Haiti dated October 17 of 2018" (the "2018 Haiti
Declaration").

In its Dec. 20, 2022 order, the Court granted the Plaintiff leave
to file an amended complaint to assert his own claims, explaining
that he could not assert claims on behalf of any other plaintiff.
In the amended complaint, the Plaintiff largely reasserts the same
claims he asserted in the original complaint, providing a
comprehensive history of Haiti. He includes, however, a description
of his attempts to submit the 2018 Haiti Declaration to the
Consulate General of Haiti, which the Court understand to be either
the consular office or the individual in charge of the office. The
person currently in charge of the Consulate General of Haiti in New
York is a woman with the title, Cheffe de Poste A.I. For the
purposes of this order, the Court will use the term Chef de Poste
when referring to the person in charge of the Consulate General
because the Plaintiff refers to this individual as a man; when
referring to the office, the Court will use the term Consulate
General.

In 2018, the Plaintiff conducted an investigation that led to the
creation of the 2018 Haiti Declaration, which requested, Immediate
Injunctive Relief on the Government of President Jovenel Moise due
to the revelation of his administration being connected to drugs,
Michael Martely, and misappropriation of Petrocaribe funds. The
Plaintiff sought the return of $18 billion in missing Haiti
Earthquake Relief funds and for him to lead an Independent Haiti
Reconstruction Commission (IHRC) funded by the United Nations to
rebuild Haiti.

Also in 2018, the Plaintiff brought the 2018 Haiti Declaration to
the Defendant Consulate General of Haiti in New York City, where he
says, the "technocrats at the embassy were dumbfounded by my
Unilateral Declaration, the information it contained and didn't
know how to process it." He explained to the consular staff that he
wanted to help them recover the missing IHRC funds and rebuild
Haiti. He further explained the process to the administrative
clerks and that he needed it to be forwarded to the UN Secretary
General by the Ambassador to the UN after review but they placated
him for weeks without letting him talk to any technocrats at the
consulate or processing his document. He states that
notwithstanding his request to speak with the Chef de Poste, the
consular staff refused to let him speak with the Chef de Poste.

The Plaintiff also sent a certified copy of the 2018 Haiti
Declaration to the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres for
processing in November 2018 and waited for a response but never got
one. In 2020, the Plaintiff continued to seek to ensure that the
2018 Haiti Declaration would be endorsed and processed, but his
attempts were unsuccessful. He started the Haiti Reformation
Project ("HRP") and acted as its "Attorney-in-Fact, Agent and
Representative."

Through the HRP, the Plaintiff advocated on behalf of the Haitian
diaspora and created a "Tabula-Rasa Accord," which was given to
now-deceased President Moise, on April 2, 2021, who then scheduled
a national referendum for a new Constitution, scheduled for June
27, 2021.

The Plaintiff names as defendants (1) the Consulate General of
Haiti, (2) Core Group Members France, Canada, and the United
States, and (3) the current Prime Minister of Haiti, Ariel Henry,
seeking a response to the Plaintiff's Tabula-Rasa Accord.

The Plaintiff asserts that this Court has jurisdiction of his due
process claims under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), which invests
district courts with "original jurisdiction of any civil action by
an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of
nations or a treaty of the United States."

Judge Swain observes that the Plaintiff's claims, however, do not
sound in tort. Rather, he seeks an order from the Court directing
the Prime Minister of Haiti, the Chef do Poste, and the United
States, Canada, and France to respond to his submissions.

Because the ATS does not confer jurisdiction on this Court to order
these officials and governments to respond to the Plaintiff's
submissions, the Court lacks jurisdiction under the ATS to hear the
Plaintiff's claims.

The Court construes the amended complaint as a request for mandamus
relief because the Plaintiff asks the Court to compel foreign
actors to accept his 2018 Haiti Declaration and consider his
Tabula-Rasa Accord. The Court cannot, however, issue any such
order. While the Court does have jurisdiction of any action in the
nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United
States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the
plaintiff, such jurisdiction does not extend to non-federal actors.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's request for relief
compelling foreign officials to accept and consider his Declaration
and Accord.

The Court says it must dismiss any claims the Plaintiff is bringing
against the United States under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
This doctrine bars federal courts from hearing all lawsuits against
the federal government, including lawsuits against any part of the
federal government, such as a federal agency, except where
sovereign immunity has been waived. The Court, therefore, dismisses
the Plaintiff's claims against the United States under the doctrine
of sovereign immunity.

Judge Swain holds that the Plaintiff's claims against the Prime
Minister of Haiti and the governments of Canada and France are
foreclosed by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA"). Canada
and France are foreign states, and the Haitian Prime Minister is an
"instrumentality of a foreign state." Thus, these three Defendants
are immune from this lawsuit unless one of the exceptions in
Section 1605 of the FSIA applies. Even granting the Plaintiff's
complaint the most liberal possible construction, his allegations
do not fall within the purview of any of the exceptions set forth
in the FSIA. Therefore, the claims brought against Prime Minister
Henry, Canada, and France must be dismissed, because each is immune
under the FSIA from the jurisdiction of the Court.

The Court construes the Plaintiff's claims brought against the
Consulate General of Haiti in New York as brought against the Chef
de Poste. Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
("VCCR"), the Court must dismiss the claims against the Chef de
Poste. The VCCR provides that consular officers and consular
employees will not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the judicial
or administrative authorities of the receiving State in respect of
acts performed in the exercise of consular functions.

Judge Swain holds that the Chef de Poste is immune from this
lawsuit for any claim the Plaintiff seeks to bring against this
individual for refusing to meet with him.

Because the defects in the Plaintiff's amended complaint cannot be
cured with a further amendment, the Court declines to grant him
another opportunity to amend.

Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's amended complaint,
filed IFP under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(1), for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. The Court dismisses all claims brought against
(1) the United States, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity,
(2) Prime Minister Henry, Canada, and France, under the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act, and (3) the Consulate General of Haiti,
construed as brought against the Chef de Poste, under the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations.

As the Court has dismissed this action, the Defendants are not
required to respond to the amended complaint. Accordingly, the
Court directs the Clerk of Court not to process the Plaintiff's
proposed default judgment and certificates of default. This action
is closed and all motions filed in this action are to be
terminated.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and
therefore, IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.

Judge Swain directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this
action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 22, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/nv8cex9w from Leagle.com.


HANAM DAEJI: Pirir Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ALFREDO PIRIR, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiffs v. HANAM DAEJI, INC. (DBA HANAM BBQ
HOUSE) and KANG-WON LEE, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02951
(D.N.J., May 30, 2023) is a class action for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law,
arising from Defendants' willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.

The Plaintiff was employed as a cook for Defendants' restaurant in
Palisades, New Jersey. He asserts the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its
employees, including him, minimum wage and overtime compensation
for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Hanam Daeji, Inc., dba Hanam BBQ House, is a Korean barbeque
restaurant based in Palisades Park, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HARVARD PILGRIM: Patterson Sues Over Unprotected Health Info
------------------------------------------------------------
GIRARD PATTERSON and MARIBETH MURPHY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HARVARD PILGRIM HEALTH
CARE, INC. and POINT32HEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-11211-NMG (D. Mass., May 30, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment for failure to
secure and safeguard Plaintiff and other current and former health
plan members' personally identifiable information and personal
health information.

Between March 28, 2023 and April 17, 2023, an unauthorized
individual, or unauthorized individuals, gained access to
Defendants' network systems and accessed and acquired files from
the system that contained the PII/PHI of Plaintiffs and Class
members.

As a result of Defendants' inadequate security and breach of their
duties and obligations, the data breach occurred, and Plaintiffs'
and Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action
seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. The
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
persons whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of the data breach.

Harvard Pilgrim is a health insurance provider that operates in the
New England region.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE PC
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
          E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
          Riley W. Prince, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                  aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
                  rprince@barnowlaw.com

HIRERIGHT LLC: Court Grants in Part Hoffman's Bid to Strike Offer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants in part
and denies in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Offer of
Judgment in the lawsuit captioned NICOLE HOFFMAN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
HIRERIGHT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02375 (S.D. Ohio).

The case arises out of allegations that Defendant HireRight, LLC,
which is in the business of providing employment background checks,
provided false information about Plaintiff Nicole Hoffman regarding
unpaid court costs and fines, when, in fact, Hoffman did not have
any outstanding costs or fines. Hoffman has applied for and been
denied a number of employment of opportunities, and at least one of
the denials--for a position as a Warehouse Operations Associate II
at Cardinal Health, Inc., at its Obetz, Ohio, location--allegedly
resulted from the inaccurate information reported by HireRight. She
alleges that the provision of inaccurate information violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Ms. Hoffman first filed her complaint on June 3, 2022, and the
parties began conducting discovery. As a result of findings from
the initial discovery process, she requested leave from this Court
to amend her complaint to add class allegations. That motion has
since been granted and Hoffman has amended her complaint.

Upon being informed that Hoffman intended to amend her complaint
but before leave to amend was granted (or requested), HireRight's
counsel served Hoffman with an Offer of Judgment pursuant to Rule
68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hoffman now moves to
strike the Offer.

Ms. Hoffman seeks to strike the Rule 68 Offer as an attempt to
avoid litigation by strategically "picking off" and settling her
individual claims. The concern is that an offer of judgment will
force a putative class representative bringing a Rule 23 action to
weigh her own interest in avoiding personal liability for costs
under Rule 68 against the potential recovery of the class.

The timing of HireRight's offer, according to Hoffman, supports the
theory that the Offer was nothing more than an attempt to
short-circuit potential exposure to class-wide litigation.

Moreover, Judge Marbley opines, Hoffman has not specified a
procedural mechanism by which she asks that the offer be struck;
Rule 12(f) provides only for the striking of "redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter" from the pleadings.

Ms. Hoffman notes two cases--Peters v. Credit Prot. Ass'n LP, No.
2:13-cv-00767, 2015 WL 5216709 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 8, 2015), and
Stewart v. Cheek & Zeehandelar, LLP, 252 F.R.D. 384 (S.D. Ohio
2008)--in which this Court granted motions to strike. But both
cases were issued prior to 2016, when the Supreme Court decided
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016), Judge Marbley
points out.

According to Judge Marbley, the cases cited by Hoffman striking
offers of judgment were decided in the pre-Campbell-Ewald context,
in which an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment could moot a named
plaintiff's claim if it satisfied all of the plaintiff's demands
(at least in the Sixth Circuit). The Court's decision in Stewart,
for example, is focused primarily on the concern that allowing the
offer of judgment would moot the claim; as the parties to this case
note, three out of the four reasons the Court provided for granting
the motion to strike in Stewart pertained in some fashion to the
mootness question. The same is true of the Court's decision in
Peters, which granted the plaintiff's motion to strike as part of
its finding that the unaccepted Rule 68 offer did not moot the
class action claims.

The Court is now persuaded that striking a Rule 68 offer of
judgment is not the appropriate course of action, as such an offer
no longer threatens to moot the claim altogether after
Campbell-Ewald.

The timing of HireRight's offer in this case--promptly after
Hoffman informed HireRight of her intention to seek leave to amend
her complaint to add class allegations and before Hoffman had even
filed the motion for leave (or had the motion granted)--gives rise
to the suspicion that the offer is intended to "pick off" Hoffman
as the putative class representative, Judge Marbley opines.
HireRight suggests that any conflict created by the offer between
Hoffman and the interests of the putative class is more
hypothetical and potential than real for three reasons, none of
which, however, is persuasive, Judge Marbley points out.

The Court, therefore, declares HireRight's offer ineffective. The
Court concludes that it has the authority to do so, and that such a
decision is not premature. Timely resolution of the motion is,
thus, appropriate.

For the reasons stated, the Court grants in part and denies in part
the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Offer of Judgment. The Rule 68
offer will not be stricken, but is declared ineffective for
purposes of Rule 68(d).

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated May 22, 2023,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/ms8saezf from Leagle.com.


HORIZON THERAPEUTICS: Tepezza MDL Cases for Consolidated Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald V. Miller, Jr., Esq. of Lawsuit Information Center,
disclosed that Tepezza is a prescription drug used for the
treatment of thyroid eye disease. New evidence has recently shown
that Tepezza can cause abnormal reactions in certain patients,
resulting in permanent hearing damage. This evidence has led to a
growing tide of Tepezza hearing damage lawsuits being filed across
the country.

The JPML created a new MDL class action lawsuit for all Tepezza
hearing loss cases pending in federal courts across the country.
The new Tepezza class action lawsuit will be assigned to a single
federal judge in Illinois.

About Tepezza
Tepezza is a prescription medication approved for the treatment of
thyroid eye disease (TED). TED is an autoimmune disorder that
causes inflammation in the eye tissue resulting in vision
difficulties. Tepezza is manufactured and sold by Horizon
Therapeutics.

Tepezza is currently the only medication approved by the FDA for
treatment of this condition. It has been on the U.S. market since
2020. Tepezza is administered intravenously (IV) over three to six
months, and it has been shown to improve symptoms such as
eye-bulging, double vision, and eye pain in patients with active
TED.

Evidence Links Tepezza to Hearing Loss
During the FDA drug approval process, Horizon disclosed that
Tepezza presented a risk of hearing loss. However, Horizon grossly
understated and minimalized the extent and severity of the hearing
loss risk. Horizon claimed that only 10% of individuals who
received Tepezza would experience hearing problems, and that none
of those problems would be permanent.

Almost immediately after Tepezza was released on the U.S. market in
2020, however, it became clear that the hearing loss risk was much
more significant. Large numbers of Tepezza patients and their
doctors began reporting severe and permanent hearing loss after
receiving Tepezza injections.

The adverse event reports from Tepezza patients were soon followed
up by a series of medical reports and studies which confirmed that
Tepezza was causing permanent hearing loss in a high percentage of
patients. A report in the journal Endocrine Society found that over
60% of Tepezza patients reported hearing loss, hearing damage, or
tinnitus (constant ringing in the ears). This was over six times
higher than the estimated risk disclosed by Horizon in its product
packaging and warning labels.

Tepezza Hearing Loss Class Action Lawsuit
Patients who suffered hearing loss from Tepezza injections began
filing product liability lawsuits against Horizon in 2022. These
Tepezza lawsuits claimed that Horizon negligently failed to warn
patients and doctors about the real risks of hearing damage
associated with Tepezza.

The plaintiffs in these Tepezza lawsuits claim that the lack of an
adequate warning about the risk of hearing damage from Tepezza left
them and their doctors unaware of the potential harm that the drug
could cause.

As the number of Tepezza hearing loss lawsuits steadily grew
throughout the course of 2022, a group of Tepezza plaintiffs filed
a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)
seeking to have the cases in federal courts consolidated into a new
"class action" MDL. Horizon filed a motion opposing the request for
MDL consolidation and a hearing was held by the JPML on May 25,
2023.

On June 2, 2023, the JPML issued an Order granting the request to
create a new Tepezza class action MDL. Under the Order, all current
and future Tepezza product liability cases in the federal courts
will be consolidated into a single combined action. The new Tepezza
hearing loss MDL has been assigned to Judge Thomas Durkin in the
Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.

Judge Durkin is a veteran judge who was appointed to the bench by
President Obama in 2013. Prior to being appointed, Durkin served as
an Assistant U.S. Attorney and a partner at a law firm in Chicago
where he worked on commercial litigation matters.

The Order establishing the new MDL identified 18 pending Tepezza
hearing damage lawsuits spread across 5 separate federal districts.
19 additional Tepezza cases in federal courts were also named as
potentially related actions. All of these cases will now be
transferred into the MDL in Illinois. Also, all future Tepezza
cases in federal courts will also be transferred into the MDL.

The cases in the MDL will proceed into a period of consolidated
discovery in which a committee of plaintiffs' attorneys will be
appointed by Judge Durkin to make collective decisions on behalf of
all other plaintiffs. Once the discovery phase is completed, a
small number of test cases will be selected and prepped for
bellwether trials. The results of the bellwether trials are
designed to give both sides an idea of what to expect if all of the
cases went to trial. The hope is that this information will then be
used to facilitate a global settlement. [GN]

JPMORGAN CHASE: Agrees to Settle Epstein Class Suit for $290-M
--------------------------------------------------------------
aljazeera.com reports that JPMorgan Chase has agreed in principle
to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by a victim of Jeffrey
Epstein, the US bank says in a joint statement with the woman's
lawyers.

The settlement announced resolves one claim against JPMorgan in a
proposed class action by a woman who says Epstein abused her.

The billionaire financier was arrested in 2019 on federal charges
accusing him of paying underage girls hundreds of dollars in cash
for massages and then molesting them at his homes in Florida and
New York. He was found dead in jail on August 10 of that year, aged
66. A medical examiner ruled his death a suicide.

"Any association with him [Epstein] was a mistake and we regret
it," JPMorgan said. "We would never have continued to do business
with him if we believed he was using our bank in any way to help
commit heinous crimes."

The proposed deal would see the bank pay $290m to end the lawsuit,
The New York Times reported, citing David Boies, a lead attorney
for the plaintiffs.

JPMorgan Chase did not admit wrongdoing in agreeing to settle
Reuters news agency reported citing a person familiar with the
matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

According to the lawsuits, JPMorgan provided Epstein loans and
regularly allowed him to withdraw large sums of cash from 1998 to
2013 even though it was aware of his participation in sex
trafficking. The anonymous victim, referred to as Jane Doe, said
she was sexually abused by Epstein from 2006 to 2013.

                          More Lawsuits
The largest bank in the United States is still facing a lawsuit by
the government of the US Virgin Islands, where Epstein owned two
neighbouring islands and allegedly abused victims in his mansion.

JPMorgan's litigation against its former executive Jes Staley, who
it accuses of concealing what he knew about Epstein, is also
ongoing.

Staley has said he regretted befriending Epstein but denied knowing
about his alleged sex trafficking. His lawyers did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.

The proposed class-action lawsuit accused JPMorgan of ignoring
internal warnings about Epstein's sexual abuse of girls and young
women and chose to keep the disgraced financier as a client.

JPMorgan kept Epstein, who was a client of the bank from 1998 until
he was dropped in 2013, onboard even after his 2006 arrest on
prostitution-related charges and a related guilty plea two years
later.

Deutsche Bank, where Epstein was a client from 2013 to 2018, last
month agreed to pay $75m to settle a similar lawsuit by women who
say they were trafficked by the financier.

"The settlements signal that financial institutions have an
important role to play in spotting and shutting down sex
trafficking," Sigrid McCawley, a lawyer for the woman known as Jane
Doe 1 who sued JPMorgan, said in a statement.

The settlement partially resolves a rare public relations imbroglio
for Jamie Dimon, who has been JPMorgan's chief executive since
2006.

Dimon testified under oath in May that he had barely heard of
Epstein until the financier's July 2019 arrest and did not recall
discussing Epstein's accounts with other bank officials, including
those authorised to terminate Epstein as a client.

Staley was once a close Dimon ally and considered a possible
successor as CEO.

Dimon said he asked Staley to leave JPMorgan in 2013 before
Epstein's termination because he was not running its investment
bank well. Epstein was not a factor in Staley's departure, Dimon
said.

Documents disclosed recently in the lawsuit show that former
JPMorgan counsel Stephen Cutler had requested the bank cut ties
with Epstein, but other executives resisted.[GN]

KIN INSURANCE: Arbitration Bid in Fania Suit Taken Under Advisement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ANTHONY FANIA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED Plaintiff v. KIN INSURANCE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-12354 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Gershwin A.
Drain of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order:

   (1) taking the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and to
       dismiss or, alternatively, to stay case pending
       arbitration under advisement; and

   (2) setting dates.

Plaintiff Anthony Fania filed this lawsuit in October 2022 on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The class action
complaint accuses Defendant KIN insurance of violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C Section 227 (Count I).
Before the Court is KIN's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to
Dismiss Or, Alternatively, to Stay Case Pending Arbitration filed
on Oct. 28, 2022. Fania responded on Dec. 9, 2022, and KIN replied
on Dec. 16.

On Nov. 9, 2022, Fania also filed a Motion for Extension of Time to
File Response. KIN responded on Nov. 10, 2022, and Fania replied on
Nov 11.

Kin sells insurance products in multiple states and consumers may
request an insurance quote from KIN through various websites. KIN
alleges that, on Aug. 29, 2022, Fania visited
www.dailyinsurancedeals.com, to request an insurance quote. On the
subject website, an individual with Fania's name, address, and
phone number consented to receive "pre-recorded" calls or text
messages from "Marketing Partners," which included KIN. Allegedly,
Fania also consented to the subject website's broad arbitration
provision and class action waiver; it stated that the consumer must
arbitrate "any and all claims that may arise" under the terms and
conditions or "site offerings."

Mr. Fania allegedly received a pre-recorded telemarketing call from
the Defendant on Aug. 29, 2022. The recorded message asked if the
call recipient was looking for home insurance. Fania's complaint
alleges that he did not seek out or solicit information regarding
the mortgage services promoted by KIN. He says his telephone
number, 973-XXX-1248, has been on the National Do Not Call Registry
since 2004. He says he recognized he was speaking to a robot, so he
interrupted the recorded message asked the robot a question. There
allegedly was no response from the robot because the call was
prerecorded. The Plaintiff was then told by a live agent that they
were calling from KIN Insurance. The Plaintiff then allegedly
received another call from Tamely Jobs, who was following up on the
pre-recorded call that he received and continued to promote the
Defendant's services.

KIN asserts that Fania's motion should be denied or stricken
because: (1) Fania made no reasonable effort to meet and confer
before the extension motion was filed and (2) Fania lacks good
cause to extend the deadline.

Mr. Fania's extension motion provides a statement of concurrence,
it says, "Counsel for the Plaintiff advised counsel for the
Defendant on November 8, 2022 of their intent to seek a 30-day
extension to respond to the pending motion. Counsel for the
Defendant did not provide a position before this motion was filed
and with the current deadline of Nov. 11, 2022 for Fania's response
to the motion to compel arbitration, the Plaintiff needed to file
this motion."

The Court is satisfied that Fania engaged in a good faith and
reasonable effort to seek concurrence before filing his extension
motion, therefore, the Court will not strike Fania's motion on this
basis.

There is no dispute, Judge Drain notes, that Fania filed the
extension motion before the day on which his response to KIN's
motion to compel arbitration was due, thus, the Court may extend
the response deadline without a showing of excusable neglect. Fania
requested an extension because KIN submitted additional evidentiary
material attached to its motion to compel arbitration that requires
his review and further investigation.

An extension under these circumstances would not cause undue delay
or prejudice, Judge Drain holds. On the other hand, without the
extension, Fania is put in a position of having his response to a
dispositive motion stricken, thereby, making it impossible for the
Court to make a decision on the merits.

The Court finds that Fania explanation for the delay is reasonable,
thus, for good cause shown, the extension motion is granted.

Mr. Fania argues that he has adequately put the formation of the
arbitration agreement in issue. KIN disputes this assertion,
averring that Fania is trying to manufacture a genuine factual
dispute where none exists. KIN cites Anderson v. Crothall
Healthcare Inc., 2022 WL 3719834, at *4-5 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29,
2022) for the proposition that courts have rejected a party's own
assertion, without evidentiary support, as sufficient to create a
genuine issue of material fact on a motion to compel arbitration
when the evidence shows otherwise.

Judge Drain holds that Anderson is distinguishable; there, the
arbitration agreement was electronically signed using defendant's
on-boarding system that required plaintiff to create a profile
using her name, email address, and unique password of her
choosing.

In contrast to Anderson, Judge Drain finds that KIN puts forth no
undisputed facts showing that Fania signed the agreement and no
evidence showing that Fania received the home insurance quote that
he allegedly requested when he allegedly signed the arbitration
agreement. However, it does rely on an affidavit signed by Brain
Progrund, Vice President of Operations for KIN, from August 2020 to
January 2022. He stated that an individual submitted a request for
insurance quote and signed the arbitration agreement: (1) using a
device with a Florida-based IP address (where Plaintiff allegedly
resides), (2) providing the name "Tony Fania" (which is the
Plaintiff's name), (3) indicating they resided in Largo, Florida
(where the Plaintiff allegedly resides or owns residential
property), (4) giving the Zip Code for Largo, Florida (33371), and
(5) providing the Plaintiff's alleged phone number.

While KIN is correct in its assertion that some circumstantial
evidence supports its contention that it was Fania, who signed the
agreement, some circumstantial evidence also supports Fania's
denials, unlike Anderson, Judge Drain opines. Fania submitted an
affidavit, which has a material impact on the arbitrability issue.

Judge Drain finds that Fania (i) made an "unequivocal denial" that
takes the form of admissible "evidence," which can create a genuine
dispute of fact, and (ii) sufficiently puts "in issue" the
formation of the agreement and its alleged signing by him.

Because summary judgment can be supported or defeated by citing a
developed record, courts must give the parties adequate time for
discovery, Judge Drain says.

For the reasons stated, the Court orders the following: (1) Fania's
extension motion is granted; and (2) KIN's Motion to Compel
Arbitration is taken under advisement.

Because the Court is not permitted to consider the merits until it
has decided the contract formation issue, the Court will not rule
on KIN's motion to dismiss at this juncture.

Judge Drain further orders that:

   1. The Court will allow discovery for the limited purpose of
      addressing the contract formation issue. Discovery will
      remain open until Aug. 22, 2023;

   2. The parties must submit trial briefs 10 days after
      discovery closes; the deadline is Sept. 1, 2023;

   3. Those trial briefs must address pertinent questions that
      must be decided before a summary trial can occur:

      a. what is the burden of proof on the contract formation
         issue and which party must carry it;

      b. any evidentiary issues related to contract formation;

   4. The parties must submit witness lists by June 28, 2023;

   5. Motions in limine and the Joint Final Pretrial Order are
      both due on Aug. 22, 2023. Responses to the motions in
      limine are due on Aug. 29, 2023. Any reply briefs must be
      filed by Aug. 31, 2023;

   6. The Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for Sept. 12,
      2023, at 2:00 p.m.; and

   7. A bench trial on the contract formation issue will begin on
      Sept. 19, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated May 22,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mcm8km24 from
Leagle.com.


LGBCOIN LTD: Norden's Bid for Sanctions in De Ford Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ERIC DE FORD, SANDRA BADER and SHAWN R.
KEY, Plaintiffs v. JAMES KOUTOULAS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STOCK
CAR AUTO RACING, LLC, LETSGOBRANDON.COM FOUNDATION, LGBCOIN, LTD
and PATRICK BRIAN HORSMAN, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-652-PGB-DCI
(M.D. Fla.), Judge Paul G. Byron of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division:

   (1) denies Defendant Erik Norden's Motion for Rule 11
       Sanctions;

   (2) denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration; and

   (3) grants in part and denies in part Defendant James
       Koutoulas's Motion for Sanctions and to Strike the Third
       Amended Complaint and Impose Sanctions.

The putative class action stems from the creation, marketing, and
sale of the LGBCoin, a cryptocurrency. The Plaintiffs subsequently
filed this action to recover the alleged losses flowing from these
events. They amended their Complaint once as a matter of course,
again after the Court dismissed the Amended Complaint as an
impermissible shotgun pleading, and again after the Court granted
in part and denied in part several motions to dismiss with respect
to the Second Amended Complaint.

In its omnibus order dismissing the Second Amended Complaint, the
Court dismissed the claims against Defendant Erik Norden with
prejudice and without leave to replead, noting such repleader would
be futile. After the permitted repleader with respect to other
Defendants, the operative pleading is now the Third Amended
Complaint. As is relevant here, in every iteration of the complaint
the Plaintiffs asserted a federal securities law claim in addition
to various other claims.

The Plaintiffs now request reconsideration of the Court's bar on
repleader with respect to Defendant Erik Norden. On the flipside,
Defendant Norden requests sanctions be imposed on the Plaintiffs
for filing pleadings, which allegedly violate Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Separately, Defendant Koutoulas
requests the Third Amended Complaint be stricken for violating
procedural requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act ("PSLRA") and relatedly that sanctions be imposed for these
violations.

             A. The Motion to Strike under the PSLRA

Koutoulas maintains that the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the
plaintiff certification, early notice, and discovery stay
provisions of the PSLRA. The Plaintiffs concede they violated the
PSLRA. Prior to Defendant Koutoulas raising the issue, however, no
Defendant notified the Court of the PSLRA's applicability even
though the case has been pending for at least 13 months, Judge
Byron notes.

At the same time, the Plaintiffs pled a cause of action in each
version of their complaint that appears to have triggered its
various provisions. While this failure does not necessarily rise to
the level of forfeiture, Judge Byron says the Defendants cannot now
use the PSLRA's procedural protections to pull the plug on the
entire case or to gain the upper hand.

This is so because the PSLRA does not prescribe specific sanctions
for failure to comply with the provisions at issue here, Judge
Byron explains. With respect to the early notice provision, some
courts have found non-compliance does not militate dismissal or
striking of the pleadings.

The Court sees no basis for why such reasoning should not apply to
the violations of the plaintiff certification and discovery stay
provisions, which also have no expressly prescribed sanctions
attached to them. This does not mean, of course, that the
Plaintiffs conceded violations of the PSLRA should go without a
remedy altogether, Judge Byron opines. Rather, the Court must
fashion a remedy in proportion to the magnitude of the Plaintiffs'
violations consistent with the purposes of the PSLRA.

When it comes to the PSLRA's lead plaintiff appointment process,
the Court will require the Plaintiffs to publish public notice of
the suit and the opportunity to serve as lead plaintiff and then to
file copies of such notice on the docket. Then, the Court will
appoint a lead Plaintiff according to the procedures set forth in
15 U.S.C. Section 77z-1(a)(3)(B). As such, the Court rejects
Koutoulas' contention it was meaningfully prejudiced by the delay
in the initiation of these procedural mechanisms designed to select
the plaintiffs with the greatest interest in and means to achieve
the effective disposition of this case.

In the meantime, Judge Byron says the Defendants may file
additional motions to dismiss, and the Court will stay any future
discovery under the PSLRA's stay provision pending their
disposition. As for prior discovery, Defendant Koutoulas may have
been subject to some improper requests, but he also engaged
extensively in discovery and as such does not have clean hands in
this matter. Parties cannot sit on their rights and expect to be
rewarded when they engage in and benefit from the same behavior
about which they only later complain, Judge Byron points out.

Koutoulas argues that the Plaintiffs' violations of the PSLRA
require more--indeed, he argues they merit mandatory sanctions
under Rule 11. Judge Byron holds that this is incorrect.
Undoubtedly, certain sanctions are mandatory in PSLRA suits in
which Rule 11(b) violations have occurred. But these sanctions are
mandatory only "upon final adjudication of the action;" only when
there are actual Rule 11(b) violations; and only with respect to
"any complaint, responsive pleading, or dispositive motion."

Judge Byron points out that such is not the case here. Moreover,
Koutoulas failed to comply with the procedural requirements set out
in Rule 11, including the proviso that requests for sanctions be
included separately from any other motion.

The Court has already determined that the Plaintiffs' pleadings up
to this point have a reasonable legal and plausible factual basis.
While the Plaintiffs' discovery requests during the pendency of
motions to dismiss were undoubtedly improper under the PSLRA, the
Court nevertheless finds the circumstances of this case do not
warrant an inference at this time that they were presented in bad
faith with the purpose of flouting the PSLRA--for example, to
"harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost
of litigation" (FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)(1)). As such, they were not
presented for an improper purpose, and there was no Rule 11(b)
violation. While such a finding might change "upon final
adjudication of the action," the Court finds that to impose
sanctions at this time would be too hasty.

            B. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration

The Court denies the Plaintiffs' request for the Court to
reconsider its prior finding that repleader of the claims against
Defendant Erik Norden would be futile.

Judge Byron opines that the Plaintiffs' argument that new evidence
is now available is misplaced. While this evidence could not have
been included in the Second Amended Complaint in the form of
allegations or in the respective briefing when filed, it could have
been brought to the Court's attention during the pendency of the
consideration of Defendant Norden's motion to dismiss: it became
available on March 10, 2023--twenty days before the Court rendered
the relevant ruling.

As such, Judge Byron points out, this evidence was available at the
time the Court rendered its decision, and the Court will not give
the Plaintiffs a mulligan. Moreover, due to the Plaintiffs'
violations of the PSLRA stay of discovery, the new evidence appears
to be ill-gotten. Although the Court finds further sanctions
unwarranted, it will not reward the Plaintiffs for their
non-compliance with the PSLRA's procedural protections.

       C. Defendant Norden's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions

While reconsideration of the Court's Order is not warranted, Judge
Byron says the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Norden were not
so unfounded so as to merit sanctions under Rule 11.

Although the allegations regarding Defendant Norden in the Second
Amended Complaint were sparse, the Court finds it was not
objectively frivolous for the Plaintiffs to include him as a
defendant, caught up as he was in the web of events that gave rise
to these claims which the Court has found plausibly have merit.

To impose sanctions here would needlessly "chill innovative
theories and vigorous advocacy," which could "bring about vital and
positive changes in the law," Judge Byron explains, citing
Donaldson v. Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1561 (11th Cir. 1987). Nor would
punishing the Plaintiffs check abuses in the signing of pleadings.
In the end, a finding that repleader would be futile does not
amount to a finding that litigants abused the judicial process by
bringing their claims, Judge Byron holds.

Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that:

   1. Defendant Norden's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is denied;

   2. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is denied; and

   3. Defendant Koutoulas's Motion to Strike is granted in part
      and denied in part as follows:

      a. The request to strike or dismiss the Third Amended
         Complaint is denied;

      b. The Plaintiffs will comply with the early notice
         publication requirements of the PSLRA as set forth in
         15 U.S.C. Section 77z-1(a)(3)(A) and file notice of such
         compliance on the docket;

      c. Discovery in this matter is stayed pending the
         resolution of any motions to dismiss; and

      d. The Plaintiffs will further comply with any other
         applicable provision of the PSLRA, if any, and file
         sworn certification of such compliance. Failure to so
         file and comply may result in the imposition of further
         sanctions up to and including dismissal with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 22, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4en24ucs from Leagle.com.


LIFE STORAGE: Juan Monteverde Investigates Extra Space Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Life Storage, Inc. (NYSE: LSI), relating to its proposed merger
with Extra Space Storage Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, LSI
shareholders are expected to receive 0.8950 shares of Extra Space
per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/life-storage-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

Syneos Health, Inc. (NASDAQ: SYNH), relating to its proposed sale
to Elliott Investment Management, Patient Square Capital, and
Veritas Capital. Under the terms of the agreement, SYNH
shareholders are expected to receive $43.00 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/syneos-health-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

PDC Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: PDCE), relating to its proposed merger
with Chevron Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, PDCE
shareholders are expected to receive 0.4638 shares of Chevron per
share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/pdc-energy-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

Greenhill & Co., Inc. (NYSE: GHL), relating to its proposed sale to
Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, GHL
shareholders are expected to receive $15.00 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/greenhill-co-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super
Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and
2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a
particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell
as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes
include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the
standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in
the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this
victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years
the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]

LULIFAMA.COM LLC: Pop's Bid for Better Discovery Responses Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, grants in part the
Plaintiff's motion to compel better discovery responses in the
lawsuit titled ALIN POP, Plaintiff v. LULIFAMA.COM LLC, MY
LULIBABE, LLC, LOURDES HANIMIAN, TAYLOR MACKENZIE GALLO, ALEXA
COLLINS, ALLISON MARTINEZ, CINDY PRADO, GABRIELLE EPSTEIN, HALEY
PALVE, LEIDY AMELIA LABRADOR and PRISCILLA RICART, Defendants, Case
No. 8:22-cv-2698-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff moves to compel better discovery responses from
Defendant Lulifama.com LLC (Luli Fama) and for sanctions against
Luli Fama pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. The Court
held a hearing on the Motion on May 15, 2023.

The lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff as a class action on behalf
of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals against
Defendants Luli Fama, My Lulibabe LLC, Luli Fama's CEO and founder
Lourdes Hanimian, and several individual social media "influencers"
(Influencer Defendants) alleging violations of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 45(a); Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act; unjust enrichment; and negligent
misrepresentation.

The Plaintiff allegedly purchased Luli Fama swimwear in April 2022
after viewing pictures of the Influencer Defendants wearing the
swimwear on the social media platform Instagram. He alleges that
the Defendants are illegally and deceptively advertising Luli Fama
products on social media and that such advertising caused him to
purchase inferior products at inflated prices. He also asserts
class claims on behalf of a proposed class of individuals that
purchased Luli Fama products using their social media platform or
online store from Oct. 6, 2018, to the date of the Complaint. On
Nov. 23, 2022, the Defendants removed the action to this Court.

In the Motion, the Plaintiff seeks to compel Luli Fama to provide
better discovery responses to his First Set of Interrogatories and
First Set of Requests for Production and to amend its initial
disclosures. Specifically with respect to the discovery responses,
the parties disagree as to the definition of the "Relevant Time
Period" and "influencer." Luli Fama objects to the Plaintiff's
definitions of these terms as overbroad and argues that they impose
an undue burden on Luli Fama. Nevertheless, at the hearing, Luli
Fama's counsel represented that it had supplemented its productions
to the Plaintiff.

Upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion and for the reasons
stated at the hearing, Judge Sneed rules as follows:

   1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Better Discovery Responses and
      for Rule 37 Sanctions is granted in part and denied without
      prejudice in part;

   2. The term Relevant Period as defined in the Plaintiff's
      First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for
      Production is amended to be defined as Jan. 1, 2022, to the
      date of the Plaintiff's requests;

   3. The term influencer as defined in the Plaintiff's First Set
      of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production
      is amended to be defined as individuals, who were offered
      compensation directly or indirectly or were offered free
      product in exchange for wearing the product on Instagram;

   4. Luli Fama was to provide initial amended discovery
      responses based on these revised definitions on June 2,
      2023;

   5. Luli Fama's amended discovery responses were to be
      completed on June 9, 2023;

   6. Luli Fama will amend its initial disclosures to include
      each lawyer, association, firm, partnership, corporation,
      limited liability company, subsidiary, conglomerate,
      affiliate, member, and other identifiable and related legal
      entity that has or might have an interest in the outcome of
      this litigation, to include those entities identified by
      the Plaintiff in the Motion; and

   7. Plaintiff's request for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule
      of Civil Procedure 37 is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 22, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/36uv6f2u from Leagle.com.


MAIMONIDES MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over Diverted Funds for Salaries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Dyrda, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
Maimonides Medical Center in New York City is facing a $500 million
dollar class-action lawsuit alleging hospital leaders and trustees
diverted resources from the hospital to benefit themselves,
according to a press release from Morrison Cohen, the law firm
representing the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit alleges a "culture of self-dealing" at the hospital
diverted funds for management salaries, contracts for companies
owned by trustees, and donations to trustee-affiliated charities,
according to the press release. The lawsuit states Ken Gibbs, a
former banker who was named CEO of the hospital in 2016, allegedly
saw his salary triple from 2016 to 2020 while the hospital's
financial situation deteriorated to near bankruptcy, according to a
PricewaterhouseCoopers audit.

A statement from Maimonides Medical Center addressed claims in the
lawsuit.

"We take all patient concerns seriously and are proud of
Maimonides' long standing track record of community service and
clinical excellence for which we are recognized by independent
organizations. Unfortunately, this lawsuit contains the same
discredited arguments and malicious personal attacks that the
so-called Save Maimonides campaign has been recklessly hurling for
nearly a year, dressed up now in legal jargon," according to a
statement from the hospital sent to Becker's.

Over the last year, an anonymous source has funded a $1 million
campaign to point out the negative statistics and experiences
patients claim to have at Maimonides in an effort to push out
current leadership. The lawsuit also calls for new trustees for the
hospital.

Maimonides plans to defend the institution.

"Those who understand Maimonides and the type of challenges it
faces as a safety net institution -- physicians, community leaders,
elected officials, and our labor partners 1199-SEIU, NYSNA, and CIR
-- see this campaign for what it is and have all publicly opposed
it. We will defend the institution against these baseless
allegations if we must, but we will continue to keep our focus
squarely on providing the highest quality services for the hundreds
of thousands of Brooklynites who trust Maimonides with their care,"
according to the statement. [GN]

MARATHON OIL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Smith Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SMITH, individually and for others similarly situated v.
MARATHON OIL COMPANY and STIM-TECH, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-01976
(S.D. Tex., May 30, 2023) arises from the Defendants' uniform day
rate pay scheme which violates the Fair Labor Standards Act by
depriving Plaintiff and the similarly situated workers of overtime
pay when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek.

Plaintiff Smith worked for the Defendants as a Health Safety
Environmental Advisor in North Dakota from approximately July 2019
until September 2020.

Marathon Oil Company is an Ohio hydrocarbon exploration company
that maintains its headquarters in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

MARYLAND: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Velayas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLY MICHAEL VELAYAS, on behalf of African American
Citizens (descendants of slaves) of the United States of America,
Plaintiff v. STATE OF MARYLAND, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-CV-00493-RP-SH (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas,
Austin Division:

   a. grants the Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District
      Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs;

   b. denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse; and

   c. recommends that the District Court dismisses the case under
      28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B).

Before the Court are the Plaintiff's Complaint and his Application
to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, both
filed May 1, 2023, and the Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse, filed May
9, 2023. The District Court referred the case to Judge Hightower
for disposition of the Application and Motion to Recuse, and Report
and Recommendation as to whether the case should be dismissed as
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e), pursuant to Rule 1 of Appendix C
of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas and the Court Docket Management Standing
Order for United States District Judge Robert Pitman.

Velayas, who is white, brings the purported class action civil
rights lawsuit on behalf of African American Citizens (descents of
slaves) against all State Attorney Generals -- of all Southern
States -- including Arizona and California. The Plaintiff alleges
that African Americans must endure continued discrimination,
segregation, harassment, and hindered advancement in society due to
their skin color. He further alleges that there is a conspiracy by
white people in the United States to perpetuate white dominance --
in all facets of society. He alleges that these actions violate the
United States Constitution but does not state which provisions or
amendments.

As his requested relief, the Plaintiff asks the Court to order the
named state attorneys general to order the United States to (1)
recognize the African American community as an Independent Nation;
(2) create African American Reservations of 2,000 acres each for
self-governance and transfer that land to the NAACP -- with
oversight by Barack Obama and Louis Farrakhan; and (3) create new
National Football League, Major League Baseball, National
Basketball Association, and Major League Soccer franchises that are
owned by the NAACP with oversight by Barack Obama and Louis
Farrakhan.

The Plaintiff asks to proceed in the Court without prepaying the
filing fee because he is unable to pay the costs of these
proceedings. He states in his Application that he is a
self-employed contractor who earned $45,000 in the past year and
has $3,000 in his savings account. He also states that his regular
monthly expenses are $1,117 and that he has a balance of $5,000 on
his credit cards.

Based on these representations, Judge Hightower finds that the
Plaintiff cannot pay the filing fee without experiencing undue
financial hardship. Accordingly, she grants his Application for in
forma pauperis status. Because the Plaintiff has been granted leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required by standing
order to review his Complaint under Section 1915(e) to determine
whether it should be dismissed for frivolousness, failure to state
a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant.

Judge Hightower finds that the Plaintiff fails to show that he has
met any element for standing. She says the Plaintiff alleges no
facts showing any of the standing elements. First, the Plaintiff
fails to show that he personally suffered an "injury in fact." He
also alleges no facts showing a causal connection between the
conduct complained of and the Defendants' actions. Finally, the
Plaintiff fails to plead a redressable injury. Therefore, the Court
lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate his claims and the case should be
dismissed under Section 1915(e).

Service on the Defendants should be withheld pending the District
Court's review of the recommendations made in the Report. If the
District Court declines to adopt the recommendations, service
should be issued on the Defendants at that time.

Regarding the Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse, Judge Hightower finds
that other than his conclusory allegations, the Plaintiff fails to
show how the Magistrate Judge's race would harbor doubts about the
judge's impartiality in the case. Accordingly, the Motion to Recuse
is denied.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is granted; the
Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse is denied; and it is recommended that
the District Court dismisses the case under 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk is ordered to remove the case from the
Magistrate Court's docket and return it to the docket of Judge
Pitman.

A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations contained in the Report within 14 days
after the party is served with a copy of the Report will bar that
party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed
findings and recommendations in the Report and, except on grounds
of plain error, will bar the party from an appellate review of
unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the District Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 30, 2023 Order & Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/2cncdkwy from
Leagle.com.


MENZIES AVIATION: Amaya Files Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORA PATRICIA AMAYA, an
individual; and ANIBAL SILVA, an individual; on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. MENZIES AVIATION
(USA), INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-05915-MCS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion
for class certification.

Menzies was founded in 2000. The company's line of business
includes arranging passenger transportation.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 22, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/42rh4lR at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. Joe sayas, Jr., Esq.
          Karl P. Evangelista, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF C. JOE SAYAS, JR.
          500 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 980
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 291-0088
          Facsimile: (818) 240-9955

                - and -

          David P. King, Esq.
          KING CHENG MILLER & JIN, LLP
          3675 Huntington Drive, Suite 200
          Pasadena, CA 91107
          Telephone: (626) 304-9001
          Facsimile: (626) 304-9002


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Filing for Class Certification Bid Extended
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Monopoli et al., v.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01353 (N.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Steven D. Grimberg entered an order granting the
motion to extend time to file motion for class certification with
brief in support.

The suit alleges violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act involving
torts -- personal property -- other fraud.

Mercedes-Benz is a Mercedes-Benz Group-owned distributor for
passenger cars in the United States, headquartered in Sandy
Springs, Georgia. that sells cars from the Mercedes-Benz
brand.[CC]


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Suit Over Faulty Electrical Systems Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
LegalScoops reports that has your Mercedes hybrid had battery
issues? Battery drain problems? Stalling?  Failure to start?  Other
electrical issues?  It may be a lemon, and you should pay careful
attention to a class action lawsuit and call a lemon lawyer for
advice.

Mercedes vehicle owners who may have this major battery problem,
which could cover model years 2004-2022 and vehicles with a 12-volt
and/or 48-volt battery, need to pay close attention to their
rights. The affected vehicles models, according to a new class
action, cover a wide range of Mercedes vehicles:

S-Class
C-Class
A-Class
CLA-Class
CLS-Class
G-Class
GLA-Class
GLK-Class
GLC-Class
ML-Class
GLE-Class
GL-Class
GLS-Class
E-Class

The class action alleges that Mercedes owners suffer from problems
with their electrical systems that leave drivers stranded and
forced to pay for roadside assistance, mobile battery jump packs,
battery diagnostics and repeated battery replacements.

The plaintiffs allege Mercedes creates an unreasonable risk to
safety because the 12-volt and 48-volt batteries drain due to the
electrical systems ("Battery Drain Defect").

The case alleges Mercedes-Benz hasn't been able to repair the
vehicles even after sending dealerships multiple "technical service
bulletins."  (These bulletins, or "TSBs" are sent only to Mercedes
repair facilities and are issued to describe and deal with known
issues.)

Allegedly, Mercedes doesn't offer anything but band-aid repairs
that are only temporary. Those repairs allegedly cost owners a lot
of money and provide no lasting fix, something the automaker knows
but conceals. The class action says owners replace the batteries
only to have the replacement batteries drain and die as easily as
the original batteries. Mercedes-Benz has also allegedly failed to
provide adequate repairs for vehicles still covered by warranties
and refuses to reimburse customers for expenses.

The battery drain lawsuit asserts the standard 12-volt battery and
48-volt hybrid battery electrical systems are not designed to work
reliably under normal conditions. The 12-volt battery drains while
parked and the 48-volt battery drains while parked and also can
send the vehicle into "limp home mode" while driving -- this can
shut your vehicle down suddenly to low speeds -- even in the middle
of the freeway. We have clients that have experienced these
dangerous shut downs!

Owners or lessees of these vehicles who live in California should
know that California lemon law and federal law may force Mercedes
to either "buy the vehicle back" or provide substantial
compensation for those experiencing these defects.

Under California's lemon law, qualifying "lemons" must be
repurchased, and that can mean a large cash refund and payoff of
your loan or lease. Depending on the situation, this refund could
be as much as everything you paid for the vehicle and everything
you owe: monthly payments, down payments, tax, finance charges,
license, registration, etc. You could even qualify for two times
your money back. What Mercedes would have to buy it for has nothing
to do with how much the vehicle is currently worth.

There is a formula in the law that starts with you getting all your
money back and then taking certain deductions and exclusions. Those
refunds and exclusions are challenging to understand and can be
fought against by knowledgeable consumer attorneys. Watch the mail,
watch your email, and contact a consumer lawyer for advice as to
your options.

Status of the Mercedes Battery Drain Class Action Lawsuit
The Mercedes battery drain class action lawsuit was filed on July
1, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Atlanta Division): Jones, et al., v. Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC and Daimler AG, Case No. 1:22-cv-02628-ELR.

The court has set certain deadlines for discovery and dispositive
motions, but has not set a specific deadline to amend the
Complaint. The court has not yet certified the case to move forward
as a class action.

Your options as an owner of a vehicle containing the Mercedes
Battery Drain Defect
In a class action lawsuit, if the class is certified by the court,
the lawyers who bring the class action represent you. If the class
is certified, you will receive notice that the court approves the
case to proceed as a class action and of your right to opt out of
the class by a specific deadline. If they prevail at trial, you
receive whatever relief the judge or jury awards. But if they lose,
you may not litigate claims over the issues raised in the case.

As with most litigation, the vast majority of class action cases
settle. If the case settles and the court preliminarily approves
the settlement, you will receive a class notice describing your
options. Those options will be: (a) do nothing, in which case you
may get nothing but be bound by the settlement, (b) submit a claim
form if requested and get whatever relief is made available, and
the settlement also binds you, or (c) opt-out and pursue your own
claims, in which case you are not bound by the settlement but
cannot participate in the relief being offered to class members.

For many people, a class action settlement may provide significant
benefits and requires little effort to participate. It also comes
with no risk, as the claims have been resolved. But for others,
particularly where they may have had significant damages, opting
out and pursuing individual claims may provide them an opportunity
to receive a better recovery in a shorter period, but with no
guarantee that they will get anything in a settlement.

With vehicles, what to do can be a complicated decision, as it can
depend on many factors. These factors include:

How old is your car?
Have the defects occurred in your car?
Have you taken it in for repairs on more than one occasion?
Do you still own the car?
Is the vehicle still under warranty?
Where do you live?
Are you willing to consider the opportunity of getting a more
significant recovery as compared to taking what is offered in a
settlement? We are available to help you sort through these
questions and make an informed decision. For a free lemon law
consultation fill out the form below.

Mercedes Battery Drain Defect Class Action FAQs
What is the class action lawsuit name and case number?
Jones, et al., v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Daimler AG, Case No.
1:22-cv-02628-ELR.

When and where was the Mercedes class action filed?
The Mercedes battery drain class action lawsuit was filed on July
1, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Atlanta Division).

What does the plaintiff allege in the class action lawsuit?
The class action lawsuit alleges that certain model vehicles, model
years 2004-2022 equipped with 12-volt and/or 48-volt batteries
suffer from problems with their electrical systems that leave
drivers stranded and forced to pay for roadside assistance, mobile
battery jump packs, battery diagnostics and repeated battery
replacements.

The plaintiffs allege Mercedes creates an unreasonable risk to
safety because the 12-volt and 48-volt batteries drain due to the
electrical systems ("Battery Drain Defect").

The lawsuit further alleges that Mercedes-Benz hasn't been able to
repair the vehicles even after sending dealerships multiple
technical service bulletins. And the plaintiffs claim Mercedes
doesn't offer anything but band-aid repairs that are only
temporary. Those repairs allegedly cost owners a lot of money for
nothing, something the automaker knows but conceals.

The plaintiffs allege owners replace the batteries only to have the
replacement batteries drain and die as easily as the original
batteries. Mercedes-Benz has also allegedly failed to provide
adequate repairs for vehicles still covered by warranties and
refuses to reimburse customers for expenses.

The battery drain lawsuit asserts the standard 12-volt battery and
48-volt hybrid battery electrical systems are not designed to work
reliably under normal conditions. The 12-volt battery drains while
parked and the 48-volt battery drains while parked and also can
send the vehicle into limp mode while driving. The plaintiffs claim
Mercedes has tried to repair the problems by issuing various
technical service bulletins.

What are the affected vehicle models identified in the class action
lawsuit?
The affected vehicles models are as follow ("Class Vehicles"):

S-Class
C-Class
A-Class
CLA-Class
CLS-Class
G-Class
GLA-Class
GLK-Class
GLC-Class
ML-Class
GLE-Class
GL-Class
GLS-Class
E-Class

How many Mercedes vehicles are affected by these alleged defects?
According to the Complaint, "[a]lthough the exact number of Class
Members is uncertain and can only be ascertained through
appropriate discovery, upon information and belief, Mercedes sold
hundreds of thousands of Class Vehicles nationwide…."

What does the class action lawsuit claim about defects in the
vehicles?
The class action lawsuit alleges that certain model vehicles, model
years 2004-2022 equipped with 12-volt and/or 48-volt batteries
suffer from problems with their electrical systems that leave
drivers stranded and forced to pay for roadside assistance, mobile
battery jump packs, battery diagnostics and repeated battery
replacements.

The plaintiffs allege Mercedes creates an unreasonable risk to
safety because the 12-volt and 48-volt batteries drain due to the
electrical systems.

The lawsuit further alleges that Mercedes-Benz hasn't been able to
repair the vehicles even after sending dealerships multiple
technical service bulletins. And the plaintiffs claim Mercedes
doesn't offer anything but band-aid repairs that are only
temporary. Those repairs allegedly cost owners a lot of money for
nothing, something the automaker knows but conceals.

The plaintiffs allege owners replace the batteries only to have the
replacement batteries drain and die as easily as the original
batteries. Mercedes-Benz has also allegedly did not provide
adequate repairs for vehicles still covered by warranties and
refuses to reimburse customers for expenses.

The battery drain lawsuit asserts the standard 12-volt battery and
48-volt hybrid battery electrical systems are not designed to work
reliably under normal conditions. The 12-volt battery drains while
parked and the 48-volt battery drains while parked and also can
send the vehicle into limp mode while driving. The plaintiffs claim
Mercedes has tried to repair the problems by issuing various
technical service bulletins.

How do the defects violate the affected vehicle warranty?
According to the Complaint, Mercedes sold Class Vehicles with a
"New Vehicle Limited Warranty" which included, among other
warranties, protections against defects:

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) warrants to the original and each
subsequent owner of a new Mercedes-Benz vehicle that any authorized
Mercedes-Benz Dealership will make any repairs or replacements
necessary, to correct defects in material or workmanship, but not
design, arising during the warranty period. . . . This warranty is
for 48 months or 50,000 miles, whichever occurs first." …Warranty
repairs will be made at no charge for parts and labor.

Mercedes New Vehicle Limited Warranty extends coverage to the 48V
system battery, as part of the vehicle emission control system:

BATTERY COVERAGE: Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC ("MBUSA") warrants the
high voltage battery in your vehicle to the original and each
subsequent owner for any repairs or replacements necessary to
correct defects in material or workmanship, but not design,
relating to the battery which may arise after the expiration of the
Vehicle's Warranty.

Based on Plaintiffs' experiences and reports from other consumers,
Mercedes refuses to cover the nonpermanent "fixes" under warranty,
and instead requires Class Members pay out of pocket for these
nonpermanent "fixes" for the Battery Drain Defect even if Class
Members' vehicle remained under warranty at the time.

Have the consumers been offered anything to resolve this issue?
Mercedes has issued multiple technical service bulletins for issues
related to the 12-volt and 48-volt batteries of its vehicles. At
the time Class Vehicles were sold, Mercedes knew of the defects
they possessed and offered an Express Warranty with no intention of
honoring said warranty with respect to the known defects.

At no time has Mercedes offered a permanent or adequate repair or
replacement of the Electrical System that would prevent battery
drains and failures. Despite repeated demands by Plaintiffs and
Class Members that Mercedes pay the labor costs and incidental
expenses associated with permanently repairing or replacing the
Electrical System, and with the temporary measures Mercedes has
offered instead, Mercedes has refused to do so.

The plaintiff alleges in the class action lawsuit that this is
evidence that the malfunctions referenced in these bulletins have
occurred repeatedly, yet authorized Mercedes repair facilities have
performed no meaningful diagnosis or repairs to correct these
problems, forcing owners to pay for diagnostics, software updates,
and even battery replacements and leaving them without their
vehicles for days or weeks.

Has this class action lawsuit been settled?
No.

Is there anything I need to do right now?
At this point, the case has not been settled, and the case has not
been certified to move forward as a class action. If you want to
bring your own claim, you can do so now and opt out when you
receive notice. Or the class will be defined as those people who
have not filed lawsuits or settled their claims, and you will be
automatically opted out of the settlement.

As a settlement has not been reached nor class notice mailed out,
there is nothing you need to do at this time.

What Happens If I Don't Opt Out of the Class Action Lawsuit or
Settlement?
It depends on how the settlement is structured, but generally, if
you do not opt-out of the settlement, you will be bound by its
terms. You will receive any benefits offered in the settlement
automatically or by submitting a claim form. However, you cannot
bring any individual claim for damages caused by the defects,
except possibly for personal injury claims.

Why Should I Opt Out of Any Certified or Settlement Class?
handing keys over to carFor many people, a class action provides
significant benefits without spending money or doing much other
than completing a claim form. And because the matter is settled, as
long as the court approves the settlement, you will get the relief
described in the class notice.

However, other people may decide that the relief offered as part of
the class action settlement is inadequate, that they do not want to
wait to get relief, or that they think they will get more if they
do not participate in the class action settlement.

This depends on a variety of factors, such as how old your car is,
whether you can document the defects that occurred in your vehicle,
whether you have taken it in for repairs on more than one occasion,
do you still own the car, is it still under warranty and where do
you live. Depending on the answers to those questions, while there
is no guarantee that you will receive any recovery, if you opt out,
you may have the opportunity to receive significant relief,
including a vehicle repurchase and penalties.

Do All These Vehicles Experience the Electric and Battery Defects?
The Plaintiffs allege that the extent of the Battery Drain Defect
appears common to all of the identified Class vehicles.

Are These Vehicles Unsafe?
Class Vehicles repeatedly fail to start and leave owner stranded
due to the Battery Drain Defect, causing inconvenience, creating an
unsafe environment for vehicle occupants, and causing Class Members
to spend money to repeatedly repair or temporarily fix the Defect.

What is the Song-Beverly Warranty Act?
The Song-Beverly Warranty Act, California Civil Code Section
1793.2(d)(1), is a California state law that requires manufacturers
to repair defects after a reasonable number of repair attempts.
What is "reasonable" is not part of hard and fast rules – safety
defects should be fixed immediately, for example. The defects have
to be important, and must "substantially impair the vehicle's use,
value, OR safety." Civil Code Section 1793.22(e)(2).

Under Civil Code Section 1793.2(d)(1), manufacturers must promptly
offer repurchase or replacement of the Class Vehicle they cannot
fix in a reasonable time frame. In addition, Civil Code Section
1794(c) and Section 1793.2(d) provide that customers may have a
civil penalty up to two times actual damages if manufacturers acted
"willfully" (meaning knowingly but not necessarily with wrongful or
malicious intent) in ignoring or failing its obligation under
Song-Beverly. Finally, under Civil Code Section 1794(d),
manufacturers must pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs as
part of the settlement, as the Song-Beverly Act is a pro-consumer
fee-shifting statute.

May I have additional rights if I am an Armed Forces member?
Under Cal. Civil Code 1795.8, if a person is a member of the Armed
Forces, the protections of the Song-Beverly Act may apply, even if
you purchased your vehicle outside of California, so long as the
manufacturer sells vehicles in California. The Armed Forces member
would need to show they were stationed in or a resident of
California when they bought the vehicle or filed a claim against
the manufacturer.

What Relief Could I Get If I Opt Out and Bring an Individual Lemon
Law Lawsuit?
Current or former owners of these vehicles who live in California
should know that California lemon law and federal law may force
Mercedes to either "buy the vehicle back" or provide other
significant compensation.

Under California's lemon law, qualifying "lemons" must be
repurchased, and that can mean a large cash refund and payoff of
your loan or lease. Depending on the circumstances, this refund
could be as much as everything you paid for the vehicle and
everything you owe: monthly payments, down payments, tax, finance
charges, license, registration, etc. You could even qualify for two
times your money back. What Mercedes would have to buy it for has
nothing to do with how much the vehicle is currently worth.

There is a formula in the law that starts with you getting all your
money back and then taking certain deductions and exclusions away
from your payment. Those refunds and exclusions are challenging to
understand and can be fought against by knowledgeable consumer
attorneys.

Don't settle for small dollar payments or more possible fixes
without speaking to a qualified consumer attorney with your
individual best interest in mind. Watch the mail, watch your email,
and contact a consumer lawyer for advice when and if the case
settles. [GN]

MERCER UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action in Macon Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Cox, writing for WGXA, reports that a lawsuit has been filed
in federal court against Mercer University following a February
2023 data breach.

The suit, filed on June 5 in Macon, demands a jury trial following
the security incident it says happened between February 12 and
February 24. Mercer announced in May that it had, "recently
detected an incident involving unauthorized access to its computer
network," following an investigation in the months prior.

The Plaintiff, Emily Ramos, a former Mercer Law School student, who
is also representing others in the consumer class action lawsuit,
accuses Mercer University of failing to comply with industry
standards to protect the information in it like names, social
security numbers, driver's license numbers, and financial
information. The suit also asks Mercer to disclose what information
was compromised to those impacted. The suit alleges the breach
compromised the information of more than 93,000 people.

Ramos says Mercer notified all parties impacted by the breach,
offering free credit monitoring and identity restoration services
through a product sold by Experian.

The suit alleges the attack was conducted by the Akira ransomware
gang and that the group confirmed Mercer was one of its victims on
the dark web.

When asked for comment, Mercer Univesity says they do not comment
on pending litigation, stating their only comment was the May
update. [GN]

META PLATFORMS: Deadline to File Settlement Claims Set Aug. 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
nbcchicago.com reports that Facebook users looking to file a claim
in a new nationwide settlement have only a couple months left to do
so -- and the eligibility requirements have recently changed.

The deadline to file in the nationwide $725 million class-action
settlement is Aug. 25, 2023. Those who have had an active Facebook
account may be owed a payout as part of the settlement, which was
reached with Facebook's parent company, Meta Platforms Inc.

The lawsuit is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, and alleges that Facebook made
users' data available to third parties without their permission.

The suit also alleges that the platform did not monitor or enforce
third-party access to the data they received.

This includes the collection of data by now-defunct political
consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, which went on to be used for
political advertising on the platform.

Last month, the eligibility guidelines were expanded to include
even more users. But how much you could receive, and what you'll
need in order to file a claim depends on several factors.

Here's what to know:

Who is eligible to file a claim?
Anybody who was a U.S. Facebook user at any point between May 24,
2007 and Dec. 22, 2022 is eligible to file a claim.

Under the latest update, individuals who held Facebook accounts
during the class period of the lawsuit that are now deleted are
also eligible to file a claim.

An email sent to Facebook account holders said that the change
affects individuals who deleted one or more Facebook accounts in
the class period of May 24, 2007 and Dec. 22, 2022 before creating
a new Facebook account in the same period.

How do I file a claim?
Individuals hoping to receive a payment as part of the class-action
settlement can file a claim here at any point through Aug. 25,
2023.

Those who are filing a claim for a deleted account are asked to do
the following:

Go to the Settlement Website
Click on "Submit Claim."
Click the link located at the top of the page to edit your claim
("Filed A Claim? Click Here to Edit Your Claim").
Provide the Notice ID and Confirmation Code provided at the top of
this notice in order to access and edit your claim.
In the "Details" section of the form, proceed to the third question
("Are you filing a claim for a current account, a deleted account
or a combination of both?")
Select from the options: "Current Account(s)", "Deleted Account(s)"
or "Both Current and Deleted Accounts."
Complete the information requested regarding your account(s), as
applicable.
What do I need in order to file a claim?
In addition to providing some personal information, as well has the
preferred method of payment, class-action members will be asked to
submit their Facebook username, along with any phone numbers and
email addresses associated with the account.

How to find your Facebook username
Your specific Facebook username can be found by logging onto your
Facebook account, and then navigating to: "Account" - "Settings and
Privacy" - "General Account Settings" - "Username."

How much money could I receive in a payment?
The payment size for each individual ultimately depends on how long
each person was a Facebook user and how many users ultimately file
a claim before the deadline, the settlement administrator says.

Administrative and court costs will initially be deducted from the
overall settlement total, creating a "net settlement fund," which
payments will be paid out of from.

The amount each claimant receives will then be determined by the
length of Facebook usage and number of overall claimants.

Each eligible claimant will be assigned "one point for each month"
they had an activated Facebook account during that window. Once the
total number of claimants and their points have been determined,
along with the total settlement fund amount, each person will then
receive a designated amount, multiplied by their total number of
points.

Deadlines to know
Individuals looking to object to or opt out of the settlement have
until July 26, 2023 to do so.

Those who do not file a claim, opt out or object to the settlement
are automatically part of the settlement, but are ineligible to
receive a payment unless a claim is filed.

The deadline to file a claim is on Aug. 25, 2023.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
Sept. 7, 2023 at 11 a.m. CDT.

The latest lawsuit and settlement is different from the $650
million class action settlement reached with Facebook in Illinois
last year, which resulted in hundreds of dollars being paid out to
more than a million residents.[GN]

NADLAN MANAGEMENT: Tijero Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny O. Tijero, and other similarly situated individuals v. Nadlan
Management & Investments LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-22014 (S.D. Fla.,
May 31, 2023) seeks to recover regular unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other current and
former employees similarly situated to the Plaintiff and who during
one or more weeks on or after March 2023 without being adequately
compensated.

While employed by the Defendant, Mr. Tijero had a mandatory regular
schedule. He worked five days per week, a total of 40 hours weekly.
During his employment he was not paid timely. On May 8, 2023, Mr.
Tijero was forced to leave his position because he did not receive
his wages on the payday. At the time of his leave, the Defendant
did not pay Mr. Tijero for his last two weeks of employment. In
addition, the Defendant did not pay Mr. Tijero his first week of
employment that the Defendant retained as a "Security Deposit."
Thus, the Defendant failed to pay Mr. Tijero three weeks of regular
wage, says the suit.

Mr. Tijero was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempted
full-time employee from March 09, 2023 to May 08, 2023. He worked
as a maintenance employee for the rental apartment buildings
located in Florida.

The Defendant is a property management Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NBCUNIVERSAL INC: Faces Moore Class Action Over Unpaid Internships
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heller at Law360.com reports that a recent wave of putative
wage-and-hour class actions against media and entertainment
companies over unpaid internships continued when former interns for
MSNBC and Night Live " sued NBCUniversal Inc. for allegedly
misclassifying them to avoid paying them proper wages.

NBCUniversal joins Warner Music Group Corp. and Gawker Media LLC
among the companies that have been sued since a New York federal
judge ruled  June 11 that a Fox Entertainment Group Inc. unit
misclassified unpaid coffee-fetching interns who worked on the
movie Black Swan " when it failed to call them employees.

Named plaintiffs Jesse Moore and Monet Eliastam cited the case
known as Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. in the complaint
they filed against NBCUniversal in New York federal court.

By misclassifying plaintiffs and hundreds of workers as unpaid or
underpaid interns, NBCUniversal has denied them the benefits that
the law affords to employees, including unemployment, workers'
compensation insurance, social security contributions and, most
crucially, the right to earn a fair day's wage for a fair day's
work, " the suit said.

We hope that this case will send a clear message that private
companies cannot rely on unpaid interns to perform entry-level work
that contributes to operations and reduces their labor costs, "
plaintiffs' co-counsel Justin Swartz of Outten & Golden LLP said in
a statement. Our clients and other unpaid interns seem to have been
as integral to NBCUniversal's business as other employees, but are
different in a crucial way NBCUniversal didn't pay them. "

Moore and Eliastam are represented by Justin M. Swartz and Juno
Turner of Outten & Golden LLP.

The case is Moore v. NBCUniversal Inc., case No. 13-4634, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Kings County Justices Sued Over Foreclosure Process
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 7, 2023, the New York Civil Liberties Union, Yolande I.
Nicholson, P.C., Mehri & Skalet PLLC, and Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP,
filed a class action lawsuit against the Office of Court
Administration and justices of the Kings County Supreme Court for
failing to implement a state law requiring courts to assess if
homeowners who are facing foreclosure and cannot afford an attorney
should be appointed free legal representation. In 2017, homeowners
of color in New York City were more than twice as likely to receive
pre-foreclosure notices -- the first step in foreclosure
proceedings.

"Courts are putting vulnerable families at risk of exploitation and
permanent displacement from their homes and communities," said
Terry Ding, staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union.
"Having an attorney can make a significant difference for
homeowners facing foreclosure. With this lawsuit, we want to ensure
New Yorkers have a fighting chance to save their homes. Because New
Yorkers of color have long been the targets of housing
discrimination, including redlining and predatory lending
practices, they are overrepresented in foreclosure cases. Enforcing
legal protections for homeowners in foreclosure proceedings is a
racial justice imperative."

New York law requires parties to a residential foreclosure action
to participate in an initial settlement conference with the goal of
resolving the case in a way that allows the homeowner to stay in
their home. The law also requires the court to determine whether a
homeowner appearing without a lawyer at the initial settlement
conference qualifies for appointed counsel. But New York courts
routinely fail to make that assessment, leaving homeowners
unrepresented and more likely to lose their homes. In 2022, 45% of
New York homeowners in foreclosure settlement conferences did not
receive any assistance from legal counsel.

Filed in the Appellate Division, Second Department, the suit names
plaintiffs Carl Fanfair and Gloria Antoine, two Black Brooklyn
homeowners at risk of losing their homes. In both their cases, the
court failed to assess whether they qualify for free
representation.  

"Our home means everything to our family. My children have many
happy memories growing up here, running around the house before
Sunday dinners," said plaintiff Carl Fanfair, a homeowner in
Bedford-Stuyvesant for more than 20 years. "We need to do
everything we can to keep Black families like mine in their homes
and make sure we can pass properties on to our kids. This starts
with providing struggling families facing foreclosure a chance to
have a lawyer."

"Navigating the foreclosure process without a lawyer has been a
confusing and stressful experience, not only for me, but also for
my son and my brother, who live with me," said plaintiff Gloria
Antoine, who has owned her Canarsie home for almost 20 years.
"Despite working two jobs, I fell behind on my mortgage payments
during the pandemic and cannot afford an attorney to help me.
Having an attorney on my side to explain my options and help me
negotiate a workable repayment plan would make that process more
bearable."

Predominantly Black and Brown neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens,
including Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brownsville and Jamaica, have the
highest percentage of struggling homeowners in New York City, an
outcome of decades of racist housing policies including redlining
and exclusionary zoning. Most recently, these areas were
significantly affected by predatory lending leading up to the 2008
financial crisis. Since the state's COVID-19 foreclosure moratorium
was lifted in January 2022, the number of properties in
pre-foreclosure has significantly increased across the five
boroughs, with Brooklyn the borough that experiences the most
foreclosures citywide.  

"Homeowners are always up against big law firms representing
national banks, investors and loan servicers, always out-lawyered
and out-matched when unrepresented," said Yolande I. Nicholson,
Esq., principal attorney at Yolande I. Nicholson, P.C. "Without a
doubt, homeowners in foreclosure proceedings are even more
vulnerable when they are unrepresented by an attorney, unable to
assert their legal rights or secure a resolution of the case in
mandatory settlement conferences, essentially rendered helpless to
protect their homes and their families from illegal foreclosure
judgments and auctions."

"That foreclosures are happening across the city in proceedings
where lenders have lawyers and homeowners don't is a major
problem," said Joshua Karsh, partner at Mehri & Skalet. "Having a
lawyer, at any point in the proceedings, reduces the risk of
foreclosure -- which is critical for homeowners, but also for their
surrounding communities, for reducing the racial wealth gap, which
foreclosures exacerbate, and even for lenders -- because, often,
foreclosures are more expensive than loan modifications. Albany
passed a law requiring judges to consider appointing counsel for
homeowners. But the courts aren't complying. This lawsuit aims to
fix that."  

NYCLU attorneys bringing the challenge include Terry Ding, Daniel
Lambright, Ify Chikezie and Chris Dunn.

Visit the case page for additional materials. [GN]

NEW YORK: Kerr Sues Over Motor Vehicle Operators' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROHAN KERR, ARSENIO PADILLA, ABDUL ALI, BERTRAM H. BUCHANAN,
ANTONIO R. CRUCITO, HARLYM CRUZ, JOSE A. FRIAS, TORINA GASHIN,
YONAH J. JUNGREIS, YEVGENY L. KOTLYAR, ELIZABETH A. MONAHAN,
ANTHONY S. NATOLI, BRYAN S. NELL, RONALD E. O'NEILL, JORGE A.
RIVAS, ANTONINO M. ROSARIO, KELLY A. SEXTON, and DOUGLAS M.
WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-04492 (S.D.N.Y., May 30, 2023) is a class action brought by
the Plaintiffs, on behalf of similarly situated individuals, due to
the Defendant's unlawful labor policies in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The suit asserts that Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
are occasionally compensated for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek, and only if the overtime hours were pre-approved.
However, even when the City compensates Plaintiffs for overtime
hours which were pre-approved, the City systemically fails to pay
Plaintiffs for this overtime work at the correct regular rate of
pay because Defendant fails to include night shift differentials
and vehicle differentials in the rate at which overtime is paid and
occasionally pays straight time in lieu of time and one-half pay.

The Plaintiffs are, and at all times material herein have been,
employed by the New York City Department of Corrections as Motor
Vehicle Operators, whose principal job duties, like the principal
job duties of all others similarly situated, include, but are not
limited to: delivering DOC mail, transporting food, transporting
DOC employees, transporting visitors to DOC facilities, and towing
vehicles on Rikers Island and other DOC facilities.

Defendant City of New York is, among other things, a juridical
entity amenable to suit under the FLSA in that it is, and was at
all times material hereto, a public agency within the meaning of
Section 3(x) of the FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
          Sarah M. Block, Esq.
          McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
                  smb@mselaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Hope Pordy, Esq.
          SPIVAK LIPTON LLP
          1040 Avenue of the Americas 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 765-2100
          E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com

NINETEEN BAR: Fails to Pay Servers' Proper Wages, Windheim Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA WINDHEIM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NINETEEN BAR, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability
Company, and JOHN FRANCESCO, individually, Case No. 7:23-cv-01039-D
(E.D.N.C., May 31, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay
the Plaintiff and all restaurant servers and bartenders the minimum
and overtime wages, leading to widespread violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants committed federal
minimum wage and overtime violations because they compensate
restaurant servers and bartenders at a sub-minimum reduced "tip
credit" wage, notwithstanding that the Defendants failed to provide
sufficient notice of the tip credit under federal law. During the
past 3 years, the Defendants paid a reduced sub-minimum wage in the
amount of $3.00 per hour to all their Servers and Bartenders,
including the Plaintiff, the lawsuit claims.

Furthermore, the servers and bartenders are required to contribute
portions of their tips to an unlawful tip pool which is disbursed
to ineligible recipients. The Defendants have also violated federal
law by claiming tip credit during shifts when servers and
bartenders are required to spend 30 or more continuous minutes on
side work and non-tipped duties.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of five separate collectives:

          Tip Notice Collective: All servers and bartenders who
          worked at Nineteen Bar & Restaurant in Hampstead, North
          Carolina, during the past 3 years, who did not receive
          proper notice from the Defendants that they would be
          taking a tip credit toward the required federal minimum
          wage.

          Tip Share Collective: All servers and bartenders who
          worked at Nineteen Bar & Restaurant in Hampstead, North
          Carolina, during the past 3 years, who were required to
          share any portions of their tips with their employer,
          managers, and/or supervisors.

          80/20 Collective: All servers and bartenders who worked
          at Nineteen Bar & Restaurant in Hampstead, North
           Carolina, during the three (3) years preceding this
          lawsuit who were required to spend more than 20% of any
          workweek performing non-tipped duties and side work and
          did not receive the full applicable minimum wage.

          Substantial Side Work Collective: All servers and
          bartenders who worked at Nineteen Bar & Restaurant in
          Hampstead, North Carolina, who were required to spend
          thirty (30) or more continuous minutes on non-tipped
          duties and side work during any shift after December 28,

          2021.

          Federal Overtime Collective: All servers and bartenders
          who worked at Nineteen Bar & Restaurant in Hampstead,
           North Carolina, during the three (3) years preceding
          this lawsuit who worked more than 40 hours in any
          workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a restaurant server at
Nineteen Bar & Restaurant from October 2022 until March 2023.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
          GESSNERLAW, PLLC
          1213 Culbreth Drive, Suite 426
          Wilmington, NC 28405
          Telephone: (704) 234-7442
          Facsimile: (980) 206-0286
          E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com

                - and -

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC
          1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (704) 234-7442
          E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com

NOBLE DRILLING: Mann Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON MANN, individually and for others similarly situated v.
NOBLE DRILLING (U.S.) LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-01975 (S.D. Tex., May
30, 2023) is a collective action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff
to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Mann has worked for Noble as a Floorhand since
approximately August 2022. He asserts that throughout his
employment, Noble classified him as an independent contractor and
paid him a flat rate for each day he worked, regardless of the
total hours he worked in a day or week and failed to pay him
overtime.

Noble Drilling (U.S.) LLC operates as an offshore drilling
contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

NUWEST GROUP: Hamilton Wins in Part Bid for FLSA Collective Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Certification in the
lawsuit entitled ANGELA HAMILTON and Matthew HOGAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
NUWEST GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. C22-1117RSM (W.D.
Wash.).

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to (1) conditionally certify this
action as a representative collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), (2) order NuWest
to produce a list of putative collective members and contact
information; (3) direct that notice of this action be issued to the
collective in the form and manner requested; (4) establish a 90-day
period for opting in to the action; and (5) equitably toll the
statute of limitations.

The proposed collective is described as:

     All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
     NuWest who (1) worked more than 40 hours in a workweek at
     any time from three years prior to the filing of the initial
     Complaint to the present and (2) who received a Meals and
     Incidentals Stipend, or Housing Stipend (or their
     equivalents by any other name) that was not included in
     their regular rate of pay.

The Plaintiffs seek to uphold the FLSA's requirement that an
employer compensate an employee at a rate of "one and one-half
times the regular rate" for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work
week. The FLSA specifically authorizes employees to enforce this
right to overtime pay via a private right of action, and to do so
collectively, on behalf of themselves and other employees similarly
situated.

The case was filed on Aug. 10, 2022. A Motion to Dismiss was
granted in part and denied in part. The Defendants filed an Answer,
and later an Amended Answer. The instant Motion was filed on March
21, 2023. This case was reassigned to Judge Martinez on May 8,
2023.

NuWest is a national staffing agency that contracts with healthcare
facilities to staff open positions. It signs up employees to
fixed-term assignments at healthcare facilities across the country.
Nurses and other healthcare workers, who accept these assignments,
often travel from their homes to work in other states. As part of
these contracts, NuWest offers "stipends" nominally for "Housing"
and "Meals and Incidentals" that the Plaintiffs allege are actually
remuneration for their work and not expense reimbursement.

The Plaintiffs allege that when NuWest pays overtime wages these
stipends are excluded from the regular rate of pay resulting in
underpayment. They argue this practice violates the FLSA's
requirement that "all remuneration for employment" be included in
an employee's regular rate of pay when calculating overtime
payments.

The Plaintiffs have come forward with substantial allegations
supported by declaration testimony, contracts, and paystubs tending
to show the following: (1) that NuWest tied the value of the per
diem stipends to hours worked (as opposed to expenses incurred),
and (2) that NuWest excluded the value of these stipends from the
"regular rate" when paying overtime. They cite favorably to Clarke
v. AMN Servs., LLC, 987 F.3d 848, 857 (9th Cir. 2021), cert.
denied, 142 S.Ct. 710 (2021) as an analogous case.

NuWest changed its contractual stipend language in 2022, possibly
in response to litigation in California. NuWest removed the
language providing that stipends would be "pro-rated" or not paid
for "hours not worked" and added that stipends will not be paid for
Requested Time Off during which the Contractor does not perform any
work during the work week or is no longer incurring duplicate
living expenses.

However, the Plaintiffs point to wrinkles in the revised contract
language and the experience of employee Terri Seastrom. NuWest
changed her contract mid-assignment to remove the offending
language but added a provision allowing NuWest to "adjust rates
downwards during your assignment" because the "market for health
care staffing services is dynamic;" NuWest then reduced Ms.
Seastrom's housing stipend from $672 to $100.

NuWest is willing to concede conditional certification (but not the
merits), in part, regarding the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims. NuWest
takes issue with any claims arising after it made a change to its
stipend policy in 2022 and claims from California where there has
already been a settlement. NuWest opposes the Plaintiffs' proposed
notice and related process, as well as their suggested consent to
join form, and requests that the parties meet and confer about
various deficiencies following the Court's Order. NuWest argues
against equitable tolling on behalf of putative opt-in plaintiffs.

The California settlement was for healthcare workers assigned to
work in any facility inside California between March 25, 2017, and
May 21, 2022 (Knebel, et al. v. NuWest Group Holdings, LLC, Case
No. BCV-22-101158, Superior Court of California, County of Kern).
NuWest argues that, in response to Knebel, in March 2022 it altered
its stipend policy to untether the weekly expense stipends paid to
traveling nurses from hours worked and to calculate based on the
stipend amount established by the U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA)--i.e., the per diem reimbursement rate used to
pay federal employees for a given locale.

NuWest also maintains that "putative plaintiffs who have already
dismissed this claim [under Knebel] are not similarly situated with
Plaintiffs and should be excluded from any notice provided by this
court with respect to time spent working in California facilities
from March 25, 2017 to May 21, 2022."

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled and
offered evidence that NuWest's 2022 change in the stipend policy
did not result in a complete abandonment of
stipends-as-compensation. Rather, it could plausibly be argued that
NuWest's actions on the ground (rather than its policy) reflected
that the stipends did not have an apparent nexus to expenses
incurred, instead reflected attempts to adjust pay due to changes
in the market for healthcare workers, and that NuWest's stipend
behavior was not so materially different than before the policy
change.

Judge Martinez holds that this is sufficient for conditional
collective certification. Furthermore, Judge Martinez finds that
the Plaintiffs have adequately explained in their Reply brief how
participants in the Knebel case may still have claims against
NuWest for work performed outside of California or for work
performed after the settlement. The Court declines to limit
conditional certification based on this issue.

As noted, NuWest takes issue with Plaintiffs' proposed notice plan
and language. The purpose of the notice is for putative plaintiffs
to make informed decisions about whether to participate in the
lawsuit.

The Court agrees with NuWest that notice by text message would be
incomplete, duplicative of notice by email and mail, and an
unnecessary invasion of privacy. Judge Martinez directs the
Plaintiffs to revise their notice plan to remove notice by text
message.

The Court finds that multiple reminder notices and the 90-day
opt-in period are necessary here given the traveling, on-the-road
nature of the Plaintiffs. The notice should not be sent to
traveling nurses, who worked "from three years prior to the filing
of the initial Complaint to the present." The Court agrees with
NuWest that the starting point should be calculated from the date
of conditional certification. The Court also agrees with NuWest
that the notice should expressly provide that any putative
plaintiff is free to select his or her own counsel, or to proceed
pro se. This must be changed before notice goes out.

NuWest contends the notice should inform the Plaintiffs of
discovery obligations. The Plaintiffs reply by citing a case
indicating that such may have "a chilling effect" on participation,
citing Randall v. Integrated Communication Service, Inc., 2021 WL
2328373, *4 (W.D.Wash. June 8, 2021). In Randall, the Court indeed
questioned the need to inform putative class members of the
potential obligation to "provide documents, travel to the Western
District of Washington to be deposed or testify at trial, and pay
attorneys' fees and costs if they do not prevail."

However, unlike in this case, Judge Martinez explains, the
plaintiffs' proposed notice in Randall had at least some "proposed
language regarding discovery obligations" deemed sufficient by the
Court. Here, the notice fails to mention discovery.

Judge Martinez holds that the notice must be revised to indicate
that by joining the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs may be "asked to give
testimony and information about your work for defendant." The Court
accepts the Plaintiffs' compromise solution to providing notice of
tax consequences. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that the
notice does not improperly encourage joinder or suggest judicial
endorsement. NuWest's concern that its position should be more
adequately represented is beyond the bounds of what is required for
this type of notice, and NuWest's out-of-district citations fail to
convince the Court otherwise.

Turning to requested contact information, the Court agrees with
NuWest that the Plaintiffs do not need phone numbers to send
notice. Dates of employment seem relevant, and in any event the
Court will not hold up entry of this order based on a lack of
protective order (now entered) or a squabble over apparently
relevant information obtainable in discovery.

Finally, NuWest opposes the Plaintiffs' request to equitably toll
the statute of limitations from the noting date of the instant
Motion until the day NuWest provides the Plaintiffs' counsel with a
list of putative collective members' contact information. The Court
finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate wrongful
conduct or extraordinary circumstances such as to justify this
requested relief.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled that they
are similarly situated to the potential collective under the law.

Accordingly, the Court orders:

   1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Certification
      is granted in part as stated;

   2) The defined FLSA collective is conditionally certified;

   3) NuWest is to produce to the Plaintiffs' counsel the
      following information within 14 days of this Order: An
      Excel document containing the name, employee identification
      number, the date(s) and location(s) of employment, email
      address, and last known mailing address for each putative
      member of the collective; and

   4) Plaintiffs' proposed Notice, Consent to Join, and notice
      plan are approved with the above revisions.

The Plaintiffs are to make the stated changes and send a revised
notice and plan to the Defendant as soon as possible. The Defendant
is to make every effort to resolve any remaining issues without
Court involvement. Putative collective members will have 90 days
from the mailing of the Notice to return their executed Consent to
Join.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 22, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yw2s9nr9 from Leagle.com.


OLE MEXICAN FOODS: Second Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Hardy's Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RYAN HARDY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. OLE MEXICAN
FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-1805 (2nd Cir.), the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the
judgment of the district court dismissing the Plaintiff's claims.

Present: Judges Susan L. Carney, Richard J. Sullivan, and William
J. Nardini.

Hardy appeals the dismissal of his claims, brought on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated consumers, against Ole Mexican
Foods, Inc., for violations of New York General Business Law
Sections 349 and 350. He alleged that the packaging of four "La
Banderita" tortilla products misled consumers into believing that
the products originated from Mexico, when in fact they were made in
the United States.

The Court of Appeals finds that Hardy has Article III standing for
the one product he purchased, La Banderita Taco Size Flour
Tortillas, and class standing for the other three La Banderita
Products that he did not purchase -- La Banderita Burrito Grande,
La Banderita Sabrosisimas Corn, and La Banderita Whole Wheat
Fajita.

According to his complaint, Hardy suffered a cognizable injury when
he paid a price premium for a La Banderita product that he
otherwise would not have purchased had he known it was not made in
Mexico. The complaint also makes clear that the injury is fairly
traceable to the packaging of Ole's products, and that it is
redressable by damages against Ole.

The Court of Appeals also finds that Hardy has class standing
because all four La Banderita Products implicate "the same set of
concerns" relating to whether the packaging misrepresented where
the products were made. Variations in size and formulations
notwithstanding, the products were advertised in packaging that
displayed almost-identical statements, color schemes, and designs.

After considering the "advertisement as a whole," the Panel agrees
with the district court that Hardy has not plausibly alleged that
the deceptive conduct was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer
acting reasonably under the circumstances.

According to the Court of Appeals, glaringly absent from the
packaging is any statement that the La Banderita Products are made
in Mexico. To be sure, the front of the packaging displays green,
white, and red graphics resembling the Mexican flag and
incorporates the phrase "A Taste of Mexico" as well as the Spanish
word "La Banderita." But while these features may encourage
consumers to draw associations with Mexico and promote the belief
that the products contain Mexican-style flavors and ingredients, no
reasonable consumer would construe these elements to be an
affirmative representation that the La Banderita Products were in
fact manufactured in Mexico.

This is especially true given that the back of the packaging
conspicuously states that the products are "MADE IN U.S.A." and
"MANUFACTURED IN NORCROSS, GA," the Court of Appeals explains.

The La Banderita Products' packaging is, thus, distinguishable from
that before the court in Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., 910 F.3d 636-37
(2d Cir. 2018), in which the front of the product's packaging
contained "misleading information set forth in large bold type on
the front of the box" that could not be "clarified" or cured by
reverse-side disclosures that were nestled in a "Nutrition Facts
panel and ingredients list."

Mr. Hardy's position seems to be that Mantikas established a rule
that information on the back of a product's packaging is always
irrelevant to a deceptive-marketing claim; he argues that a
front-label representation about any aspect of a product can never
be clarified by a representation made elsewhere on a product's
packaging to avoid a claim under either Section 349 or 350.

This is not what Mantikas holds, the Court of Appeals says. To the
contrary, Mantikas reaffirmed that the Court of Appeals will
consider the challenged advertisement as a whole, including
disclaimers and qualifying language and that context is crucial in
evaluating deceptive-marketing claims. Mantikas instructs that in
considering advertisements regarding a product's nutritional
content, a small-print ingredient list cannot "cure" front-label
representations that are otherwise highly deceptive because
"reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list contains more
detailed information about the product that confirms other
representations on the packaging." Mantikas does not suggest that
its reasoning necessarily applies outside the context of
nutritional labels.

Even if Mantikas's reasoning applied to some place-of-origin
advertising, however, its "front-of-the-package" rule does not
apply here, where the front-side packaging makes no express
representations as to the origin of the La Banderita Products,
while the back of the packaging unambiguously notes where the
products were "made" and "manufactured," the Court of Appeals
opines. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals says, the district
court did not err in concluding that Hardy failed to "plausibly
allege" that a "reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the
circumstances" would likely believe that the La Banderita Products
were made in Mexico.

The Panel says it has considered Hardy's remaining arguments and
find them to be without merit. For these reasons, the Court of
Appeals affirms the judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Summary Order dated May 22, 2023,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2rrnnj6k from Leagle.com.

Timothy J. Peter -- tpeter@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP,
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Nina M. Varindani --
nvarindani@faruqilaw.com -- Innessa M. Huot -- ihuot@faruqilaw.com
-- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, in New York City, for the
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Nancy L. Stagg -- nstagg@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Kilpatrick
Townsend & Stockton LLP, in San Diego, California, for the
Defendant-Appellee.


OPTUMHEALTH CARE: Health Plan Participants Granted Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emmy Freedman, writing for Law360, reports that a North Carolina
federal judge granted class status to nearly 88000 health plan
participants who claim Aetna conspired with OptumHealth Care
Solutions to pass on administrative fees disguised as medical
expenses, two years after the Fourth Circuit told the court to
reassess whether class certification was warranted. [GN]





PACIFICORP: Court Hears Closing Arguments in Wildfire Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Balick and Aimee Plante, writing for KOIN, report that a
billion dollar class action lawsuit against PacifiCorp has been
underway for three months -- and now it's up to a jury to determine
whether the company is to blame for the devastating wildfires of
2020.

The suit had its closing arguments on June 7 after dozens of
Oregonians accused PacifiCorp of not turning off its power lines
during a windstorm over Labor Day 2020 weekend that spread the
flames.

As of now, the official cause of the fire has yet to be
determined.

The wildfires burned more than a million acres, destroying more
than 5,000 homes and buildings. Nine people died and thousands lost
everything they had.

During the windstorm, many utility companies turned off their power
lines in the area – but PacifiCorp did not. When the fire
conditions were extreme, the lawsuit alleges the lines and
equipment that came down sparked the fires that led to the
destruction.

The lawsuit also accuses the company of not adequately clearing
vegetation near the powerlines that caught fire.

"People want some answers, some accountability from their utility
company who they didn't get a chance to choose. They didn't pick to
have this utility company. They didn't pick anything to happen on
Labor Day 2020 that happened because of PacifiCorp," said Nicholas
Rosinia, the plaintiffs attorney.

Meanwhile, PacifiCorp's attorneys denied the company was negligent,
saying it did not order power shut-offs due to lack of weather data
at the time. They say the fires were caused by the spread of other
wildfires in the region, and that PacifiCorp had invested heavily
in wildfire mitigation.

Doug Dixon, PacifiCorp's attorney, also said the risks of not
having power in a community during a disaster could cause other
health and safety problems

While there are 17 plaintiffs named in the lawsuit, the class
action covers damages for thousands of fire victims that suffered
losses, emotional distress and possible punitive damages. [GN]

PACIFICORP: Liable for Wildfire Damages, Oregon State Jury Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
blog.cvn.com reports that an Oregon state court jury found electric
utility PacifiCorp liable for wildfires that destroyed or damaged
numerous properties, awarding millions of dollars in compensatory
damages and teeing up a second trial phase to determine additional
punitive damages.

The Multnomah County jury awarded between $3 million and $4.5
million to 17 homeowners who suffered property damage from
widespread fires over Labor Day in 2020 that they claim was caused
by PacifiCorp's alleged failure to deactivate its power lines ahead
of a windstorm.

The damages could grow substantially beyond that. The case
proceeded to trial as a class action, and the jury found the
company liable for damage to nearly 2,500 other properties. Those
exact damages, which could exceed $1 billion, will be determined at
a later time.

PacifiCorp said in a statement it would appeal the jury's findings
and was confident the appeals would be successful.

The full trial, which began in late April, is being recorded and
webcast gavel-to-gavel by Courtroom View Network. CVN's coverage
will also continue for the duration of the punitive damages phase,
which will begin.

PacifiCorp, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, argued during trial there
is no convincing evidence linking the fires directly to
PacifiCorp's power lines, and that the company took reasonable
steps to minimize fire risk while still ensuring electricity supply
to critical facilities like hospitals.

However attorneys for the property owners class told jurors the
company ignored warnings about an impending windstorm, including
from the Oregon governor's office. They cited the fact other
utilities in the area chose to preemptively de-electrify their
power lines in key areas, and also argued that poorly maintained
vegetation around PacifiCorp's lines helped expedite the spread of
the fires.

The plaintiff class is represented by the law firms Keller Rohrback
LLP, Edelson PC and Stoll Berne.

PacifiCorp is represented by Hueston Hennigan LLP

The case is James, et al. v. PacifiCorp., case number 20CV33885 in
Multnomah County Circuit Court.[GN]

PAUL MOSS INSURANCE: Ohio Court Refuses to Dismiss Pavelka Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donald C. Nugent of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denies the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the lawsuit captioned JACKSON PAVELKA AND KAYLEE
PAVELKA, Plaintiffs v. PAUL MOSS INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, dba EPIQ
INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendant, Case No. 1:22 CV 02226 (N.D. Ohio).

The case is now before the Court on Defendant's Motion for
Determination That Plaintiffs' Are Not Proper Parties and to
Dismiss the Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss"), filed by Defendant
Paul Moss Insurance Agency on March 31, 2023. Plaintiffs Jackson
Pavelka and Kaylee Pavelka filed their opposition to the
Defendant's motion on April 18, 2023, and the Defendant filed a
reply on May 12, 2023.

On Dec. 9, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed this action against the
Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
alleging two claims of violation of the TCPA. The first claim
alleges that Defendant Paul Moss Insurance made calls to the
Plaintiffs using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS")
without their consent. The second claim alleges that the Defendant
made calls to the Plaintiffs using a prerecorded voice without
their Plaintiffs' consent. The Complaint also seeks to raise these
claims as a class action "individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated" on behalf of two putative nationwide classes.

The gist of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss are assertions that:
(1) it did not initiate any call with the Plaintiffs, but rather
that it received a "warm transfer" (in effect, that Paul Moss
Insurance received the transfer of an initial call from another
entity, Datalot, with Plaintiff Kaylee Pavelka on the line, based
on her direction or consent after she received the initial call
from Datalot), and that Paul Moss Insurance does not utilize an
ATDS system; (2) Paul Moss Insurance (again) did not make any
telephone calls to the Plaintiffs, and that it does not use a
prerecorded voice in its communications; (3) the Plaintiffs have
not identified any "harm" caused by the Defendant, based on the
fact that Paul Moss Insurance did not initiate any calls with the
Plaintiffs (effectively, that they "lack standing" for their
claims); and (4) the Plaintiffs have not identified any facts that
Paul Moss Insurance could be held "vicariously liable" for any
calls made by third parties, including Datalot (effectively, that
no "agency" existed between Paul Moss Insurance and any third
party).

Among the items submitted in support of the Defendant's motion are
copies of texts between Paul Moss Insurance and Kaylee Pavelka
indicating that Ms. Pavelka consented to receiving the texts from
Paul Moss Insurance, and that the texts were in fact responsive to
information she provided, as well as recordings of two telephone
conversations she had, first, with Datalot, and then with Paul Moss
Insurance, each of which last a number of minutes long and evidence
a consensual exchange of information between the caller and her.
There is no dispute that the only Plaintiff, who had any
interaction with Defendant Paul Moss Insurance (or Datalot), was
Plaintiff Kaylee Pavelka, who is the "primary and customary user"
of the cellular phone at issue in this case.

Plaintiff Jackson Pavelka (Kaylee Pavelka's husband) is named as a
Plaintiff solely because he is the "subscriber" for the subject
phone's cellular account.

Judge Nugent opines that the Defendant's motion raises a number of
factual issues that make the granting of a motion to dismiss
premature at this time. Both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, in
their briefing on the Defendant's motion, present a number of
matters that are outside the Pleadings, including various contract
provisions between Defendant Paul Moss Insurance and Datalot,
affidavits, copies of text messages, and recordings of the
telephone conversations between Plaintiff Kaylee Pavelka and
Datalot and between Plaintiff Kaylee Pavelka and Defendant Paul
Moss Insurance.

Judge Nugent points out that this case is still in its preliminary
stages and discovery is ongoing. At the Case Management Conference,
held on Feb. 27, 2023, the Defendant (following the position it
raised in the FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f) and LR 16.3(b) Planning Report
of the Parties) suggested that the Court bifurcate discovery, under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b), to first address the liability claims under
the TCPA related to the Plaintiffs individually, and to accept
summary briefing and rule upon such individual liability issues
first, before expanding the scope of discovery to encompass the
Plaintiffs' asserted "class action" claims, as the individual
liability claims would likely be dispositive of whether the case
should thereafter proceed as a "class action."

The Court finds that bifurcation of discovery to first address the
individual liability claims, and then to entertain possible summary
judgment motion practice on the Plaintiffs' individual claims,
prior to class action discovery, is appropriate under FED. R. CIV.
P. 42(b). The Court also finds that the parties should be given an
opportunity to complete discovery on the Plaintiffs' individual
liability claims prior to any summary judgment motion practice that
may be initiated on those individual claims at a later date.

Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion for Determination That
Plaintiffs Are Not Proper Parties and to Dismiss the Complaint is
premature, and is not in a posture to rule upon at this time.

For each of the reasons stated, Judge Nugent denies the Defendant's
Motion for Determination That Plaintiffs Are Not Proper Parties and
to Dismiss the Complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum of Opinion and Order
dated May 22, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ynuxwkew
from Leagle.com.


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC informs investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Peloton Interactive, Inc. ("Peloton," or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: PTON). The lawsuit alleges Peloton 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 seat posts
for certain of the Company's Peloton Bikes were prone to break or
otherwise detach during use, rendering them unsafe for users; (ii)
as a result, the Company was likely to recall millions of Peloton
Bikes; (iii) accordingly, Peloton overstated its efforts to enhance
the safety of its products, understated its estimated future
returns, and downplayed the Company's need to book additional
reserves for future product recall expenses; and (iv) all the
foregoing, once revealed, was likely to negatively impact the
Company's business and financial results and reputation.

If you bought shares of Peloton between May 10, 2022 and May 10,
2023, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you
are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey
Holzer, Esq. 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 www.holzerlaw.com/case/peloton/
to learn more.

The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is August 8, 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. [GN]

PORTUGUESE MINI: Reyes Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Butchers
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMILCAR REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PORTUGUESE MINI MARKET CORP, PORTUGUESE
FAMILY MARKET INC., and FELISMINO PEREIRA, Defendants, Case No.
9:23-cv-04192 (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide notice at time of hiring, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a butcher at 215 Mineola
Blvd., Mineola, New York, from approximately April 2021 until April
29, 2023.

Portuguese Mini Market Corp. is a market owner of operator, located
at 215 Mineola Blvd., Mineola, New York.

Portuguese Family Market Inc. is a market owner of operator,
located at 215 Mineola Blvd., Mineola, New York. [BN]

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

PRIVILEGE CONSTRUCTION: Faces Sacaquirin FLSA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL GERMAN ZAMORA SACAQUIRIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIVILEGE CONSTRUCTION
CORP. and CHRIS MINADAKIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04092
(E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
wages for all hours worked, failure to provide wage notice, and
failure to provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a mason, painter and
carpenter while performing related miscellaneous duties from in or
around May 2022 until in or around October 2022.

Privilege Construction Corp. is a construction firm, with a
principal executive office located at 6904 Ditmars Ave., Elmhurst,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591
         Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WHAT? Procter & Gamble's Oral B brand is facing a class action
lawsuit over the 'unsolicited and continuous text messages' it sent
out to consumers, even after they had opted out, according to a
report published by Fox 19 Now.

THE DETAILS The plaintiff claims that she did not give permission
or request communication from the oral care brand but received
multiple messages, even after she responded with her own stating
'STOP'.

THE WHY? Procter & Gamble did not respond immediately to a request
for comment when contacted by Fox 19 Now but is alleged to have
violated federal law. [GN]


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Class Action in New York Over ACV
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Hallo, writing for PropertyCasualty360, reports that
PropertyCasualty360, reports that Progressive Casualty Insurance is
facing a class action suit filed by a New York policyholder, who
alleges the insurance company undervalues and underpays claims
after a vehicle is deemed a total loss by using non-standard
adjustment reports to determine the actual cash value (ACV).

The suit claims the reports, prepared by Mitchell International,
use "projected sold adjustment," which are deceptive and
unexplained, contrary to appraisal standards and methodologies and
"not based in fact, as they are contrary to the used-car industry's
market pricing and inventory management practices," according to
the court documents.

Prior to the rise in online car buying, a dealership's advertised
price had very little to do with enticing potential buyers as many
would visit a lot based on the inventory available, not price, the
suit alleges. Since buyers were more driven by stock than cost,
dealerships would often price vehicles above market. This allowed
sellers to realize higher profits from consumers with poor
negotiating skills, while leaving room for downward negotiation
when dealing with a savvier buyer.

However, since online buying allows for easy price comparisons,
shoppers are now more likely to seek out vehicles "priced to
market" rather than above. "As such, a negotiated discount off the
cash price is highly atypical," according to the suit, which
pointed out that these discounts should not be included when
determining ACV.

". . . Insureds who have suffered a total loss of their vehicle and
need to procure a replacement have limited time to search out the
illusory opportunity to obtain the below-market deal defendants
assume always exists without any explanation or support," according
to the court documents.

Further, Progressive allegedly disregards data that contradict a
projected sold adjustment. For example, until July 2021, the
reports excluded any data indicating the sold price exceeded the
list price. Other data that was ignored included sales from
"no-haggle" dealerships and "every transaction where the sold price
equaled the advertised price," according to court documents. [GN]

RHAPSODY INTERNATIONAL: Atty.s' $1.7MM Legal Fees' Bid Unjustified
------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah Poritz, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the $1.7
million in legal fees awarded to the attorneys for songwriters who
recovered only $50,000 in a copyright class action against the
Rhapsody International music streaming service was unjustified, the
Ninth Circuit said on June 7.

A three-judge panel said the fee award approved by a district court
judge in California was unreasonable and would "likely make the
average person shake her head" given that it was more than 30 times
greater than the amount the class of musicians received.

"The touchstone for determining the reasonableness of attorneys'
fees in a class action is the benefit to the class," Circuit Judge
said. [GN]


SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Kilpatrick Townsend Attorneys Discuss Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Bogan III James Bogan III, Esq., of Kilpatrick Townsend &
Stockton LLP, in an article for JDSupra, disclosed that Federal
Rule 23 authorizes representative litigation in the form of class
actions that satisfy its various requirements. The policy
underlying the rule is efficiency. For example, the numerosity
element (Rule 23(a)(1)) requires that a class be "so numerous that
joinder of all members is impractical." The "juridical link"
doctrine extends Rule 23's efficiency principles to class action
standing, relying on the supposed standing of a certified class.
Recently, in Fox v. Saginaw County, Michigan, 67 F.4th 284 (6th
Cir. 2023), the Sixth Circuit refused to follow Seventh Circuit
caselaw applying the doctrine and joined the Second Circuit in
rejecting it altogether.

The juridical link doctrine is best described as an efficiency
exception to standing. The doctrine grew out of dicta in a 1973
Ninth Circuit decision, "a time at which the Supreme Court had yet
to clearly identify standing's constitutional floor." Fox, 67 F.4th
at 295-96 (discussing La Mar v. H & B Novelty & Loan Co., 489 F.2d
461 (9th Cir. 1973)). In La Mar, the class representative brought
suit against the pawn broker he used as well as all other pawn
brokers in the state of Oregon, alleging that they had all violated
the same statute. The Ninth Circuit panel ruled that a plaintiff
potentially could bring suit against defendants who did not harm
that particular plaintiff if the defendants were "juridically
related in a manner that suggests a single resolution of the
dispute would be expeditious." See id. at 296 (quoting La Mar, 489
F.2d at 466).

A circuit split has developed regarding the application of this
doctrine. In Payton v. County of Kane, 308 F.3d 673, 678–82 (7th
Cir. 2002), the Seventh Circuit held that class plaintiffs "may
bring a class action against some defendants who did not injure
them if the class members would have standing and if the named
plaintiff can meet Rule 23's requirements." Fox, 67 F.4th at 293.
On the other side of this split, the Second Circuit has held that a
plaintiff must have Article III standing at the time the complaint
is filed, even if the complaint alleges a putative class action.
Id. (citing Mahon v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 683 F.3d 59, 62–63,
65–66 (2d Cir. 2012)).

In Fox, the plaintiff-taxpayer brought suit against all counties in
the state of Michigan, claiming they engaged in unconstitutional
takings by foreclosing on properties, selling them, and recovering
more than was due for unpaid property taxes. The Eastern District
of Michigan, relying on the juridical link doctrine, granted the
plaintiff's motion to certify a class against the county that
injured him as well as all other counties in the state of Michigan.
The district court "reasoned that Fox could sue all 27 Counties
because they had all kept surplus proceeds pursuant to the
[Michigan General Property Tax] Act and because the class members
had all suffered the same type of injury." 67 F.4th at 291. The
Sixth Circuit granted the defendants' Rule 23(f) petition to appeal
the district court's certification ruling. Siding with the Second
Circuit, the panel vacated the class certification order.

The panel articulated three reasons for rejecting the juridical
link doctrine. First, Supreme Court precedent dictates that the
three-part test for Article III standing -- including the
requirement that a plaintiff's injury be traceable to each
defendant -- "applies with full force in the class-action context."
Fox, 67 F.4th at 294. Second, a plaintiff must have standing when
the complaint is filed. In other words, because a district court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction (and thus is without power to act
in a case) unless a plaintiff has Article III standing, the
question of standing cannot be deferred until the time a class is
certified and the absent class members purportedly acquire their
own standing. Id. at 294-95. Third, standing "is a key component of
the Constitution's separation of powers designed to protect
defendants from that portion of the federal government's coercive
power vested in the judiciary." Id. at 295. Accordingly, there is
no "efficiency" exception to standing. Id. at 296.

In addition to rejecting the doctrine as inconsistent with Supreme
Court precedent, the panel examined historical "bills of peace" and
other examples of representative litigation and found no historical
support for the doctrine. Fox, 67 F.4th at 298-300.

Finally, the panel ruled that the district court's certification
order, which was entered before any class discovery had been
initiated and was based primarily on the allegations of the
complaint, did not reflect the "rigorous analysis" required for
Rule 23 certification. Fox, 67 F.4th at 300-01. Accordingly, in
light of the possibility that the plaintiff could, on remand,
recruit taxpayer plaintiffs from other Michigan counties, the panel
"offer[ed] a few observations to help guide any renewed
certification proceedings," including the need to show a plausible
method for establishing damages on a class-wide basis, a process
for addressing the counties' individual defenses, and the
possibility the landowners may have liens on their property from
sources other than the government (such as mortgages). Id. at *300,
301-02. [GN]

SENTINELONE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on June 7 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired SentinelOne, Inc.
("SentinelOne" or the "Company") (NYSE: S) securities between June
1, 2022 and June 1, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period").
SentinelOne investors have until August 7, 2023 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

On June 1, 2023, after the market closed, SentinelOne published a
press release titled "SentinelOne Announces First Quarter Fiscal
Year 2024 Financial Results." Therein, the Company disclosed that
"[a]s a result of a change in methodology and correction of
historical inaccuracies, which we further describe in our letter to
shareholders, we made a one-time adjustment to ARR of $27.0 million
or approximately 5% of total ARR." The Company also revised its
fiscal year 2024 revenue guidance downward to a range of $590
million to $600 million from a range of $631 million to $640
million. In a shareholder letter published the same day,
SentinelOne further explained that "we . . . discovered historical
upsell and renewal recording inaccuracies relating to ARR on
certain subscription and consumption contracts, which are now
corrected" and that "[w]e are applying a comparable estimated
adjustment to the remaining quarters in fiscal year 23, which we
believe is a reasonable approximation of the impact in those
periods."

On this news, SentinelOne's stock price fell $7.28 per share, or
more than 35%, to close at $13.44 per share on June 2, 2023.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: investors: (1) that the Company lacked effective internal
controls over accounting and financial reporting; (2) that, as a
result, the Company's ARR was overstated; (3) that, as a result,
the Company's guidance was overstated; and (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendant's positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased SentinelOne securities during the Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than August 7, 2023 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased SentinelOne securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]

SIX FLAGS: N.D. Tex. Dismisses Putative Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
lexology.com reports that on June 2, 2023, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed a
putative class action against an amusement park operator and
certain of its executives asserting claims under Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Okla. Firefighters Pension &
Ret. Sys. v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., —F. Supp. 3d—, 2023 WL
3781645 (N.D. Tex. June 2, 2023). Plaintiff alleged that the
company made misrepresentation about its plans to develop amusement
parks in China. The Court held that plaintiff lacked standing
because it purchased shares too late to have relied on any
actionable misstatements and therefore dismissed the action with
prejudice. The Court also denied a motion to intervene by another
potential plaintiff that claimed to have purchased shares earlier.

The Court previously dismissed this action, finding that plaintiff
failed to identify any actionable misrepresentations. Id. at *1. As
discussed in our prior post, however, that decision was reversed in
part by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
which held that certain challenged statements made prior to October
2019 were sufficiently alleged at the pleadings stage to be
actionable. On remand, defendants moved for judgment on the
pleadings, arguing that plaintiff lacked standing because it only
claimed to have purchased company stock after October 2019, by
which time, the Fifth Circuit held, defendants had already made a
corrective disclosure. Id.

The Court explained that the question of plaintiff's standing
turned on whether it could sufficiently allege that it reasonably
relied on actionable misstatements when it purchased stock after
the October 2019 corrective disclosure. Id. at *3. Plaintiff argued
that the Fifth Circuit's determination that a corrective disclosure
occurred in October 2019 applied only with respect to statements
regarding the timeline for the company's amusement park openings,
whereas plaintiff claimed it relied on alleged misstatements
regarding the company's financial condition. Id. After carefully
reviewing the Fifth Circuit's opinion, however, the Court
determined that the Fifth Circuit's "holding applies to all the
alleged misrepresentations or omissions on or before [October
2019], closing the purported class period." Id. at *5. The Court
thus concluded that plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on
any alleged pre-October 2019 misstatements when it made its
post-October 2019 purchases. Id. Moreover, the Court held that
plaintiff's lack of standing was a jurisdictional defect that could
not be cured either by amending its complaint or substituting a new
plaintiff, observing that "a plaintiff in line at this Court
without standing is too short to ride." Id. at *7.

The Court also denied a motion by another entity to intervene and
substitute itself as lead plaintiff of the purported class. The
Court noted that the named plaintiff's lack of standing meant there
was no "case" or "controversy" in which the movant could intervene.
The Court also rejected the movant's argument that intervention was
permissible based on the supposed "class action" nature of the
lawsuit, noting that no class had ever been certified. As a result,
the movant was merely an "unnamed, independent third party." Id. at
*8. Thus, the Court rejected movant's attempt to "manufacture
Article III jurisdiction" by casting itself as a "member" of a
class that did not exist. Id. As the Court observed, "the ride . .
. has left the station." Id.[GN]

SKH TRADING: Fails to Pay Delivery Drivers' OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADAN VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. S.K.H. TRADING COMPANY, INC., d/b/a Wonder Foods, a New
York corporation, and FARAJ KHALIFEH, an individual, Case No.
1:23-cv-04036-ENV-VMS (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2023) sues the Defendant
for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and for violations of the
"spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New  York
Commissioner of Labor (the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of this action as a class and
collective action on behalf of the Plaintiff individually, and on
behalf of all other similarly situated employees and former
employees of Defendants.

From March 2020 until January 2023, the Plaintiff worked four days
per week from 5:00 a.m. to between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.,
approximately 44-52 hours per week. The Plaintiff was paid at the
rate of $15.00 per hour for each hour worked, without any raises
during the term of his employment. The Defendants allegedly failed
to pay the Plaintiff any overtime premium (time and a half) for
hours worked over 40 in each workweek. The Defendants also
allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff spread of hours pay for days
on which his workday lasted 10 or more hours, says the suit.

Throughout the Plaintiff's entire employment with the Defendants,
the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff for time worked over 25
hours, and some instances for time worked above 15 hours, in any
given work week, even though Plaintiff worked over 40 hours a week,
the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from January 2012 through
January 2023. The Plaintiff was employed to perform activities as a
food distribution delivery driver. His job included delivering food
products to customers and any other task or job that he was
assigned at any given time.

S.K.H. Trading owns and operates a food distribution company known
as Wonder Foods, which is located at 57-10 Flushing Ave, Maspeth,
NY 11378.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik M. Bashian, Esq.
          BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
          500 Old Country Road, Ste. 302
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 279-1554
          Facsimile: (516) 213-0339
          E-mail: eb@bashpaplaw.com

                - and -

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

SMALL BONE: Star Ankle Replacement Device "Defective," Skinner Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SKINNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMALL BONE INNOVATIONS, INC.; JOHN DOES I-X;
JANE DOES I-X; OTHER ENTITIES I-X; BLACK & WHITE CORPORATIONS I-X;
and ABC PARTNERSHIPS I-X, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01051-MTL
(D. Ariz., June 7, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for strict product liability.

The case arises from the Defendants' participation in the design,
manufacturing, and marketing of defective Star total ankle
replacement device. The Star device was subject to material
degradation of the polyethylene component of the device, causing
the plastic within it to fracture. As a result, the Plaintiff
suffered injuries, says the suit.

Small Bone Innovations, Inc. is a manufacturer of medical devices,
doing business in Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Michael Napier, Esq.
         Juliana Tallone, Esq.
         NAPIER, BAILLIE, WILSON, BACON & TALLONE, PC
         2525 East Arizona Biltmore Circle
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Telephone: (602) 248-9107
         Facsimile: (602) 248-0971
         E-mail: Mike@napierlawfirm.com
                 Jtallone@napierlawfirm.com

SONY INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of UK Digital Games Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Masson, writing for Global Competition Review, reports that
Sony has accused the proposed class representative in a £5 billion
opt-out damages claim against the company of relying on the wrong
theory of harm, as it seeks to strike out allegations consumers
overpaid for digital games and content on its PlayStation Store.
[GN]

STATE FARM: Faces Class Action Over Luxury Vehicle Repairs
----------------------------------------------------------
BodyShop Business that reports according to an article from
insurancebusinessmag.com, a class action lawsuit has been filed
against State Farm accusing them of short-paying policyholders with
high-value luxury vehicles.

According to the article, the suit was filed in Broward County,
Fla., on May 18 and stems from an incident involving Assaf and Ada
Sasson, who owned an all-electric 2022 Porsche Taycan insured with
State Farm for over $100,000.

An initial breach of contract complaint was filed against State
Farm in August 2022 involving this incident, but attorneys said
they discovered evidence suggesting that State Farm has
consistently failed to honor the policy requirements for
determining collision benefits on high-value vehicles. [GN]



STITCH FIX: Court Appoints Local 338 Funds as Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Local 338 Funds' motion
for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection as
counsel in the lawsuit titled RETAIL WHOLESALE DEPARTMENT STORE
UNION LOCAL 338 RETIREMENT FUND, et al., Plaintiffs v. STITCH FIX,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-04893-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

"Local 338 Funds" refers to the following group of funds: Retail
Wholesale Department Store Union ("RWDSU") Local 338 Retirement
Fund, RWDSU Local 338 Health & Welfare Fund, RWDSU Local 338
General Fund, and RWDSU Local 338 Benefits Trust Fund.

Pending before the Court are two competing motions for appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead counsel: 1) the New Mexico State
Investment Council's Motion, and 2) the Local 338 Funds' Motion.
Both parties filed briefs in opposition to the competing motions
and replies in support of their own motions. The Court finds this
matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the
matter is deemed submitted.

Dax Billcheck also filed a motion for appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel, but later withdrew his motion because he did not
appear to have the largest financial interest.

Defendant Stitch Fix "sells a range of apparel, shoes, and
accessories through its website and mobile application." The
Plaintiffs allege that Stitch Fix originally "sold products as a
'Fix' box, through which the customer would receive a monthly box
of items chosen by a personal stylist." The complaint further
alleges that in late 2020, "Stitch Fix launched the 'Freestyle'
program--a new, direct buy program where customers could choose
from the outset which items to purchase." According to the
Plaintiffs, throughout the Class Period, Stitch Fix touted that the
two programs were synergistic, and repeatedly denied claims that
the Freestyle program could cannibalize its legacy Fix business.

According to the complaint, Stitch Fix subsequently made two
disclosures that negated these assurances. The first disclosure
allegedly occurred on Dec. 7, 2021. The Plaintiffs allege that,
among other things, Stitch Fix "admitted that the Company saw some
'short term cannibalization' from new customers who chose to use
the new direct-buy Freestyle option rather than the traditional Fix
option" and "announced a loss for its first quarter of 2021 and cut
its full-year revenue projections." According to the complaint, as
a result of these disclosures, the price of Stitch Fix stock
declined by $5.97 per share, or 24%, from $24.97 per share to $19
per share.

The Plaintiffs allege that a second disclosure occurred on March 8,
2022, when, among other things, Stitch Fix offered a weak outlook
for its third quarter of 2022 and cut its revenue guidance for the
full year and also announced a self-inflicted friction between the
Freestyle program and the Fix program. According to the complaint,
as a result of this disclosure, the price of Stitch Fix stock
declined by $0.67 per share, or 6%, from $11.01 per share to $10.34
per share.

The Local 338 Funds argue that they have the largest financial
interest in the litigation because they incurred the greatest
financial loss at $1.9 million, calculated using the
last-in-first-out ("LIFO") method. New Mexico calculates that it
incurred an approximately $1.3 million dollar loss under the LIFO
method, but argues that the Court should apply the retained shares
method instead. New Mexico reasons that because Local 338 sold out
immediately after the first, partially corrective disclosure on
Dec. 7, 2021, its net shares purchased during the Class Period is
zero. New Mexico contends that, using the retained shares method of
calculation, it experienced a loss of $1,294,198 compared to a loss
of $0 for Local 338.

New Mexico contends that while both disclosures are connected and
related to the same underlying issue, it was not until new facts
were disclosed on March 8, 2022, that the market was apprised and
fully corrected about the alleged fraud. Thus, it argues,
application of the retained shares approach is appropriate.

The Court disagrees. Here, the complaint alleges that the first
disclosure caused Stitch Fix stock to decline by 24% and the second
disclosure caused Stitch Fix stock to decline by only 6%. The large
disparity alleged in the price effect of the two disclosures
suggests that there likely was not a constant fraud premium, such
that a retained shares approach would not result in the most
accurate loss calculation in this case, Judge Gilliam explains.

Consequently, Judge Gilliam opines, it would be very difficult for
the Court to assess the effect of a non-constant fraud premium in
determining loss. Put another way, the Judge adds, New Mexico's
assertion that the Local 338 Funds' claimed loss should be valued
at zero dollars is not reasonable as a matter of basic economics
based on the allegations here.

Using a LIFO calculation, Judge Gilliam finds that the Local 338
Funds has the largest financial loss. Based on New Mexico's own
calculations, the Local 338 Funds also have the most shares
purchased, and the largest net funds expended. Accordingly, the
Court finds that the Local 338 Funds have the largest financial
interest in the action.

The Court also finds that the Local 338 Funds have met the
typicality and adequacy requirements.

The Local 338 Funds have moved for approval of its selection of
Bernstein Litowitz as lead counsel. The Court defers to the Local
338 Funds' choice of lead counsel because the lead plaintiff has
the statutory prerogative to select counsel for the class, subject
to approval by the Court. The Court, thus, approves the Local 338
Funds' selection of counsel.

For these reasons, the Court grants the Local 338 Funds' motion and
denies New Mexico's motion. The Local 338 Funds are appointed as
lead plaintiffs for the putative class. Bernstein Litowitz is
further approved as lead counsel for the putative class.

The Court has set a telephonic case management conference on June
6, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. The Court directs the parties to meet and
confer and submit a joint case management statement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 22, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mry86h66 from Leagle.com.


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Restrains Lubiprostone Market, Premera Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PREMERA BLUE CROSS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED,
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., and TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS
AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11254 (D. Mass., June
2, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for conspiracy
and combination in restraint of trade, monopolization, unfair and
deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff brings this class action suit against the Defendants
on behalf of similarly situated third-party payers (TPPs) due to
the Defendants' restraint of the United States market for
lubiprostone, a constipation drug, by gaming the regulatory
machinery of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the civil
procedure of federal patent infringement litigation. Since 2006,
Takeda has marketed and sold Amitiza (lubiprostone) in the United
States. For nearly 15 years, and for nearly seven years beyond the
expiration of the patent covering Amitiza's active pharmaceutical
compound, Takeda held a monopoly in the lubiprostone market, making
hundreds of millions of dollars in annual sales revenue. Takeda's
partner Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
reached an agreement in September 2014 (the "2014
Takeda/Sucampo-Par Agreement") that artificially extended the
period of Amitiza's brand exclusivity and ensured that, at the
onset of generic competition, only one generic version could enter
the market for at least six months, and up to two years. As a
result of Takeda and its co-conspirators' restraint of the market,
the Plaintiff and Class members were directly injured, says the
suit.

Premera Blue Cross is a health care services contractor, with its
principal place of business in Mountlake Terrace, Washington.

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited is a pharmaceutical company,
with its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Takeda Japan, with its principal place of business located at 95
Hayden Avenue, Lexington, Massachusetts.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., with its principal place of
business located at 95 Hayden Avenue, Lexington, Massachusetts.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Scott J. Tucker, Esq.
         William J. Fidurko, Esq.
         TUCKER, DYER & O'CONNELL, LLP
         199 Wells Avenue
         Newton, MA 02459
         Telephone: (617) 986-6226

                 - and -

         Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
         Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
         Renee Nolan, Esq.
         Charles Kopel, Esq.
         LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
         44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
         White Plains, NY 10601
         Telephone: (914) 997-0500
         E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com
                 URabinovitz@lowey.com
                 RNolan@lowey.com
                 Ckopel@lowey.com

TANKNOLOGY INC: Paskiewicz Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNATHAN PASKIEWICZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TANKNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-03589 (N.D. Ill., June 7, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to pay overtime wages and
failure to keep accurate records in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a technician in or
around January 2023.

Tanknology, Inc. is a provider of tank testing and environmental
compliance services for petroleum systems, with a principal place
of business in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
         8401 Crawford Ave., Suite 104
         Skokie, IL 60076
         Telephone: (847) 986-5889
         Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
         E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

                - and -

         James L. Simon, Esq.
         SIMON LAW CO.
         5000 Rockside Road
         Liberty Plaza, Suite 520
         Independence, OH 44131
         Telephone: (216) 816-8696
         E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com

TESLA INC: Nearly 240 Black Workers to Join Racism Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Roberts, writing for BET, reports that scores of former Black
employees and contractors sought to join a racial discrimination
lawsuit against electric-car maker Tesla, adding credence to
numerous allegations that the work environment at a California
assembly plant is toxic for Black people.

Fortune reports that Marcus Vaughn filed a request June 5 with a
California state court to add almost 240 other Tesla workers to his
2017 lawsuit, in which he describes the automaker's production
floor in Fremont, Calif. as a "hotbed for racist behavior."

In filing for class-action status, Vaughn's attorneys allege that
Tesla has ignored a "pattern and practice of race discrimination"
at the factory in the face of other lawsuits and numerous
complaints, including from the state of California. A class status
hearing is scheduled for July 14.

Vaughn's request for class-action status included sworn statements
from Black workers who said they experienced unchecked harassment
at Tesla, including racist graffiti written in common areas and
racist slurs.

Tesla, owned by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, has been hit
with several high-profile lawsuits.

In October 2021, an eight-person federal jury awarded Owen Diaz
nearly $137 million in damages for racist incidents he suffered in
2015 and 2016 while working at the Fremont plant, finding that
Tesla management failed to prevent severe racial harassment. But
the award was reduced to $3.2 million.

In another case, Raina Pierce, a Black woman employee at the
Fremont plant, sued Tesla in April 2022, alleging that the company
largely ignored her complaints about widespread racism at the
facility. The lawsuit claims that Pierce's supervisors referred to
her using the n-word. Also, a supervisor who accused her of getting
him in trouble allegedly made a vulgar comment about not being able
to stand Black people.

Also in 2022, California's Department of Fair Employment and
Housing sued Tesla over its treatment of Black employees at the
Fremont plant. The lawsuit followed a three-year investigation of
alleged racist abuse. It uncovered multiple instances of racist
language and graffiti, managers penalizing Black employees more
harshly than White employees, as well as a practice of blocking
career advancement for Blacks and unequal pay for similar work.

Tesla didn't respond to Fortune's request for a comment on the
class-action request. However, the company denied wrongdoing in
response to Vaughn's lawsuit in 2017, saying "Tesla is absolutely
against any form of discrimination, harassment, or unfair treatment
of any kind." [GN]

TINGO GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 7
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Tingo Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: TIO) investors who
suffered substantial losses submit your losses now.

Class Period: Dec. 1, 2022 - June 6, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Aug. 7, 2023
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/TIO
Contact An Attorney Now: TIO@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Tingo Group, Inc. (TIO) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The litigation focuses on the propriety of Tingo Group's accounting
and the effectiveness of its internal controls over financial
reporting.

The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) Defendant Mmobuosi fabricated biographical
claims about himself; (2) Tingo had photoshopped its logo onto
pictures of airplanes it did not own; (3) Tingo inflated its food
division margins; (4) Tingo published misleading images of its
planned Nigerian food processing facility and overstated its
progress on the facility's construction; (5) Tingo inflated its
food inventory; (6) Tingo did not have relationships with the two
farming cooperatives it claimed; (7) Tingo did not generate $128
million in revenue from its handset leasing, call and data center
segments as it claimed; (8) Tingo's mobile operation in Nigeria was
delinquent on its tax obligations; (9) Tingo photoshopped its logo
over pictures from a different point of sale system operator's
website; (10) Tingo did not generate $125.3 million in revenue from
its online marketplace; (11) Tingo's agricultural export business
was not on track to deliver $1.34 billion in exports by Q3 2023;
and (12) Tingo lacked effective controls over accounting and
financial reporting.

Investors learned the truth on June 6, 2023, when Hindenburg
Research published a scathing forensic research report, concluding
"we believe the company is an exceptionally obvious scam with
completely fabricated financials" and revealing the
above-enumerated undisclosed facts.

This news sent the price of Tingo Group shares over 48% lower on
June 6, 2023.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Tingo Group
intentionally cooked its books," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you invested in Tingo Group and have substantial losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Tingo
Group should consider their options to help in the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email TIO@hbsslaw.com.

About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law.
The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and
represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers
and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by
corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its
successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates
and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN]

TORONTO-DOMINION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due July 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against First Horizon Corporation ("FHN") (NYSE: FHN),
The Toronto-Dominion Bank and its subsidiaries, including wholly
owned subsidiary TD Bank US Holding Company (collectively, "TD
Bank" and, together with FHN, the "Companies"), and certain
officers. The class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, and docketed under
23-cv-03024, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
FHN securities between February 28, 2022 and May 3, 2023, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), to recover damages from the
Defendants for their violations of the federal securities laws
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as detailed below.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired FHN
securities during the Class Period, you have until July 21, 2023 to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

FHN is a bank holding company headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee
that, as of December 31, 2022, had consolidated assets of $79
billion. FHN provides consumer and commercial banking, wealth
management, mortgage lending and other financial services primarily
through its principal subsidiary, First Horizon Bank. As of
December 31, 2022, FHN operated 414 banking centers in twelve
states.

TD Bank is a Canadian financial institution with U.S. headquarters
in New Jersey. As of October 31, 2022, TD Bank had $1.9 trillion in
assets. Since 2004, TD Bank has expanded its retail banking
presence in the U.S. through acquisitions of regional banks.

On February 28, 2022, FHN and TD Bank jointly announced that TD
Bank had agreed to acquire FHN for $25.00 per share in cash
("Transaction"), which represented a 37% premium to FHN's share
price from its close on the prior trading day.

With respect to the timeline for closing the Transaction, a joint
press release ("Feb 2022 Press Release") issued by TD Bank and FHN
on February 28, 2022, announcing the deal explained that the
"transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of TD's 2023
fiscal year, and is subject to customary closing conditions,
including approvals from First Horizon's shareholders and U.S. and
Canadian regulatory authorities." The Feb 2022 Press Release
further advised that (i) if "the transaction does not close prior
to November 27, 2022 [i.e., within 9 months], First Horizon
shareholders will receive, at closing, an additional US$0.65 per
share on an annualized basis for the period from November 27, 2022
through the day immediately prior to the closing," and (ii) "[t]he
transaction will terminate, unless otherwise extended, if it does
not close by February 27, 2023."

On a conference call to discuss the Transaction held on February
28, 2022, an analyst observed that "there's a lot of sensitivity
around regulatory approval process for M&A in the U.S.," and then
asked TD Bank's senior management about their "comfort level on
getting deal closing done" within the timeline announced.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning the risks to regulatory approval of the Transaction
posed by TD Bank's materially deficient anti-money laundering
("AML") policies and procedures, which caused Plaintiff and other
Class members to suffer significant losses when these undisclosed
regulatory risks materialized and caused the market value of FHN's
securities to decline precipitously.

On August 25, 2022, on TD Bank's Q3 2022 earnings call, TD Bank's
Group President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Defendant
Bharat B. Masrani ("Masrani"), reiterated that he expected the
Transaction "to close in the first fiscal quarter of 2023." When
asked about any risks that may delay the Transaction from closing,
Defendant Masrani responded, "[o]ur deal continues to progress in
the normal course, there is nothing out there to suggest that, that
is different this time around."

Defendant Masrani was not the only TD Bank executive to reassure
analysts concerning the timeline for closing the Transaction. On
September 14, 2022, at the Barclays Global Financial Services
Conference, when asked for an update on the timeline for the
Transaction, Defendant Leo Salom ("Salom"), Group Head, U.S.
Retail, TD Bank Group and President and CEO, TD Bank, advised that
"[w]e do expect to close the transaction at the end of the fiscal
first quarter. And we're tracking well against that." Defendant
Salom then added: "[O]n August 18th we had the public hearing, the
OCC, the Fed hosted. That is the normal part of the application
process. But to your point, I'm sure there's going to be a lot of
questions about how confident are we? We're extremely confident. We
believe this transaction does not represent any financial stability
or competitive consolidation risk. We've already announced that we
will protect all the front-line staff, we will be retaining all the
retail and commercial bankers. Likewise, we won't be closing any
stores. So, if you look at the strength of the application, we're
quite excited about getting this done in short order.

Based on the repeated reassurances provided by Defendants Masrani
and Salom that there were no regulatory risks that could delay the
closing of the Transaction, FHN shareholders had no reason to
believe that TD Bank was concealing any regulatory risks that could
derail the Transaction. Unbeknownst to FHN shareholders, however,
(i) TD Bank had materially deficient policies and procedures for
detecting and reporting suspected money laundering, (ii) regulators
at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC") and the
Federal Reserve were refusing to approve the Transaction because of
TD Bank's materially deficient AML policies and procedures, and
(iii) TD Bank's materially deficient AML policies and procedures
thus constituted a concealed regulatory risk to the closing of the
Transaction.

TD Bank's public statements concerning its risk management
practices in general, and AML compliance in particular, gave no
indication that TD Bank's AML policies and procedures were
materially deficient. To the contrary, an investor presentation
made available by TD Bank to FHN shareholders on Schedule 14A on
February 28, 2022, advised that TD Bank has "a disciplined risk
culture." That "disciplined risk culture" was documented in part in
TD Bank's Code of Conduct and Ethics for Employees and Directors
("TD Bank Code"), which was filed on Form 6-K with the SEC on
February 7, 2022. With respect to AML compliance, the TD Bank Code
stated:

TD is committed to taking all reasonable and appropriate steps to
detect and deter persons engaged in money laundering from utilizing
TD products or services to do so. Making the proceeds of criminal
activity appear as if they came from legitimate sources is a
criminal offence, and so is knowingly failing to report
transactions or activities where it is suspected they relate to
money laundering. We must not knowingly initiate or be party to
money laundering and must promptly report suspected money
laundering situations in accordance with the TD Bank Group
Enterprise Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing
Policy and the escalation procedures established for our business
or region.

Subsequently, in March 2022, TD Bank published its "TD Bank
Statement on Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorist Financing and
Sanctions" ("AML Statement"), which represented that TD Bank's
commitment to detect and deter persons engaged in money laundering
was formalized through "the establishment of an enterprise-wide
Anti-Money Laundering/Anti-Terrorist Financing (AML/ATF) and
Sanctions risk and compliance management program (Global AML
Program) that is designed to detect and report suspected money
laundering and terrorist financing and activity prohibited by
sanctions." The AML Statement further represented that among the
requirements of the Global AML Program were (i) "ongoing monitoring
to detect and report suspicious transactions or activities," (ii)
"regulatory reporting of prescribed transactions," and (iii)
"independent testing of control effectiveness."

The first inkling that regulatory issues may derail approval of the
Transaction surfaced on TD Bank's Q4 2022 earnings call on December
1, 2022. Defendant Masrani advised that TD Bank was "planning to
close the [Transaction] in the first half of fiscal 2023 subject to
customary closing conditions, including approvals from U.S. and
Canadian regulatory authorities." After observing that Defendant
Masrani had previously guided on the Q3 2022 earnings call that the
Transaction would close in Q1 2023, and that the timing had now
slipped to the first half of 2023, an analyst inquired "[w]hat's
prompting the delayed expectation of closing?" Defendant Masrani
responded, "so we don't control the timing of all the regulatory
approvals, but we are confident that we will get closing within the
time line that we've put out." When the analyst pressed for
specifics -- "are they taking a closer look at anything? Are you
anticipating having to make any adjustments to your product going
up or your schedule in advance of the close?" -- Defendant Masrani
advised, "No, I'm not aware of anything of the sort you're
mentioning."

Yet, just over two months later, on February 9, 2023, the Companies
issued a joint press release ("Feb 2023 Press Release") announcing
that they had mutually agreed to extend the deadline to close the
Transaction from February 27, 2023, to May 27, 2023. The Feb 2023
Press Release further stated that "[c]ustomary closing conditions,
including approvals from regulatory authorities in the U.S. and
Canada, are required to close the transaction." The generic
disclosure, however, was insufficient to alert FHN shareholders to
the existence of regulatory risks since it failed to disclose the
specific risk that TD Bank's materially deficient AML policies and
procedures were posing to regulatory approval of the Transaction.

On March 1, 2023, in its 2022 Form 10-K, FHN advised that (i)
receipt of regulatory approval of the Transaction was taking longer
than originally anticipated, (ii) TD Bank had recently informed FHN
that TD Bank did not expect to receive the necessary regulatory
approvals in time to close the Transaction by a new deadline of May
27, 2023, and (iii) TD Bank had initiated discussions with FHN
regarding a potential further extension of the new May 27, 2023
deadline. The 2022 Form 10-K also noted that "TD cannot provide a
new projected closing date at this time."

On this news, FHN's stock price fell $2.63 per share, or 10.62%, to
close at $22.14 per share on May 1, 2023.

On May 3, 2023, according to a Capital Forum report being
circulated among traders, Defendant Masrani had a meeting with
officials of the OCC concerning the Transaction on March 9, 2023,
that was also attended by TD Bank's outside counsel.

On this news, FHN's stock price fell $1.14 per share, or 7.04%, to
close at $15.05 per share on May 3, 2023.

On May 4, 2023, before the markets opened, TD Bank and FHN
announced that they had mutually agreed to terminate the
Transaction because TD Bank "does not have a timetable for
regulatory approvals to be obtained for reasons unrelated to First
Horizon," and "there is uncertainty as to when and if these
regulatory approvals can be obtained." TD Bank and FHN, however,
failed to disclose that TD Bank's materially deficient AML policies
and procedures had derailed regulatory approval of the
Transaction.

Upon news of the termination of the Transaction, FHN's stock price
fell $4.99 per share, or 33.16%, to close at $10.06 per share on
May 4, 2023.

The concealed regulatory risk that derailed the Transaction was
finally revealed on May 8, 2023, when The Wall Street Journal (the
"WSJ") published an article citing sources alleging that TD Bank's
"handling of suspicious customer transactions was behind
regulators' refusal to bless" the Transaction, and that the
Transaction was terminated because regulators were unwilling "to
give TD a clean bill of health on its anti-money laundering
practices." The article's sources alleged that "regulators'
concerns stemmed from the way TD handled unusual transactions in
recent years, and the speed at which some of them were brought to
the attention of U.S. authorities." According to the WSJ, in
"recent years," TD Bank had only "flagged 28 customer transactions"
as suspicious. For these reasons, the OCC and the Federal Reserve
refused to approve the Transaction within the necessary time
frames.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

TRANSLINK: B.C. Supreme Court Tosses Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Little, writing for Global News, reports that the B.C.
Supreme Court has refused to certify a proposed class action
against TransLink over a data breach three years ago that affected
thousands of current and former employees.

The ruling, posted on June 6, reveals new details about the
December 2020 hack and ransomware attack -- including that nearly
40,000 people were informed their personal information may have
been accessed.

The proposed class action was brought by five retired TransLink
employees, who made several claims including a violation of legal
obligations on TransLink's part to safeguard privacy and
negligence.

But in her ruling, Justice Sandra Wilkinson rejected the claims,
finding the arguments were "bound to fail" if the case proceeded to
trial.

On the privacy claims, Wilkinson found the plaintiffs made "bald
and conclusory allegations" that were absent of "any material
facts" that there was "intentional or willful violation of privacy"
on the part of the transit authority.

Regarding negligence, she found the province's Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act provides its own
"comprehensive complaint and remedy scheme for violations," but
excludes the right to sue in civil court over alleged breaches.

In a statement, TransLink said it was "pleased" with the outcome
which "supports the evidence put forward and allows the matter to
be resolved."

New details in data breach
While the ruling shut down the possibility of a class action trial,
it did offer new insights into the scale of the breach at
TransLink.

The December incident resulted in an outage of TransLink's Compass
tap-to-pay system and online trip planning tools for several days,
and forced the company to temporarily use cash advances to pay
workers.

According to the document, TransLink's Business Technology Services
discovered the breach on Dec. 1, 2020, and took steps to contain it
by shutting down some IT systems, notifying police and launching
its own investigation.

Two days later the transit authority confirmed it had been hit by a
ransomware attack, and that hackers had been able to gain
unauthorized access to its network security through a successful
phishing attempt on an employee of one of TansLink's subsidiaries.

TransLink launched a public website with information about the
attack and offered two years of free credit monitoring to all
current and former enterprise employees, Taxi-Saver cheque payors
and affected third parties, though the ruling says whether all
affected people got this information is disputed.

By June 2021, the ruling states, TransLink was able to confirm
various files and folders the hackers had accessed.

Those included personal payroll information for TransLink, Coast
Mountain Bus Company and transit police employees, sensitive
personal information of some SkyTrain and West Coast Express
employees and sensitive information of some former enterprise
employees and a limited number of their spouses and dependents.

It also included sensitive personal information about some third
parties, including some HandyDART operators, former BC Transit
Employees and witnesses, drivers and injured third parties involved
in incidents involving transit vehicles.

Some people who'd paid for TaxiSaver coupons with cheques were also
affected, according to the ruling.

TransLink was able to confirm some data was copied out of the
systems, but wasn't able to pin down exactly what information was
viewed or exfiltrated.

"At most, TransLink's investigation enabled it to identify
individuals' sensitive personal information that was subject to
access, or exposed to view, by the cybercriminals," the ruling
found.

Starting in February 2021, the transit authority started sending
out personalized notification letters to people whose information
it could confirm had been accessed by hackers, with details on what
information may have been viewed and codes to set up the free
credit monitoring.

In total, the ruling states nearly 58,000 such letters were sent
out to just under 39,000 people.

TransLink said because the matter remains subject to appeal it is
"limited" in what it can say about the incident.

"TransLink's investigation was to determine what sensitive personal
information was unlawfully accessed. Subsequently privacy breach
notifications were sent to impacted individuals," the transit
authority said.

"We are not aware of any misuse of sensitive personal information
that was accessed during the incident." [GN]

TURKISH AIRLINES: Aug. 18 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
number of class action settlements opened in May for consumers to
make claims for rebates through the month of June and beyond.

The class action settlements resolve claims concerning data
privacy, flight cancellations, pet food contamination, unsolicited
text messages and COVID-19-related event ticket refunds, among
other things.

A company may agree to a class action settlement to avoid
litigation and/or to help garner good faith amongst consumers,
without admitting liability or fault.

Consumers can browse the list below to find if any recently opened
class action settlements apply to them. More class action rebates
can be found on Top Class Actions' open settlement page.

Meta to pay $37.5M to end claims it tracked Facebook users who
disabled location services
Meta Platforms agreed to pay $37.5 million to resolve claims the
company tracked the location of U.S. Facebook users who turned off
location services on their iOS or Android device when using the
Facebook application.

The settlement will benefit a class of U.S. residents who used
Facebook between Jan. 30, 2015, and April 18, 2018, and who had
their location services for the Facebook application turned off on
their iOS or Android devices but had their location tracked anyway.


Individuals who want to make a claim to join the class action
settlement must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 11, 2023.

Turkish Airlines settles claims over COVID-19 flight cancellations
Turkish Airlines agreed to a settlement that will resolve claims
the passenger airline failed to refund passengers for flights that
were canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The settlement will benefit a class of individuals who purchased a
ticket for a canceled Turkish Airlines flight that was scheduled to
operate to, from or within the United States between March 1, 2020,
and Dec. 31, 2021.

Individuals who already requested compensation in the form of a
voucher or rebooking are not eligible to make a claim to join the
class action settlement.

Consumers must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 18, 2023, to
qualify to make a claim to join the class action settlement.

Sanderson Farms to pay $17.75M over antitrust claims
Sanderson Farms agreed to pay $17.75 million to end claims the
company violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring with other
companies to swindle broiler chicken growers by suppressing the
value of chicken-growing services.

The settlement will benefit individuals or entities who paid
Sanderson or one of its alleged co-conspirators -- including Foster
Farms, Peco Foods and Case Foods, among others -- between Jan. 27,
2013, and Dec. 31, 2019.

Individuals or entities that want to make a claim to join the class
action settlement must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 13, 2023.


Midwestern Pet Foods agrees to pay $6.375M over recalled pet food
products
Midwestern Pet Foods agreed to pay $6.375 million to end claims it
sold pet food products containing dangerously high levels of
aflatoxin that were contaminated with salmonella.

The class action settlement benefits individuals who purchased one
or more of a recalled pet food product manufactured by either
Midwestern or Nunn Milling Co.

Consumers must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 3, 2023, to
qualify to make a claim to join the class action settlement.

Build-A-Bear to pay $4.1M to end claims it sent unsolicited text
messages

Build-A-Bear Workshop agreed to pay $4.1 million to resolve claims
the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
by allegedly placing unsolicited text messages to consumers who
rescinded consent.

The class action settlement benefits individuals who received two
or more promotional text messages from or on behalf of Build-A-Bear
Workshop within a 12-month period between Sept. 24, 2017, and March
28, 2023, after having revoked consent to receiving them.

Individuals who want to make a claim to join the class action
settlement must submit a valid claim form by July 7, 2023.

Health Insurance Associates to pay $990,000 to resolve
telemarketing claims
Health Insurance Associates agreed to pay $990,000 to resolve
claims the company violated the TCPA by allegedly placing
unsolicited telemarketing calls to numbers listed on the National
Do Not Call Registry.

The settlement will benefit a class of individuals who received two
or more telemarketing calls from Health Insurance Associates from
within a 12-month period to a number listed on the National Do Not
Call Registry for more than 30 days.

Individuals must submit a valid claim form by June 9, 2023, to be
eligible to make a claim to join the class action settlement.

Adidas agrees to settle claims it charged higher tax rate than
allowed by Missouri law
Adidas agreed to a class action settlement that will resolve claims
the company charged a higher tax rate than is allowed by Missouri
law.

The settlement will benefit a class of consumers who purchased a
product from Adidas' website between Oct. 1, 2016, and Oct. 31,
2020, that was shipped to a Missouri address from a non-Missouri
location.

Consumers do not need to submit a claim form to be eligible to join
the class action settlement. The deadline for exclusion and
objection is Aug. 3, 2023.

Farfetch agrees to pay $4M over claims it recorded customer service
calls
Farfetch agreed to pay $4 million to put to bed claims the company
violated California law by allegedly recording customer service
telephone calls without first obtaining consent from the caller.

The settlement will benefit a class of California residents who
placed a call to Farfetch's customer service telephone line between
April 1, 2019, and Aug. 3, 2020, and who were not told their call
may be recorded.

Individuals who want to make a claim to join the class action
settlement must submit a valid claim form by June 11, 2023.

SeatGeek settles claims it failed to provide full cash refunds to
pandemic-canceled events
SeatGeek agreed to a settlement that will resolve claims the
company failed to provide customers with full cash refunds for
events canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The class action settlement will benefit individuals who, from
between Sept. 10, 2019, and March 17, 2020, purchased a ticket on
SeatGeek's mobile website for a live event that was canceled and
not rescheduled.

Consumers must submit a valid claim form by Aug. 14, 2023, to
qualify to make a claim to join the class action settlement.

Inmate Services to pay $625,000 to resolve brutal conditions claims

Inmate Services agreed to pay $625,000 to end claims the prisoner
transportation company subjected inmates to brutal conditions while
they were being transported.

The settlement benefits a class of individuals Inmate Services
transported after Feb. 11, 2016, and whose trip -- or any leg of
the trip -- exceeded 24 continuous hours.

Individuals who want to make a claim to join the class action
settlement must submit a valid claim form by June 30, 2023. [GN]

UNITED RECOVERY: Faces Class Action Over FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Justin Russell of Kalikhman & Rayz, LLC disclosed that recently,
together with colleagues at Connolly Wells & Gray, LLP, attorneys
from Kalikhman & Rayz, LLC initiated a class action against United
Recovery Systems, LP -- a debt collector based in Houston, Texas.
As detailed in the complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, United Recovery
Systems improperly disclosed consumers' personal identifying
information on the face of the envelopes used for collection
notices. This practice is unlawful under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., as recently declared
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Douglass, et
al. v. Convergent Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299 (3rd Cir. 2014). [GN]


UNITED STATES: King Appeals Summary Judgment Order to Fed. Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM KING, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled William King, et al., individually and on behalf
of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United
States, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01115-RAH, in the U.S. District
Court of Federal Claims.

In this certified class action, the Plaintiffs are vested
participants and beneficiaries in a pension plan. They allege that
the United States, acting through the Department of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Department of Labor, and the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corp. ("PBGC"), violated the takings clause of the
fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution in October 2017 by
authorizing a 29-percent cut to their pension benefits under the
Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 ("MPRA").

The Plaintiff class members who were still alive in December 2022
saw their pension benefits restored under the American Rescue Plan
Act of 2021 ("ARPA") and received lump-sum make-up payments without
interest in the amount that had been withheld from them. The
Plaintiffs maintain their suit for interest on the amounts withheld
while the benefit cuts were in effect and because the estates of
the participants and beneficiaries who died between October 2017
and December 2022 have received reduced or no make-up payments.

The following class was certified pursuant to RCFC 23: Any person
(whether a participant, beneficiary, or other individual) who
received one or more pension payments from the New York State
Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (the Fund) on or
after Oct. 1, 2017 unless either (1) that person was an Active
Participant as of Oct. 1, 2017 or (2) all pension payments that
were received by that person since Oct. 1, 2017 were reduced by 0%
relative to the sum the recipient would have been entitled to
receive if the Defendant had not authorized the Fund, in or around
September 2017, to reduce certain pension benefits under the
Kline-Miller Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014.

The parties cross-moved for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the
Rules of the Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). The cross-motions
present two issues: (1) whether the Plaintiffs' claims are more
appropriately resolved as a classic physical taking or under the
more flexible regulatory-takings test provided in Penn Central
Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978); and
(2) the application of the appropriate takings test. This case has
important implications for the constitutional limits on the ability
of Congress and regulators to address the problem of
multiemployer-pension-plan insolvency.

Judge Richard A. Hertling explains that the underlying facts
regarding the suspension of the Plaintiffs' pension benefits are
not in dispute. Although the parties dispute the legal
characterization of those facts, he says a trial would not affect
the outcome of the suit under governing law and would not make
either party's argument more or less probative. Both parties agree
that no material facts remain in dispute, and no disputed facts are
apparent. Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate in the
case.

Judge Hertling concluded that the physical-takings test does not
apply to the Plaintiffs' claims. He says Supreme Court precedents
reject the application of the physical-takings test to ERISA
amendments applicable to multiemployer pension plans when the
government seizes nothing for its own use. The government in this
case has appropriated nothing for its own use; rather, it altered
the governing regulatory framework to permit the Teamsters Fund to
reduce the Plaintiffs' benefits to avoid insolvency. Finally, the
Plaintiffs' property has been neither appropriated nor occupied
unconstitutionally because the Teamsters Fund trustees have always
had the right to amend the plan documents in accordance with
evolving legal requirements, especially as related to financial
stability. The Plaintiffs' effort to apply the physical-takings
test to their claims is rejected.

The Plaintiffs have also failed to show that a regulatory taking
has occurred, Judge Hertling says. The economic impact to the
Plaintiffs is not enough to support a finding that a regulatory
taking has occurred, there was minimal government interference with
their reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character
of the government action was relatively unobtrusive.

The Defendant therefore has not violated the takings clause of the
fifth amendment, ruled the court. The Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment was denied, and the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment was granted. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify conditional
sub-classes was denied as moot.

The appellate case is captioned King v. U.S., Case No. 23-1956, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, filed
on May 30, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM KING, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Noah Aaron Messing, Esq.
            NOAH MESSING
            250 Park Avenue
            Ste., 7th Floor
            New York, NY 10077
            Telephone: (212) 960-3720
            E-mail: nm@messingspector.com

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:

            Geoffrey Martin Long, Esq.
            U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - CIVIL DIVISION (G)
            Post Office Box 480
            Ben Franklin Station
            Washington, DC 20044
            Telephone: (202) 307-0159
            Facsimile: (202) 307-0972
            E-mail: geoffrey.m.long@usdoj.gov

VANTAGE DELUXE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Refunds
------------------------------------------------------
Jason Law, writing for Boston 25 News, reports that a 65-year-old
California woman is the lead plaintiff in a class action suit
against Boston-based cruise company Vantage Deluxe World Travel,
court documents show.

The suit, filed June 4, accuses Vantage of owing thousands of
customers tens of millions of dollars in unpaid refunds while
"continuing to sell trips, cancel trips and let these unpaid
refunds pile up."

The plaintiff's attorney, Ron Dunbar, Jr., said most of the
victims, in this case, appear to be senior citizens.

"I don't think I've spoken to anyone under 65," Dunbar, Jr. said.
"Everyone had the same story. They booked the trip a few years ago,
paid cash for a discount, and was notified it was canceled. I don't
think anyone got more than 24 hours' notice."

Dunbar's suit also accuses Vantage of encouraging its customers to
pay with cash and offering discounts on trips if paid in advance
with cash. Dunbar believes Vantage's debt dates back to 2017 and
2018, court documents show. He said Vantage has not responded to
the court filing.

"Vantage is not informing its customers of the truth," the suit
alleges.

In an internal email obtained by Consumer Rescue, Vantage V.P. of
Worldwide Operations & Marketing Deirdre Dirkman told employees the
company is postponing trips through Aug. 28 because of the
company's "impending transaction." According to the email, Dirkman
said Vantage decided to dock two of its vessels—Ocean Explorer
and Ocean Odyssey—in France, "until we have a better idea of the
timeline for restarting operations."

The Mass. Attorney General's Office says it received at least 793
complaints against Vantage Deluxe World Travel since Jan. 1, 2020,
including 156 complaints filed in 2023.

Consumer Rescue founder Michelle Couch-Friedman said she's been in
contact with hundreds of customers who are not getting refunds or
finding their trips cancelled at the last minute. Couch-Friedman's
organization helps mediate complaints between customers and
companies. She has documented the problems with Vantage on her
website.

"People are contacting me, they're desperate," Couch-Friedman said.
"I started receiving phone calls and emails from Vantage employees
and many of these employees sound as distraught as the Vantage
customers."

Vantage has not responded to repeated requests for comment. The
company, which markets its trips as "deluxe travel," has offices on
Canal St. and has been around since 1983, according to its website.
The AG's Office has been in contact with the company regarding its
"recently reported problems" but an AG spokesperson said they could
not provide any additional information.

Despite the moratorium on trips through Aug. 28, at least one
Vantage customer has received an advertisement for a 2024 Vantage
Icelandic cruise. There's nothing on the company's website
indicating there's a problem or that trips are postponed.

"The brochures are still coming through and the company is acting
like this is business as usual," Couch-Friedman said.

The AG's Office said most of the consumer complaints against
Vantage come from outside Massachusetts. At least 70 of the
complaints are from Bay State residents. An AG spokesperson
encourages consumers to file complaints with the Mass. AG's Office.
[GN]

VANTAGE TRAVEL: Woolf Sues Over Failure to Refund Cancelled Trips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE WOOLF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VANTAGE TRAVEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-11261 (D. Mass., June 4, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel,
unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of
Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to refund the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers their payments for a
trip that was cancelled. The Plaintiff and other Vantage customers
have contacted Vantage for refunds and all of them have been
stonewalled and misled. On June 1, 2023, Vantage employees received
an internal memo that all journeys through August 28, 2023 would be
postponed. There has been no such announcement to current Vantage
customers with upcoming trips. Customers are not advised of trips
cancellations until a day or so prior to the trip; some even find
out once they have reached their overseas destination. As a result
of Vantage's breach, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages,
says the suit.

Vantage Travel Service, Inc. is a tour operator, with its principal
place of business at 90 Canal Street, Boston, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Ronald W. Dunbar, Jr., Esq.
         DUNBAR LAW P.C.
         10 Post Office Square
         Boston, MA 02109
         Telephone: (617) 244-3550
         E-mail: dunbar@dunbarlawpc.com

WELCH FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Certain Sinatro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss
certain claims in the lawsuit styled MATTHEW SINATRO, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. WELCH FOODS INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-07028-JD (N.D. Cal.).

In this putative consumer class action, Plaintiffs Matthew Sinatro
and Shane Winkelbauer challenge the "no preservatives" claims that
Defendants Welch Foods Inc. and Promotion in Motion, Inc., place on
the labels of Welch's Fruit Snacks products. The Plaintiffs say
that the products contain two preservatives -- citric and lactic
acid -- and that the Defendants knowingly mislabel their products
in order to boost sales.

The operative first amended complaint (FAC) presents claims against
the Defendants for violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law; the False Advertising Law; and the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, as well as claims for fraudulent inducement, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment. The
Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief, a corrective
advertising campaign, and restitution, among other remedies.

The Defendants ask to dismiss certain claims in the FAC under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Specifically, the Defendants request dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
claims for injunctive relief, any claims to the extent they are
based on online advertising statements that the Plaintiffs never
saw, and the claim for unjust enrichment.

The Defendants challenge whether the Plaintiffs have Article III
standing to seek injunctive relief. The Defendants say that the
Plaintiffs lack standing because neither the Plaintiff alleges they
would be interested in purchasing the Products if they contained no
preservatives, and that there is no threat of future injury because
the Plaintiffs now know the Products contain the purported
preservatives and know where to identify those ingredients on the
Products' labels.

Judge Donato holds that the points are not well taken. Sinatro
plausibly alleges that (i) he enjoys fruit snacks as a common
household staple and intends to purchase the Products again in the
future if he could be sure that the Products' labeling was
truthful, (ii) in the future he will be unable to determine with
confidence based on the labeling and/or other marketing materials,
and without specialized knowledge, whether the Products truly
contain 'No Preservatives' including any beyond citric or lactic
acid, and (iii) he cannot rely on the No Preservatives or any other
Label representations with confidence in the future, and so he will
not know if he should buy the Product again as he intends and
wishes to do.

Plainly speaking, Judge Donato says, the Plaintiffs are interested
in the truth of the "no preservatives" claim on the packaging
because they would buy the fruit snacks if they were sure that the
snacks contained no preservatives. While Sinatro and Winkelbauer
now understand the claim to be false, Judge Donato finds that they
have plausibly alleged that they will be unable to rely on the
representations on the fruit snacks going forward, including any
claims regarding the presence of preservatives, without an
injunction. This is enough for the Plaintiffs to proceed with their
claims for injunctive relief.

The Defendants contend that the plaintiffs lack standing to assert
claims based upon various website and marketing representations
they identify, but which they do not allege to have seen or relied
upon in marketing their purchases. The FAC refers to the
Defendants' marketing of the fruit snacks on the Welch's Fruit
Snacks website and Twitter account, but neither Sinatro nor
Winkelbauer allege that they saw or relied upon any representations
made online.

According to the Plaintiffs, these allegations are relevant to the
materiality of the "no preservatives" misrepresentation to a
reasonable consumer, as well as the Defendants' knowledge and
intent. The allegations will be considered for those purposes, to
the extent that they inform the Plaintiffs' label-based claims,
Judge Donato holds.

Dismissal of any claims is not warranted at this juncture, Judge
Donato opines. Notwithstanding some ambiguity in the FAC, the
Plaintiffs have not suggested in opposing the Defendants' motion
that they are bringing independent claims premised on the
Defendants' online marketing or advertising. The Court will revisit
this issue as warranted by developments in the case.

Lastly, the Defendants seek dismissal of the unjust enrichment
claim. They say that the claim must be dismissed because the
Plaintiffs also assert a claim for breach of express warranty, and
under California law, there cannot be a claim based on
quasi-contract where there exists between the parties a valid
express contract covering the same subject matter.

The point is not well taken, Judge Donato says. Rule 8(d) expressly
permits the Plaintiffs to allege alternative and/or inconsistent
theories of liability at the pleadings stage. In this case, the FAC
asserts the unjust enrichment claim "in the alternative," in the
event "there are no enforceable contractual obligations between the
Parties."

The Defendants also ask to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim on
the ground that "California does not recognize unjust enrichment as
an independent cause of action." But the "status of unjust
enrichment as an independent cause of action under California law
is not clear," Judge Donato opines, citing Lundy v. Facebook Inc.,
No. 18-cv-06793-JD, 2021 WL 4503071, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30,
2021).

The Court declines to dismiss the claim at this stage of the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 22, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5abfhcw8 from Leagle.com.


WES INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Laborers' Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Viveros, Reni Tavera, and other Similarly situated
individuals v. Wes Industries, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-01209 (M.D.
Fla., May 31, 2023) seeks to recover regular wages, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable Attorney's
fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of
the Plaintiffs and all other current and former employees similarly
situated to the Plaintiffs and who worked in excess of 40 hours
during one or more weeks on or after February 2023, without being
adequately compensated.

The Plaintiffs worked from 5:00 AM to 7:00 PM (12 hours per day),
or 60 hours per week. the Plaintiffs were supposed to be paid
weekly for their working hours at the regular rate of $30.00 an
hour. The Plaintiffs' overtime rate should be $45.00. During their
employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiffs were not paid their
wages timely on payday. There was a substantial number of hours
that were not paid to the Plaintiffs at any rate, not even at the
minimum wage rate, as required by law, says the suit.

Accordingly, the Defendant did not have any method to track the
number of hours that the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees worked. However, the Defendant knew the number of hours
that the Plaintiffs were working. Therefore, the Defendant
willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs regular wages and overtime
hours at the rate of time and one-half their regular rate for every
hour that they worked over 40, in violation of Section 7 (a) of the
FLSA, the suit alleges.

On or about February 24, 2023, the Plaintiffs complained to owner
Anthony Deloach about their unpaid wages and overtime. Mr. Deloach
then fired the Plaintiffs for complaining about their unpaid
wages.

Plaintiffs Angel Viveros and Reni Taveras had duties as roofer
laborers at various job sites in Sarasota, Florida.

Wes Industries is a design-build environmental firm.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

WHITING OIL: Hystad Ceynar Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
HYSTAD CEYNAR MINERALS, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing its lawsuit entitled Hystad Ceynar Minerals, LLC, on
behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. Whiting Oil and Gas Corp., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00138-DLH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
North Dakota.

This action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a proposed
class of similarly situated persons. Since August 12, 2016, Hystad
has owned an interest in oil and gas produced from wells Whiting
operates in North Dakota. The first amended complaint alleges
Whiting made untimely payments to the Plaintiff and class members
without paying 18% interest as required by North Dakota Century
Code (N.D.C.C.).

On Oct. 17, 2022, Whiting filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
first amended complaint and strike class allegations.

On May 9, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended class action complaint.

On May 15, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss and denied the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a
second amended class action complaint through an Order entered by
Judge Daniel L. Hovland. Judge Hovland found that Hystad's
declaratory judgment claim lacks a definite and concrete dispute.
Accordingly, Hystad's declaratory judgment claim fails to present
an actual controversy and is not ripe for adjudication. Dismissal
of Hystad's declaratory judgment claim is warranted.

The appellate case is captioned Hystad Ceynar Minerals, LLC v.
Whiting Oil and Gas Corp., Case No. 23-8005, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on May 30, 2023.
[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner HYSTAD CEYNAR MINERALS, LLC, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            George A. Barton, Esq.
            Seth K. Jones, Esq.
            Stacy Ann Burrows, Esq.
            BARTON & BURROWS
            5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
            Mission, KS 66205
            Telephone: (913) 563-6250
                       (913) 563-6253

Defendant-Respondent WHITING OIL AND GAS CORPORATION is represented
by:

            Zachary R. Eiken, Esq.
            Paul J. Forster, Esq.
            CROWLEY & FLECK
            100 W. Broadway
            P.O. Box 2798
            Bismarck, ND 58502
            Telephone: (701) 223-6585

                     - and -

            Ragan Naresh, Esq.
            KIRKLAND & ELLIS
            655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
            Washington, DC 20005
            Telephone: (202) 879-5267

                     - and -

            Charles S. Nary, Esq.
            KIRKLAND & ELLIS
            1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
            Washington, DC 20004

                     - and -

            Anna Rotman, Esq.
            Kenneth A. Young, Esq.
            KIRKLAND & ELLIS
            609 Main Street
            Houston, TX 77002
            Telephone: (713) 836-3600

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honx to Pay $106MM in Ch. 11 to Resolve Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Nani of Bankruptcy Law reports that global oil and gas
company Hess Corp. would pay at least $106 million under a plan to
resolve hundreds of asbestos claims tied to its bankrupt
subsidiary, according to court documents.

Honx Inc.'s Chapter 11 reorganization plan aims to resolve roughly
900 current claims from workers and their families who say they
were exposed to asbestos at its former oil refinery. The plan also
aims to resolve future asbestos-related claims.

Hess Corp. put Honx into bankruptcy in April 2022 to avoid
litigating hundreds of asbestos lawsuits tied to an oil refinery it
no longer owns.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: LTL Renews Suit Alleging Doctor Concealed Evidence
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Church of Bloomberg News reports that a bankrupt Johnson &
Johnson unit, LTL Management, has renewed a suit against a
prominent doctor accusing her of concealing alternative asbestos
exposure evidence and disparaging J&J's baby powder and other talc
products.

Jacqueline Moline's 2019 published study saying 33 people who used
talc powder developed the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma but
had no other potential asbestos exposure was knowingly false, LTL
Management LLC said in the complaint filed Wednesday in New Jersey
federal district court.

The lawsuit comes almost two months after LTL entered Chapter 11
for a second time aiming to settle tens of thousands of claims that
its talc-based products.


                            *********

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 ***