/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220803.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, August 3, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 148

                            Headlines

AG BELLS: Daniel Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Kentucky
AIRCRAFT SERVICE: Fails to Pay Drivers' OT Wages, Mathis Suit Says
ALCOA CORP: Lavoie Suit Settled after Mediation
ALERTONE SERVICES: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMAZON SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Leitch Suit Alleges

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Marcus Corporation Class Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Oliver Class Suit Ongoing in New York
AMIYA PRASAD: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ARIAS AGENCIES: Burkes Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
AUTO-OWNERS MUTUAL: Court Enters Final Judgment in Donofrio Suit

AUTOASSURE LLC: McGuire Seeks OT Wages for Sales Reps Under FLSA
BAPTIST HEALTHCARE: Roberts, et al., Seek to Certify Nurse Class
BELCAN CORPORATION: Denies Recruiters' OT Pay Under FLSA, PMWA
BLUE CROSS: New Mexico Suit Removed from State Court to D.N.M.
BRISTOL BAY: August 3 Class Cert Hearing Vacated in Abikar Suit

BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: Pellecchia Files Suit in D. New Jersey
CALIFORNIA: Magistrate Judge Endorses Denial of Wilson's TRO Bid
CCUR HOLDINGS: Appeal From Interlocutory Order in Samuels Denied
CHAMPION OPCO: Harris Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: $39MM Damages Pay in Winchester Suit Upheld

COMENITY CAPITAL BANK: Crisp Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
COMMUNITY COACH: Court Grants in Part Ajasin's Motion in Limine
COMPOSITES HORIZONS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under Labor Code
COOLER SCREENS: Citizens Insurance Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
DVINCI ENERGY: Loses Bid to Strike Class Claims in Costa TCPA Suit

EDGIO INC: Assad Sues Over Breach of Corporate Fiduciary Duties
ELON LLC: Faces Romero Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
FORBES MEDIA: Transmits Customers' Info to Third Parties, Lamb Says
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Ali Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class
GLENS FALLS: Class Settlement in Richard Suit Wins Final Approval

GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Deluca Securities Suit in New York
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Kinnie Ma Securities Suit in Texas Court
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Ortiz Suit Over Deceptive Practices
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Stanley S. Securities Suit in Texas
GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Sued Over Fund Mismanagement

H&M HENNES: Website Not Accessible to Blind People, Velazquez Says
HARBOR FREIGHT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Isaacs Suit Claims
HAWBAKER INC: Court Modifies Class Certification Briefing Dates
HOWARD COUNTY, IN: Faces Partlow Suit Over Wage & Hour Violations
HP INC: Sells Defective Desktops & Laptops, Pietosi Suit Says

IBM CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit in NY Court
IBM CORP: Faces Suit in NY Court Over Pension Plan
ILLINOIS: District Court Tosses Adamczyk v. IDOC Without Prejudice
INFLECTION RISK: Taylor Class Action Settlement Has Initial OK
INSTITUTE FOR THE PUERTO RICAN: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Wages

ISSEY MIYAKE USA: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JINX INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Slade Suit Says
KEEN INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KOHL'S INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California
L'OREAL USA: Violates Biometric Information Privacy Act, Suit Says

LA GARCONNE LLC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Faces Daniels Family Trust Suit
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Faces Turesky Shareholder Suit in Nevada Court
LEAH PALMER: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LIBERTY RESIDENTIAL: Amaya Suit Remanded to San Diego State Court

LUNDA CONSTRUCTION: Hanlon Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, WWPCL
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: More Time to File Responsive Pleading Sought
MICHAEL KORS: Wiretaps Electronic Communications, Valenzuela Says
NEW YORK, NY: Underpays Sanitation Enforcement Agents, Dowdy Says
OPTIMA BEAUTY JH: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

PAINTBOX LLC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PARKING AUTHORITY: Appeal From Summary Judgment in Bolus Suit Nixed
PERDUE FARMS: Misclassifies Chicken Farmers, Parker Suit Says
PHILO INC: Discloses Digital Subscribers' Identities, Newlands Says
POKE BURRITO: Villegas Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

PREHIRED RECRUITING: Nguyen Sues Over Prehired Training Program
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Venero Files Suit in D. Maryland
PS GLOBAL LLC: Christodoulou Files Suit in E.D. New York
RANDALL-REILLY LLC: Discloses Private Reading Info, Sharper Alleges
RANGE RESOURCES: Jacobowitz Shareholder Suit Dismissed

REBECCA TAYLOR INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REPROSOURCE FERTILITY: Bickham Data Breach Suit Ongoing
REPROSOURCE FERTILITY: Gordon Data Breach Litigation Ongoing
REVOLUTION TRUCKING: Woolf Seeks to Certify Class Action
RIO PROPERTIES: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Leigh-Pink Suit

ROFX.NET: Birmingham, et al., Seek Default Judgment vs. Mayon
RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Suit in New York Court
SELF FINANCIAL: Nunez Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
SKYFINEUSA LLC: Stokes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SNAP INC: Class A Stockholders Suit Ongoing

SNOWDEN CAPITAL: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOCIAL FIRESTARTER: Jimenez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
SOCLEAN INC: Hughes Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
SOCLEAN INC: Monaghan Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
SOCLEAN INC: Wazny Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania

STATE FARM: Arizona Court Approves Class Notice in McClure Suit
T-MOBILE US: To Settle Data Breach Suit in Missouri Court
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Generic Drugs
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Environmental Suit Over Plant Emissions
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Israeli Consumer Suit

TDB COMMUNICATIONS: Ramos Suit Remanded to Sacramento Super. Court
TESLA INC: Elon Musk Dismissed from Securities Suit
TESLA INC: Faces Nunez Class Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE: Schoenholtz Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: Bauserman May Recover Tort Claim Damages

UNITED PARCEL: $5.7M Class Settlement in Bleachtech Gets Final Nod
VANGUARD CHESTER: Lichtenstein Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
WAKEFERN FOOD: Feldman Sues Over Mislabeled Whole Grain Products
WASHINGTON: District Court Dismisses Demos v. DOC Without Prejudice
WATTS GUERRA: Dismissal of Kellogg's Fraud and RICO Claims Upheld

YUMA REGIONAL MEDICAL: Dallas Suit Removed to D. Arizona

                            *********

AG BELLS: Daniel Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AG Bells, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Beryl Daniel, Jr., and all others similarly
situated v. AG Bells, LLC, Savannah Quesada, Case No.
2:22-cv-00093-WOB-CJS (E.D. Ky., July 22, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.

AG Bells -- https://www.silverbells.com/ -- operates Taco Bell
restaurants in the Cincinnati and Chicago areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark N. Foster, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK FOSTER
          P.O. Box 869
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Phone: (270) 213-1303
          Email: mfoster@marknfoster.com


AIRCRAFT SERVICE: Fails to Pay Drivers' OT Wages, Mathis Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RUEBEN MATHIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AIRCRAFT SERVICE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
9:22-cv-81089 (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2022) alleges that the Defendant
willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
properly pay intrastate Florida drivers, including Plaintiff, for
all of their overtime hours worked.

The proposed FLSA Collective is defined as follows:

   "All intrastate drivers and employees in similar positions who
   are or were employed by Aircraft Service International, Inc.
   anywhere in the State of Florida at any time three years prior
   to the filing of this Complaint through the present and
   beyond."

According to its LinkedIn page, the Defendant "is a global provider
of ground, fuel and airport facility services to airlines,
airports, oil companies and industry partners around the world and
are one of the market leaders for into-plane fuelling and fuel farm
management services." (last visited July 18, 2022).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Alan Quiles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          981 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  aquiles@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Sara Wyn Kane, Esq.
          Alexander M. White, Esq.
          VALLI KANE & VAGNINI, LLP
          600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7180
          Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
          E-mail: skane@vkvlawyers.com
                  awhite@vkvlawyers.com

ALCOA CORP: Lavoie Suit Settled after Mediation
-----------------------------------------------
Alcoa Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 26, 2022, that a class action
settlement in the Danny Lavoie suit was approved by the court thus
dismissing the litigation in May 2022.

In August 2005, Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie-Comeau in the
Canadian Province of Quebec, filed a Motion for Authorization to
Institute a Class Action and for Designation of a Class
Representative against Alcoa Canada Ltd., Alcoa Limitee, Societe
Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitee, and Canadian British
Aluminum in the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of
Baie-Comeau, alleging that defendants, as the present and past
owners and operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie-Comeau, had
negligently allowed the emission of certain contaminants from the
smelter on the lands and houses of the St. Georges neighborhood and
its environs causing property damage and personal injury.

In May 2007, the court authorized a class action suit on behalf of
all people who suffered property or personal injury damages caused
by the emission of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from the
company's aluminum smelter in Baie-Comeau. In September 2007,
plaintiffs filed the claim against the original defendants.

The Soderberg smelting operations that plaintiffs allege to be the
source of emissions of concern ceased operations in 2013 and have
been dismantled. A court appointed expert, engaged to perform
analysis of the potential impacts from the emissions in accordance
with a sampling protocol agreed to by the parties, submitted its
report to the court in May 2019. In 2021, plaintiffs filed their
amended claim and expert reports, and defendants filed their
amended defense and expert reports.

In October 2021, the parties participated in mediation. In March
2022, the parties reached a settlement for damages that is subject
to court approval. On May 31, 2022, the court entered a judgment
approving the settlement and formally concluding the litigation.

Alcoa Corporation is a producer of bauxite, alumina and aluminum
products.


ALERTONE SERVICES: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AlertOne Services,
LLC. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. AlertOne Services, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-06313 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2022).

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

AlertONE Service -- https://alertoneservice.com/ -- specializes in
Voice and Data Networks, life safety, mass notification, situation
awareness, access control, video analytics, surveillance,
communication, distributed antenna, intrusion detection, and other
related low voltage systems.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAZON SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Leitch Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN LEITCH; JERRELL SAMUELS; and ABRIL VITTE-RUIZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. AMAZON SERVICES COM LLC f/k/a AMAZON SERVICES COM
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06121-LGS (S.D.N.Y., July 18,
2022) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours,
overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest
periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as warehouse
associates.

AMAZON SERVICES LLC offers many of the Web service platforms that
are Amazon offers. The Company was founded in 2006 and is based in
Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
          ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C.
          17 State Street, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 267-2101
          Email: rw@rwapc.com

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Marcus Corporation Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
American Express Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that it is facing a putative
class action filed in the Southern District of New York and
subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York,
captioned "The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al.,"
in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying
arrangement between certain of its charge cards and credit cards in
violation of various state and federal laws.

The plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.

American Express Company is a globally integrated payments company
that include credit and charge card products, along with travel and
lifestyle related services, offered to consumers and businesses
around the world.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Oliver Class Suit Ongoing in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that it is facing a putative
class action brought in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York in January 29, 2019, captioned
"Anthony Oliver, et al. v. American Express Company and American
Express Travel Related Services Company Inc."

Plaintiffs are holders of MasterCard, Visa and/or Discover credit
cards (but not American Express cards) and allege they paid higher
prices as a result of its alleged anti-steering and
non-discrimination provisions in violation of federal antitrust law
and the antitrust and consumer laws of various states. Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages and other forms of relief.

The court dismissed plaintiffs' federal antitrust claim, numerous
state antitrust and consumer protection claims and their unjust
enrichment claim. The remaining claims in plaintiffs' complaint
arise under the antitrust laws of 11 states and the consumer
protection laws of six states.

American Express Company is a globally integrated payments company
that include credit and charge card products, along with travel and
lifestyle related services, offered to consumers and businesses
around the world.


AMIYA PRASAD: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amiya Prasad, M.D.,
P.C. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Amiya Prasad, M.D., P.C. doing
business as: Prasad Cosmetic Surgery, Case No.
1:22-cv-04376-LDH-JRC (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2022).

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

Amiya Prasad, M.D., P.C. doing business as Prasad Cosmetic Surgery
-- https://prasadcosmeticsurgery.com/ -- is a highly sought after
Cosmetic Surgeon specializing in eyelid surgery, dimple surgery,
facelift, hair loss, body contouring, laser and radiofrequency
technology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARIAS AGENCIES: Burkes Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arias Agencies, et
al. The case is styled as David Burkes, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated v. Arias Agencies, American Income Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-01054-MJH (W.D. Penn., July 22,
2022).

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

Arias Agencies -- https://www.ariasagencies.com/ -- is a franchise
of the American Income Life Insurance Company who use financial
products to help blue collar Americans protect their assets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy N. Williamson, Esq.
          WILLIAMSON LAW, LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 600-8862
          Email: awilliamson@awilliamsonlaw.com


AUTO-OWNERS MUTUAL: Court Enters Final Judgment in Donofrio Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Water H. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Southern Division, Dayton, enters Final Judgment
in the case, MARY DONOFRIO, individually and on behalf of all other
Ohio residents similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTO-OWNERS
(MUTUAL) INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-58-WHR
(S.D. Ohio).

The claims of Representative Plaintiff Donofrio against the
Defendant Auto-Owners have been settled pursuant to the Stipulation
and Settlement Agreement dated March 10, 2022. On March 18, 2022,
the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action
settlement set forth in the Agreement and provisionally certified
the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only.

On July 5, 2022, the Court held a duly noticed final approval
hearing to consider: (1) whether the terms and conditions of the
Agreement are fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether judgment
should be entered dismissing the Representative Plaintiff's claims
on the merits and with prejudice, including the claims of Class
Members who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class;
and (3) whether and in what amount to award attorneys' fees and
expenses to Class Counsel and service awards to the Representative
Plaintiff.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Judge Rice finally certifies the
Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, as identified in the
Settlement Agreement, defined as follows:

     a. All policyholders within the Settlement Class, but
excluding (i) policyholders whose claims arose under policy forms,
endorsements, or riders expressly permitting Nonmaterial
Depreciation within the text of the policy form, endorsement or
rider (i.e., by express use of the words depreciation and labor);
(ii) policyholders who received one or more ACV Payments for
claims, but not replacement cost value payments, that exhausted the
applicable limits of insurance; (iii) policyholders whose claims
were denied or abandoned without ACV Payment; (iv) Defendant and
its officers and directors; (v) members of the judiciary and their
staff to whom this action is assigned and their immediate families;
and (vi) Class Counsel and their immediate families (collectively,
Exclusions).

     b. Settlement Class means, except for Exclusions, all of
Defendant's property insurance policyholders who made a Structural
Loss claim: (a) for property located in the State of Ohio during
the applicable Class Periods as defined in Section 2.12; that (b)
resulted in an ACV Payment from which Nonmaterial Depreciation was
withheld, or that would have resulted in an ACV Payment but for the
withholding of Nonmaterial Depreciation causing the loss to drop
below the applicable deductible.

     c. Class Periods mean the following time periods:

          i. For policyholders with policies containing a one-year
suit limitations period, Structural Loss claims with dates of loss
on or after Feb. 25, 2018.

          ii. For policyholders with policies containing a two-year
suit limitations period, Structural Loss claims with dates of loss
on or after Feb. 25, 2017.

Judge Rice appoints (i) attorneys Erik D. Peterson, of Erik
Peterson Law Offices, PSC, and Stephen G. Whetstone, of Whetstone
Legal, LLC as the Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; and (ii)
Donofrio as the representative of the Settlement Class.

Those three persons who timely sought exclusion from the Settlement
Class are preserved and that no person was precluded from being
excluded from the Settlement Class if desired.

Judge Rice awards (i) the Class Counsel attorneys' fees and
expenses in the total amount of $1.74 million, and (ii) a service
award in the amount of $7,500 to the Representative Plaintiff.
These amounts are payable by the Defendant pursuant to the terms of
the Agreement. It will not be responsible for and will not be
liable with respect to the allocation among the Class Counsel or
any other person who may assert a claim thereto of attorneys' fees
and expenses awarded by the Court.

Within 10 days after the Effective Date, Representative Plaintiff
and Class Members will dismiss with prejudice all Released Claims
asserted in any actions or proceedings that have been brought by or
involve any Class Member in any jurisdiction.

The Released Claims of Representative Plaintiff, individually and
on behalf of the Settlement Class, are settled, compromised, and
dismissed on the merits and with prejudice against the Defendant
without fees (including attorneys' fees) or costs to any party
except as otherwise provided in the Judgment.

The Parties are directed to implement and consummate the Settlement
according to its terms and provisions, as may be modified by Orders
of the Court. Without further order of the Court, they may agree to
reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of
the Agreement, as may be modified by the Preliminary Approval Order
or the Judgment.

Judge Rice enters Final Judgment and expressly determines that
there is no just reason for delay. Without impacting the finality
of the Judgment, the Court will retain jurisdiction over the
construction, interpretation, consummation, implementation, and
enforcement of the Agreement and the Judgment, including
jurisdiction to enter such further orders as may be necessary or
appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bde3vkdc from Leagle.com.


AUTOASSURE LLC: McGuire Seeks OT Wages for Sales Reps Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL MCGUIRE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AUTOASSURE, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00780 (E.D. Mo., July
25, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages and attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff brings these claims individually and as a collective
and class action on behalf of himself and all current or former
Service Plan Specialists, Sales Representatives and Senior Sales
Representatives who were employed by the Defendant in the state of
Missouri who were not paid overtime at one and a half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.

Plaintiff Paul McGuire is a major individual domiciled in the City
of Wentzville, State of Missouri, who was employed by Defendant in
Missouri as a Service Plan Specialist from August, 2014 to October,
2021.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com

               - and -

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7115
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com

BAPTIST HEALTHCARE: Roberts, et al., Seek to Certify Nurse Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA ROBERTS and
ELIZABETH ESPREE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. BAPTIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, LLC, BAPTIST HOSPITALS OF
SOUTHEAST TEXAS, and BAPTIST BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER, Case No.
1:20-cv-00092-MAC-CLS (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
for an order certifying their claims as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The Plaintiffs contend that all of the requirements for Rule 23 are
met. They, both of whom are members of the class(es) and/or
subclass(es), can establish their claims in a readily manageable
trial using common proof on behalf of the current and former
non-exempt Registered Nurses ("RNs") and patient care workers known
as Psychiatric Technicians or "Psych Techs" employed by Baptist
Hospital for Southeast Texas and Baptist Behavioral Health Center
at the Behavioral Health Center from March 4, 2016 to the
resolution of this action (the "Class Period").

The Defendants' hospital-wide policies and practices are and were
uniformly applied and resulted in common detriment to the Putative
Class Members, and each of the alleged wage-and-hour violations
constitutes a common and predominant legal issue.

Specifically, this proposed class action arises out of the
Defendants' systematic and improper failure to pay Plaintiffs and
Putative Class Members for all hours worked, including during
on-duty, unpaid meal breaks.

The Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members' causes of actions are
brought under quantum meruit, money had and received, and unjust
enrichment state common law theories. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, Plaintiffs seek to certify the following
Putative Class:

   "All current and former hourly, non-exempt registered RNs and
   Psych Techs employed by Defendants at the Facility at any
   time during the Class Period."

All Putative Class Members are classified as non-exempt from
overtime, paid on an hourly basis, perform the same primary patient
care job duties, report to one Clinical Director (the salaried,
exempt, highest ranking patient care employee at the Facility),
work in a facility that has  one Administrator (the Facility's
highest ranking officer), and work in an in-patient environment
where they are subject to Defendants' common set of work policies
and practices that deprived them of pay for all hours worked.

The Defendants Control the Facility Where Plaintiffs and Putative
Class Members Work, Including the Policies and Practices that Apply
to RNs and Psych Techs.

The Defendants own and operate the Facility in Beaumont, Texas.
Defendants admit they employ or employed numerous RNs and Psych
Techs at the Facility who they classify as non-exempt and pay on an
hourly basis.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cAHInV
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Ved Chitale, Esq.
         Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
         Ori Edelstein, Esq.
         Samantha A. Smith, Esq.
         SCHNEIDER WALLACE
         COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
         2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
         Emeryville, CA 94608
         Telephone: (415) 421-7100
         Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
         E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                ssmith@schneiderwallace.com
                vchitale@schneiderwallace.com

BELCAN CORPORATION: Denies Recruiters' OT Pay Under FLSA, PMWA
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN NEZZER, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v.
BELCAN CORPORATION LLC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01083-CB (W.D. Pa., July
25, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
from BCL under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff and others similarly situated are all current and
former recruiters who worked for Belcan Corporation LLC who BCL
classified as exempt employees under the FLSA and to whom BCL
denied overtime compensation. BCL employed Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members as recruiters. The Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members regularly worked for BCL in excess of 40
hours each week, says the suit.

Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, BCL improperly
classified Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members as salaried
employees exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA, the
suit added.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
           Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
           Alyssa White, 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
                   awhite@mybackwages.com

                - and -

           Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
           BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
           8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
           Houston, TX 77046
           Telephone: (713) 877-8788
           Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
           E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

                - and -

           Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
           William F. Goodrich, Esq.
           GOODRICH & GEIST PC
           3634 California Ave.
           Pittsburgh, PA 15212
           Telephone: (412) 766-1455
           Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
           E-mail:  josh@goodrichandgeist.com
                    bill@goodrichandgeist.com

BLUE CROSS: New Mexico Suit Removed from State Court to D.N.M.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as NEW MEXICO TOP ORGANICS --
ULTRA HEALTH, INC., and JACOB R. CANDELARIA, TOMAS LORENZO
VALENCIA, BRYCE BRYANT-FLYNN, MATIAS TRUJILLO, as father and
guardian of MT, a minor, ERICA ROWLAND, and ARIEL McDOUGAL, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BLUE
CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NEW MEXICO, TRUE HEALTH NEW MEXICO, INC.,
CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF NEW
MEXICO, INC., PRESBYTERIAN HEALTH PLAN, INC., PRESBYTERIAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and WESTERN SKY COMMUNITY CARE, INC., Case
No. D-202-CV-202203237, was removed from the Second Judicial
District Court, State of New Mexico, County of Bernalillo, to the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on July
22, 2022.

The Plaintiffs' putative class-action Complaint alleges that the
Defendants, who administer health plans, must pay for the cost of
medical marijuana distributed under the Lynn and Erin Compassionate
Use Act, to their plan members for behavioral/mental health
conditions.

According to the Plaintiffs' sweeping theory, the Defendants'
obligation to pay for medical marijuana extends to benefit plans
governed by federal laws such as Medicaid and the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, notwithstanding that it is
illegal to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess marijuana,
except for federally approved research studies, under the federal
Controlled Substances Act.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico (BCBSNM), a Division of
Health Care Service Corporation, offers a total health care
solution designed to optimize.[BN]

The Attorneys for Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, are:

          Justin Miller, Esq.
          Ben Allison, Esq.
          BARDACKE ALLISON LLP
          bardackeallison.com
          141 East Palace Avenue
          Santa Fe NM 87501
          Telephone: 505 995 8000
          E-mail: justin@bardackeallison.com
                  ben@bardackeallison.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Ryan, Esq.
          Peter E. Pederson, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500,
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-3248
          Facsimile: (312) 704-3001
          E-mail: dryan@hinshawlaw.com
                  ppederson@hinshawlaw.com

BRISTOL BAY: August 3 Class Cert Hearing Vacated in Abikar Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abikar, et al., v. Bristol
Bay Native Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01700 (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jinsook Ohta entered an order that pursuant to its
discretion under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the motion to certify class
is fit for resolution without oral argument and submits the motion
on the parties' papers.

The Court vacates the hearing on the motion scheduled for August 3,
2022.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act involving
minimum wage.

BBNC is one of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations created
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 in settlement
of aboriginal land claims. Bristol Bay Native Corporation was
incorporated in Alaska on June 13, 1972.[CC]

BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: Pellecchia Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Burlington,
et al. The case is styled as Nicholas D. Pellecchia, individually &
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. County Of Burlington;
Ms. Felicia Hopson, County Commisioner; C.F.G. Health Systems LLC;
Mr. Les Paschall, Ceo-C.F.G. Health Systems LLC; Doris Yaa, Health
Services Administrator; Nurse Practitioner Connie; Nurses Jane Doe
(S) 1 Through 3; Nurse Yani Morena; Warden Matthew Leith; Captain
R. Inman; Lieutenant R. Clugsten; Lieutenant J. Williams; Sergeant
M. Peer; J. Osborn, Correctional Officer; L. Byrd, Correctional
Officer; Jane & John Doe (S) 1 Through 10, County Employees; Case
No. 1:22-cv-04707-CPO-MJS (D.N.J., July 22, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Prison Condition for Prisoner Civil
Rights.

Burlington County -- https://www.co.burlington.nj.us/ -- is a
county in the U.S. state of New Jersey. The county is the largest
in New Jersey by area. Its county seat is Mount Holly.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CALIFORNIA: Magistrate Judge Endorses Denial of Wilson's TRO Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID WAYNE WILSON, Plaintiff v. LURA MERRITT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00455-AWI-BAK (GSA) (PC) (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California recommends that the Plaintiff's
motion for temporary restraining order be denied without
prejudice.

Mr. Wilson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in the civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983. On April 18, 2022, simultaneous with the filing of
his complaint initiating the action, the Plaintiff filed the
instant "Motion for Temporary and Injunctive Relief for Imminent
Danger Inadequate Medical Health No Doctor B-Facility Clinic Where
Nurse Practioner Misadiagnose and Valley Fever Prison Retains
African Americans for Morbidity and Death and No Mitigation of
Inhalation of Cocci Fungus Spores."

Mr. Wilson seeks an injunction for "exclusion of the Plaintiff and
African Americans from SATF B-Facility for cocci Valley Fever."
Further, he asks that "prison SATF be made to make changes to its
Buildings, Yard for protection of Shelter to prevent on-going
imminent danger of injury and harm by the Defendant's
non-compliance with their Rules and Regs for protection of
Inhalation of cocci Dust and Fungus Spores." Additionally, the
Plaintiff seeks an order directing that "B-Facility" prisoners "be
seen by medical doctor for Nurse Practioner 'Not' doctor" who
"refuses to listen," misdiagnoses following inadequate assessments
and nurses who are deliberately indifferent "to 'Group Class'
prisoners based on race discrimination and denial of Equal
Protections under the law for adequate medical health care."

The Plaintiff contends he "has shown the sliding scale tips in his
favor and a Significant threat or irreparable injury to himself and
others," asking the Court to take judicial notice of several cases,
including "Plata v Newsom," "Coleman v. Newsom," "Armstrong v.
Brown," Armstrong v. Newsom," and "Plata v. Brown." He contends he
"and African Americans meet" the Valley Fever exclusion policy "for
SATF B-Facility, and also contends he and Others similarly situated
will suffer future harm from cocci Valley Fever exposure."

Additionally, the Plaintiff contends neither the doctors nor nurse
practitioners at B-Facility listen, resulting in "improper
assessment, diagnosis and evaluations," and that the nurses "show
implicit bias for trained to be impartial to the Plaintiff and the
African Americans." Finally, he contends "prisoners are entitled to
'shelter which does not threaten 'their mental and physical
well-being.'"

In Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008), a
plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he
is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the
balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in
the public interest.

Initially, Judge Austin notes the Plaintiff appears to seek an
injunction on behalf of he and other African American inmates
housed in B-Facility at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in
Corcoran. However, to the extent he seeks relief on behalf of other
prisoners, he has no standing to do so. The Plaintiff also may not
represent a class of inmates in a putative class action.

In any event, Judge Austin holds that the Plaintiff has not made a
sufficient showing to warrant the granting of a temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction. First, no defendant in
the action has been served with process. Until one or more of the
defendants have been served with process, the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over them and may not grant the injunctive relief that
Plaintiff requests. At present, the Court has no actual case or
controversy before it.

Next, even if the Court has personal jurisdiction over the named
Defendants, Judge Austin finds that the Plaintiff has not
established that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his
claims. In deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue,
the likelihood of success on the merits is the most important
factor for the court to consider. The Plaintiff's complaint has not
yet been screened as required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A(a). Until
his complaint has been found to state a cognizable claim or claims
against any named Defendant, a determination concerning the
likelihood of the Plaintiff's success on the merits of his claims
cannot be made.

The Plaintiff must demonstrate that he is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. He claims "a
Significant threat or irreparable injury to himself and others,"
citing to a several other cases filed in a variety of federal
courts.

A brief review of the Plaintiff's complaint and the instant motion
reveals however that the Plaintiff has presented no medical
evidence -- beyond his own assertions, medical grievances, and
grievance responses -- which would allow the Court to conclude that
he will suffer irreparable harm. While the Court is aware that
certain prison facilities present a potential for danger of Valley
Fever to individuals who are determined to be more susceptible to
the disease, the fact the Plaintiff is incarcerated at SATF, in the
absence of medical evidence or records to establish that he is
indeed more susceptible and likely to contract Valley Fever, that
information is insufficient to employ the extraordinary remedy the
Plaintiff seeks.

Thus, Judge Austin recommends this motion be denied without
prejudice. In the absence of such a showing, the Plaintiff's
contentions of future injury from incarceration at SATF and the
risk of contracting Valley Fever are, at this time, theoretical and
speculative rather than "likely."

Finally, Judge Austin need not consider the other Winter factors --
the balance of equities tips in his favor and an injunction is in
the public interest -- because the Plaintiff must meet all four
factors. As explained, the Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate a
likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case. Within 14 days from the
date of service, the Plaintiff may file written objections with the
Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The Plaintiff is advised
that failure to file objections within the specified time may
result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 19, 2022 Findings &
Recommendations Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p84pzjk
from Leagle.com.


CCUR HOLDINGS: Appeal From Interlocutory Order in Samuels Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CCUR HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant Below, Appellant v.
CRAIG SAMUELS, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, Case No. 216, 2022
(Del.), the Supreme Court of Delaware refuses CCUR's appeal from
the Court of Chancery's order declining to certify an interlocutory
appeal.

Samuels filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery
against CCUR and its three directors. The first count of the
complaint asserted that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with a 3000:1 reverse stock split.
Specifically, it alleged that the transaction was the result of
unfair dealing by conflicted directors and that the $2.86 per
pre-split share that the Company paid for fractional interests
remaining after the reverse stock split was an unfair price. The
second count of the complaint asserted that the Company violated
Section 155 of the Delaware General Corporation Law by cashing out
the fractional interests for less than "fair value" and that the
Company should be ordered to pay the difference between $2.86 per
share and the "fair value" of the cashed-out interests.

In a memorandum opinion dated May 31, 2022, the Court of Chancery
granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary
duty claim. It denied the motion to dismiss the statutory claim
against the Company. It also rejected the Defendants' argument that
Delaware law does not recognize a standalone, statutory cause of
action against a corporation for a violation of Section 155(2).

The Company asked the Court of Chancery to certify an interlocutory
appeal from the Opinion under Supreme Court Rule 42. It argued that
the Opinion decided a substantial issue of material importance --
namely, whether a stockholder may maintain a "standalone statutory
claim" against a corporation under Section 155(2) for the
corporation's alleged failure to pay fair value for fractional
interests.

Addressing the Rule 42(b)(iii) factors, the Company argued that (i)
the Opinion involved a legal question of first impression; (ii) the
Opinion created "at least tension, if not an outright conflict,"
regarding the question of law; (iii) the question of law at issue
relates to the construction and application of Section 155, which
this Court should settle on an interlocutory basis; (iv)
interlocutory review might terminate the litigation; and (v)
interlocutory review would serve considerations of justice.

On June 21, 2022, the Court of Chancery denied the application for
certification. It determined that the Opinion had decided a
substantial issue of material importance but concluded that the
likely benefits of interlocutory review would not outweigh the
probable costs, such that interlocutory review would be in the
interests of justice. Concluding that the likely benefits of
interlocutory review did not outweigh the probable costs, the court
declined to certify the interlocutory appeal.

The Supreme Court of Delaware agrees with the Court of Chancery
that interlocutory review is not warranted. Applications for
interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of the
Court. In the exercise of its discretion and giving great weight to
the trial court's view, the Supreme Court of Delaware has concluded
that the application for interlocutory review does not meet the
strict standards for certification under Supreme Court Rule 42(b).
Exceptional circumstances that would merit interlocutory review of
the decision of the Court of Chancery do not exist in the case, and
the potential benefits of interlocutory review do not outweigh the
inefficiency, disruption, and probable costs caused by an
interlocutory appeal. It agrees with the Court of Chancery that
further proceedings in that court will enable the courts to fully
consider the issues presented.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2djjh53u from Leagle.com.


CHAMPION OPCO: Harris Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Champion Opco LLC.
The case is styled as Tiffany Harris, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Champion Opco LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00429-MRB (S.D. Ohio, July 22, 2022).

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

Champion Op Company LLC -- https://www.championwindow.com/ --
offers building products. The Company supplies clad, non-clad,
fiberglass, wood, folding, sliding, pivot, and custom windows,
doors, sunrooms, and roofing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian T Giles, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN T. GILES, LLC
          1470 Apple Hill Rd
          Cincinnati, OH 45230
          Phone: (513) 379-2715
          Email: brian@gilesfirm.com

               - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (615) 485-0018
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: $39MM Damages Pay in Winchester Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COLLECTOR OF WINCHESTER, MISSOURI, AND CITY OF
WINCHESTER, MISSOURI, Respondents v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
AND CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendants, CHARTER
FIBERLINK-MISSOURI, LLC, AND CHARTER ADVANCED SERVICES (MO), LLC,
Appellants, Case No. ED109513 (Mo. App.), the Court of Appeals of
Missouri for the Eastern District, Division Four, affirms the
judgment of the trial court directing Charter to pay a total of
$39,048,386 in damages to the class.

The class action arose when Appellants Charter Fiberlink and
Charter Advanced declined to pay to the City and to the 123 other
Missouri jurisdictions comprising the class, the business license
tax each jurisdiction imposed, pursuant to ordinance, on telephone
service providers doing business in their jurisdictions. Charter
opposed the taxes on a number of bases, including federal
preemption in which it claims the technology it employs to deliver
its telephone service, known as "voice over internet protocol" or
VoIP, is not a "telecommunications service" that Class Members may
tax, but is an "information service" which they may not.

Winchester, the Class representative, is a fourth-class city
located in St. Louis County. Since 1968, it has imposed a license
tax on businesses that supply "telephone or telephone service" in
Winchester under the following code provision: Pursuant to the laws
of Missouri, every firm, person or corporation now or hereafter
engaged in the business of supplying or furnishing telephone or
telephone service in the City of Winchester, Missouri, will pay to
the said City as a license or occupational tax 6% of the gross
receipts derived from such business within the said City." Charter
employs VoIP technology to provide telephone service to its
customers in Missouri.

Winchester instituted the action on July 9, 2010, and so began 10
years of litigation before the trial court -- the Honorable Michael
T. Jamison -- in which it issued numerous partial judgments and
orders.

Charter unsuccessfully challenged the trial court's grant of class
certification by way of writ petitions in the Court of Appeals and
in the Missouri Supreme Court. The five subclasses are as follows:

     a. Subclass 1: Class members that impose a license (or "gross
receipts") tax on businesses supplying or furnishing telephone
service, including telecommunications service;

     b. Subclass 2: Class members that impose a license (or "gross
receipts") tax on businesses supplying or furnishing exchange
telephone service;

     c. Subclass 3: Class members that do not separately define the
term "gross receipts" in their telephone license tax codes;

     d. Subclass 4: Class members that generally define the term
"gross receipts" in their telephone license tax codes as excluding
"discounts, credits, refunds, sales taxes [and sometimes other
taxes, such as license] and uncollectible accounts"; and

     e. Subclass 5: Class members that generally define the term
"gross receipts" in their telephone license tax codes as excluding
the following: such receipts as represent charges for message rate
toll, or long distance telephone service, charges for exclusive
interstate service of any kind, charges for Morse, telegraph,
television or radio program transmission facilities, or for other
services furnished exclusively and permanently in connection with
services extending beyond the boundaries of the city, charges for
the billing and collecting for telegrams, charge for the sale of
and advertising in telephone directories, charges for rental of
plant facilities or other property not currently used by any such
company in furnishing its telephone services, and charges which
combine both receipts which are herein taxed and which are herein
excepted in all cases in which the demonstrable cost to any such
telephone company, in making a separation between the revenues
taxed and those excepted, will exceed the evident revenue to be
derived therefrom by the city hereunder.

In its final judgment, the court found in favor of the Class and
ordered Charter to pay a total of $39,048,386 in damages consisting
of the unpaid taxes from July 9, 2005 to Dec. 22, 2020,
pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and
legal expenses.

Charter now appeals, raising a total of six points. Points I, II,
III, V, and VI relate to all Class Members, and Point IV relates to
St. Louis County only. In Points I and II, Charter argues that
given its use of VoIP technology to deliver telephone service, the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151 et seq., and
the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. Sections
521-573, preempt the Class Members' business license tax ordinances
at issue in the case. In Point III, it asserts the trial court
erred in finding that Charter Fiberlink was a "telephone company"
providing "telephone service" subject to the Class Members'
business license taxes because the relevant tax-enabling statutes
and the ordinances at issue failed to define the terms "telephone
company," "telephone," or "telephone service" to specifically
include VoIP-enabled telephone service.

In Point V, Charter contends the trial court erred by failing to
give individualized treatment and effect to each Class Member's
ordinance language given differences among the various ordinances.
In Point VI, it argues the trial court erred by hearing the case at
all because the alleged ordinance violations at issue here should
have been adjudicated in municipal court. And in Point IV, Charter
claims the trial court should have dismissed St. Louis County from
the case because Missouri's tax-enabling statute, Section 66.300,4
grants first-class counties the power to tax "exchange telephone
service" and St. Louis County is no longer a first-class county by
virtue of a 1995 amendment to Missouri Constitution Art. VI,
Section 18(a).

Charter's Points I and II on appeal argue, respectively, that the
Telecom Act of 1996 and the Cable Act of 1984 preempt the Class
Members' business license tax ordinances at issue in the case. The
Court of Appeals holds that these arguments have no merit. It finds
that the Class' business license tax ordinances are local laws
"pertaining to taxation," are covered by 47 U.S.C. Section 152
note's tax savings provision, and are not preempted by the Telecom
Act. It further finds that the business license taxes imposed by
the Class Members' ordinances are taxes of general applicability
that fit within the Cable Act's safe harbor provision, Section
542(g)(2)(A), because the taxes do not unduly discriminate against
cable operators like Charter in that they do not impose a tax on
Charter "solely because of its status" as a cable operator. Hence,
Points I and II are denied.

In Point III, Charter argues the trial court erred in finding that
Charter Fiberlink was a "telephone company" providing "telephone
service" subject to the Class Members' business license taxes
because the relevant tax-enabling statutes and the ordinances at
issue in this case failed to define the terms "telephone company,"
"telephone," or "telephone service" to specifically include
VoIP-enabled telephone service.16 We disagree and hold the trial
court correctly found that pursuant to Missouri's
license-tax-enabling statutes, Sections 94.110, 94.270, 94.360, and
66.300, Charter Fiberlink was a "telephone company" that provided
"telephone service" taxable at the local level.

The Court of Appeals opines that the trial court correctly found
that pursuant to Missouri's license-tax-enabling statutes, Sections
94.110, 94.270, 94.360, and 66.300, Charter Fiberlink was a
"telephone company" that provided "telephone service" taxable at
the local level. It says, the record and the authorities
demonstrate that Charter Fiberlink was a telephone company within
the meaning of the tax-enabling statutes at issue here and that
Charter's claim, based on those statutes' failure to define
"telephone company" to include one that employs VoIP technology, is
without merit. For the same reasons, it rejects Charter's claim
that the Class Members' ordinances' failure to define "telephone
service" to include VoIP-enabled telephone service precludes the
jurisdictions from taxing that service. Point III is denied.

In Point V, Charter contends the trial court erred by failing to
give individualized treatment and effect to each Class Member's
ordinance language given the differences among the various
ordinances. It primarily contends the trial court erred in
calculating back taxes owed based on "all revenue generated" by
Charter on its telephone business in each jurisdiction. It claims
the court erred in this regard because it ignored whether the
revenue was generated by calls that were intrastate, interstate,
local, or long distance and, further, that the various ordinances'
use of terms like "telecommunications," "telephone service," and
"exchange telephone service," should have triggered an
individualized analysis by the trial court of each Class Member's
ordinance to determine whether the call activity was taxable.

The Court of Appeals disagrees because (1) the trial court gave
meaning to the language used in each Class Member's ordinance; and
(2) Charter's primary argument has no merit under Missouri law
including the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in City of Aurora
v. Spectra Communications Group, LLC, 592 S.W.3d 764. Additionally,
(3) to the extent Charter raises other arguments in this point,
they have no merit based on Aurora and the record in the case.
Point V is denied.

In Point VI, Charter argues that since the case pertains to
municipal tax ordinance violations, the trial court lacked the
authority to hear the case and it should have been heard in
municipal court. The Court of Appeals disagrees because as a court
of general jurisdiction, the trial court had the authority to hear
and decide the Class Members' claims for declaratory and equitable
relief. Because the Class Member's claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief were properly brought in and adjudicated by the
trial court, Point VI is denied.

The final point for consideration is Charter's Point IV, which
argues the trial court should have dismissed St. Louis County from
the case because Missouri's tax-enabling statute, Section 66.300,23
only grants first-class counties the power to tax "exchange
telephone service" and St. Louis County is no longer a first-class
county by virtue of the 1995 amendment to Art. VI, Section 18(a) of
the Missouri Constitution. It argues the 1995 amendment should have
retroactively repealed St. Louis County's license tax Ordinance
5,214, that was enacted in 1969 pursuant to tax-enabling statute
Section 66.300.

The Court of Appeals disagrees with Charter's arguments for two
reasons. First, St. Louis County was a first-class county when it
enacted in 1969 its ordinance pursuant to Section 66.300 imposing a
license tax on telephone service providers operating in St. Louis
County. Second, the 1995 amendment to Art. VI, Section 18(a) of the
Missouri Constitution, which removed counties, like St. Louis
County, with a charter form of government from the four-class
system set forth in Mo. Const. Art. VI, Section 8, was not intended
to apply retroactively to repeal St. Louis County Ordinance 5,214.

The Court of Appeals concludes that the 1995 amendment to Mo Const.
art. VI, Section 18(a) was not intended to be applied retroactively
to effect a repeal of St. Louis County's long-standing business
license tax Ordinance 5,214 that was duly authorized by Section
66.300. Point IV is denied.

Because it finds in favor of all Class Members on Points I, II,
III, V, and VI, and because it finds in favor of St. Louis County
on Point IV, the Court of Appeals affirms the judgment of the trial
court.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4f8jnpvc from Leagle.com.


COMENITY CAPITAL BANK: Crisp Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comenity Capital
Bank, et al. The case is styled as Susan Crisp, Ashley Sacchitella,
Catherine Weeks, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Comenity Capital Bank, Comenity Servicing LLC, Bread
Financial Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02925-MHW-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio, July 25, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Comenity Capital Bank -- https://d.comenity.net/comenitycard --
operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and checking accounts,
cards, loans, insurance, and online banking services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Richard Karon, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 W. St. Clair Avenue, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Phone: (216) 622-1851
          Fax: (216) 241-8175
          Email: dkaron@karonllc.com


COMMUNITY COACH: Court Grants in Part Ajasin's Motion in Limine
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANETTE E. AJASIN, Plaintiff v. ANTONIO ORTIZ and
COMMUNITY COACH, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-6814 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an order:

   a. granting the Defendants' motion in limine; and

   b. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion
      in limine.

Judge Abrams grants the Plaintiff's motion with respect to
testimony regarding the following subjects: (1) Ms. Ajasin's 2001
participation in a class action lawsuit related to potential
asbestos exposure; (2) her prior ticket for using a cell phone
while driving; (3) the suspension of her license due to an outdated
registration; and (4) her participation in an accident-prevention
course. He denies the remainder of the applications in the
Plaintiff's motion in limine, including those regarding the
evidence of her prior injuries.

Judge Abrams overrules the Plaintiff's objections to the
Defendants' proposed Exhibits H through S, W, and X. He, however,
sustains her objections to the Defendants' Exhibits T and U,
however.

The Court is reserving its ruling as to Exhibit V. To the extent
either party seeks or intends to redact sensitive information from
any of the exhibits, they will confer and jointly propose such
redactions. Any disputes that arise with respect to the redactions
will be raised with the Court.

Finally, Judge Abrams overruled the Defendants' objections to the
Plaintiff's claims for past and future medical expenses.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc4n958x from Leagle.com.


COMPOSITES HORIZONS: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
YADIRA PALACIOS, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COMPOSITES HORIZONS, LLC a Delaware company;
PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., an Oregon corporation; and DOES 19
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV23807 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., July 22, 2022) is a class action seeking civil
penalties against the Defendants for violations of the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from 2018 through December
21, 2021 as an hourly-nonexempt technician. The Plaintiff and
aggrieved employees were not paid overtime, sick time, supplemental
sick time, meal period premiums, or rest period premiums based on
their lawful "regular rate of pay." The Plaintiff and aggrieved
employees earned non-discretionary bonuses, shift differential
premiums, and other amounts that are not excludable from the
"regular rate of pay" under California law, says the suit.

However, the Defendants did not include such bonuses, shift
differentials, and other amounts when calculating Plaintiff's and
others' "regular rate of pay" for purposes of overtime pay, sick
time pay, meal period premiums, or rest period premiums. In
connection with Plaintiff's employment and the employment of others
within the State of California, the Defendants committed numerous
systemic Labor Code violations for which Plaintiff now seeks to
receiver civil penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 2698 et
seq, the suit added.

Composites Horizons is a supplier of advanced aerospace
composites.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
          Lauren N. Vega, Esq.
          FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC.
          3160 Camino del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 693-7727
          Facsimile: (619) 350-6855
          E-mail: nick@ferrarovega.com
                  lauren@ferrarovega.com

               - and -

          Rick A. Waltman, Esq.
          RICK WALTMAN LAW, APC
          501 W. Broadway, Ste. 800
          San Diego, California 92101
          Telephone: (619) 320-5666
          E-mail: rick@rickwaltmanlaw.com

COOLER SCREENS: Citizens Insurance Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cooler Screens, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Citizens Insurance Company of America
v. Cooler Screens, Inc., Rebecca Roberts, Rebecca White, Kristen
Yukna, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03800 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Declaratory
Judgement (Insurance).

Cooler Screens -- https://www.coolerscreens.com/ -- are
transforming retail cooler surfaces into IoT enabled screens,
creating the largest retail point-of-sale media platform in the
world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly M. Ognibene, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
          550 W. Adams St., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Phone: (312) 345-1718
          Email: kelly.ognibene@lewisbrisbois.com


DVINCI ENERGY: Loses Bid to Strike Class Claims in Costa TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Dawn Costa, Plaintiff v. Dvinci Energy, Inc.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-11501-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge
Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts denied Dvinci's motion to strike the class
allegations.

The action arises from telemarketing calls allegedly made by
Dvinci, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227. The Plaintiff claims to have received four
telemarketing calls from the Defendant in July 2021, and seeks to
represent a nationwide class of people who received similar calls
from or on behalf of the Defendant.

Dvinci is a "lead generation service" that specializes in finding
prospective customers for solar energy companies. The Plaintiff
alleges that Dvinci was responsible for four telemarketing calls
that she received in July, 2021, all of which used a similar sales
script. Costa avers that the telephone number at which she received
those calls was a residential, non-business number which had been
listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for more than 30 days.
She claims that she did not provide her prior express written
consent to receive calls from the Defendant.

In September, 2021, Costa commenced the action on behalf of herself
and putative class members, alleging that Dvinci's solicitations
violated the TCPA. She seeks to represent a class composed of all
persons in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers were on
the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2) but who
received more than one telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the
Defendant (3) within a 12-month period, (4) from four years prior
the filing of the Complaint.

Shortly thereafter, the Defendant filed the pending motion to
strike the Plaintiff's class allegations. It contends that the
proposed class is fail-safe and thus must be struck because it
defines its membership in terms of its liability under the TCPA.

Judge Gorton explains that most district courts that have
considered similar proposed classes are in accord. Recently,
another session of the Court denied a motion to strike class
allegations in a TCPA case with a similar, albeit somewhat more
restrictive, class definition, citing Sagar v. Kelly Auto. Grp.,
Inc., No. 21-cv-10540-PBS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227781, at *20 (D.
Mass. Nov. 29, 2021) (holding that the requirement of listing on
the Registry did not create a class "impermissibly based on a legal
conclusion"). Judge Gorton agrees that it is "difficult to imagine"
how a plaintiff could define a TCPA class without requiring that
its members have telephone numbers listed on the Registry or have
received calls from defendant. He likewise concludes that such
criteria "do not trigger fail-safe concerns."

The Defendants nevertheless illogically contend that the proposed
class is fail-safe because class members must be similarly situated
to the Plaintiff by also not providing prior express written
consent to be called. However, Judge Gorton notes that no such
mandate appears in the proposed class definition and the objection
seems better directed at the class's compliance with the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3). Any such argument
is premature at best.

Judge Gorton holds that Costa has plausibly alleged that there are
questions of law and fact common to the claims of the class members
which predominate over other issues and he, thus, will not strike
the class allegations at this juncture.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bp8twdza from Leagle.com.


EDGIO INC: Assad Sues Over Breach of Corporate Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE ASSAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALTER D. AMARAL; DOUG BEWSHER; SCOTT A.
GENEREUX; PATRICIA PARRA HADDEN; BOB LYONS; DAVID C. PETERSCHMIDT;
and EDGIO, INC. f/k/a LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2022-0624 (Del. Ch., July 18, 2022) alleges that the Defendants
are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties owed to the
Plaintiff and the Class, and seeks to enjoin the enforcement of the
Incumbent Voting Requirement, the Vote Neutralization Provision,
and the Anti-Activism Transfer Restrictions.

According to the complaint, upon receiving stockholder approval for
the stock issuance to support the Acquisition, the Board executed a
stockholders' agreement (the "Stockholders' Agreement") with the
new 35% holder. The Stockholders' Agreement not only imposed a
fairly typical, three-year standstill, but also prevents the holder
(for so long as it owns a meaningful bloc) from: (a) voting its
shares for any director candidate not nominated by the incumbents;
(b) voting its shares against a Board recommendation on non-routine
matters unless the majority of the other stockholders oppose that
recommendation as well; or (c) selling any of its Company shares to
any of the top 50 activist stockholders in the most recent
"SharkWatch 50" list, says the suit.

These radical restrictions materially undermine the stockholder
franchise. In substance and effect, a board anticipating
stockholder unrest but which had almost no voting power to win a
voter challenge used the cover of a new stock issuance to
appropriate for itself effective control of their own re-election
and a clear veto on opposing views on other matters, the suit
asserts.

EDGIO, INC. operates content delivery network for internet
distribution of video, music, games, and download. The Company
offers content delivery network provides digital media and software
via the Internet. Edgio serves customers worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
           Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
           Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
           BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
           500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
           Wilmington, DE 19801
           Telephone: (302) 364-3601

ELON LLC: Faces Romero Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moises Romero, Jarret Malone, and Jovan Dunlap, Individually and on
Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Elon, LLC, d/b/a Kindred
Pest Control And Levi Leatham, Individually, Case No. 4:22-cv-02434
(S.D. Tex., July 22, 2022) alleges that Defendants failed to pay
the overtime premium required by law allows them to gain an unfair
advantage over competitors who follow the law in their employment
practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have a business plan
that includes paying non-exempt pest control technicians on a
piece-rate basis and not paying these employees overtime pay, no
matter how many hours per week they work. This payment plan thus
includes not paying an overtime premium for those hours over 40 per
workweek, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs are three of the workers hired by the Defendants as
piece-rate employees and not paid overtime pay and bring this
lawsuit against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime that is
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs and their
Tech coworkers were required report to the Kindred offices before 7
am each morning they worked to attend a meeting and get their
supplies for the day. They then left to service the customers on
the routes that were assigned to them by Kindred, and generally
worked 10 - 12 or more hours each day to finish their routes. Techs
usually worked 6 days per week, Monday through Saturday, the suit
added.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 10099
          Houston, TX 77206
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

FORBES MEDIA: Transmits Customers' Info to Third Parties, Lamb Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH LAMB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FORBES MEDIA LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06319 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 25, 2022) is a class action suit brought on behalf of all
persons with Facebook accounts who subscribe to Forbes and view
videos on forbes.com.

Forbes Media LLC develops, owns, and operates forbes.com, which is
a "global media, branding and technology company, with a focus on
news and information about business, investing, technology,
entrepreneurship, leadership and affluent lifestyles."

The Plaintiff brings this action in response to the Defendant's
practice of knowingly disclosing its subscribers' personally
identifiable information -- including a record of every video clip
they view -- to Facebook without consent.

The United States Congress passed the Video Privacy Protection Act
in 1988, seeking to confer onto consumers the power to "maintain
control over personal information divulged and generated in
exchange for receiving services from video tape service
providers."

The Defendant allegedly violated the VPPA by knowingly transmitting
Plaintiff's and the putative class's personally identifiable
information to unrelated third parties, says the suit.

Facebook is the largest social networking site on the planet,
touting 2.9 billion monthly active users. Facebook describes itself
as a "real identity platform," meaning users are allowed only one
account and must share "the name they go by in everyday life."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-Mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com
                  creilly@bursor.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
                  nsuciu@milberg.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Ali Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMMED USMAN ALI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
FRANKLIN WIRELESS CORP., OC KIM, and DAVID BROWN, Ali v. Franklin
Wireless Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00687-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal.),
Lead Plaintiff Gergely Csaba asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. Certifying the claims against Franklin Wireless Corp., OC
      Kim, and David Brown to be litigated as a class action on
      behalf of the following class:

      "All persons and entities other than defendants who
      purchased or otherwise acquired Franklin Wireless
      Corporation common stock between September 17, 2020 and
      April 8, 2021, inclusive;"

      Excluded from the Class are any parties who are or
      have been Defendants in this litigation, the present and
      former officers and directors of Franklin and any
      subsidiary thereof, members of their immediate families
      and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or
      assigns and any entity in which any current or former
      Defendant has or had a controlling interest.

   2. Appointing Gergely Csaba as class representative;

   3. Appointing Pomerantz LLP as Counsel for the Class; and

   4. Granting such other and further relief the Court may deem
      just and proper.

This putative securities fraud class action alleges that Defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by misleading the market to believe that the
Company had no knowledge that its core product of mobile hotspot
devices were manufactured with defective lithium-ion batteries.

The AC alleges that during the Class Period, Franklin knew, but did
not disclose that the Jetpacks were manufactured with defective
lithium-ion batteries that posed a serious safety hazard because
the batteries could overheat and cause severe burns and, in some
cases, could catch fire.

The truth began to be revealed on April 1, 2021, when Franklin
disclosed that it "had been notified of reports of battery issues
in some of its wireless hotspot devices," and stated that "the
Company is working with its battery and device manufacturing
partners and carrier customer to determine the cause and extent of
the problem. "

On this news, the price of Franklin's shares fell by $0.35 per
share, or 65%, to close at $20.77 per share on April 5, 2021, the
next trading session. On April 8, 2021, CNBC reported that
Franklin's customer, Verizon, was "recalling 2.5 million" "Ellipsis
Jetpack mobile hotspots imported by Franklin Wireless Corp. and
sold between April 2017 and March 2021" and that "the affected
models are labeled: MHS900L, MHS900LS and MHS900LPP," "after
discovering that the lithium ion battery can overheat, creating a
fire and burning hazard," and that "just over million of the
recalled devices are currently in use, meaning currently or
recently used by customers.

On April 9, 2021, Franklin stated that its customer, Verizon, "has
issued a voluntary recall of its Jetpack Hotspot devices imported
by Franklin," adding that "Franklin is continuing to work with its
batter and device manufacturing partners to
determine the cause and extent of the concerns." On this news, the
price of Franklin's shares fell by $4.07 per share, or nearly 23%,
to close at $13.26 per share on April 9, 2021.

Franklin Wireless is a provider of wireless solutions, including
mobile hotspots, routers, trackers, and other devices.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 22,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3POozhd
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Austin P. Van, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  avan@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  avan@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          THE PORTNOY LAW FIRM
          1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 692-8883
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com

GLENS FALLS: Class Settlement in Richard Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAPHNE RICHARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK,
ARROW FINANCIAL CORPORATION, AND SARATOGA NATIONAL BANK & TRUST
COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:20-cv-734 (BKS/DJS)
(N.D.N.Y.), Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York grants final approval of the
parties' Settlement Agreement and Release.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement and
certified a provisional settlement class on April 13, 2020. Due and
adequate notice have been given to the Class Members. Judge Sannes
has considered and reviewed the Settlement and the all papers filed
and proceedings had therein. She held a final approval hearing on
July 20, 2022.

Judge Sannes now finally certifies the Settlement Class, which is
composed of the following classes:

     a. The Sufficient Funds Class, which is defined as those
customers of Glens Falls National Bank and Trust Company (Glens
Falls) or Saratoga National Bank and Trust Company (Saratoga) who,
from July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2021, paid overdraft fees when there
was enough money in the customer's account to cover the transaction
that resulted in the fee, and such fees were not refunded by
Defendant.

     b. The Multiple NSF Fees on a Single Item Class, which is
defined as those customers of Glens Falls or Saratoga who, from
July 1, 2014, to July 1, 2021, were assessed more than one
non-sufficient funds fee on a single transaction that was not
refunded by Defendant.

Judge Sannes appoints Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. as
the Claims Administrator under the terms of the Settlement. All
costs incurred in connection with providing notice and settlement
administration services to the Class Members will be paid from the
Settlement Fund, and will not exceed $81,000, the amount specified
in the Settlement.

The Judge also appoints Named Plaintiff Richard as the Class
Representative of the Settlement Class. She further appoints Taras
Kick of The Kick Law Firm, APC, J. Patrick Lannon of Cherundolo Law
Firm, PLLC, and Kevin P. Roddy of Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA, as
the Class Counsel.

Judge Sannes grants final approval of the terms set forth in the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair,
adequate, and reasonable, and directs the parties to effectuate the
Settlement according to its terms.

The Court finds (i) the requested attorneys' fees of one-third of a
Value of Settlement of $1,785,000, or $595,000, to be reasonable as
a percentage of the Settlement, and therefore awards fees; (ii) the
request for reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount of
$58,424.06, which is slightly less than the amount indicated in the
notice to class members, is reasonable based on the work necessary
to achieve this favorable class settlement; and (iii) the service
award in the amount of $15,000 to be paid to the Named Plaintiff.
These amounts are to be paid to the Class Counsel from the
Settlement Fund by the deadline specified in the Settlement.

The Parties have agreed to distribute any cy pres funds to the
Tri-County United Way. Such funds, if any, will be comprised of the
value of uncashed settlement checks and paid in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement.

The Plaintiff is directed to file a Final Report prepared by the
Claims Administrator of all receipts and disbursements from the
Settlement Fund by March 31, 2023.

The Clerk is respectfully directed to enter Judgment in favor of
the Plaintiff and close the case.

The Court retains jurisdiction over the Parties, the Class Counsel,
and the case to enforce the Settlement and the terms of the
Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4k6cm7zu from Leagle.com.


GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Deluca Securities Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 110/A Report,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2022,
that in November 2019, plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against GPB, GPB Holdings II, the Partnership,
David Gentile, Jeffery Lash, AAS, Axiom, Jeffry Schneider, Mark
Martino, and Ascendant captioned "Barbara Deluca and Drew R.
Naylor, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
limited partners, v. GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP et al."

The complaint alleges, among other things, fraud and material
omissions and misrepresentations to induce investment. The
plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement, unspecified damages, and other
equitable relief.

GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company based in New
York.


GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Kinnie Ma Securities Suit in Texas Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 110/A Report,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2022,
that in October 2019, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
against GPB, certain limited partnerships, including the
Partnership, for which GPB is the general partner, AAS, and
Ascendant, as well as certain principals of the GPB-managed funds,
auditors, broker-dealers, a fund administrator, and other
individuals captioned "Kinnie Ma Individual Retirement Account, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. Ascendant Capital, LLC, et al."

The complaint alleges violations of the Texas Securities Act,
fraud, substantial assistance in the commission of fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, substantial assistance in breach of fiduciary duty,
and negligence. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and
certain equitable relief.

GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company based in New
York.


GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Ortiz Suit Over Deceptive Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 110/A Report,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2022,
that in May 2020, plaintiffs filed a class action in New York
Supreme Court against GPB, Automile Holdings LLC d/b/a Prime
Automotive Group, David Gentile, David Rosenberg, Philip Delzotta,
Joseph Delzotta, and other affiliated entities and individuals. The
case is captioned Monica Ortiz, on behalf of herself and other
individuals similarly situated v. GPB Capital Holdings LLC,
Automile Holdings, LLC d/b/a Prime Automotive Group, David Gentile,
David Rosenberg, Philip Delzotta, Joseph Delzotta and other
affiliated entities and individuals.

The complaint alleges deceptive and misleading business practices
of the named defendants with respect to the marketing, sale, and/or
leasing of automobiles and the financial and credit products
related to the same throughout the State of New York. The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and penalties.

GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company based in New
York.


GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Stanley S. Securities Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 110/A Report,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2022,
that in November 2019, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
against, the Partnership and other GPB-managed limited
partnerships, AAS, and Ascendant, as well as certain principals of
the GPB-managed funds, auditors, a fund administrator, and
individuals, captioned "Stanley S. and Millicent R. Barasch Trust
and Loretta Dehay, individually and on behalf of others similar
situated v. GPB Capital Holdings, LLC, et al."

The original complaint named Millicent R. Barasch as the plaintiff,
but since her death, her trust has successfully moved to substitute
for all purposes in this litigation.
The complaint alleges civil conspiracy, fraud, substantial
assistance in the commission of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
substantial assistance in the breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
and violations of the Texas Securities Act. The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified damages, declaratory relief, among other forms
of relief.

GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company based in New
York.


GPB AUTOMOTIVE: Sued Over Fund Mismanagement
--------------------------------------------
GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP disclosed in its Form 110/A Report,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2022,
that in May 2020, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint in New York Supreme Court against GPB, GPB Holdings, GPB
Holdings II, GPB Holdings III, the Partnership, GPB Cold Storage,
GPB Waste Management, David Gentile, Jeffrey Lash, Macrina Kgil,
a/k/a Minchung Kgil, William Edward Jacoby, Scott Naugle, Jeffry
Schneider, Ascendant Alternative Strategies, Ascendant Capital, and
Axiom Capital Management.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering
documents for certain GPB-managed funds, include material
misstatements and omissions. The plaintiffs are seeking
disgorgement, unspecified damages, and other equitable relief.

GPB Automotive Portfolio, LP is a holding company based in New
York.


H&M HENNES: Website Not Accessible to Blind People, Velazquez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN VELAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ, L.P., Case No. 1:22-cv-06318-PAE
(S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2022) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's alleged denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered
thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's website, www.stories.com
(the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, says the suit.

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

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

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

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.stories.com,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and which the Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com

HARBOR FREIGHT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Isaacs Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ISAACS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 6:22-cv-01250 (M.D. Fla., July 18, 2022) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

The class action seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of the Defendants in negligently contacting the Plaintiff
on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, without any express consent,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, says the
suit.

HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC. operates a chain of tool and
equipment retail stores. The Company offers auto parts, shop
equipment, hand and air tools, power tools, outdoor products,
welding equipment, and various related products. Harbor Freight
Tools USA serves customers worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136

HAWBAKER INC: Court Modifies Class Certification Briefing Dates
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESTER PACKER SR., LESTER
PACKER II, and SHAWN DYROFF, individually and situated, on behalf
of the GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC. BENEFIT PLAN, v. GLENN O. HAWBAKER,
INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC., the PLAN
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC. BENEFIT PLAN, and JOHN
DOES 1-20, Case No. 4:21-CV-01747 (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Matthew W. Brann entered an order that the Class Certification
briefing dates are modified as follows:

  -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class       September 29, 2022
     Certification:

  -- Defendants' Response               November 29, 2022
     in Opposition:

  -- Plaintiffs' Reply Brief:           January 30, 2023

Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. manufactures building materials. The
Company offers asphalt, tar paving mixtures, gravel, limestone,
sandstone, and washed sand.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bovHBI at no extra charge.[CC]

HOWARD COUNTY, IN: Faces Partlow Suit Over Wage & Hour Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY R. PARTLOW, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JERRY ASHER in his official capacity, as Howard County
Sheriff, Case No. 1:22-cv-01467-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind., July 22, 2022)
is a combined Rule 23 class action and Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action lawsuit against the Defendant to address
class-wide wage and hour and overtime violations committed by Asher
against her and her fellow Asher coworkers who work or worked for
Asher at the Howard County Criminal Justice Center located in
Kokomo, Indiana.

The Plaintiff will serve as the representative plaintiff in the
Rule 23 class action and FLSA collective action.

According to the complaint, Asher has been systematically
underpaying wages and overtime wages to Partlow and similarly
situated hourly paid workers. Asher operates the Howard County Jail
on a continuous basis. Asher pays his Howard County Jail employees
on an hourly basis. Asher requires employees to work twelve hour
shifts which are officially scheduled from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
or, vice versa, from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Howard County Jail
employees generally work 2 days on, then 2 days off. This results
in employees either working 4 twelve hour shifts in a week (48
hours in a week) or 3 twelve hour shifts in a week (36 hours in a
week). This means that workers work and are paid, at a minimum, for
eight or more hours of overtime in one of every two weeks, says the
suit.

Asher requires Howard County Jail employees to report to a
mandatory work meeting it calls "Roll Call" fifteen full minutes
prior to the start of any work shift. Asher requires employees to
be fully dressed in uniforms and to be clocked in to work fifteen
minutes prior to the official shift scheduled time. Additionally,
Asher's time-clock rounding policy, procedure, and practice is used
in such a manner that it results, over a period of time, in the
failure to compensate employees properly for all time worked,
resulting in regular wage and overtime violations, added the suit.

All hours worked and clocked by Howard County Jail employees,
including Partlow, including the 15 minute "Roll Call" meeting time
at the beginning of each shift, is work and is compensable under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Indiana Wage Payment
Statute, the suit further asserts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert P. Kondras, Jr.
          HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
          100 Cherry Street
          Terre Haute, IN 47807
          Telephone: (812) 232-9691
          Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
          E-mail :kondras@hkmlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Hunt, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. HUNT, LLC
          1905 South New Market St., Ste. 168
          Carmel, IN 46032
          Telephone: (317) 743-0614
          Facsimile: (317) 743-0615
          E-mail: rob@indianawagelaw.com

HP INC: Sells Defective Desktops & Laptops, Pietosi Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
TARAN PIETOSI and SUKHDIP RAI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 5:22-cv-04273 (N.D. Cal., July 22, 2022) alleges that HP makes,
markets, and sells seriously flawed desktop and laptop computers.

According to the complaint, numerous HP PCs -- specifically, HP
computers with AMD Ryzen or Athlon processors that have so-called
"firmware TPM" modules embedded within them --  include a design
defect that causes invasive stuttering in audio and video playback,
during videoconferencing, and while playing games. At the same
time, this design defect renders these HP computers uniquely
vulnerable to catastrophic firmware attacks -- despite the fact
that a TPM is, by its very nature, supposed to defend against such
attacks, the suit says.

HP, however, does not acknowledge any of this. Instead, on its
website and elsewhere HP specifically markets its AMD desktop and
laptop computers as especially suited for watching video, for 20
videoconferencing, and for gaming. HP also touts these computers'
"enterprise-level" security, the suit adds.

The Plaintiffs in this case each purchased HP computers with AMD
processors that include AMD's defective fTPM design. They have all
experienced severe stuttering in media playback; in
videoconferencing; and/or in gameplay. Their computers are also
uniquely vulnerable to firmware attacks that could compromise not
just Plaintiffs' HP computers, but potentially their home or
business networks. The AMD fTPM design defect and its
manifestations has significantly -- perhaps totally -- impaired the
value of Plaintiffs' HP PCs, as they are unfit for their intended
use, and their resale value is crippled. Despite this -- and
despite growing complaints about the performance of AMD-based HP
computers in HP forums and across the Internet—HP has done
nothing to fix or replace its defective computers, the Plaintiffs
further assert.

The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated -- i.e., other persons
who have purchased HP computers that include defective AMD
processors -- bring this lawsuit against HP in order to be made
whole.

HP designs, manufactures, and sells desktop and laptop personal
computers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yavar Bathaee, Esq.
          Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq.
          Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
          Edward M. Grauman, Esq.
          BATHAEE DUNNE LLP
          445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (332) 322-8835
          E-mail: yavar@bathaeedunne.com
                  awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com
                  bdunne@bathaeedunne.com
                  egrauman@bathaeedunne.com

IBM CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit in NY Court
---------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corp disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2022, that on April
5, 2022, a putative securities law class action was commenced in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York alleging that during the period from April 4, 2017 through
October 20, 2021, certain strategic imperatives revenues were
misclassified.

The company, two current IBM senior executives, and two former IBM
senior executives are named as defendants. On June 23, 2022, the
court entered an order appointing Iron Workers Local 580 Joint
Funds as lead plaintiff.

International Business Machines Corp is into computer and office
equipment based in New York.


IBM CORP: Faces Suit in NY Court Over Pension Plan
--------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corp disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2022, that on June
2, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that the IBM Pension Plan miscalculated certain joint and
survivor annuity pension benefits by using outdated actuarial
tables in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.

IBM, the Plan Administrator Committee, and the IBM Pension Plan are
named as defendants.

International Business Machines Corp is into computer and office
equipment based in New York.


ILLINOIS: District Court Tosses Adamczyk v. IDOC Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois dismisses without prejudice the case, LAWRENCE
ADAMCZYK, #M24512, Plaintiff, v. IDOC, ROB JEFFERIES, RICHARD
MORANTHALER, Warden, JOHN/JANE DOES 1, Administrators and Staff at
IDOC Headquarters JOHN/JANE DOE 2, Administrators and all BMRCC
Staff, SCHOOL DISTRICT 428, Administrator, WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES,
INC., and WEXFORD STAFF, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00863-SMY
(S.D. Ill.).

Mr. Adamczyk is civilly committed at Big Muddy River Correctional
Center under the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act , 725 ILCS
205, et seq. He filed the instant lawsuit asserting claims under
various federal and state laws. The case is now before the Court
for preliminary review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section
1915A. Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money
damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed.

To survive preliminary review under Section 1915A, a Complaint must
contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief," which includes "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). A plaintiff
must also associate specific defendants with specific claims, so
that defendants are put on notice of the claims brought against
them and they can properly answer the Complaint.

Judge Yandle finds that the Complaint fails to ascribe specific
acts or omissions to the Individual Defendants -- it generally
attributes conduct to four groups of defendants -- administrators
and staff at IDOC headquarters, administrators and all BMRCC staff,
School District 428 staff working at BMRCC, and Wexford staff.
Identifying a group as a defendant violates Rule 8 and Twombly.
While the Plaintiff may refer to parties whose names are unknown as
"John Doe" or "Jane Doe," Judge Yandle holds that he must follow
pleading standards and include a short, plain statement of the case
against each individual.

Additionally, the Plaintiff's Complaint violates Rule 8's
requirement that it contain "a short and plain statement of the
claim" and "simple, concise, and direct" allegations. His Complaint
totals 205 pages with exhibits, contains 233 numbered paragraphs
spanning 92 single-spaced pages, and purports to assert claims
under more than twenty federal statutes and various state laws. The
allegations are made collectively on behalf of "Wards of the
State," as opposed to identifying alleged deprivations of
constitutional rights Plaintiff personally experienced.
Additionally, the Plaintiff does not describe specific instances of
unlawful acts. The vast majority of the Complaint allegations are
conclusory and lack factual support.

The Plaintiff's Complaint also violates the rules of joinder. Judge
Yandle finds his claims to involve different defendants, arise from
separate transactions or occurrences, and are based on different
legal theories. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, she says,
multiple defendants may not be joined in a single action unless the
plaintiff asserts at least one claim to relief against each
defendant that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence or
series of transactions or occurrences and presents a question of
law or fact common to all. In sum, the Plaintiff's claims cannot
all proceed together in the same lawsuit. He must pursue only
related claims against a single group of defendants, and may file
separate lawsuits to bring his other claims.

Although the Plaintiff intended to proceed with a class action,
that request is denied because a prisoner bringing a pro se action
cannot represent a class of plaintiffs.

The Plaintiff is granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint by
Aug. 22, 2022. It should be drafted consistent with the
considerations set forth in the Order and will be subject to review
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A.

Should the Plaintiff file a First Amended Complaint, it is strongly
recommended that he use the civil rights complaint form designed
for use in the District. He should label the form "First Amended
Complaint" and use the case number for the action (No. 22-863).
Further, he should identify each defendant in the case caption and
include sufficient allegations against each defendant to describe
what the defendant did or failed to do to violate his
constitutional rights, and as much as possible, include the
relevant facts in chronological order, inserting each defendant's
name where necessary to identify the actors and each defendant's
actions. While the Plaintiff may use "John Doe" or "Jane Doe" to
refer to parties whose names are unknown, he must still follow
pleading standards and include a short, plain statement of the case
against that party. He must describe each Doe Defendant and their
involvement in the alleged unconstitutional conduct.

Moreover, the First Amended Complaint must stand on its own,
without reference to any previous pleading, and include any
exhibits that the Plaintiff wishes to submit. To facilitate his
compliance with the Order, Judge Yandle directs the Clerk of Court
to mail him a civil rights complaint form.

If the Plaintiff fails to file his First Amended Complaint within
the allotted time or consistent with the instructions set forth in
the Order, the case will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
state a claim for relief, failure to comply with a court order, and
for failure to prosecute his claims. The dismissal will count as a
"strike."

The Plaintiff is advised that if judgment is rendered against him
and the judgment includes the payment of costs, he will be required
to pay the full amount of the costs. He is further advised that he
is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court
informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This will be done in
writing and not later than seven days after a transfer or other
change in address occurs.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3wjwb2bk from Leagle.com.


INFLECTION RISK: Taylor Class Action Settlement Has Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul A. Magnuson of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota concludes that the settlement in the case, Tony N.
Taylor, Plaintiff, v. Inflection Risk Solutions, LLC, Defendant,
Civ. No. 20-2266 (PAM/DTS) (D. Minn.), is fair, reasonable, and
adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2), and that notice of the
settlement should be given to the class members.  Accordingly, he
grants the Plaintiff's unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval
and preliminarily approves the settlement.

These settlement classes are conditionally certified for settlement
purposes:

     a. Deemed Misdemeanor Class:

All natural persons on whom Defendant published a consumer report,
from Oct. 12, 2018 to July 13, 2021, where: 1) the consumer had a
Minnesota criminal conviction for which the imposition of a
sentence was stayed pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 609.135; 2) the
conviction was deemed a misdemeanor pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section
609.13, before the date on which Defendant prepared the consumer
report, with probation being discharged; 3) the consumer report
indicated that the offense level was felony; and 4) the consumer
report did not indicate that the conviction was deemed a
misdemeanor.

     b. Nationwide Inaccurate Offense Characterization Class:

All natural persons on whom Defendant published a consumer report,
from Oct. 12, 2018 to Sept. 29, 2021, where: 1) Defendant's report
listed a criminal offense; 2) Defendant's report characterized the
offense as offense class: violence; and 3) the description of the
crime on Defendant's report does not involve a violent act against
another person, or a threatened violent act towards another person.
A list of offenses the Parties have agreed satisfy this criterion
(3), for purposes of the Settlement, is attached to the Settlement
Agreement as Exhibit A.

The Class does not include individuals who were convicted of crimes
involving possession of a weapon and where the underlying elements
of the crime involve violence or threatened violence towards
another person or where the state law of the jurisdiction defines
the possession of a weapon as a crime of violence.

The Defendant is to provide data regarding members on the Class
List, and the Settlement Administrator is to implement the Notice
Plan, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement's terms and
timelines. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Administrator
will provide a declaration to be filed with the Court attesting to
the implementation of the Notice Plan prior to the Final Approval
Hearing. To the extent the Parties or Settlement Administrator
determine that ministerial changes to the Notice Plan are necessary
before disseminating notice to the Settlement Class Members, they
may make those changes without further application to the Court.

If a Settlement Class Member chooses to opt out of their respective
Class, that Class Member is required to submit a written request
for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator by mail, postmarked
on or before the date specified in the Class Notice, which will be
no later than 60 days following the initial mailing of the Class
Notice.

Any Settlement Class Member who wishes for any objection to be
considered must file with the Court, and mail a copy to the
Settlement Administrator, a written notice of objection to be
postmarked within 60 days after the date of initial mailing of the
Class Notice.

Any Settlement Class Member who fails to timely file and serve a
written objection pursuant to the terms of the Order and the
Settlement Agreement will not be permitted to object to the
approval of the settlement or the Settlement Agreement and will be
foreclosed from seeking any review of the settlement or the terms
of the Settlement Agreement by appeal or other means.

The Court will hold a final approval hearing on Nov. 15, 2022, at
11 a.m., in Courtroom 7D, Warren E. Burger Federal Building and
U.S. Courthouse, 316 N. Robert St., St. Paul, Minnesota 55116.

All briefs, memoranda, petitions, and affidavits to be filed in
support for an individual award to the Class Representative and for
an award of attorney's fees and costs will be filed not later than
14 days before the Opt-Out & Objections Deadline.

All briefs, memoranda, petitions, and affidavits to be filed in
support of final approval of the settlement will be filed not later
than seven days following the Opt-Out & Objections Deadline.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/56a9bkan from Leagle.com.


INSTITUTE FOR THE PUERTO RICAN: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. INSTITUTE FOR THE PUERTO RICAN/HISPANIC
ELDERLY, INC., ACACIA NETWORK, INC., LUZ M. CHANCI GARCIA (a/k/a
LUCY GARCIA), and SULEIKA C DRINANE (a/k/a SULEIKA CABRERA
DRINANE), Case No. 1:22-cv-04365 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2022) is a
class action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act,
seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages,
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs from the Defendants for Defendants' failure or
refusal to pay minimum wages for all hours worked.

The Plaintiff is a New York resident and was employed by Defendants
as a kitchen worker.  

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff starting at June 12, 2007, to
the present.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ISSEY MIYAKE USA: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Issey Miyake U.S.A.
Corp. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Issey Miyake U.S.A. Corp.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-06317 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2022).

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

Issey Miyake U.S.A. Corp. -- https://us-store.isseymiyake.com/ --
designs and manufactures apparels. The Company offers women's and
men's designer clothes, bags, and other related accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JINX INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Slade Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. JINX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06102
(S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022) alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

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

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

Jinx, Inc. provides apparel and accessories. The Company offers
shirts, outerwear, bottoms, and accessories. Jinx serves customers
in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com

KEEN INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keen, Inc. The case
is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Keen, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06315 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 25, 2022).

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

Keen -- https://www.keenfootwear.com/ -- is an American footwear
and accessories company based in Portland, Oregon.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KOHL'S INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kimberlyn Rodriguez, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kohl's, Inc., Does 1-50
inclusive, Case No. 37-02022-00017805-CU- was removed from the
Superior Court, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on July 22, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01079-JLS-WVG to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

Kohl's (stylized as KOHL'S) -- https://www.kohls.com/ -- is an
American department store retail chain, operated by Kohl's
Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lauren Nicole Vega, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq.
          FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC.
          3160 Camino del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 693-4307
          Email: lauren@ferrarovega.com
          nick@ferrarovega.com

               - and -

          Rick A. Waltman, Esq.
          RICK WALTMAN LAW, APC
          501 West Broadway, Suite 800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 320-5666
          Email: rick@rickwaltmanlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
          Kerri Haru Sakaue, Esq.
          Matthew Charles Kane, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Phone: (310) 820-8800
          Fax: (310) 820-8859
          Email: abeverlin@bakerlaw.com
                 ksakaue@bakerlaw.com
                 mkane@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Sylvia Jihae Kim, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          600 Montgomery Street, Ste. 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 659-2618
          Fax: (415) 659-2601
          Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com


L'OREAL USA: Violates Biometric Information Privacy Act, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN KUKOVEC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. L'OREAL USA, INC. D/B/A L'OREAL PARIS, Case No.
1:22-cv-03829 (N.D. Ill., July 25, 2022) is a class action
complaint against L'Oreal, pursuant to the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff files suit to remedy the Defendant's unlawful
collection, storage, and use of Plaintiff's and the proposed
class's biometrics without their informed written consent through
the Virtual Try-On tool offered on Defendant's websites.

Plaintiff Morgan Kukovec resides in West Chicago, DuPage County,
Illinois.

The Defendant is a makeup company that markets a variety of
products, alone and through its subsidiaries including, as relevant
here, the "L'OREAL PARIS," Maybelline, NYX Cosmetics, Yves Saint
Laurent, Shu Uemura, Lancome, Urban Decay, Giorgio Armani, and
Garnier brands.

The Defendant sells its makeup products in brick-and-mortar retail
shops and drugstores and through its many websites, including
lorealparisusa.com, maybelline.com, nyxcosmetics.com,
https://www.yslbeautyus.com, https://www.shuuemura-usa.com,
https://www.lancome-usa.com, https://www.urbandecay.com,
https://www.giorgioarmanibeauty-usa.com, and
https://www.garnierusa.com.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and, pursuant
to 735 ILCS 5/2-801, on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals defined as follows:

   "All persons whose biometric identifiers were captured by the
   Defendant through use of the Virtual Try-On tool on the
   Defendant's websites, including www.lorealparisusa.com,
   www.maybelline.com, www.nyxcosmetics.com,
   https://www.yslbeautyus.com, https://www.shuuemura-usa.com,
   https://www.lancome-usa.com, https://www.urbandecay.com,
   https://www.giorgioarmanibeauty- usa.com, and
   https://www.garnierusa.com, while residing in Illinois from five

   years preceding the date of the filing of this action to the
   present."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq.
          Bret K. Pufahl, Esq.
          Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
          Robert Foote, Esq.
          FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
          10 W. State Street, Suite 200
          Geneva, IL 60134
          Telephone: (630) 232-7450
          Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
          E-mail: ecc@fmcolaw.com
                  bkp@fmcolaw.com
                  kcc@fmcolaw.com
                  rmf@fmcolaw.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Glenn E. Chappell, Esq.
          Allison W. Parr, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  gchappell@tzlegal.com
                  aparr@tzlegal.com

LA GARCONNE LLC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against La Garconne, LLC. The
case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. La Garconne, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04354 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2022).

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

La Garconne -- https://lagarconne.com/ -- is an online fashion
retailer specializing in the elegantly understated.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Faces Daniels Family Trust Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVSC) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that it is facing a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court of Nevada against
the company, its founder Sheldon G. Adelson and COO Patrick Dumont
filed by The Daniels Family 2001 Revocable Trust, a putative
purchaser of the company's shares, on October 22, 2020.

The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that LVSC made
materially false or misleading statements, or failed to disclose
material facts, from February 27, 2016 through September 15, 2020,
with respect to its operations at the Marina Bay Sands, its
compliance with Singapore laws and regulations, and its disclosure
controls and procedures. On January 5, 2021, the U.S. District
Court entered an order appointing Carl S. Ciaccio and Donald M.
DeSalvo as lead plaintiffs. On March 8, 2021, Lead Plaintiffs filed
a purported class action amended complaint against LVSC, Sheldon G.
Adelson, Patrick Dumont, and Robert G. Goldstein, alleging similar
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act over the
same time period of February 27, 2016 through September 15, 2020.

On March 22, 2021, the U.S. District Court granted Lead Plaintiffs'
motion to substitute Dr. Miriam Adelson, in her capacity as the
Special Administrator for the estate of Sheldon G. Adelson, for
Sheldon G. Adelson as a defendant in this action. On May 7, 2021,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on
July 6, 2021, and the defendants filed their reply on August 5,
2021. On March 28, 2022, the U.S. District Court entered an order
dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety. The U.S. District
Court dismissed certain claims with prejudice but granted Lead
Plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint with respect to the other
claims by April 18, 2022. On April 8, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Reconsideration and to Extend Time to File the Amended
Complaint, requesting the U.S. District Court reconsider certain
aspects of its March 28, 2022 order, and to extend the deadline for
Lead Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The defendants filed
an opposition to the motion on April 22, 2022. On April 18, 2022,
Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On May 18, 2022,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. is a casino and resort company with a
corporate headquarters in Paradise, Nevada.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Faces Turesky Shareholder Suit in Nevada Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVSC) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that on December 28, 2020,
Andrew Turesky filed a putative shareholder derivative action on
behalf of the Company in the U.S. District Court, against Sheldon
G. Adelson, Patrick Dumont, Robert G. Goldstein, Irwin Chafetz,
Micheline Chau, Charles D. Forman, Steven L. Gerard, George
Jamieson, Charles A. Koppelman, Lewis Kramer and David F. Levi, all
of whom are current or former directors and/or officers of LVSC.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of
the Exchange Act.

On February 24, 2021, the U.S. District Court entered an order
granting the parties' stipulation to stay this action in light of
the Daniels Family 2001 Revocable Trust putative securities class
action. Subject to the terms of the parties' stipulation, this
action is stayed until 30 days after the final resolution of the
motion to dismiss in the Securities Action. On March 11, 2021, the
U.S. District Court granted the plaintiff's motion to substitute
Dr. Miriam Adelson, in her capacity as the Special Administrator
for the estate of Sheldon G. Adelson, for Sheldon G. Adelson as a
defendant in this action. This action is in a preliminary stage.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. is a casino and resort company with a
corporate headquarters in Paradise, Nevada.


LEAH PALMER: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leah Palmer Anderson
Designs, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Leah Palmer Anderson
Designs, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04360 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2022).

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

Leah Palmer Anderson Designs, which also operates under the name
Lee Anderson -- https://leeandersoncouture.com/ -- offers curated
fabrics, dazzling dresses, tunics, pants, and coats Cocktail and
black tie Designed by Lee Anderson.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIBERTY RESIDENTIAL: Amaya Suit Remanded to San Diego State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California remands the case, NATALI AMAYA, Plaintiff,
v. LIBERTY RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-859-L-JML (S.D. Cal.), to the San Diego Superior Court.

The Plaintiff filed the action on April 21, 2022, in the San Diego
Superior Court. She alleges the Defendants violated several
California labor and employment laws. On June 10, 2022, the
Defendants removed the action to the Federal District Court.

The Plaintiff asked the Court to remand, arguing that the
Defendants failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The Defendants
submitted a notice of non-opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to
remand, asserting they concluded the amount in controversy
requirement cannot be met.

Based on the record, Judge Lorenz finds the Defendants failed to
meet their burden. He, therefore, grants the Plaintiff's motion and
remands the action to San Diego Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/znaaxujs from Leagle.com.


LUNDA CONSTRUCTION: Hanlon Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, WWPCL
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN HANLON on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LUNDA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Case No. 22-cv-848 (E.D.
Wis., July 25, 2022) is a collective and class action brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's
Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief
the Court may deem appropriate.

Mr. Hanlon and all other similarly situated are current and former
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of the Defendant.

The Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful
compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate all
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours
worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime
rate of pay, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, says the suit.

Lunda specializes in major infrastructure and structure projects
throughout the upper Midwest and is known for its expertise in
bridge construction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com

MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: More Time to File Responsive Pleading Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Houston v. Maricopa
County, et al., Houston v. Maricopa, County, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-00875-SPL-MTM (D. Ariz.), the Defendants Maricopa County,
Arizona, and Sheriff Paul Penzone, Sheriff of Maricopa County,
Arizona, file their unopposed motion for extension of time to file
responsive pleading (second request) and response to plaintiff's
motion and memorandum of points and authorities in support of class
certification (first request).

On July 12, 2022, the plaintiff lodged his proposed motion to
certify class, and which was then filed on July 13, 2022. given the
attention needed for the motion to dismiss, the Defendants also
seek a short, one-week extension of time of up to and including
August 3, 2022, in which to file their response to the motion to
certify class.

Maricopa County is in the south-central part of the U.S. state of
Arizona.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 22, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BBt22e at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sarah L. Barnes, Esq.
          Danielle N. Chronister, Esq.
          BROENING OBERG WOODS & WILSON
          2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1600
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone : (602) 271-7700
          Facsimile : (602) 258-7785
          E-mail: slb@bowwlaw.com
                  dnc@bowwlaw.com
                  kel@bowwlaw.com
                  sls@bowwlaw.com

MICHAEL KORS: Wiretaps Electronic Communications, Valenzuela Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SONYA VALENZUELA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MICHAEL KORS (USA) INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV23635
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 22, 2022) is a class action
suit against the Defendant for its illegal wiretapping of
electronic communications with Defendant's website,
https://www.michaelkors.com.

Unbeknownst to visitors to the Website, the Defendant has secretly
deployed "keystroke monitoring" software that Defendant uses to
surreptitiously intercept, monitor, and record the communications
(including keystrokes and mouse clicks) of all visitors to its
Website. The Defendant neither informs visitors nor seeks their
express or implied consent prior to this wiretapping, the lawsuit
says.

The Defendant has allegedly violated and continues to violate the
California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code,
entitling Plaintiff and Class Members to relief pursuant thereto.
The Defendant's actions amount to the digital equivalent of both
looking over a consumer's shoulder and eavesdropping on a
consumer's conversation. Defendant's conduct is not only illegal,
16 offensive: indeed, a recent study conducted by the Electronic
Privacy Information Center, a respected thought leader regarding
digital privacy, found that nearly 9 in 10 adults are "very
concerned" about data privacy, and 75% of adults are unaware of the
extent to which companies gather, store, and exploit their personal
data, the suit adds.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated defined as follows:

   "All persons within California, who within one year of the
   filing of this Complaint visited Defendant's website, and whose

   electronic communications were caused to be intercepted,
   recorded, and/or monitored by Defendant without prior
   consent."

Michael Kors designs and sells apparel, accessories, and
footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          David W. Reid, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                  dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                  vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com

NEW YORK, NY: Underpays Sanitation Enforcement Agents, Dowdy Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAMEKA DOWDY, JEFFREY HUNTER, SEAN MILAN, JOEL PURSER, SANDRA
CASTRO, CECELIA ROJAS, KEVON CHISHOLM, RICHARD ORTEGA, MARISOL
CONCEPCION, ROBERT TABON, RASHEEN ODOM, CARMELITA GORDON-FLEETWOOD,
and RAYMOND PACHECO, On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-06284 (S.D.N.Y., July
25, 2022) alleges that of New York discriminates and compensates
Sanitation Enforcement Agents (SEAs) less than Sanitation Workers
for substantially equal work in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York City Human Rights Law, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the New
York State Equal Pay Law.

The Plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief to remedy ongoing
violations of federal and state law, compensatory damages, punitive
damages, liquidated damages, front pay, back pay, interest, and an
award of attorney's fees.

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that's among the world's major commercial,
financial and cultural centers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip H. Seelig, Esq.
          Matthew J. Porcaro, Esq.
          SEELIG LAW OFFICES, LLC
          299 Broadway, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 766-0600

               - and -

          Steven Moser, Esq.
          MOSER LAW FIRM P.C.
          5 East Main Street
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (516) 671-1150
          E-mail: steven.moser@moserlawfirm.com

OPTIMA BEAUTY JH: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Optima Beauty JH,
Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Optima Beauty JH, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-04377 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2022).

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

Optima Beauty JH, Inc. -- https://www.optimabeautysupply.com/ --
feature one of the largest inventories of beauty products
online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PAINTBOX LLC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paintbox, LLC. The
case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Paintbox, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04367
(E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2022).

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

Paintbox -- https://paint-box.com/ -- is an Upper East Side, New
York based nail studio that elevates every aspect of the manicure
experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PARKING AUTHORITY: Appeal From Summary Judgment in Bolus Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PARKING AUTHORITY OF RIVER CITY, INC., Appellant v.
TODD K. BOLUS AND L. STANLEY CHAUVIN, III, Appellees, Case No.
2021-CA-0475-MR (Ky. App.), the Court of Appeals of Kentucky
dismisses the Appellant's appeal from the Jefferson Circuit Court's
April 13, 2021 order denying its motion for summary judgment on the
issue of governmental immunity.

The case has a lengthy and complicated history, dating back to
2007, when a class action was filed against (among other parties)
Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government and Parking Authority
of River City, Inc. (PARC) regarding the enforcement of parking
violations. Most recently, Metro's motion for summary judgment was
granted (and it was dismissed as a party) after the Jefferson
Circuit Court determined that Metro was entitled to sovereign
immunity protection. PARC's similar motion was denied. The
interlocutory appeal by PARC followed.

The matter before the Court is rather simple: Did the circuit court
err in ruling that there were factual issues surrounding PARC's
claim that it provided governmental functions?

The Court of Appeals explains that the state Supreme Court's
opinion in Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2001), is the
seminal case on sovereign immunity in the Commonwealth. "A state
agency is entitled to immunity from tort liability to the extent
that it is performing a governmental, as opposed to a proprietary,
function." And "an order denying a substantial claim of absolute
immunity is immediately appealable even in the absence of a final
judgment."

The Kentucky Supreme Court has recently revisited the issue of what
constitutes a "substantial claim of absolute immunity" in Upper
Pond Creek Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. Kinser, 617 S.W.3d
328, 333-34 (Ky. 2020), reh'g denied (Feb. 18, 2021). It adopts a
similar analysis.

For this, the Court of Appeals opines that where the Jefferson
Circuit Court held open the issue of PARC's claim of immunity,
holding that "there are multiple issues of material fact and
summary judgment is not appropriate." Thus, it agrees that
additional factual development is necessary to answer these
questions. It does not undertake a fact-finding mission to resolve
questions that the circuit court has not yet fully addressed. It
won't overstep its bounds by attempting to make findings of fact on
those issues so it can determine an immunity question that the
circuit court has not yet fully addressed.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mtft8x54 from Leagle.com.

Michael J. O'Connell -- moconnell@innovationcounsel.com --
Jefferson County Attorney, John F. Carroll, Peter F. Ervin, David
A. Sexton, Assistant Jefferson County Attorneys, in Louisville,
Kentucky, BRIEFS FOR THE APPELLANT.

David B. Mour, Joseph C. Souza -- jsouza@ackersonlegal.com -- in
Louisville, Kentucky, BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEES.


PERDUE FARMS: Misclassifies Chicken Farmers, Parker Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER PARKER, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PERDUE FARMS, INC. and PERDUE FOODS, LLC,
Case No. 5:22-cv-00268-TES (M.D. Ga., July 22, 2022) seeks to
recover for damages and other appropriate relief related to
Plaintiff Roger Parker and other chicken farmers misclassification
as an "independent contractor."

According to the complaint, Perdue treated Plaintiff and all of its
growers as controlled employees under both federal and Georgia law
despite inducing chicken farmers to contract to raise chickens with
Perdue through promises of independence. As an employee, Parker was
entitled to various federal and state wages, benefits, and other
payments that Perdue did not provide, even though Perdue knew that
Parker should have been classified as an employee based on the
level of control Perdue exercised over Parker's chicken growing
operation, says the suit.

Through this and other conduct, the Plaintiff contends that Perdue
violated various state and federal laws regarding the wages and
benefits that it was obligated to offer its growers as employees,
and also defrauded its growers, breached the contracts it entered
into with its growers, and unjustly enriched itself at its growers'
expense.

Perdue also terminated Parker's grower contract due to Parker
contacting the U.S. Department of Agriculture about a potential
violation by Perdue of the Packers & Stockyards Act. After Perdue
became aware that Parker had contacted the USDA, his Perdue
supervisor told him he should not have talked to the government and
made clear that Perdue was angry with him for having done so, the
suit added.

By misclassifying growers, Perdue offloads enormous capital costs
and financial risks onto them. Instead of being responsible for the
cost of constructing chicken houses, upgrading equipment, managing
waste, and potentially losing chickens to natural disasters or
other unexpected circumstances, Perdue forces growers to bear these
costs by deceptively classifying growers as independent contractors
while meticulously controlling virtually every moment and every
aspect of their work, alleges the suit.

Plaintiff Roger Parker is a resident of Abbeville, South Carolina
who worked under contract as a grower for Defendants Perdue Farms,
Inc. and Perdue Foods, LLC in Milledgeville, Georgia.

Perdue Foods LLC was founded in 2008. The company's line of
business includes providing poultry slaughtering and
processing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie Crooks,Esq.
          FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP
          1825 7th St NW, No. 821
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (617) 721-3587
          E-mail: jamie@fairmarklaw.com

               - and -

          T. Brandon Waddell, Esq.
          Jarred A. Klorfein, Esq.
          CAPLAN COBB LLC
          75 Fourteenth Street, NE, Suite 2700
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 596-5600
          Facsimile: (404) 596-5604
          E-mail: bwadell@caplancobb.com
                  jklorfein@caplancobb.com

PHILO INC: Discloses Digital Subscribers' Identities, Newlands Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES NEWLANDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PHILO, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-04296 (N.D. Cal., July
25, 2022) is a class action against Philo for its violations of the
federal Video Privacy Protection Act.

The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's practice of
knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc.,
formerly known as Facebook, Inc., "personally identifiable
information" ("PII") about the videos Plaintiff and similarly
situated subscribers obtain from Defendant's websites and
applications.

This is a consumer privacy class action against Philo, for
disclosing its digital subscribers' identities and the specific
video materials they obtained from Defendant's website to Facebook,
in violation of the VPPA. Philo is "engaged in the business  of
rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or
similar audiovisual materials," thus bringing it within the VPPA's
definition of "video tape service provider," says the suit.

Philo operates a digital subscription service where subscribers may
view television shows and movies from the more than 60 networks
available on the Philo platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
          Lee Lowther, Esq.
          Courtney E. Ross, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 W. 7th St.
          Little Rock, AR, 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
          E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
                  llowther@cbplaw.com
                  cross@cbplaw.com

POKE BURRITO: Villegas Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE VILLEGAS, and PEDRO TEMPLOS LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated v. POKE BURRITO INC. d/b/a
POKE BURRITO, "PAISANO" DOE (an individual whose full name is
currently unknown but is expected to become known in the course of
discovery), Case No. 1:22-cv-04340 (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2022) seeks
to recover compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory
minimum wage, unpaid wages from defendants for overtime work, and
liquidated damages pursuant to the the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiffs seek to prosecute their FLSA claims as a collective
action on behalf of a collective group of persons defined as
follows:

   "All persons who are or were formerly employed by defendants in
   the United States at any time since July 23, 2019, to the entry

   of judgment in this case, who were restaurant employees, and who

   were not paid statutory minimum wages and/or overtime
   compensation at rates at least one-and-one-half times the
   regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours
   per workweek."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
          1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com

PREHIRED RECRUITING: Nguyen Sues Over Prehired Training Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
NGHIA "NATHAN" NGUYEN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PREHIRED RECRUITING, LLC, PREHIRED, LLC, and
JOSHUA JORDAN, Individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-02894-MHC (N.D. Ga.,
July 22, 2022) seeks redress for the Defendant's deceptive
practices in its marketing, advertising, and execution of the
Prehired training program and Income Share Agreement ("ISA").

According to the complaint, the Prehired training program and ISA
is deceptively marketed, advertised, and sold to the Plaintiff and
the other Class members as a video-based educational training and
mentorship program that helps consumers learn about tech/software
sales so they can earn a six-figure salary, while paying nothing to
Prehired up front. In return, consumers will pay Prehired 12.5% of
their salary for four years, or up to $30,000. However, Prehired
charges all consumers who sign the ISA $30,000.00, even if they do
not finish, or even start, the Prehired training program, and even
if Prehired unilaterally removes them from the program, the suit
says.

The central message of Defendant's marketing and advertising is
that the Prehired training program and ISA was designed as a "no
risk program" with a job guarantee. The Defendant's claims
regarding the Prehired training program and ISA are false and
misleading because there is no job guarantee for consumers who
complete the Prehired training program, the suit added.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Bertucci, Esq.
          Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
          AGRUSS LAW FIRM, LLC
          4809 N. Ravenswood Ave., Suite 419
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Telephone: (312) 224-4695
          Facsimile: (312) 253-4451
          E-mail: mbertucci@agrusslawfirm.com
                  shireen@agrusslawfirm.com

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD: Venero Files Suit in D. Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prince George's
County Maryland, et al. The case is styled as Denise Venero, Sophia
Venero, Stephany Venero, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Prince George's County Maryland, Edward L.
Jefferson, Terri LittleJohn, Tanya Roberts, Jacob Cooke, in their
official and individual capacities, Case No. 8:22-cv-01805-GLS (D.
Md., July 22, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Prince George's County -- https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/ --
is a county located in the U.S. state of Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard Bruce Rosenthal, Esq.
          545 E Jericho Turnpike
          Huntington Station, NY 11746
          Phone: (631) 629-8111
          Email: richard@thedoglawyer.com

               - and -

          Rebekah Damen Lusk, Esq.
          LUSK LAW, LLC
          113 East Church Street
          Frederick, MD 21701
          Phone: (443) 535-9715
          Fax: (240) 397-5435
          Email: rlusk@lusk-law.com


PS GLOBAL LLC: Christodoulou Files Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PS Global, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Maria Christodoulou, individually on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PS Global,
LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-04335 (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

PS Global -- https://psglobalgroup.com/ -- offers IT Healthcare
Services including a full range of software support, staffing
solutions, and HIPAA compliant training which allow them to cater
to healthcare companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
          GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
          630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
          New York, NY 10111
          Phone: (212) 884-4230
          Email: adrian@gr-firm.com


RANDALL-REILLY LLC: Discloses Private Reading Info, Sharper Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALANDRESS SHARPER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RANDALL-REILLY, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-11691-BAF-APP (E.D. Mich., July 22, 2022) alleges that
Randall-Reilly rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed
detailed information about the Plaintiff's Overdrive magazine
subscription to data aggregators, data appenders, data
cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn
disclosed his information to aggressive advertisers, political
organizations, and non-profit companies.

The Plaintiff has allegedly received a barrage of unwanted junk
mail. By renting, exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing the
Plaintiff's Private Reading Information during the relevant
pre-July 31, 2016 time period, Randall-Reilly violated Michigan's
Preservation of Personal Privacy Act, says the suit.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint
against Randall-Reilly for its intentional and unlawful disclosure
of its customers' Private Reading Information in violation of the
PPPA.

Alandress Sharper is a natural person and citizen of the State of
Michigan and resides in Detroit, Michigan. The Plaintiff was a
subscriber to Overdrive magazine, including during the relevant
pre-July 31, 2016 time period. Overdrive magazine is published by
Randall-Reilly.

Randall-Reilly does business throughout Michigan and the entire
United States. Randall-Reilly is the publisher of various books,
newsletters and magazines, including but not limited to Aggregates
Manager, Better Roads, Equipment World, ProPickup, Total Landscare
Care, Commercial Carrier Journal, Truckers News, Transportista, and
Overdrive.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com

               - and -

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  aravindran@hedinhall.com

RANGE RESOURCES: Jacobowitz Shareholder Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Range Resources Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2022, that the case captioned
Jacobowitz v. Range Resources Corporation et al. was dismissed with
prejudice after the court granted the motion to dismiss.

On March 4, 2021, the putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Western District of Pennsylvania in which the plaintiff sought
to represent a class of Range stockholders who purchased or
acquired stock from April 29, 2016 to February 10, 2021.

This lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth Division) and claimed that
Range misclassified certain wells as inactive rather than having
plugged the wells and that such alleged misclassification affected
the determination of our asset retirement obligation accrual.

On March 31, 2022, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and each claim was dismissed with prejudice and no further
appeal was filed.

Range Resources Corporation is a Texas-based independent natural
gas, natural gas liquids and oil company.


REBECCA TAYLOR INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rebecca Taylor, Inc.
The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, Bryan Velazquez, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Rebecca Taylor,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06316 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2022).

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

Rebecca Taylor -- https://www.rebeccataylor.com/ -- is a womenswear
brand inspired by beauty in the everyday.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


REPROSOURCE FERTILITY: Bickham Data Breach Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that ReproSource Fertility
Diagnostics, Inc., a subsidiary of the company, is subject to class
action captioned "Bickham v. ReproSource Fertility Diagnostics,
Inc.," in the US District Court for Massachusetts.

The class action is related to a data security incident that
occurred in August 2021 in which an unauthorized party may have
accessed or acquired protected health information and personally
identifiable information of ReproSource patients.

It generally alleges that ReproSource, among other claims, failed
to adequately safeguard customers' private information. ReproSource
has moved to dismiss both complaints and to transfer the Gordon
complaint to the US District Court for Massachusetts. In addition,
the company has been notified that certain federal and state
governmental authorities, including the Office of Civil Rights of
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and attorney
general offices from three states, are investigating or otherwise
seeking information and/or documents related to the incident.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated and its subsidiaries uses its
extensive database of clinical lab results to derive diagnostic
insights that reveal new avenues to identify and treat disease,
inspire healthy behaviors and improve healthcare management.


REPROSOURCE FERTILITY: Gordon Data Breach Litigation Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that ReproSource Fertility
Diagnostics, Inc., a subsidiary of the company, is subject to
putative class action captioned "Gordon v. ReproSource Fertility
Diagnostics, Inc." at the US District Court for Nevada.

Said class action is related to a data security incident that
occurred in August 2021 in which an unauthorized party may have
accessed or acquired protected health information and personally
identifiable information of ReproSource patients. The complaints
generally allege that ReproSource, among other claims, failed to
adequately safeguard customers' private information. ReproSource
has moved to dismiss said complaint and to transfer the Gordon
complaint to the US District Court for Massachusetts. In addition,
the company has been notified that certain federal and state
governmental authorities, including the Office of Civil Rights of
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and attorney
general offices from three states, are investigating or otherwise
seeking information and/or documents related to the incident.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated and its subsidiaries uses its
extensive database of clinical lab results to derive diagnostic
insights that reveal new avenues to identify and treat disease,
inspire healthy behaviors and improve healthcare management.


REVOLUTION TRUCKING: Woolf Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLEN WOOLF On behalf of
himself and all others similarly-situated, v. REVOLUTION TRUCKING,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00562-CEF (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
      and facilitating sending notice to the class, defined as
      follows:

      "All persons who have worked for Revolution Trucking, LLC
      as a Cargo Van Operator for any length of time since
      April 7, 2019, and who were paid on a per mile, per
      route, per delivery, or per pickup basis, rather than
      solely on an hourly basis;"

   2. Approving the form and content of Plaintiff's proposed
      notice;

   3. directing the Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs' Counsel
      the contact information for each putative plaintiff, (last
      known address, email address, telephone number) as defined
      in the accompanying memorandum in support;

   4. directing the Defendants to distribute the proposed notice
      to all putative plaintiffs who are currently employed by
      the Defendants; and

   5. authorizing a 90-day notice period for putative plaintiffs
      to join this action.

Revolution Trucking is a truckload brokerage company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S1qdxn at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris P. Wido, Esq.
          SPITZ , THE EMPLOYEE' S ATTORNEY
          25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200
          Beachwood, Ohio 44122
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com

RIO PROPERTIES: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Leigh-Pink Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AARON LEIGH-PINK; TANA EMERSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. RIO PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-17556 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the
district court's dismissal of the Appellants' claims against Rio.

Leigh-Pink and Emerson appealed the district court's dismissal of
their claims against Rio, which owns and operates the Rio All-Suite
Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. They paid a resort fee to
the hotel to use its internet, telephones, and fitness room. During
this time, the claim the Defendant knew that its water system was
infected with Legionella bacteria, which causes Legionnaires'
Disease. After learning of the contamination, the Plaintiffs
brought the putative class action against it. They seek the return
of the resort fee on the theory that they would not have gone to
the hotel, and would not have paid the resort fee, if it had told
them about the presence of the Legionella.

In a prior decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of
the Plaintiffs' claims for negligence, "declaratory relief,"
violation of Nevada Revised Statutes Section 205.377(1), and
consumer fraud, and reversed the dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment claim. However, it reserved judgment on the
Plaintiffs' claims for fraudulent concealment and statutory
consumer fraud, based on NRS Section 598.0923(2), because a
controlling question of state law existed.

The Ninth Circuit finds that the Plaintiffs adequately pled the
Defendant's knowledge of the Legionella, as well as causation. But
a question remained whether they sustained legally recoverable
damages. There was no dispute that they received the market value
of the services for which they paid. The Plaintiffs contended,
however, that they would never have purchased these services had
they known that defendant's hotel contained Legionella.

The Ninth Circuit, therefore, certified the following question to
the Supreme Court of Nevada: For purposes of a fraudulent
concealment claim, and for purposes of a consumer fraud claim under
NRS Section 41.600, has a plaintiff suffered damages if the
defendant's fraudulent actions caused the plaintiff to purchase a
product or service that the plaintiff would not otherwise have
purchased, even if the product or service was not worth less than
what the plaintiff paid?

Without modifying the question, the Nevada State Supreme Court
answered "that a plaintiff who receives the true value of the goods
or services purchased has not suffered damages under theories of
common-law fraudulent concealment or N.R.S. 41.600."

Applying Nevada state law as declared by the Nevada State Supreme
Court, the Ninth Circuit holds that the Plaintiffs failed to allege
recoverable damages as to their fraudulent concealment and consumer
fraud claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yxrh77a7 from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Waller Jr. -- robert@robertwallerlaw.com -- (argued), Law
Office of Robert A. Waller Jr., in Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California,
for the Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Richard Fama -- rfama@cozen.com -- (argued), New York, New York; F.
Brenden Coller, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the
Defendant-Appellee.


ROFX.NET: Birmingham, et al., Seek Default Judgment vs. Mayon
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ryan Birmingham, Roman
Leonov, Steven Hansen, Mitchell Parent, and Jonathan Zarley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
RoFx.net, et al.,Case No. 1:21-cv-23472-RNS (S.D. Fla.,), the
Plaintiffs Ryan Birmingham, Roman Leonov, Steven Hansen, Mitchell
Parent, and Jonathan Zarley move the Court for entry of default
judgment as to liability only against the Defendant Mayon
Solutions, LLC.

Between 2018 and 2021, an informal association of Ukrainians (the
"RoFx Operators") operated a phony foreign exchange trading service
via RoFx.net -- a website hosted in Jacksonville, Florida. The RoFx
Operators claimed to have artificially intelligent software that
could conduct foreign exchange trading on behalf of customers; the
customers needed only to send funds to the RoFx Operators and, in
return, the customers were promised passive income.

The RoFx Operators perpetrated this years-long fraud (the "RoFx
Scheme") using a sophisticated website, active customer service
team, invoices, account statements, foreign exchange activity
reported on third-party websites, and promotions via advertisements
and sponsored articles—and even allowed some customers to
withdraw limited funds.

The RoFx Operators created an intricate and international network
of shell companies and relationships with financial intermediaries
to launder the illicit funds (the "Money Laundering Enterprise").

The Money Laundering Enterprise consists of a set of companies
directly receiving customer funds ("Front Companies"); another set
of companies with existing cross-border transaction volume that
would obfuscate the flow of funds between RoFx customers, Front
Companies, and ultimately to the RoFx Operators ("Layering
Companies"); and the final level of companies acting as the exit
point for the laundered funds ("Cash-Out Companies").

The Plaintiffs filed the present class action on September 29,
2021, after the RoFx Operators disappeared with their ill-gotten
gains. The Plaintiffs amended their complaint on February 14, 2022,
with the Court's leave, bringing several claims against Mayon USA:
Violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Act (Count I); RICO Conspiracy (Count II); Conspiracy to
Commit Fraud (Count IV); Aiding and Abetting Fraud (Count V);
Conspiracy to Commit Conversion (Count VII); and Aiding and
Abetting Conversion (Count VIII).

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 15, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J7z6RQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dennis A. Gonzalez, Esq.
          Jose A. Casal, Esq.
          Andrew W. Balthazor, Esq.
          Sydney B. Alexander, Esq.
          Warren E. Gluck, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-8500
          E-mail: Dennis.gonzalez@hklaw.com
                  Jose.Casal@hklaw.com
                  Andrew.Balthazor@hklaw.com
                  Sydney.Alexander@hklaw.com
                  Warren.Gluck@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. DiBlasi, Esq.
          Ruarri M. Rogan, Esq.
          Holland & Knight LLP
          31 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          E-mail: Matthew.DiBlasi@hklaw.com
                   Ruarri.Rogan@hklaw.com

RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Suit in New York Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Ryanair Holdings PLC disclosed in its Form 10-F Report for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 25, 2022, that the company was named
defendant in a class action lawsuit alleging that the company made
materially false and misleading statements and omissions.

In November 2018, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed against the company and Mr. O'Leary in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District
Court appointed lead plaintiffs, the City of Birmingham Retirement
and Relief System and City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's
Supplemental Pension System (the Birmingham Funds), in January
2019.

The Birmingham Funds filed an amended complaint in April 2019 that
purports to be on behalf of purchasers of Ryanair American
Depositary Shares (ADSs) between May 30, 2017 and September 28,
2018. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that in
filings with the SEC, investor calls, interviews, and other
communications, the company and/or Mr. O'Leary made materially
false and misleading statements and omissions regarding employment
and financial data, employee negotiation processes, the September
2017 pilot rostering management issue, and the likelihood and
financial impact of unionization, which allegedly artificially
inflated the market value of the company's securities.

In June 2020, the District Court issued a ruling dismissing in part
the Birmingham Funds' claims, including claims regarding employment
and financial data, employee negotiation processes, the September
2017 pilot rostering management issue, and the financial impact of
unionization.

The Birmingham Funds' claims regarding the likelihood of
unionization were not dismissed. In March 2021, the Birmingham
Funds issued a motion to amend their claim, seeking, among other
things, to re-introduce prior dismissed claims.

The company and Mr. O'Leary filed an opposition to the motion to
amend in May 2021. The motion was refused in March 2022.

Ryanair Holdings PLC is a low-cost airline based in Ireland.


SELF FINANCIAL: Nunez Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROLANDO NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. SELF FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 153903200 (Fla Cir.,
Pinellas Cty., July 22, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged
violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

The "Class" that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as FCCPA
Class:

   "all persons with Florida addresses that the Defendant or
   someone on the Defendant's behalf sent an electronic mail
   communication to between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in connection with

   the collection of a consumer debt."

   The Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the
   Class.

The Defendant has allegedly sent thousands electronic mail
communication to Florida consumers between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM,
whereby such electronic mail communication(s) violate 559.72(17).
The members of the Class, therefore, are believed to be so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable, the suit says.

The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to
pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the
Consumer Debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff (the "Subject Service").
The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt.

The Defendant is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SKYFINEUSA LLC: Stokes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skyfineusa, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Adam Stokes, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Skyfineusa, LLC, Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2022-00324073-CU-BT-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July
22, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Business Tort - Civil Unlimited."

Skyfineusa -- https://www.skyfineusa.com/ -- offer alcohol testers,
police testers, breathalyzers, instant drug testers and gps ankle
monitoring.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R Schoech, Esq.
          SCHOECH LAW GROUP, PC
          3511 Del Paso Rd., Ste. 160
          Sacramento, CA 95835-2808
          Phone: 916-569-1940
          Fax: 916-569-1939
          Email: matt@norcallawfirm.com


SNAP INC: Class A Stockholders Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------
Snap Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 22, 2022, that in November 2021, the company and certain of
its officers and directors, were named as defendants in a
securities class action lawsuit purportedly brought on behalf of
purchasers of its Class A common stock, alleging that it made false
or misleading statements and omissions concerning the impact that
Apple's App Tracking Transparency framework would have on its
business.

Snap Inc. owns the app "Snapchat," a camera application that was
created to help people communicate through short videos and images
called "Snaps."


SNOWDEN CAPITAL: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snowden Capital
Advisors, LLC. The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Snowden Capital
Advisors, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06217 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2022).

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

Snowden Capital Advisors LLC -- https://snowdenlane.com/ --
provides investment advisory services. The Company offers portfolio
management, asset allocation, and financial planning services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOCIAL FIRESTARTER: Jimenez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Social Firestarter
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Luis Jimenez, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Social Firestarter
LLC, John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-03834 (N.D. Ill, July 25,
2022).

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

Social Firestarter -- https://www.socialfirestarter.com/ --
provides internet marketing services for every marketing need.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marwan R. Daher, Esq.
          Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Email: mdaher@sulaimanlaw.com
                 mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com


SOCLEAN INC: Hughes Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Loreen Hughes, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. SoClean Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00445
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on July 25, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01059-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Contract Dispute.

SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning
devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway
pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health
outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive
sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Hilton Wise, Esq.
          Joseph Michael Langone, Esq.
          WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
          10640 Page Avenue, Suite 320
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Phone: (703) 934-6377
          Fax: (703) 934-6379
          Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro
                 jlangone@wiselaw.pro


SOCLEAN INC: Monaghan Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Diane Monaghan, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. SoClean Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01509
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on July 25, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01057-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Product Liability.

SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning
devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway
pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health
outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive
sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Fax: (202) 429-2294
          Email: gmason@masonllp.com


SOCLEAN INC: Wazny Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jacqueline Wazny, on behalf of Herself all
others similarly situated v. SoClean Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00449
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on July 25, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01058-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning
devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway
pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health
outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive
sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 429-2290
          Fax: (202) 429-2294
          Email: gmason@masonllp.com


STATE FARM: Arizona Court Approves Class Notice in McClure Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Earl L McClure, Plaintiff v. State Farm Life Insurance
Company, Defendant, Case No. CV-20-01389-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz.), Judge
Susan M. Brnovich of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Approve and Disseminate
Class Notice consistent with the corrections she noted.

The Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court that the Defendant
provides a class list no later than 3 days after the Court's order.
State Farm objects to being given only 3 days and asks for 14 days.
The Plaintiff has offered no reason why such a short time to comply
is necessary. There is no pending trial date, and the Plaintiff has
offered no explanation for why an additional 11 days would impede
his prosecution of the case. Judge Brnovich orders State Farm to
comply within 14 days of the Court's order.

State Farm makes several objections and requests several changes to
the proposed notice form and exclusion request form. Those
objections and the Plaintiff's responses have been considered, and
Judge Brnovich determines that some modifications should be made.
Specifically, State Farm objects to language in paragraph 1 that
suggests the person receiving the notice has been identified as a
legal representative of an owner of a Form 94030 life insurance
policy. The Plaintiff objects and argues that the language is not
misleading and has been accepted by other courts, so the Court
should follow suit. Judge Brnovich agrees with State Farm that the
people receiving the notice may not be a legal representative in
the legal sense. Therefore, the Plaintiff will remove the objected
to language but may replace it with a phrase without the legal
terminology such as "or are a family member of a deceased owner."

State Farm then asks for the Court to order the Plaintiff to
include the following statement in paragraph 9: "Class counsel is
obligated to identify those legal representatives prior to trial."
The Plaintiff objects arguing that State Farm has not provided any
authority for placing that obligation on class counsel. Judge
Brnovich agrees with him, and overrules this objection.

The next objection by State Farm is to Paragraph 5. It asks for an
additional four lines in the explanation of their answer to the
claim. The Plaintiff objects because the additional lines make the
paragraph unnecessarily long and is misleading. Judge Brnovich
agrees and overrules this objection.

State Farm also asks that Paragraph 19 include language telling
potential class members they may email class counsel to get more
information. The Plaintiff objects because it is unnecessary as
that information is already contained in Paragraph 14. Again, Judge
Brnovich agrees, and denies this request.

Finally, State Farm brings a dispute (that is not really disputed)
over the proposed exclusions contained in paragraph 9. It argues
that the class action notice contains an exclusion that was not
included in the Court's certification order.

Judge Brnovich says it is true that the Court did not previously
rule affirmatively on the exclusions because the argument was put
forth by the Plaintiff in a footnote. "A footnote is the wrong
place for substantive arguments on the merits of a motion." State
Farm also did not address or object to the requested exclusions in
its Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. It
still does not object to the exclusions here but asks the Court to
engage in some analysis of its own to determine if the exclusions
are appropriate. Yet, State Farm's proposed Notice, includes the
exclusions as requested by the Plaintiff with the addition of one
word. Judge Brnovich finds it as an objection that needs not
further discussion.

State Farm will provide the Class List to the Class Counsel no
later than 14 days after the Court's entry of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4h9jawh9 from Leagle.com.


T-MOBILE US: To Settle Data Breach Suit in Missouri Court
---------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile Us, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2022, that on July
22, 2022, T-Mobile US, Inc. entered into an agreement to settle a
consolidated class action lawsuit asserting claims related to a
2021 criminal cyberattack involving unauthorized access to the
company's systems in which certain information about a number of
the company's current, former, and prospective customers was
compromised.

The lawsuit is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri under the caption "In re: T-Mobile
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," Case No.
21-md-3019-BCW.

The proposed settlement remains subject to preliminary and final
court approval. If approved by the court, under the terms of the
proposed settlement, the Company would pay an aggregate of $350.0
million to fund claims submitted by class members, the legal fees
of plaintiffs' counsel and the costs of administering the
settlement. The company would also commit to an aggregate
incremental spend of $150.0 million for data security and related
technology in 2022 and 2023.

T-Mobile is a telecommunications carrier.


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Generic Drugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F
Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2022, that the
company, its subsidiaries, and a former member of Taro USA's
commercial team have been named as defendants in numerous putative
class action lawsuits and additional lawsuits brought by and/or on
behalf of purchasers and payers of several generic pharmaceutical
products in the US and Canada.

The lawsuits allege that the Company, its subsidiaries, and the
concerned individual in the AG and IRP complaints, have conspired
with competitors to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate customers
with respect to certain products, and also allege an industry-wide
conspiracy as to nearly all generic pharmaceutical products.  

Each of the cases that were filed in U.S. federal court has been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated proceedings under the caption In re:
Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724. The Court
had sequenced the lawsuits into separate groups for purposes of
briefing motions to dismiss.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss complaints in the first group.
On October 16, 2018, the Court denied the motions with respect to
the federal law claims. On February 15, 2019, the Court granted in
part and denied in part the motions with respect to the state law
claims. Certain cases are proceeding in discovery. The court
designated certain complaints naming Taro USA as "bellwether" cases
to begin the sequencing of proceedings, and in December 2021, the
court issued an order setting certain bellwether schedules across
2022 and 2023, including related to discovery and motions practice.


On November 4, 2021, a settlement was reached with the putative
Direct Purchaser plaintiff class, a putative class generally
comprised of wholesalers and distributors that purchased generic
drug products from manufacturers, subject to final Court approval,
pursuant to which Taro USA will pay a maximum of $67.6 million,
subject to a reduction of up to $8 million depending on the volume
of certain class members that may opt-out of the settlement.

Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a multinational,
science-based pharmaceutical company based in Israel.


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Environmental Suit Over Plant Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F
Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2022, that in July
2019, the company received a motion to approve a class action
against 30 companies located in Haifa Bay, Israel, including the
company.

Its Haifa Bay manufacturing facility is located among a large
concentration of industrial and other facilities that allegedly
releases emissions into the air in the Haifa Bay region. The
Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection has declared the
reduction of air pollution in Haifa Bay to be a primary goal and
has taken a stringent approach in enforcing environmental
protection laws for the industrial plants in Haifa Bay.

The claimant, a civil association in Haifa Bay, claims that the
industrial activity of the 30 companies allegedly caused higher
percentages of lung cancer among Haifa Bay residents compared to
the average in Israel. At this stage, the claimant seeks to receive
district court approval for the motion to approve a class action.
The 30 companies, including the company, filed their defense to the
class action on January 9, 2022.

Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a multinational,
science-based pharmaceutical company based in Israel.


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Israeli Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F
Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2022, that in June
2020, the company was named as a defendant in a putative
opioids-related class action pending in Israel, in which the
claimant alleges that the Company did not provide sufficient
disclosure regarding the risks associated with opioid use in
alleged violation of the Israeli Consumer Protection Act.

The company filed its defense to the application for class action
approval on May 2, 2021, and a preliminary hearing to address the
issue may be scheduled for late 2022.

Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a multinational,
science-based pharmaceutical company based in Israel.


TDB COMMUNICATIONS: Ramos Suit Remanded to Sacramento Super. Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Irene Ramos, Plaintiff v. TDB Communications, Inc., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00479-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand to
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento.

Ms. Ramos brought the putative wage-and-hour class action against
her employers, Defendants TDB and Gainwell Technologies, LLC, in
Sacramento County Superior Court. She worked for them as a customer
service representative from July to September 2021. TDB hired her
to work as temporary staff for Gainwell.

During her employment, the Plaintiff reported to supervisors for
both Defendants. She sued them in 2021, alleging unfair business
practices and six violations of the California Labor Code: (1)
failure to provide complete itemized wage statements in violation
of section 226(a); (2) failure to pay minimum wage in violation of
section 1194; (3) failure to provide meal period premiums in
violation of sections 226.7 and 512(a); (4) failure to timely pay
wages upon termination in violation of sections 201 to 203; (5)
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of sections 510 and
1194; and (6) failure to reimburse business expenses in violation
of sections 2800 and 2802.

The Plaintiff also seeks civil penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act, Labor Code section 2698 et seq. She seeks to
represent a class of all current and former hourly-paid or
non-exempt employees who worked for either defendant in California
at any time between Oct. 21, 2017 and Oct. 21, 2021.

Gainwell timely removed to the Court, invoking the latter's
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. It determined
removal was appropriate after receiving the Plaintiff's first set
of discovery requests, which suggested she sought to represent a
class including Gainwell's direct non-exempt employees, not just
individuals jointly employed by TDB and Gainwell. DB consents to
removal.

The Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction because the Defendants have not shown more than
$5 million is in controversy. Gainwell concedes her claims place
only $4,125,009 in controversy, but it argues the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million "once attorneys' fees are taken into
account ."

Judge Mueller holds that even assuming without deciding that
Gainwell's $4,125,0091 calculation is accurate, it falls far short
of proving the amount of attorneys' fees at stake by a
preponderance of the evidence. Gainwell estimates the attorneys'
fees at issue by assuming attorneys' fees will be 25% of the
Plaintiff's potential damages. It does not support this argument
with any evidence, arguing only that "the Court has previously
found this precise figure permissible in the context of evaluating
CAFA jurisdiction."

However, as the Ninth Circuit recently explained, courts in this
circuit require a removing defendant to prove that the amount in
controversy (including attorneys' fees) exceeds the jurisdictional
threshold by a preponderance of the evidence. They also require the
defendant to make this showing with summary-judgment-type evidence.
A district court may reject the defendant's attempts to include
future attorneys' fees in the amount in controversy if the
defendant fails to satisfy this burden of proof.

Gainwell's conclusory assertion that the amount of attorneys' fees
in controvers is 25% of the Plaintiff's alleged recovery is simply
insufficient to meet Gainwell's evidentiary burden at this stage,
Judge Mueller holds. She concludes that Gainwell has not shown it
is more likely than not that $5 million is in controversy. Her
Order resolves ECF No. 3. It also vacates the hearing set for July
28, 2022, and closes the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2db875m8 from Leagle.com.


TESLA INC: Elon Musk Dismissed from Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 25, 2022, that a class action suit was filed
against the company and its directors alleging breach of fiduciary
duties. On October 22, 2021, the Court approved the parties' joint
stipulation that (a) the class is decertified and the action shall
continue exclusively as a derivative action under Court of Chancery
Rule 23.1 and (b) the direct claims against Elon Musk are dismissed
with prejudice.

Between September 1, 2016 and October 5, 2016, seven lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by purported stockholders
of Tesla challenging its acquisition of SolarCity Corporation.
Following consolidation, the lawsuit names as defendants the
members of Tesla's board of directors as then constituted and
alleges, among other things, that board members breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition.

The complaint asserts both derivative claims and direct claims on
behalf of a purported class and seeks, among other relief,
unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On January
22, 2020, all of the director defendants except Elon Musk reached a
settlement to resolve the lawsuit against them for an amount to be
paid entirely under the applicable insurance policy.

The settlement, which does not involve an admission of any
wrongdoing by any party, was approved by the Court on August 17,
2020. Tesla received payment of approximately $43 million on
September 16, 2020. On February 4, 2020, the Court issued a ruling
that denied plaintiffs' previously-filed motion for summary
judgment and granted in part and denied in part defendants'
previously-filed motion for summary judgment.

The case was set for trial in March 2020 until it was postponed by
the Court due to safety precautions concerning COVID-19. The trial
was held from July 12 to July 23, 2021 and on August 16, 2021. On
October 22, 2021, the Court approved the parties' joint stipulation
that (a) the class is decertified and the action shall continue
exclusively as a derivative action under Court of Chancery Rule
23.1 and (b) the direct claims against Elon Musk are dismissed with
prejudice. Following the post-trial briefing, a post-trial argument
was held on January 18, 2022.

On April 27, 2022, the Court entered judgment in favor of Mr. Musk
on all counts.  On May 26, 2022, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal. The parties are in the process of submitting briefing
before the Supreme Court of Delaware.

Tesla Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells fully electric
vehicles, solar energy generation and energy storage products.


TESLA INC: Faces Nunez Class Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROLANDO NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. TESLA, INC., Case No. 153903702 (Fla. Cir., Pinellas
Cty., July 22, 2022) sues Tesla for violating the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, on a date better known by Defendant,
Defendant began attempting to collect a debt from Plaintiff. The
Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay
money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the
Consumer Debt, Defendant, and Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the
alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt.

On May 10, 2022, Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to
Plaintiff The Communication was a communication in connection with
the collection of the Consumer Debt. The Communication was sent
from noreply@tesla.com and delivered to Plaintiff's personal e-mail
address, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons as a class action. The "Class" that Plaintiff
seeks to represent is defined as FCCPA Class:

   "all persons with Florida addresses that Defendant or someone
on
   the Defendant's behalf sent an electronic mail communication to

   between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in connection with the collection of

   a consumer debt."

   The Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the
   Class.

Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy
company headquartered in Austin, Texas. Tesla designs and
manufactures electric vehicles, battery energy storage from home to
grid-scale, solar panels and solar roof tiles, and related products
and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE: Schoenholtz Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twin City Fire
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Roy Schoenholtz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Twin
City Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00778 (E.D. Mo., July
22, 2022).

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

Twin City Fire Insurance are a privately held company in Hartford,
Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS AND GENTILE PA – Miami
          14 N.E. 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: Bauserman May Recover Tort Claim Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GRANT BAUSERMAN, KARL WILLIAMS, and TEDDY BROE, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY,
Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 160813 (Mich.), the Supreme Court of
Michigan issued an Opinion:

   a. holding that the Plaintiffs have alleged a cognizable
      constitutional-tort claim for which they may recover money
      damages; and

   b. remanding the case to the Court of Claims for further
      proceedings consistent with the Opinion.

The Court is presented with the question of whether the Plaintiffs
have alleged a cognizable state constitutional-tort claim allowing
them to recover a judicially inferred damages remedy. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant adjudicated allegations of
fraud, seized plaintiffs' tax returns, and imposed penalties on
them without providing meaningful notice or an opportunity to be
heard in violation of Michigan's constitutional right to due
process, Const 1963, art 1, Section 17. Among other remedies for
this constitutional violation, the Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages.

Plaintiffs Bauserman and Broe are former recipients of unemployment
compensation benefits who allege that the Agency unlawfully seized
their property through use of the Michigan Data Automated System
without affording them due process of law. Their complaint alleges
that MiDAS initiates an automated process that can result in
recipients being disqualified from benefits and subjected to
penalties and criminal prosecution, all without notice or an
opportunity to be heard.

Mr. Bauserman separated from employment with Eaton Aeroquip and
then collected unemployment benefits from September 2013 to March
2014. On Dec. 3, 2014, the Agency issued two notices of
redetermination -- one claiming that Mr. Bauserman had received
unemployment benefits for which he was ineligible and another
claiming that he had intentionally misled the Agency or concealed
information from it. The Agency assessed penalties and interest and
informed him that he owed $19,910. He timely protested the
redetermination through an online appeal on the Agency's website,
and that protest was forwarded to the Michigan Administrative
Hearing System (MAHS) for a hearing.

However, MAHS sent the matter back to the Agency, and on June 16,
2015, the Agency intercepted Mr. Bauserman's tax refund.
Eventually, the Agency reviewed the information he submitted and
concluded that its adjudication of fraud was incorrect -- Mr.
Bauserman was eligible for the unemployment benefits he had
received, and he neither misled the Agency nor concealed
information from it. On Sept. 30, 2015, the Agency issued another
redetermination, this one finding that the Dec. 3, 2014
redeterminations were "null and void." The Agency subsequently
returned all monies that it had improperly seized from Mr.
Bauserman.

Mr. Broe collected benefits in 2013, and the Agency issued a
redetermination on July 15, 2014, finding him ineligible for
benefits and assessing penalties. He did not initially protest, and
the Agency assessed penalties and interest totaling more than
$8,000. In April 2015, Mr. Broe wrote to the Agency, appealing the
redetermination and explaining that he had not received the
Agency's earlier communications because they were sent to his
online account with the Agency and he was no longer accessing that
account because he was no longer receiving benefits. The Agency
intercepted his tax refunds in May 2015. It initially denied the
appeal as untimely but later reconsidered Mr. Broe's case. On Nov.
4, 2015, the Agency issued a new redetermination in Mr. Broe's
favor and subsequently returned all monies that had been improperly
seized from him.

Mr. Bauserman filed a putative class action against the Agency on
Sept. 9, 2015, and he later amended the complaint to add Mr. Broe
as a named plaintiff. The complaint alleged that "Michigan's
Unemployment fraud detection, collection, and seizure practices
fail to comply with minimum due process requirements." He cited 26
USC 6402(f)(3) and its several requirements. In addition, he cited
adjudication standards found in MCL 421.32a.

As stated by the Court of Appeals, the Plaintiffs alleged that "the
Agency systemically, and by way of concerted and coordinated
actions, unlawfully intercepted their state and federal tax
refunds, garnished their wages, and forced them to repay
unemployment benefits that they had lawfully received."
Additionally, they alleged, among other things, that MiDAS does not
allow 60 days to present evidence and does not allow the Agency to
consider presented evidence. They also alleged that the
questionnaires sent by the Agency do not provide the basis for the
Agency's suspicions or grounds for disqualification. Finally, they
alleged they were deprived of their property without due process of
law in violation of Const 1963, art 1, Section 17.

The Agency moved for summary disposition on a number of grounds.
Among them were that the Plaintiffs failed to state a
constitutional-tort claim because other remedies existed. The Court
of Claims denied the Agency's motion on that ground. Prior
appellate litigation centered on whether the Plaintiffs' claims
accrued when the initial redeterminations were issued or when the
Agency seized their tax refunds.

The Supreme Court of Michigan held that "the 'actionable harm' in a
predeprivation due-process claim occurs when a plaintiff has been
deprived of property, and therefore such a claim 'accrues' when a
plaintiff has first incurred the deprivation of property," citing
Bauserman v Unemployment Ins Agency, 503 Mich. 169, 186; 931 N.W.2d
539 (2019). It then remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to
"consider the Agency's argument that it is entitled to summary
disposition on the ground that the Plaintiffs failed to raise
cognizable constitutional tort claims." The latter concluded that
damages were available as a remedy for the due-process deprivations
the Plaintiffs alleged.

The Defendant sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of
Michigan, and the latter scheduled oral argument on the
application, instructing the parties to address "whether the
Appellees have alleged cognizable constitutional tort claims
allowing them to recover a judicially inferred damages remedy."

Although the Supreme Court of Michigan has never specifically held
that monetary damages are available to remedy constitutional torts,
it now holds that they are. It explains that inherent in the
judiciary's power is the ability to recognize remedies, including
monetary damages, to compensate those aggrieved by the state,
whether pursuant to an official policy or not, for violating the
Michigan Constitution unless the Constitution has specifically
delegated enforcement of the constitutional right at issue to the
Legislature or the Legislature has enacted an adequate remedy for
the constitutional violation. Because enforcement of Const 1963,
art 1, Section 17 has not been delegated to the Legislature and
because no other adequate remedy exists to redress the alleged
violations of the Plaintiffs' rights, the Supreme Court of Michigan
agrees that the Plaintiffs have alleged a cognizable
constitutional-tort claim for which they may recover money damages
and it agrees with the lower courts that the Defendant was properly
denied summary disposition.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y92342yk from Leagle.com.


UNITED PARCEL: $5.7M Class Settlement in Bleachtech Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BLEACHTECH LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
INC., an Ohio Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 14-12719 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the
Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement.

The Plaintiff filed its Motion for Final Settlement Approval on May
16, 2022. The Plaintiff and the Class Counsel also filed
declarations to enable the Court to evaluate the fairness, adequacy
and reasonableness of the Settlement. Following Notice to the
Settlement Class, no objections to the Settlement were filed.

The matter came before the Court on June 28, 2022, for a Final
Approval Hearing pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Approval Order
dated April 8, 2022. Judge Hood carefully reviewed all of the
filings related to the Settlement and heard argument on the Motion
for Final Approval. After full consideration of the Motion for
Final Approval and the presentations of the Parties, she concludes
that the Settlement provides a substantial recovery for Settlement
Class Members who do not opt-out of the Settlement and is an
excellent result under the circumstances and challenges presented
by the action.

She specifically concludes the Settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable, and an acceptable compromise of the claims filed for
the benefit of the Settlement Class. The $5.7 million Settlement is
a fair and reasonable recovery for the Settlement Class in light of
UPS's defenses, and the challenging and unpredictable path of
litigation Plaintiff would have faced absent a settlement. The
Settlement complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).

Judge Hood therefore: (a) grants the Motion for Final Approval of
the Settlement; (b) certifies the Settlement; (c) appoints
Plaintiff BleachTech LLC as the class representative; and (d)
appoints as the Class Counsel Andrew J. McGuinness, Daniel R.
Karon, and Sanford P. Dumain.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the
Settlement Class consists of: All persons or entities who, from
Jan. 1, 2011, through Dec. 29, 2013 (the Class Period), tendered to
UPS (or paying party if the package was billed to a different
account than the shipper) one or more U.S. origin packages under
contract with UPS with a declared value in excess of $300 charged
pursuant to UPS's published non-Retail rates or in excess of $200
charged pursuant to UPS's published Retail rates.

The Class Period is from January 1, 2011, through and including
December 29, 2013.

No one objected to the Settlement and only 37 members of the
Settlement Class requested exclusion from the Settlement through
the opt-out process approved by the Court. Judge Hood dismisses the
action. The dismissal is on the merits and is with prejudice as
though after trial and a final adjudication of the facts and the
law as to all Settlement Class Members who have not opted-out of
the Settlement, all of whom are deemed to have released every
Released Claim against UPS. The sole exception to the dismissal
being with prejudice is the individual claims of those who duly
opted-out of the Settlement Class (identified in Exhibit B to the
Final Approval Order).

All Persons who are included within the definition of the
Settlement Class and who did not properly file Requests for
Exclusion are bound by the Judgment and by the settlement. Attached
as Exhibit B to the Final Approval Order is a list setting forth
the name of each Person who the Court finds has properly submitted
a Request for Exclusion from the Class. The Persons identified will
not be entitled to benefits from the settlement and are not bound
by the Judgment.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in the Agreement or the
Judgment will release any claim by a shipper arising from or
relating to charges for protection other than for the first $100 of
declared value for carriage. The Released Claims specifically
encompass all packages shipped by any Class Member before Dec. 29,
2013, including packages shipped prior to Jan. 1, 2011, and
specifically exclude packages shipped after Dec. 29, 2013.

For a period of three years from the date of the signing of the
Settlement Agreement, UPS is enjoined as follows:

     (a) United Parcel Service, Inc., in its U.S. Rate and Service
Guides will include the following text in the "fee" column of its
Declared Value for Carriage pricing tables: Value from $100.01 to
[fee in dollars] $300.00 - Value over $300.00, [fee in dollars]
charge for each $100.00 (or portion of $100.00) of the total value
declared (from $0.00 to total value declared)

     (c) Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the
following example1 will be deemed compliant with the foregoing
Injunctive Relief: (b) UPS may during the period when this
injunction is in effect notify Class Counsel of a proposed change
of the language or format of the language required by such
Injunctive Relief to reflect changes in the law or a change in
UPS's business practices (including, for example, changes in the
appearance or format of the U.S. Rate and Service Guide). Font or
type size do not require advance notice; nor does a change to
reflect a change in declared value pricing that does not assess a
charge for the first increment of protection (currently $100). If
Class Counsel notifies UPS Counsel within seven days of an
objection to the proposed change, and the objection cannot be
resolved amicably, UPS may seek leave of Court on shortened notice
prior to its proposed modification(s), or, at UPS's option and sole
expense, any dispute regarding the proposed change will be resolved
through expedited mediation with the Hon. Gerald Rosen (Ret.) or
other mediator mutually agreeable to the parties.

In accordance with Section 3.2.4 of the Settlement Agreement, Class
Members with an Active Account with UPS will receive their
calculated distribution of the Net Settlement Fund via account
credit. These account credits will be issued by UPS no later than
45 days after the settlement's Effective Date. As to the Class
Members who do not use their credits, UPS will attempt to locate
the Class Member and pay the unused credits in accordance with its
regular business practices as to credit balances in inactive
accounts. UPS will in no event retain unused credits.

For Class Members who do not have an Active Account with UPS, the
Settlement Administrator is directed to distribute checks to these
Class Members in the amount of their share of the Net Settlement
Fund in accordance with Sections 3.2.6 and 12.3 of the Settlement
Agreement.

Distribution checks uncashed after 90 days, will constitute "Unused
Class Funds." Unused Class Funds will be donated to the National
Consumer Law Center, a Section 501(c)(3) non-profit public interest
law firm engaged in the education, training, and promotion of
consumer protection law, as a cy pres award.

Neither the Order, the Settlement Agreement, the fact of
settlement, the settlement proceedings, settlement negotiations, or
any related document will be used as an admission of any act or
omission by UPS or any Released Parties, or be offered or received
in evidence as an admission, concession, presumption, or inference
of any wrongdoing by UPS or any other Released Parties, in any
action or proceeding in any court, administrative panel or
proceeding, or other tribunal, other than such proceedings as may
be necessary to consummate or enforce the Settlement Agreement.

Fifty percent of reasonable costs of Notice and administration of
the Settlement will be paid from the Settlement Common Fund; UPS
will pay the other fifty percent.

The Parties are authorized without further approval from the Court
to agree to such amendments or modifications of the Settlement
Agreement and all of its exhibits as will be consistent in all
respects with the Judgment and do not limit the rights of Class
Members to enforce and administer the settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 20, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2f9yuce4 from Leagle.com.


VANGUARD CHESTER: Lichtenstein Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vanguard Chester
Funds, et al. The case is styled as Donald R. Lichtenstein,
individually and as representative on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Vanguard Chester Funds, The Vanguard
Group, Inc., John Bendle, Mortimer J. Buckley, Christine M.
Buchanan, Emerson U. Fullwood, Amy Gutmann, F. Joseph Loughrey,
Mark Loughridge, Scott C. Malpass, Deanna Mulligan, Andre F.
Perold, Sarah Bloom Raskin, John E. Schadl, Peter F. Volanakis,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02909-ER (E.D. Penn., July 25, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty.

The Vanguard Group, Inc. -- https://www.vanguard.com/ -- is an
American registered investment advisor based in Malvern,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 985-9177
          Fax: (215) 985-4169
          Email: kgrunfeld@GolombLegal.com


WAKEFERN FOOD: Feldman Sues Over Mislabeled Whole Grain Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
SARA FELDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WAKEFERN FOOD CORP., Defendant, Case No.
7:22-cv-06089 (S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2022) alleges that the Defendant
mislabeled its "Graham Crackers" made with sugar, honey and whole
grains under the Bowl & Basket brand ("Product").

According to the complaint, the Defendant's relevant front label
representations include "Graham Crackers," "Sugar Honey," a honey
dipper in a jar of honey, a "stamp" stating "8g or more [whole
grains] grain per serving," and "No High Fructose Corn Syrup." The
labeling gives consumers the impression it has a greater absolute
and relative amount of whole grain graham flour compared to
non-whole grain flour than it does and that it contains a non-de
minimis amount of honey, says the suit.

However, this representation is misleading because it does not tell
consumers that the Product is predominantly non-whole grain flour.
Consumers have no way to determine the proportion of whole grain
graham flour to refined white flour based on this disclosure.
Consumers are unable to know what percent of the weight of the
serving size of the Product is attributable to grain content
compared to the Product's other ingredients.

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than no
less than $3.29 for 14.4 oz, excluding tax and sales, higher than
similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher
than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions, the suit asserts.

WAKEFERN FOOD CORP. supplies food and consumer products. The
Company offers grocery, meat, frozen food, and dairy products, as
well as provides private label brand development, advertising
support, and category management services. Wakefern Food operates
in the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

WASHINGTON: District Court Dismisses Demos v. DOC Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, dismisses the case, JOHN ROBERT
DEMOS, JR., Plaintiff v. THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Cause No. C22-0724RSL (W.D.
Wash.), without prejudice.

The matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
of the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson, United States Magistrate
Judge, and the objections thereto.

As a bar order litigant, the Plaintiff may submit only three in
forma pauperis applications and proposed actions each year. Because
he has had more than three prior actions filed and dismissed this
year, Judge Lasnik holds that he may not proceed in forma pauperis
unless he makes a plausible allegation that he faced imminent
danger of serious physical injury at the time of filing under 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(g).

The Plaintiff alleges that he has contracted COVID-19 twice while
in custody, that the virus is "raging out of control" in the
facility, and that the "repeated episodes of staff negligence in
responding to, and treating COVID-19, could lead to the Plaintiff's
untimely death."

Judge Lasnik assumes that the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged
"imminent danger of serious physical injury." Nevertheless, he
says, the action cannot proceed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)
because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. The Plaintiff has not filed a complaint but
rather a motion to intervene in an entirely separate lawsuit
pending in an unknown jurisdiction. The relief he seeks cannot be
granted in the action, and the filing of this separate lawsuit was
legally and procedurally frivolous.

Hence, Judge Lasnik dismisses without prejudice to the filing of a
motion to intervene in the class action lawsuit referenced in Dkt.
# 1-1.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 19, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3xd2vy8f from Leagle.com.


WATTS GUERRA: Dismissal of Kellogg's Fraud and RICO Claims Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH P. KELLOGG; RACHEL KELLOGG; KELLOGG FARMS,
INC.; ROLAND B. BROMLEY; BROMLEY RANCH, LLC; JOHN F. HEITKAMP; DEAN
HOLTORF; GARTH KRUGER; CHARLES BLAKE STRINGER; STRINGER FARMS,
INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. WATTS GUERRA LLP; DANIEL M. HOMOLKA,
P.A.; YIRA LAW OFFICE, LTD; HOVLAND AND RASMUS, PLLC; DEWALD
DEAVER, P.C., LLO; GIVENS LAW, LLC; MAURO, ARCHER & ASSOCIATES,
LLC; JOHNSON LAW GROUP; WAGNER REESE, LLP; VANDERGINST LAW, P.C.;
PATTON HOVERSTEN & BERG, PA; CROSS LAW FIRM, LLC; LAW OFFICE OF
MICHAEL MILLER; PAGEL WEIKUM, PLLP; WOJTALEWICZ LAW FIRM, LTD.;
MIKAL C. WATTS; FRANCISCO GUERRA; LOWE EKLUND WAKEFIELD CO., LPA;
JOHN DOES, 1-250, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-3172 (10th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued an
order affirming the district court's:

    (i) dismissal of the claims involving common-law fraud and
        Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act based
        on mootness;

   (ii) sanctions requiring monetary payment and dismissing the
        claim for breach of fiduciary duty;

  (iii) dismissal of the claims under Minnesota's
        private-attorney general statute, and

   (iv) award of judgment on the pleadings to the seven law firms
        lacking contractual ties to the Kellogg farmers; and

    (v) denying the Kellogg farmers' motion for judicial notice
        or supplementation of the record.

The appeal stems from mass litigation between thousands of corn
producers and an agricultural company (Syngenta). The litigation
took two tracks. On one track, corn producers filed individual
suits against Syngenta. On the second track, other corn producers
sued through class actions.

The Appellants are some of the corn producers who took the first
track, filing individual actions. The Court calls these corn
producers the "Kellogg farmers."

Like most of the other corn producers, the Kellogg farmers sued
Syngenta for genetically modifying corn-seed products and
commingling these products in the U.S. corn supply. They had
intended to export much of that corn to China, but the Chinese
government refused to import genetically modified corn. That
refusal sparked tumbling corn prices and financial disaster for
thousands of corn producers like the Kellogg farmers. Corn
producers reacted by filing thousands of suits against Syngenta,
and the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation transferred the
suits to the District of Kansas for pretrial proceedings.

As the suits progressed, the Kellogg farmers began to reconsider
the benefits of suing individually rather than participating in the
class actions. As they reconsidered their litigation strategy, they
suspected their former attorneys of inflating the legal fees by
touting individual actions and concealing the benefits of class
litigation.

These allegations led the Kellogg farmers to retain new counsel and
sue the attorneys who had provided representation or otherwise
assisted in these cases. The suit against the attorneys included
claims of common-law fraud, violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Practices Act and Minnesota's consumer-protection
statutes, and breach of fiduciary duty. That suit was then
transferred to the District of Kansas as part of the multi-district
litigation.

While the suit was pending in district court, Syngenta settled the
class actions and thousands of individual suits, including those
brought by the Kellogg farmers. The settlement led to the creation
of two pools of payment by Syngenta: One pool for a newly created
class consisting of all claimants, roughly $1 billion, the other
pool, about $500 million, for those claimants' attorneys. Given the
availability of this pool, the court prohibited enforcement of any
contingency-fee agreements.

For this settlement, the district court allowed the Kellogg farmers
to participate in the new class and to recover on an equal basis
with all other claimants. The settlement eliminated any economic
injury to the Kellogg farmers, so the district court dismissed the
RICO and common-law fraud claims. It also dismissed the Kellogg
farmers' other claims, reasoning that the Kellogg farmers had
failed to allege a public benefit from the claims under Minnesota's
consumer-protection laws, their disobedience of court orders
merited dismissal of the claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and
even other law firms, which had provided assistance, could not have
breached a fiduciary duty because they had no attorney-client
agreements with the Kellogg farmers. It not only dismissed these
claims but also assessed monetary sanctions against the Kellogg
farmers.

Most of the appellate issues involve the Kellogg farmers' claims
against their former attorneys. These issues fall into two
categories: Arguments that the district judge should have refrained
from ruling on certain issues and arguments that the district judge
erred in the rulings that he did make.

The Kellogg farmers argue that the district judge erred by deciding
particular issues rather than leaving them for another court or
judge. According to them, the district judge should not have ruled
on the merits because the case had been improperly transferred to
the District of Kansas, should have recused, and lost jurisdiction
after the Kellogg farmers had appealed the denial of their motion
to recuse. The Tenth Circuit reject these arguments.

The Kellogg farmers ask the Tenth Circuit to direct the
Multi-District Litigation Panel to retransfer the case to the
District of Minnesota and vacate all orders in the District of
Kansas. They argue that the Supreme Court has allowed appellate
review of a Panel order, citing Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998).

The Tenth Circuit holds it lack jurisdiction to consider these
requests. It disagrees with the interpretation of Lexecon because
Lexecon did not involve a challenge to the Panel's transfer of a
case and addressed a federal district court's refusal to remand a
case after the pretrial proceedings had ended. Given these
differences, Lexecon does not apply and federal law prohibits
jurisdiction to consider the Panel's refusal to return the case to
the District of Minnesota and the Kellogg farmers' request to
vacate all of the District of Kansas's orders.

The Kellogg farmers also argue that the district judge should have
recused. This argument stems from suspicion that the district judge
met privately with the former attorneys to discuss exclusion of the
Kellogg farmers from any proposed class. This suspicion led the
Kellogg farmers to request recusal, and the district judge declined
this request.

The Tenth Circuit concludes that the district judge did not abuse
his discretion in declining to recuse. The district judge says that
he didn't engage in any ex parte conversations, and the Kellogg
farmers present no reason to question the district judge's word.
The expert witness' speculation does not require the district judge
to testify. Nor is testimony needed based on the expert witness's
suspicion of ex parte communications. In considering the expert
witness's suspicion, the Tenth Circuit applies "a presumption of
honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators." So "mere
speculation that an ex parte contact has occurred or that a judge
was affected by it does not warrant relief or further
investigation."

Before filing this appeal, the Kellogg farmers had sought
interlocutory review of the district judge's refusal to recuse.
They contend that the district court lost jurisdiction during that
appeal. This contention leads them to seek vacatur of 13 orders,
including (i) the district judge's acceleration of briefing
deadlines for a request to schedule a planning conference, Order,
No. 18-cv-02408-JWL-JPO (D. Kan. Jan. 21, 2020); (ii) the
magistrate judge's order for supplemental briefing on the district
court's jurisdiction to proceed during the pendency of a petition
for rehearing, Order, No. 18-cv-02408-JWL-JPO (D. Kan. Jan. 30,
2020); and (iii) the district judge's statement that he would later
decide whether to suspend a briefing schedule, Order, No.
18-cv-02408-JWL-JPO (D. Kan. Jan. 30, 2020).

The Tenth Circuit declines to vacate these orders, concluding that
the district court did not lose jurisdiction when the Kellogg
farmers appealed the denial of their motion to recuse. It holds
that it disallowed immediate appeals from the denial of a motion to
recuse or disqualify a judge. Though disgruntled litigants can't
appeal the denial of a motion for recusal, they can seek mandamus.
And the Kellogg farmers did seek mandamus.

The Kellogg farmers also challenge the rulings that the district
court did make. The district court dismissed the claims under RICO
and common-law fraud, reasoning that the Kellogg farmers had not
suffered an injury-in-fact. The Kellogg farmers disagree with the
dismissals, relying on their contingency-fee agreements and
inability to participate in any of the class actions. But, the
Tenth Circuit concludes that the district court properly dismissed
the claims involving common-law fraud and RICO. These claims became
moot because the Kellogg farmers had no economic injury.

The district court also sanctioned the Kellogg farmers by
dismissing their claim involving breach of fiduciary duty, and the
Kellogg farmers challenge that dismissal. The Tenth Circuit
concludes that jurisdiction existed and the district court did not
abuse its discretion. The latter reasonably based the sanction of
dismissal on prejudice to the former attorneys, interference with
the judicial process, culpability, warnings to the Kellogg farmers,
and ineffectiveness of lesser sanctions. In applying these
considerations, it acted within its discretion.

The district court did not err in dismissing the Minnesota
statutory claims based on the failure to allege a public benefit,
the Tenth Circuit finds. Given the allegations of statutory
violations involving disloyalty, it says, the Kellogg farmers have
adequately alleged a legally protected interest and a harm that is
"concrete and particularized" and "actual and imminent." Also,
nowhere do the Kellogg farmers address the district court's
reasoning, which treated the alleged misrepresentations as made to
a specific group rather than the public at large. By failing to
develop an argument that the district court erred, the Kellogg
farmers waived a challenge to dismissal of the statutory claims.

The Kellogg farmers also challenge monetary sanctions imposed by
the magistrate judge and the district judge. They argue that they
had legitimate grounds to object to the district court proceedings
and to refuse to participate until the Tenth Circuit decided their
interlocutory appeal. The district court had the discretion to
regard these objections as illegitimate. Thus, it did not abuse its
discretion in imposing monetary sanctions.

The Kellogg farmers sued not only their own former attorneys but
also seven law firms that had assisted. They argue that they could
bring claims against the seven law firms because they had been
listed in the contingency-fee agreements.

The Tenth Circuit rejects this argument. The district court granted
judgment on the pleadings to the seven law firms after terminating
all but the Minnesota claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Under
Minnesota law, however, an attorney bears no fiduciary duty to a
non-client. And the Kellogg farmers were not clients of these seven
law firms. So these law firms had owed no fiduciary duty to the
Kellogg farmers, and the district court properly granted judgment
on the pleadings to the seven law firms.

Finally, the Kellogg farmers have filed a motion entitled "Motion
for Judicial Notice or, in the Alternative to Supplement the Record
on Appeal." They have also filed a second motion for judicial
notice of other documents. These motions concern the fee awards
received by the former attorneys as part of the global settlement
in the suits against Syngenta. The Kellogg farmers ask the Tenth
Circuit to (1) take judicial notice of demands that the former
attorneys deposit the attorney fees into an escrow account until
this case is resolved or (2) supplement the record with these
demands. They also seek vacatur of the district court's rulings and
return of the case to the District of Minnesota.

These motions lack merit, the Tenth Circuit finds. It says, even
though the Kellogg farmers demand an escrow account for the
collection of forfeited attorney fees, this demand does not affect
our analysis of mootness, recusal, public benefit, or sanctions. So
our analysis moots the demand for an escrow account. Its also moots
the Kellogg farmers' repetition of their arguments for vacatur and
transfer of the case to the District of Minnesota, saying it has
elsewhere rejected these arguments. It thus denies the Kellogg
farmers' motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2m97f9fe from Leagle.com.

Douglas J. Nill -- dnill@farmlaw.com -- Douglas J. Nill, PLLC, in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Christopher L. Goodman -- cgoodman@thompsoncoe.com -- Thompson,
Coe, Cousins & Irons, Saint Paul, Minnesota (John M. Degnan --
jdegnan@taftlaw.com -- Kathryn M. Short -- kshort@taftlaw.com --
and Adam Chandler -- achandler@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius &
Hollister, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Arthur G. Boylan --
aboylan@anthonyostlund.com -- and Philip J. Kaplan --
pkaplan@anthonyostlund.com --Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie P.A.,
Minneapolis, Minnesota; and William L. Davidson --
william.davidson@lindjensen.com -- and Joao C.J.G. de Medeiros --
joao.medeiros@lindjensen.com -- Lind Jensen Sullivan & Peterson PA,
in Minneapolis, Minnesota, with him on the briefs), for the
Defendants-Appellees.


YUMA REGIONAL MEDICAL: Dallas Suit Removed to D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Trista Dallas, Nikolas Baldriche, as individuals
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yuma Regional
Medical Center, Case No. S1400CV202200360 was removed from the Yuma
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona on July 25, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01256-MTL to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Yuma Regional Medical Center -- https://www.yumaregional.org/Home
-- is a 406-bed, not-for-profit hospital dedicated to providing
outstanding medical care to the residents of Yuma and the
surrounding communities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP
          14646 N Kierland Blvd., Ste. 145
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254-2762
          Phone: (480) 348-6400
          Fax: (480) 348-6415
          Email: AZDocketing@zimmreed.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michelle Marie Buckley, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC - PHOENIX, AZ
          1 E Washington St., Ste. 1200
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Phone: (602) 650-2000
          Fax: (602) 264-7033
          Email: mmbuckley@polsinelli.com

               - and -

          Paul Gregory Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - DENVER, CO
          1801 California St., Ste. 4400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Phone: (303) 861-0600
          Fax: (303) 861-7805
          Email: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2022. 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 ***