/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220808.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 8, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 151

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Muth Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
48 ROCKEFELLER: Filing of Class Status Bid Due August 23
65-38 OWNERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fernandez Suit Alleges
7 EDUCATION: Robbins Geller Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit
ACTS RETIREMENT: Corra Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action
ADIDAS AMERICA: Smith Files Suit in N.D. New York
ADINA EDEN: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ADKIN'S BLUE: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Approval
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Thompson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages

ADVANTAGE GOLD: Daschbach Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
AKJK INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Ant Group IPO Bid
ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Ciccarello Suit Over Failed IPO Bid
ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Securities Suit Over Failed IPO Bid

ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS: Bid for Time Extension Partly Granted
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Ragsdale Files FDCPA Suit in D. Utah
AMER ASSIST: Avelar Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
AMERICAN PASTEURIZATION: Valencia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMERICAN UPHOLSTERY: Sequeira Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

AMERIMARK DIRECT: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
APPLE INC: Settles Butterfly Keyboards Class Suit for $50 Million
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Court Junks Securities Suit
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Sued Over Ethanol Price Manipulation
AUSTIN JACKSON: Court Moots Whole Woman's Bid to Certify Class

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Seeks to Decertify Class in MACC Suit
BANK OF GREENE COUNTY: Pretrial Sched Order Entered in Broockmann
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BERGER STEEL: Crooms Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BEYOND MEAT: Faces Miller Suit Over Mislabeled Meat Products

BIOGEN INC: Hearing on Class Status Bid Set for Jan. 26, 2023
BLACKLAPEL CUSTOM: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLUE CHIP PROS: Williams Files Suit in S.D. New York
BLUE EYE INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLUE SHIELD: Medlock Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

BOBANKS HOLDINGS: Hardin Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Court Approves Settlement in Antitrust Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: New York Class Action Tossed with Prejudice
BROTHERWISE GAMES: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BUTTERBALL LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Figueroa Suit
C.R. ENGLAND: Dickerson Files Suit in D. Utah
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Deal to Stay Discovery in Ondey Suit OK'd
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Molina Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
CDR MAGUIRE: Barker Wins Conditional Class Certification Bid

CHAD WOLF: Filing of Class Status Bid Continued to Nov. 7
CHEETAH MOBILE: Securities Litigation Voluntarily Dismissed
CHOICE HEALTH: McClinton Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Messages
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Suit Over Misleading Statements
CLERCS DE SAINT-VIATEUR: Class Action Settlement Rejected by Judge

COMMUNITY LOANS: Settlement in Bynum Suit Gets Initial Approval
CONDUENT EDUCATION: Settlement in Chery Suit Gets Initial OK
COSTCO WHOLESALE: $5.1MM Settlement in Soulek Suit Has Final Nod
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Seal Class Status Granted in Part
CUSCATLAN RESTAURANT: Suarez Sues Over Waitresses' Unpaid Wages

FCA US: Nuwer, et al., Seek Class Certification
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Seeks N.D. Ill. Proper Issuance of Subpoenas
FEDEX GROUND: Court Refuses to Add CSPs as Parties in Chapman Suit
FLORIDA: Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Complaint
FOUNDATION ENERGY: Bid for Summary Judgment Denied as Moot

FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Continued
FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Court Modifies Class Cert Briefing Schedule
GARDNER RESOURCES: Sogbuyi-Whitney Suit Seeks Conditional Status
GERON CORP: Class Action Trial Scheduled for Oct. 31
GOGO INC: $17.3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 30

GOODNIGHT GROUP: Fact Discovery Deadline Extended to Sept. 15
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Perry Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Cashiers
GOYA FOODS: Permitted to File Sur-Reply to Oppose Class Cert.
GUIDANT GLOBAL: Ward FLSA Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
HARRIS & HARRIS: Unlawfully Collects Medical Debt, Rahali Claims

HOME DEPOT: Court Sets Amended Trial Date in Didzun Suit
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Whatley Seeks Unpaid OT for Non-Exempt Workers
HUNT MILITARY: Skinner FLSA Suit Moved From E.D. Ark. to W.D. Tex.
IDEXX LABORATORIES: Monopolizes POC Diagnostics Market, Yuen Says
INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial on Class Action Set for February 2023

INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Batchelar Allowed Leave to File Correction
JACKSON CITY, MI: 903 West, et al., Seek to Certify Classes
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Stipulation to Extend Class Cert Reply OK'd
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarette, Lafayette School Says
JUUL LABS: Faces Konawa Public Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads

LAB ELITE: Marrero Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
LADY JANE'S: Pugh Sues Over Hair Salon Employees' Unpaid Wages
LAKE COUNTY, MT: Jail Inmates Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
LASALLE CORRECTIONS: Stanfield Bid for Conditional Cert Partly OK'd
LOS ANGELES, CA: Brewster Loses Renewed Bid to Certify Class

MARGARITA IBANEZ: Thompson Files Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
MATRIX ABSENCE: Court Strikes Weeks Bid to Certify Class
META PLATFORMS: Facing GBP2.3 Billion Suit From Facebook Users
MISSOURI: District Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Pate v. White
NABORS COMPLETION: $91K in Unpaid Wages Awarded in Andrews Suit

NABORS COMPLETION: C.D. California Gives Vela $148K in Unpaid Wages
NATERA INC: Court Appoints British Airways as Lead Plaintiff
NEWBY COMMUNITIES: Court Extends Time to Prepare Pretrial Statement
NVR INC: Fails to Disclose Mortgage Assessments, Butakis Alleges
ORC HOLDING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brittain Suit Alleges

OREGON: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended to Sept. 30
PADDA LAW: E.D. Missouri Dismisses Aye Suit Over Jurisdiction Issue
PANAMERICAN ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Perozo Says
PAPARAZZI LLC: Gilbert Suit Moved From E.D. Michigan to D. Utah
PARKER LORD: Harris Sues Over Press Operators' Unpaid Overtime

PET FOOD: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Holmes Suit Alleges
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought
PRINCESS K INVESTMENTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Aliaga Alleges
PSP GROUP: Faces Nunez Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
RAUSCH STURM: Stenner Bid for Class Certification Stayed

RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Loses Bid to Impose Sanctions on Fox's Counsel
ROBERT HAMMER: Zelaya Wins Bid to Seal Documents
ROMOLO CHOCOLATES: Underpays Production Staff, Parmenter Alleges
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Stipulation for Class Certification OK'd
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Gallagher Suit Seeks to Certify Class

SCOTT FRAKES: Hanes Loses Bid for Class Certification
SEALAND CONTRACTORS: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Infatino
SECURITAS SECURITY: Williams Sues Over Supervisors' Unpaid OT
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Gibbs FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
SIMONE MARSTILLER: Has Until Sept. 8 to Respond to Complaint

SOCLEAN INC: Benson Consumer Suit Moved From N.D. Ill. to W.D. Pa.
STABLE ROAD: Joint Stipulation on Class Cert Schedule Granted
SUSHI TO GO: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Staff, Sam Li Claims
SUSHINATI LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gilstrap Suit Alleges
TCP HOT: Delcid, et al., Seek Initial Approval of Settlement

TCR LOGISTICS: Bodin, Horton Seek FLSA Conditional Certification
TG THERAPEUTICS: Robbins LLP Reminds Investors of Class Action
TIFFANY & CO: Cody Suit Alleges Illegal Wiretapping to Website
TRINET GROUP: Faces ERISA Suit Over Retirement Plan Mismanagement
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Boston Retirement System Wins Class Status Bid

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Illegal Suspension, Misclassification
UNITED AMERICAN: FLSA Settlement in Logan Nixed w/o Prejudice
UNITED OF OMAHA: Filing of Class Cert. Bids in Nieves Extended
UNITED STATES: Reply in Support of Class Cert Bid Due August 9
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, James Suit Says

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Cert.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Time to File Rule 23 Class Cert Bid Extended
WALMART INC: Bid to Seal Class Cert Briefings Due Sept. 2
WALMART INC: Court Grants Stipulation to Set Briefing Schedule
WALMART INC: Faces Bolden Suit Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements

WARDEN NORSWORTHY: Williams Loses Bid for Class Certification
WELLMED MEDICAL: Faces Pillow Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Tenn.
WEXFORD HEALTH: Extension of Time to File Class Cert Deferred
WIRELESS TIME: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Zamora Alleges
WORLD BACK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fox Suit Alleges

ZOOSK INC: Flores-Mendez, Greenmeyer Lose Class Certification Bid
[*] Morgan Lewis Adds Two New Partners to Litigation Bench

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Muth Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MUTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02400-RMG
(D.S.C., July 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit
alleges.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                  - and –

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

48 ROCKEFELLER: Filing of Class Status Bid Due August 23
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO GRANDE, on behalf
of himself and the FLSA collective plaintiffs, v. 48 ROCKEFELLER
CORP. (d/b/a "Delis 48") and BYUNG W CHO, Case No.
1:21-cv-01593-PGG-JLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Gardephe
entered an order that the following schedule will apply to the
Plaintiffs motions for partial summary judgment and for class
certification:

   1. Plaintiffs motions are due on:       August 23, 2022

   2. Defendants' opposition brief         September 20, 2022
     is due on:

   3. Plaintiffs reply, if any, is         September 27, 2022
      due on:

A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3znG4xG at no extra charge.[CC]

65-38 OWNERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fernandez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 65-38 OWNERS CORP.; ORSID REALTY CORP.;
TOTAL MANAGEMENT NYC LLC; JOEL ABREU; BILLY DENK; and NARO
DZIDZOVIC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04380 (E.D.N.Y., July 26,
2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Fernandez was employed by the Defendants as building
maintenance worker.

65-38 OWNERS CORP. owns a property complex located at Rego Park,
New York. The company is engaged in the real estate business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591


7 EDUCATION: Robbins Geller Reminds of Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that
purchasers or acquirers of 17 Education & Technology Group Inc.
(NASDAQ: YQ) publicly traded securities pursuant and/or traceable
to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively,
the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with 17
Education & Technology's December 4, 2020 initial public offering
(the "IPO") have until September 19, 2022 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the 17 Education & Technology class action
lawsuit. The 17 Education & Technology class action lawsuit -
captioned Zhang v. 17 Education & Technology Group Inc., No.
22-cv-04937 (C.D. Cal.) - charges 17 Education & Technology, and
certain of its top executives, directors, and underwriters with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, please provide your information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-17-education-technology-group-inc-class-action-lawsuit-yq.html

You can also contact attorney Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins
Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: 17 Education & Technology offered tutoring
services related to academic subjects to students from kindergarten
through the last year of senior high school ("K-12 Academic AST
Services") in the People's Republic of China ("PRC"). On December
4, 2020, 17 Education & Technology held its IPO, issuing
approximately 27,400,000 American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") to the
investing public at $10.50 per ADS, pursuant to the Registration
Statement.

PRC authorities have been targeting private education companies and
tutoring companies, especially including those that are
Western-financed, for reform publicly since at least February 2019.
In January 2021, the month after the IPO, Chinese authorities
publicly made clear within the PRC, again, that they would reform
the private tutoring industry in which 17 Education & Technology
operated. In doing so, for example, the Central Commission for
Discipline Inspection, the highest internal enforcement division of
the Chinese Communist Party, and the National Supervision
Commission of the PRC released an article warning about reforms of
abuses by private education companies. In light of the proposed,
discussed, and enacted reforms from and connected to the 2018-2022
plan for modernizing Chinese education, several other Chinese
education technology firms, including VIPKid, Huohua Siwei,
Zuoyebang, and Yuanfudao, reportedly scrapped or postponed plans
for initial public offerings.

The 17 Education & Technology Group class action lawsuit alleges
that the IPO's Registration Statement was false and/or misleading
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 17 Education & Technology's
K-12 Academic AST Services would end less than a year after the
IPO; and (ii) as part of its ongoing regulatory efforts, Chinese
authorities would imminently curtail and/or end 17 Education &
Technology's core business.

On July 23, 2021, mere months after the IPO, Chinese authorities
formally revealed to the public continued regulations which banned
after-school tutoring companies that teach the school curriculum
from making profits, raising capital, or going public. These
measures formally ended any potential growth in the for-profit
tutoring sector in the PRC.

As of July 13, 2022, the price of 17 Education & Technology ADS has
fallen by approximately 85% from the $10.50 IPO price.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
17 Education & Technology publicly traded securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection
with the IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the 17 Education
& Technology class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the 17 Education & Technology
class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff of the 17 Education & Technology class action lawsuit.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for
investors last year alone - more than triple the amount recovered
by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the
world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in
In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for
more information:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html

Contact:

  Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
  655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
  Jennifer N. Caringal, 800-449-4900
  jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com[GN]

ACTS RETIREMENT: Corra Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acts Retirement
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Cara-Aimee Long Corra,
individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Acts
Retirement Services, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02916 (E.D. Pa., July
26, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.

Acts Retirement Services, Inc. -- https://www.actsretirement.org/
-- is the leader in senior retirement community living.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELAWARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM and BUCKS COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ADAPTHEALTH CORP. f/k/a DFB HEALTHCARE ACQUISITIONS CORP., LUKE
MCGEE, STEPHEN P. GRIGGS, JASON CLEMENS, FRANK J. MULLEN, RICHARD
BARASCH, JOSHUA PARNES, ALAN QUASHA, TERENCE CONNORS, DR. SUSAN
WEAVER, DALE WOLF, BRADLEY COPPENS, and DAVID S. WILLIAMS III, Case
No. 2:21-cv-03382-HB (E.D. Pa.), the Lead Plaintiffs Delaware
County Employees Retirement System and Bucks County Employees'
Retirement System asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the case to proceed as a class action pursuant
      to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3);

   2. appointing them to serve as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP to serve as
      Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

The Delaware County Employees' Pension Plan is a single
employer-defined pension plan that covers employees of the County.
The Bucks County Employees' Retirement System offers pension,
retirement plans, and various other benefits.

AdaptHealth provides home medical equipment. The Company sells and
leases mobility and oxygen equipment, wheelchairs, walkers, and
sleep therapy supplies.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 28, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zS6Xvh at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas R. Britton, Esq.
          Kevin A. Lavelle, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: dougb@rgrdlaw.com
                  klavelle@rgrdlaw.com


               - and -

          Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.
          Helen J. Bass, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER
          & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: azivitz@ktmc.com
                  hbass@ktmc.com

ADIDAS AMERICA: Smith Files Suit in N.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adidas America, Inc.
The case is styled as Ryan Smith, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Adidas America, Inc., Case No.
6:22-cv-00788-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y., July 26, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Adidas America Inc. -- https://www.adidas.com/us -- designs and
markets apparel products and is a leader in sports footwear,
apparel and equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 412
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


ADINA EDEN: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adina Eden Inc. The
case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Adina Eden Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06474-AT (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2022).

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

Adina Eden Inc. doing business as Adina's Jewels --
https://adinasjewels.com/ -- is the #1 online fashion and fine
jewelry store for bracelets, earrings, necklaces, chokers, rings,
and more at amazing prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawpc.com


ADKIN'S BLUE: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Juan and Delphina Luna, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Adkin's Blue
Ribbon Packing Company, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00545-HYJ-RSK (W.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Hala Y. Jarbou entered a preliminary
approval order of class action settlement as follows:

  1. Preliminary Approval

     The Court finds that the Settlement is within the range of
     possible approval for a case of this nature and size, and
     therefore the Court preliminarily approves the Settlement.

     Specifically, this Court finds that:

     1) based on the record presented, settlement of this case
        for a total recovery of $125,000, with a minimum of
        $98,000 directed toward the payment of claims of Class
        Members, constitutes fair and reasonable compensation
        for the claims under the 29 U.S.C. §1801 et seq.;

     2) payment from the Settlement Fund to the two Class
        Representatives in the total amount of $2,000 for their
        role in this litigation is fair and reasonable;

     3) payment to Class Counsel of up to $25,000 from the
        Settlement Fund appears to be fair compensation for
        their work on this case, to reimburse case costs, and to
        administer the settlement subject to further review by
        the Court upon submission of Class Counsel’s motion for
        attorney's fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) is
        fair and reasonable.

  2. Class Definition

     The Court certifies the class as follows:

     "All migrant and seasonal agricultural workers employed at
     Adkin’s Blue Ribbon Packing Company, Inc. to harvest
     blueberries in 2019."

  3. Class Counsel

     The Court appoints Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel.

  4. Stay of Litigation

     All other proceedings in the action are stayed until
     further order of the Court, except as may be necessary to
     implement the Settlement or comply with its terms.

  5. Extension of Deadlines

     The Court may, for good cause, extend any of the deadlines
     set forth in this Order without further notice to the Class
     except as may be recorded on the Court's docket.

Adkin's Blue provides farm services. The Company specializes in
packing the finest fresh and frozen blueberries.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BwH3OM at no extra charge.[CC]

ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Thompson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK THOMPSON & DOUGLAS SCOTT, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02771-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, July 12,
2022) challenges the labor policies and/or practices of Defendant
that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Kentucky Revised
Statute, and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violate state and federal
laws by failing to pay proper overtime, failing to provide timely
payment of overtime, and failing to provide meal breaks.

Mr. Thompson worked for the Defendant in a variety of hourly,
non-exempt positions, including as a yard employee, a downstream
technician, and most recently as a materials handler, all of which
occurred from September 2013 until the end of July 2021.

Mr. Scott worked for Defendant as a downstream technician/line
operator, which is an hourly, non-exempt position, from
approximately 2018 until around September 2020.

Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. is a manufacturer of corrugated
pipe and services the storm and water waste industry through a
global network of domestic and international manufacturing plants
and distribution centers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd. Suite #126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370
          Toledo, OH 43606
          Telephone: (419) 824-4439
          Facsimile: (419) 932-6719
          E-mail: Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

ADVANTAGE GOLD: Daschbach Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advantage Gold, LLC.
The case is styled as Richard Daschbach, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated individuals v. Advantage Gold, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03940 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2022).

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

Advantage Gold LLC -- https://www.advantagegold.com/ -- operates as
real estate brokerage firm. The Company provides sales and
purchases of new and used homes in the Philadelphia area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taylor True Smith, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 E. Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Phone: (720) 907-7628
          Email: tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


AKJK INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AKJK, Inc. The case
is styled as Andrew Toro, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. AKJK, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06451 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 29, 2022).

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

AKJK, Inc. is a company located in Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com



ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Ant Group IPO Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Alibaba Group Holding Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 26, 2022, that in January 2021, the
company and certain of its officers and directors were named
defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York concerning certain antitrust developments captioned "Elissa
Hess v. Alibaba Group et al.," No. 1:21-cv-00136.

The complaint in the Hess Action, which also includes certain
allegations about the suspension of its Ant Group's planned initial
public offering, asserts claims under Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act.

Alibaba Group Holding Limited is an exempted company based in Hong
Kong.


ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Ciccarello Suit Over Failed IPO Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
Alibaba Group Holding Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 26, 2022, that in November 2020, the
company and certain of its officers and directors were named
defendants in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
concerning the suspension of its Ant Group planned initial public
offering, captioned "Laura Ciccarello v. Alibaba Group et al.," No.
1:20-cv-09568.

Said lawsuit assert claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the U.S. Exchange Act.

Alibaba Group Holding Limited is an exempted company based in Hong
Kong.


ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Securities Suit Over Failed IPO Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
Alibaba Group Holding Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 26, 2022, that in November and December
2020, the company and certain of its officers and directors were
named defendants in a putative securities class action lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York concerning the suspension of its Ant Group planned
initial public offering, captioned "Robert Romnek v. Alibaba Group
et al.," No. 1:20-cv-10267.

Said lawsuit assert claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the U.S. Exchange Act.

Alibaba Group Holding Limited is an exempted company based in Hong
Kong.


ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS: Bid for Time Extension Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHMUEL COHEN, et al., v.
ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-03411-JLG-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Parties' joint motion for
extension of time as follows:

                        Event                  Deadline

   -- Close of Fact Discovery:              October 24, 2022

   -- Primary Expert Disclosures:           November 14, 2022

   -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosures:          January 2, 2023

   -- Close of All Discovery:               January 30, 2023

   -- Dispositive Motions and               February 27, 2023
      Class Certification Motion:

Allegiance Administrators provides vehicle service contracts to
franchise and multi-line new and used car dealers.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PGL3R7 at no extra charge.[CC]


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Ragsdale Files FDCPA Suit in D. Utah
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate.
The case is styled as Angela Ragsdale, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Allied Interstate, Case No.
2:22-cv-00487-DBP (D. Utah, July 28, 2022).

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

Allied Interstate LLC -- https://www.allied-interstate.com/ -- is a
collection agency that is attempting to collect a debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett D. Cragun, Esq.
          CRAGUN & CRAGUN
          PO Box 160234
          Clearfield, UT 84016
          Phone: (801) 450-3267
          Email: brett@brettcragun.com


AMER ASSIST: Avelar Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amer Assist A/R
Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Allan Avelar,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amer
Assist A/R Solutions, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No.
3:22-cv-01102-RSH-MSB (S.D. Cal., July 28, 2022).

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

AmerAssist, A/R Solutions -- http://www.amerassist.com/-- provides
debt collection and accounts receivable recovery solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Paul Rundquist, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW P RUNDQUIST
          501 W Broadway, Suite A144
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 992-9148
          Email: andrew@rundquistlaw.com


AMERICAN PASTEURIZATION: Valencia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American
Pasteurization Company, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Rogelio
Valencia, on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. American Pasteurization Company, LLC, Case
No. 34-2022-00324399-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., July 27, 2022).

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

American Pasteurization Company, LLC --
https://www.americanpasteurizationcompany.com/ -- operates as a
high-pressure processing company. The Company offers product
testing, packaging, packing, direct-to-consumer shipping, cold
storage, laboratory, and transportation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
          Phone: (818) 230-7502
          Fax: (818) 230-7259
          Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


AMERICAN UPHOLSTERY: Sequeira Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEFANIE SEQUEIRA, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s) v. AMERICAN UPHOLSTERY DESIGN, INC., BERT WORTEL, and
DAISY WORTEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-22120 (S.D. Fla., July
12, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant seeking to
recover money damages for Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that she worked for the Corporate Defendant
from approximately January 27, 2022, through April 15, 2022,
performing the same or similar duties as that of those other
similarly situated office workers whom she observed worked in
excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation.

American Upholstery Design, Inc. is a company in the business of
providing custom furniture and drapery fabrication inside and
outside of Florida and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aron Smukler, Esq.
          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: asmukler@saenzanderson.com
                  msaenz@saenzanderson.com

AMERIMARK DIRECT: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AmeriMark Direct LLC.
The case is styled as Valerie Dicks, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. AmeriMark Direct LLC, d/b/a Beauty
Boutique, Case No. 1:22-cv-06441 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2022).

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

AmeriMark Direct LLC, doing business as Beauty Boutique --
https://www.beautyboutique.com/ -- is a one-stop shop for
name-brand fragrances and cosmetics at discounted prices offering
perfume, cosmetics, skin care, apparel, hair and nail
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com



APPLE INC: Settles Butterfly Keyboards Class Suit for $50 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mac Rumors reports that Apple agreed to a proposed $50 million
settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging that the butterfly
keyboard used in certain MacBook, MacBook Air, and MacBook Pro
models is defective, which can result in usability issues.

The settlement still needs to receive final court approval. In the
meantime, here is everything to know about the agreement as
currently proposed.

Eligible Customers

The proposed settlement applies to any U.S. resident who meets all
three criteria:

   -- Purchased any MacBook, MacBook Air, or MacBook Pro equipped
with a butterfly keyboard between 2015 and 2019 in the United
States (except for resale purposes)

   -- Obtained a qualifying keyboard repair from Apple or an Apple
Authorized Service Provider

   -- The repair did not resolve your keyboard issues

The class action lawsuit does not apply to MacBook models sold
outside of the United States.

Eligible MacBook Models

    MacBook (Retina, 12-­inch, Early 2015)
    MacBook (Retina, 12­-inch, Early 2016)
    MacBook (Retina, 12-­inch, 2017)
    MacBook Air (Retina, 13-inch, 2018)
    MacBook Air (Retina, 13-inch, 2019)
    MacBook Pro (13­-inch, 2016, Two Thunderbolt 3 Ports)
    MacBook Pro (13-­inch, 2017, Two Thunderbolt 3 Ports)
    MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2019, Two Thunderbolt 3 ports)
    MacBook Pro (13-­inch, 2016, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports)
    MacBook Pro (13-­inch, 2017, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports)
    MacBook Pro (15-­inch, 2016)
    MacBook Pro (15-­inch, 2017)
    MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2018, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports)
    MacBook Pro (15-­inch, 2018)
    MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2019, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports)
    MacBook Pro (15-­inch, 2019)

To identify your Mac, click on the Apple logo in the top-left
corner of the screen and click on "About This Mac" in the dropdown
menu.

Payout Amounts

Eligible class members may be able to receive a payout of up to
$395 from Apple, but it depends on how many people submit a claim
and other factors:

    Class members who obtained two or more top case replacements
from Apple or an Authorized Service Provider within four years
after purchase of an eligible MacBook model, based on Apple's
records, will be paid automatically without the need to submit a
claim, according to the proposed settlement. Apple's payment to
each class member in this group is estimated to be between $300 and
$395.

    Class members who obtained one top case replacement from Apple
or an Authorized Service Provider within four years after purchase
of an eligible MacBook model, and who attest on a claim form that
the repair did not resolve their keyboard issues, are estimated to
receive up to $125.

Class members who obtained one or more key cap replacements (but no
top case replacements) from Apple or an Authorized Service Provider
within four years after purchase of an eligible MacBook model, and
who attest that the repair did not resolve their keyboard issues,
are estimated to receive up to $50.

If you received a record of the repair from Apple or an Apple
Authorized Service Provider, it will specify whether you received a
top case replacement or a key cap replacement. The top case refers
to the component including a MacBook's keyboard, trackpad, glued-in
battery, and speakers. Key caps refer to individual keys.

Each of the 12 named plaintiffs/class representatives will receive
up to $5,000 as an award for their time and effort, and lawyers
will receive up to 30% of the Settlement Fund in attorney fees,
according to the proposed settlement.

Settlement payouts are only available to class members who received
repairs performed by Apple or an Apple Authorized Service Provider.
The settlement does not provide reimbursement for any repairs
completed by unauthorized third-party repair providers or any other
out-of-pocket expenses, according to the proposed agreement.

Request for Exclusion

All individuals who fit the description of the proposed class have
the right to exclude themselves from the settlement. By excluding
yourself from the settlement, you are not eligible to receive a
payout as part of the settlement, but retain your individual rights
to sue Apple for the same allegations outlined in the class action
lawsuit.

Class members will be able to submit a request for exclusion
through the forthcoming settlement website or by U.S. mail to the
settlement administrator. The deadline for exclusion will be 95
days after preliminary approval of the settlement.

Apple Denies Any Wrongdoing

Despite agreeing to a $50 million settlement, Apple said it denies
all of the allegations made in the lawsuit, according to the
proposed settlement:

Apple denies all of the allegations made in the lawsuit, denies
that any MacBooks are defective, and denies that Apple did anything
improper or unlawful. Apple asserts numerous defenses to the claims
in this case. The proposed settlement to resolve this case is not
an admission of guilt or wrongdoing of any kind by Apple.

Apple nonetheless concluded that a settlement "is in its best
interests" to avoid additional time and legal expenses involved
with prolonged litigation.

Given the settlement, the court did not decide in favor of Apple or
the plaintiffs.

Next Steps

If and when the proposed settlement receives final approval by the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a
settlement website will be created where class members can file a
claim, submit a request for exclusion, and learn additional
information.

Apple will provide the settlement administrator with the email
addresses of each class member for whom it has an email address on
file. The settlement administrator will then notify class members
by email in due time. Some class members may also be notified by
U.S. mail. If you do not receive a notice but meet the description
of the proposed class, it will be possible to submit a claim
through the settlement website once live.

A final hearing to decide the fairness of the settlement will be
held at least 130 days after preliminary approval of the
settlement, so there are likely still several months remaining
until things are finalized and payments to class members begin.
Apple's Free Keyboard Service Program

In 2018, Apple launched a Keyboard Service Program after it
determined that a "small percentage" of the keyboards in certain
MacBook, MacBook Air, and MacBook Pro models may exhibit one or
more of the following behaviors:

    Letters or characters repeat unexpectedly
    Letters or characters do not appear
    Key(s) feel "sticky" or do not respond in a consistent manner

As part of the worldwide program, Apple or an Apple Authorized
Service Provider will repair eligible MacBook, MacBook Air, and
MacBook Pro keyboards, free of charge, for up to four years after
the first retail sale of the affected notebook. However, a problem
with the repair program is that Apple replaces the butterfly
keyboard with another butterfly keyboard, which means that the same
issues may reoccur over time.

Apple says customers who believe their MacBook was affected by this
issue and paid to have their keyboard repaired can contact Apple
about a refund.

In March 2019, Apple apologized about the matter. "We are aware
that a small number of users are having issues with their
third-generation butterfly keyboard and for that we are sorry," an
Apple spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal. "The vast majority
of Mac notebook customers are having a positive experience with the
new keyboard."

Starting with the 16-inch MacBook Pro in November 2019, Apple
ditched the butterfly keyboard and returned to using a more
reliable scissor keyboard. Apple no longer sells any Macs with
butterfly keyboards, putting an end to years of complaints. [GN]

ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Court Junks Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company 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 on July
14, 2020, Green Plains Inc. and its related entities (GP) filed a
putative class action lawsuit, alleging substantially the same
operative facts, in federal court in Nebraska, seeking to represent
sellers of ethanol.

On August 16, 2021, the court granted ADM's motion to dismiss the
GP complaint, dismissing one claim with prejudice and declining
jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is an agricultural origination and
processing company based in Illinois.


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Sued Over Ethanol Price Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company 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 on
September 4, 2019, AOT Holding AG filed a putative class action
under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act in federal district court
in Urbana, Illinois, alleging that the company sought to manipulate
the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol derivatives
traded on futures exchanges.

On March 16, 2021, AOT filed an amended complaint adding a second
named plaintiff Maize Capital Group, LLC. AOT and Maize allege that
members of the putative class collectively suffered damages
calculated to be between approximately $500 million to over $2.0
billion as a result of the company's alleged actions.

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is an agricultural origination and
processing company based in Illinois.


AUSTIN JACKSON: Court Moots Whole Woman's Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Whole Woman's Health et al
v. Austin Reeve Jackson, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00616 (W.D.
Tex.,), the Hon. Judge Robert Pitman entered an order mooting
motion to certify class in light of the Court's June 24, 2022
order.

Judge Jackson is a judge of the District Court of Texas, 114th
District.

The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act involving
constitutionality of state statutes.[CC]

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Seeks to Decertify Class in MACC Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MASON'S AUTOMOTIVE
COLLISION CENTER, LLC, on behalf of itself and all similarly
situated persons and entities, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02153-PKH (W.D. Ark.), the Defendant Auto-Owners
Insurance Company asks the Court to enter an order reconsidering
its Opinion and Order granting in part Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, and decertifying the class.

Auto-Owners Insurance Group is a mutual insurance company that
provides life, home, car, and business insurance. Their policies
are sold exclusively through local, independent insurance agents
within their 26 operating states. Wikipedia

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 27, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oKO6fd at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jamie Huffman Jones, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
          400 W. Capitol Ave., Ste. 2000
          Little Rock, Ark. 72201
          Telephone: (501) 370-1430
          Facsimile: (501) 244-5347
          E-mail: jjones@fridayfirm.com

               - and -

          Lori McAllister, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          Capitol View Bldg.
          201 Townsend St., Suite 900
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 374-9150
          Facsimile: (855) 258-3519
          E-mail: lmcallister@dykema.com

               - and -

          Todd A. Noteboom, Esq.
          William D. Thomson, Esq.
          STINSON, LLP
          50 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 335-1500
          E-mail: todd.noteboom@stinson.com
                  william.thomson@stinson.com

BANK OF GREENE COUNTY: Pretrial Sched Order Entered in Broockmann
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrew Broockmann v. The
Bank of Greene County, Case No. 1:22-cv-00390-MAD-ATB (N.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Andrew T. Baxter entered an uniform pretrial
scheduling order as follows:

  -- Any motion to join any person as a       Aug. 8, 2022
     party to this action shall be
     made on or before:

  -- Any motion to amend any pleading         Aug. 8, 2022
     in this action shall be made on
     or before:

  -- All discovery in this matter is to       April 17, 2023
     be completed on or before:

  -- Mandatory Mediation shall be             Dec. 5, 2022
     completed by:

Bank of Greene County is a federally-chartered savings bank
headquartered in Catskill, New York.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ONDXJt at no extra charge.[CC]


BAYLOR UNIVERSITY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baylor University.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Baylor University, Case No.
1:22-cv-06360 (S.D.N.Y., July 26, 2022).

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

Baylor University -- https://www.baylor.edu/ -- is a private
research university in Waco, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


BERGER STEEL: Crooms Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berger Steel
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Morgan Crooms, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Berger Steel Corporation, Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2022-00324334-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.,
July 27, 2022).

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

Berger Steel Corporation -- https://www.bergersteel.com/ -- is a
Northern California based structural steel and miscellaneous metals
fabrication and erection company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
          Phone: (818) 230-7502
          Fax: (818) 230-7259
          Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


BEYOND MEAT: Faces Miller Suit Over Mislabeled Meat Products
------------------------------------------------------------
TODD MILLER, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEYOND MEAT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-06336 (S.D.N.Y., July 26, 2022) seeks to remedy the
deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with
respect to the marketing and sales of Defendant's Beyond Meat
product line throughout the state of New York and throughout the
country.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, sells, and
distributes the Products with front and back labeling that
describes the amount of protein contained in the Products, which is
expressed in grams per serving and as a "Daily Value" (hereinafter
"DV") percentage.

However, testing has confirmed that Defendant's Products do not
contain the amount of protein (both in grams per serving and DV
percentage) shown on the Products' front and back labeling, says
the suit.

The Plaintiff and the class would not have purchased had they known
the truth about the amount of protein in the Products.

BEYOND MEAT, INC. is a Los Angeles–based producer of plant-based
meat substitutes founded in 2009 by Ethan Brown. The company offers
plant-based options in the beef, pork and poultry categories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215)592-1500
          Email: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
                 cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

BIOGEN INC: Hearing on Class Status Bid Set for Jan. 26, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Covington, et al., v.
Biogen Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11325 (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Judge Denise J. Casper entered an order setting or resetting
hearing on motion for class certification for Jan. 26, 2023.

In addition, the Court sets a class certification motion hearing
for January 26, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. and a status conference for April
10, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. Any further hearings/conferences will be set
at or after the status conference.

The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act involving Breach of Fiduciary Duties.

Biogen is an American multinational biotechnology company based in
Cambridge, Massachusetts, specializing in the discovery,
development, and delivery of therapies for the treatment of
neurological diseases to patients worldwide.[CC]

BLACKLAPEL CUSTOM: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blacklapel Custom
Clothiers, Inc. The case is styled as Victoria Dicks, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Blacklapel Custom
Clothiers, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06329 (S.D.N.Y., July 26, 2022).

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

Black Lapel -- https://blacklapel.com/ -- is a men's formalwear
company that customizes, designs, and delivers custom tailored
suits and accessories almost completely online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


BLUE CHIP PROS: Williams Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Chip Pros
Security LLC. The case is styled as Tyler Williams, Kenneth
Hidalgo, Jonte Benjamin, Shakeem Trace, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Blue Chip Pros Security LLC, Case
No. 7:22-cv-06353 (S.D.N.Y., July 26, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated Other Labor.

BlueChip Pros -- https://bluechip-pros.com/ -- has provided
innovative and cost-effective commercial janitorial solutions to
fit businesses for 30 years and provide consistent, high-quality
cleaning services in all of customers' facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears pro se.


BLUE EYE INC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Eye, Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Blue Eye, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06470
(S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2022).

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

Blue Eye's -- https://goblueeye.com/ -- smart security solution is
a real-time video surveillance system that utilizes remote
detection, prevention, and interaction to deter threats.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


BLUE SHIELD: Medlock Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Shield of
California, et al. The case is styled as Lisa Medlock, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blue Shield of
California, Talent Technical Services, Inc., Does 1 through 20,
Inclusive, Case No. CGC22600992 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., July 29, 2022).

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

Blue Shield of California -- https://www.blueshieldca.com/ -- is a
mutual benefit corporation and health plan founded in 1939 by the
California Medical Association.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: 949-379-6250


BOBANKS HOLDINGS: Hardin Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bobanks Holdings,
LLC. The case is styled as Sarah Hardin, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Bobanks Holdings, LLC doing
business as: Home Helpers, Case No. 5:22-cv-05160-TLB (W.D. Ark.,
July 28, 2022).

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

Bobanks Holdings, LLC doing business as Home Helpers --
https://www.homehelpershomecare.com/ -- is a locally owned, trusted
provider of quality, compassionate senior home care in Northwest
Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Court Approves Settlement in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2022, that a
settlement approval for the class action was granted by the court
in June 2022.

In September and October 2020, two purported class actions were
also filed alleging that the defendants' agreements to develop and
sell fixed-dose combination products for the treatment of HIV,
including "Atripla" and "Evotaz," violate antitrust laws on behalf
of direct purchasers.

In March 2021, the court dismissed one of the direct purchaser
cases and limited the claims of the remaining direct purchaser case
to those arising in 2016 or later. However, the court gave
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaints, and one plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on March 16, 2021.

In March 2022, BMS entered into a settlement agreement with the
direct purchaser. In June 2022, the court granted preliminary
approval of that settlement.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a pharmaceutical company based in
New York.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: New York Class Action Tossed with Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 27, 2022, that an
amended class action complaint filed in New York has been dismissed
with prejudice.

Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of
California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against BMS, BMS's Chief Executive Officer, Giovanni
Caforio, BMS's Chief Financial Officer at the time, Charles A.
Bancroft and certain former and current executives of BMS. The case
in California was voluntarily dismissed.

The remaining complaint alleged violations of securities laws for
BMS's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in
lung cancer. In September 2019, the Court granted BMS's motion to
dismiss, but allowed the plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint. In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

In September 2020, the court granted BMS's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the
Court's decision in October 2020. On March 11, 2022, the Second
Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of the amended
complaint. The deadline to file further appeals has expired and the
decision in favor of the Company and current and former executives
is final.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a pharmaceutical company based in
New York.


BROTHERWISE GAMES: Dicks Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brotherwise Games,
LLC. The case is styled as Victoria Dicks, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Brotherwise Games, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-06334 (S.D.N.Y., July 26, 2022).

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

Brotherwise Games -- https://www.brotherwisegames.com/ -- makes
tabletop games designed to bring everyone to the table.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bucknell University.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Bucknell University, Case No.
1:22-cv-06361 (S.D.N.Y., July 26, 2022).

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

Bucknell University -- https://www.bucknell.edu/ -- is a private
liberal arts college in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


BUTTERBALL LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Figueroa Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSVALDO FIGUEROA, v.
BUTTERBALL, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00585-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Judge James C. Dever entered an order: granting in part and denying
in part the defendant's motion to dismiss:

  -- The court dismisses with prejudice plaintiff's NCWHA
     claims.

  -- The Plaintiff may proceed with his Fair Labor Standards
     (FLSA) claim.

  -- The parties shall confer and file a discovery plan pursuant
     to Rule of Ciyil Procedure 26.

The Court said, "Butterball argues that the court should strike
Figueroa's collective action allegations or require Figueroa to
provide a more definite statement. Figueroa has not yet filed a
motion for conditional certification. The court declines to address
the collective action allegations at this stage and will address
them if Figueroa files a motion to certify a collective action and
the issue is fully briefed. Nothing in the order determines whether
the court will allow this case to proceed as a collective action."

On September 15, 2021, the court granted Butterball motion to
dismiss Osvaldo Figueroa's first amended complaint and granted
Figueroa leave to file a second amended complaint.

On October 4, 2021, Figueroa filed a second amended complaint
against Butterball alleging claims under the FLSA and the North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

On November 1, 2021, Butterball moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and filed
a memorandum in support.On November 23, 2021, Figueroa responded in
opposition. On December 10, 2021, Butterball replied.

Figueroa typically worked the night shift six days per week, from
6:30 p.m. until 9:30 a.m. the next day. Approximately once per
month, the loaders/catchers' machines would break, causing Figueroa
to work until 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. See id. Butterball provided "a
one-hour, uninterrupted lunch break," but the "lunch break depended
on the general pace of the production line." Figueroa alleges he
worked approximately 90 hours per week.

Butterball is a turkey producer.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zRVlbO at no extra charge.[CC]

C.R. ENGLAND: Dickerson Files Suit in D. Utah
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C.R. England. The
case is styled as Jakari Dickerson, an individual on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. C.R. England, Case No.
2:22-cv-00492-CMR (D. Utah, July 29, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

C.R. England -- https://www.crengland.com/ -- is one of the largest
temperature-controlled carriers in the nation dedicated to
providing a comprehensive range of transportation solutions to meet
the requirements of a rapidly evolving customer base.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew G. Deiss, Esq.
          John Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          DEISS LAW PC
          10 W 100 S STE 700
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Phone: (801) 433-0226
          Email: deiss@deisslaw.com
                 john@jrobinsonesq.com


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Deal to Stay Discovery in Ondey Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHELE ONDEY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
formerly known as ELDERADO RESORTS INC.; CIRCUS AND EL DORADO JOINT
VENTURE, LLC d/b/a SILVER LEGACY RESORT CASINO; DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00096-RCJ-CLB (D. Nev.),
Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada approved the parties' stipulation and order to
stay discovery.

Plaintiff Michele Ondey and Defendants Caesars and Circus stipulate
to stay discovery pending the Court's ruling on Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss, which seeks dismissal of all claims in the Plaintiff's
Complaint.

Judge Baldwin notes that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is the
type warranting a stay of discovery as the Defendants have sought
to dismiss all of the Plaintiff's claims. Moreover, no discovery is
required to make a determination on the Motion to Dismiss and the
Motion to Dismiss raises threshold legal issues. Accordingly,
requiring the parties to conduct discovery on claims that may be
dismissed would cause an unnecessary expense on the parties, and
potentially log the Court's docket with unnecessary discovery
disputes on these claims.

Furthermore, the Court has also found that good cause may also be
established by other factors, not related to the merits of the
dispositive motion, including when "the movant seeks a stay of
discovery to prevent 'undue burden or expense,'" citing Schrader v.
Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, No. 2:19-CV-02159-JCM-BNW, 2021 WL 4810324, at
*4 (D. Nev. Oct. 14, 2021) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)). Here,
a stay is also warranted because the lawsuit is a putative
collective and class action, the Plaintiff's Complaint sets forth
several subclasses, discovery will involve the exchange and review
of several thousand pages of documents, and discovery will
implicate several witnesses (including expert witnesses).

Additionally, because the Defendants moved to fully dismiss the
case, the Plaintiff has not been apprised of which factual
allegations the Defendants intend to admit, and which the
Defendants intend to deny. Nor has the Plaintiff been apprised of
the defenses the Defendants intend to assert. The Plaintiff
believes this would limit her ability to conduct full discovery
while the Motion to Dismiss is pending. The Plaintiff disputes the
arguments made in the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss but agrees that
the motion is of the type warranting a stay of discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated July
18, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/45a9vvmv from
Leagle.com.

Montgomery Y. Paek, Esq. -- mpaek@littler.com -- Amy L. Thompson,
Esq. -- athompson@littler.com -- Emil S. Kim, Esq. --
ekim@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., in Las Vegas, Nevada,
Attorneys for the Defendants.


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Molina Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, LP. The case is styled as Raymond E. Molina,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Capital Management Services, LP, Case No. 2:22-at-00771 (E.D. Cal,
July 26, 2022).

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

Capital Management Services, LP -- https://cms-collect.com/ -- is a
Nationally recognized industry leader in Accounts Receivable
Management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Charles Walker, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (630) 575-8181
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          Email: bwalker@sulaimanlaw.com


CDR MAGUIRE: Barker Wins Conditional Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CODY DWAYNE BARKER; TAMMY
MONDELLO; CRAIG GEDDIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly, v. CDR MAGUIRE, INC.; ELITE SERVICES OF LOUISIANA, LLC,
Case No.6:21-cv-01720-AA (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Ann Aiken entered
an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Class Certification and court authorized
notice.

  -- Conditional Certification

     The Court extends the previously granted conditional
     certification in this action as a representative collective
     action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), to the
     putative class of current and former Arborists who worked
     for Elite Services on the OWR Projects.

  -- Distribution and Posting of Notice:

     The Court authorizes Plaintiffs or their third-party class
     administrator to distribute by regular mail and/or
     electronic mail, notice of this action to prospective
     collective action members, defined as:

        "Arborists employed by Elite Services on the OWR
        Projects."

     The Court authorizes Plaintiffs to send reminders to all
     notice recipients 30 days prior to expiration of the
     deadline for joining this action.

  -- Contact Information

     The Court orders Defendant Elite Services to produce to
     Plaintiff's counsel the last known names, addresses, email
     addresses, and telephone numbers of all prospective
     collective action members as defined above.

  -- Appointment of Plaintiffs as Class Representatives

     The Court conditionally appoints Craig Geddis as class
     representative.

  -- Appointment of Andrew Lewinter, Attorney, P.C. and the Law
     Office Alan J. Leiman, P.C. as Class Counsel

     As with the prior motion, the Court appoints Andrew
     Lewinter and Alan J. Leiman as class counsel and authorizes
     them to engage a third-party claims administrator to
     administer the notice process.

  -- Form of Notice

     The Plaintiffs shall use the previously approved form of
     Notice in this action.

  -- Time Period

     The Court orders that all prospective collective action
     members, as defined above, shall have until 90 days after
     the sending of notice to submit a completed "Consent to
     Join" form to Plaintiffs' counsel.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated employees of the Defendants CDR and Elite
Services as a collective action under the FLSA and as a Rule 23
class action for violations of the FLSA and Oregon wage and hour
laws.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime, as well as
compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney fees, taxable costs
of court, pre- and post-judgement interest, and penalty wages.

CDR Maguire is a full-service, national firm that uses the newest
innovations and technologies to drive results for our clients.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BwNXnq at no extra charge.[CC]

CHAD WOLF: Filing of Class Status Bid Continued to Nov. 7
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Osny Sorto-Vasquez Kidd,
et al., v. Chad T. Wolf [Alejandro Mayorkas], et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-03512-ODW-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order
granting stipulation to amend scheduling order and continuing class
certification deadline to November 7, 2022; and order to file
stipulation to continue trial.

Although the Court grants the stipulation, the language in the
parties' stipulation gives the Court little to no confidence that
the parties will finally respect this deadline by completing class
discovery and moving forward with class certification as scheduled.


For example, the parties represent that they are "working
cooperatively to schedule a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition in
August." This representation is devoid of any dates or specific
facts, leaving the Court with little confidence that this
deposition will timely take place. The parties also fail to address
the more fundamental question, which is why, despite the fact that
discovery has been open for nearly a year now, the parties have yet
to take Rule 30(b)(6) depositions.

The Court notes, immediately following the Court's July 11, 2022
denial of the parties' request to continue the class certification
deadline, Plaintiffs filed a flurry of discovery-related motions.
There is nothing to suggest that Plaintiffs could not have filed
these documents before July 11, 2022; for example, the deposition
of OM took place on June 2, 2022, and there is no explanation in
the record for the almost six-week delay in moving to compel OM's
further testimony other than the fact that the Court declined to
continue the class certification deadline.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cWW2HG at no extra charge.[CC]

CHEETAH MOBILE: Securities Litigation Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cheetah Mobile Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 26, 2022, that a class action lawsuit
was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal,
agreeing that they would amend or appeal the court's order.

The company and certain of its current and former officers have
been named as defendants in two putative securities class actions
filed on June 25, 2020 and July 31, 2020 respectively in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

On August 24, 2020, the Court consolidated the two cases under the
caption "In Re: Cheetah Mobile, Inc. Securities Litigation," with
Case No. 2:20-cv-05696. On March 15, 2021, an amended complaint was
filed. According to the amended complaint, the action is
purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly
suffered damages as a result of their trading in the company's
American Depository Receipts between April 26, 2017 and March 24,
2020.

The action alleges that the company made false or misleading
statements regarding the company's business and operations in
violation of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Briefing on the company's motion to dismiss the complaint was
completed in July 2021.

On March 30, 2022, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss, with leave for Plaintiffs to amend the complaint. On May
6, 2022, the parties reached a stipulation, pursuant to which
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims asserted in the action,
and agreed that they would not amend the complaint or appeal the
court's order. The case is now closed.

Cheetah Mobile Inc. is a leading internet company based in China.


CHOICE HEALTH: McClinton Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TRAVIS MCCLINTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHOICE HEALTH INSURANCE,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00762 (W.D. Tex., July 28, 2022)
is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant caused multiple prerecorded
voice message calls to be transmitted to his cellular telephone
number ending in 6572 starting on or about February 17, 2022 in an
attempt to promote its business. At no point in time did the
Defendant obtain the Plaintiff's prior express written consent to
be contacted by prerecorded message. Accordingly, the prerecorded
messages included an artificial or prerecorded voice which
identified the Defendant as the caller and requested a call back at
800-820-4804 to discuss Medicare Advantage plan options. The
Plaintiff further claims that the Defendant's unsolicited
prerecorded messages caused him additional harm in the form of
invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, conversion, inconvenience and disruption to
his daily life.

Moreover, the Defendant has allegedly caused similar prerecorded
messages to be sent to individuals residing within the judicial
district of Texas. On behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring
the Defendant to cease all unsolicited call activity without
obtaining consent first. The Plaintiff also seeks actual and
statutory damages for himself and each member of the Class, and
other relief as the Court deems necessary.

Choice Health Insurance, LLC offers Medicare services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CITRIX SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Suit Over Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citrix Systems, 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 26, 2022, that a class action complaint
was filed against the company alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

On November 19, 2021, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, naming the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors as defendants.

On April 22, 2022, an amended complaint was filed, naming the same
defendants and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, based on allegedly false or misleading statements made
between January 22, 2020, and October 6, 2021, regarding the
company's transition from selling on-premise, perpetual licenses to
cloud-based subscriptions.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, an award of
compensatory damages and the plaintiffs' reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other costs
and disbursements.

Citrix Systems, Inc. is an enterprise software company based in
Florida.


CLERCS DE SAINT-VIATEUR: Class Action Settlement Rejected by Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Hernandez of OI Canadian reports that victims of sexual abuse
by religious leaders are currently being deprived of $28 million in
compensation because a judge believes that their lawyers are
putting too much into their pockets by charging high fees.

"The court finds that these fees are excessive and above all that
they are not in the interest of the members," said Judge Thomas M.
Davis in a recent decision.

Last January, the hundreds of victims of the Clercs de
Saint-Viateur could breathe a sigh of relief, when a settlement
totaling $28 million was reached, thus sparing them from having to
testify at a trial.

A total of 420 victims had declared themselves since 2017 and more
than 50 attackers had been identified. Father Jean Pilon alone had
60 victims, according to the lawyers leading the case.

Father Jean Pilon had been singled out by 60 complainants,
according to the lawyers leading the case. Last summer, he was
sentenced to three and a half years in prison for 12 victims.

However, more than $8 million had to be deducted from the kitty in
order to pay the fees of the victims' lawyers, i.e. 25% of the
total amount in addition to applicable taxes and the costs incurred
by the lawyers throughout the case.

A member of the class action objected to the situation, deploring
that "the fees claimed are unreasonable".

More than 3000 hours worked

The plaintiffs' lawyers told the court that they had worked 3,479
hours on the case, at various hourly rates, but that there would
still be at least 800 hours left to devote to it. In total, this
would represent $1.5 million.

But the judge considered that their premium to get to monopolize
25% of the agreement is much too high.

The latter relied on other class action settlements to reach this
conclusion, under the "multiplier factor method".

He acknowledged that calculations of this magnitude had been seen
in the past, "but this is not the norm," Judge Davis wrote.

"This observation does not call into question the dedication or
even the expertise [en partie acquise durant l'action] class
attorneys. They did a remarkable job," he said.

"We will respect the decision"

Contacted by The newspaper, the firm Arsenault Dufresne Wee Avocats
indicated that it would "respect the judge's decision".

"We take note of the judgment, but we do not agree. We will make
sure to correct the situation by reducing our fees as part of a new
agreement that we want to complete quickly," said Mr.e Alain
Arsenault.

The latter was not in a position to say how high their share of the
pie would be as part of this reduction.

"It is too early to announce anything, except for one thing: there
will be a reduction in our fees," he reiterated, adding that he
hoped to be able to do the whole thing immediately. four weeks
here.

For the victims

In reaction to this judgment, retired judge Nicole Gibeault
welcomed the decision of judge Davis.

"It is the victims who must really benefit from the amounts in the
collective actions, it is for them that the money must go," she
insisted.

These remarks echo those of the Chief Justice of the Superior
Court, Jacques R. Fournier, who warned that class actions can
become "profit centers for lawyers".

"The system is not made to benefit the agents of the system. It is
made to benefit the population", he pleaded to our Bureau of
Investigation, calling on the legislator to act to improve the
situation. [GN]

COMMUNITY LOANS: Settlement in Bynum Suit Gets Initial Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANNEL BYNUM v. COMMUNITY
LOANS OF AMERICA, INC., and WISCONSIN AUTO TITLE LOANS, INC., Case
No. 2:20-cv-01564-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper
entered an order:

   1. finding the settlement agreement as fair,reasonable, and
      reflects a reasonable compromise of bona fide disputes
      between the parties.

   2. granting the parties' joint motion for preliminary
      approval the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) settlement;

   3. approving the settlement agreement;

   4. certifying the following collective action settlement
      class under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):

      "All person who are or have been employed by either of the
      Defendants as hourly, non-exempt employees in the State of
      Wisconsin at any time since October 12, 2017 to the
      Parties' Settlement Agreement;"

   5. certifying the following collective action settlement
      class under Rule 23:

      "All persons who are or have been employed by either of
      the Defendants as hourly, non-exempt employees in the
      State of Wisconsin at any time since October 12, 2018 to
      the Parties' Settlement Agreement;"

   6. appointing Channel Bynum to serve as the representative
      for the certified 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) collective
      class and the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class;

   7. appointing the law firm of Hawks Quindel, S.C. as class
      counsel for the certified 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)
      collective class and the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class; and

   8. approving the notice of class and collective action
      settlement and opt-in/opt-out Consent Form.

Community Loans Of America specializes in consumer loans, payday
loans, signature installment loans, lending and financial
products.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PNmlyF at no extra charge.[CC]

CONDUENT EDUCATION: Settlement in Chery Suit Gets Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY CHERY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CONDUENT EDUCATION
SERVICES, LLC, formerly known as ACS, ACCESS GROUP, INC., and
ACCESS FUNDING 2015-1, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00075-DNH-CFH
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of class action settlement;

   2. approving the form, substance, and requirements of the
      Notices of the Proposed Settlement of Class Action; and

   3. appointing Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Claims
      Administrator.

On January 18, 2018, Mr. Chery filed this class action against
Conduent. According to the complaint, Conduent interfered with
borrowers' rights to prepay or consolidate their FFELP loans in
accordance with guarantees set out in the written loan agreements
and federal law.

On April 24, 2018, Conduent moved to dismiss Chery's complaint.
That motion was denied. Thereafter, the parties engaged in some
contested discovery before U.S. Magistrate Judge Christian F.
Hummel. On January 15, 2021, Chery moved under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 to certify a class of student loan borrowers
whose right to prepay their FFELP loans was thwarted because
Conduent failed to provide them with a timely Loan Verification
Certificate.

On May 5, 2021, Chery's motion for class certification was granted
over Conduent's opposition. The Court appointed Chery as
representative and certified the following Class:

   "All student loan borrowers who submitted an application to
   consolidate one or more FFELP Loans into a Direct
   Consolidated Loan between January 18, 2012, and the date of
   the Order certifying the Class, for which Defendants failed
   to provide an LVC within ten days of receiving the request
   therefor."

Conduent Education Services (formerly ACS Education Services) was a
student loan company that serviced campus-based, private, and
federal student loans.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zKWlhK at no extra charge.[CC]

COSTCO WHOLESALE: $5.1MM Settlement in Soulek Suit Has Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Class
Action Settlement Agreement dated July 1, 2022, in the lawsuit
entitled DUSTIN S. SOULEK, individually and as representative of a
Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, of the Costco 401(k)
Retirement Plan, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-C-937 (E.D. Wis.).

The following Settlement Class is certified under Rule 23(b)(1) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes of the Settlement
only:

     All participants, beneficiaries, and alternate payees of the
     Costco 401(k) Retirement Plan (excluding the Defendants or
     any participant/beneficiary who is a fiduciary to the Plan):
     (1) who have a Plan account as of the date the Settlement
     Class is certified by the Court (Current Participants) or
     (2) who do not have a Plan account as of the date the
     Settlement Class is certified by the Court, and had a Plan
     account on or after the last business day of a month on and
     after May 30, 2014, provided that such Plan account attained
     a balance in excess of $1,000 for at least 12 months
     beginning on and after May 30, 2014 (such balance to be
     calculated as of the last business day of a month) (Former
     Participants).

Pursuant to Rules 23(e)(1)(A) and (C), the Court approves and
confirms the Settlement and the terms therein as being fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Plan and the Class Members. The
Court approves the Settlement and orders that the Settling Parties
take all necessary steps to effectuate the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

In accordance with the Court's Orders, and as reflected in the
information from the Settlement Administrator, Analytics Consulting
LLC, the Settlement Notices were timely distributed by first-class
mail to all Former Participant Class Members who could be
identified with reasonable effort.

District Judge William C. Griesbach holds that the amount of the
Settlement ($5,100,000) is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The
Settlement amount is within the range of reasonable settlements
that would have been appropriate in this case, based on the nature
of the claims, the potential recovery, the risks of litigation, and
settlements that have been approved in other similar cases.

There were zero objections to the settlement. The Settlement was
reviewed by an independent fiduciary, Fiduciary Counselors, who has
approved the Settlement.

Hence, Judge Griesbach grants the Motion for Final Approval of the
Settlement Agreement. The Settlement of the Class Action is
approved as fair, reasonable and adequate to the Plan and the
Settlement Class.

This Action and all Released Claims asserted therein, whether
asserted by the Class Representative on his own behalf or on behalf
of the Class Members, or derivatively to secure relief for the
Plan, are dismissed with prejudice, without costs to any of the
Settling Parties other than as provided for in the Settlement
Agreement.

Judge Griesbach also holds, among other things, that the Settlement
Administrator will have final authority to determine the share of
the Former Participant Pool to be allocated to each eligible Former
Participant and eligible Current Participant, who submits a claim
for payment pursuant to the Settlement, as described in the Plan of
Allocation approved by the Court, and set out in Article 7 of the
Agreement.

With respect to payments or distributions to Former Participants or
eligible Current Participants, all questions not resolved by the
Settlement Agreement will be resolved by the Settlement
Administrator in its sole and exclusive discretion.

Within twenty-one (21) calendar days following the issuance of all
Settlement payments to Former Participants or eligible Current
Participants from the Former Participant Pool, the Settlement
Administrator will prepare and provide to Class Counsel and the
Defendants' Counsel a list of each person, who received a
Settlement payment from the Former Participant Pool and the amount
of such payment or contribution.

Upon entry of this Order, all Settling Parties, the Settlement
Class, and the Plan will be bound by the Settlement Agreement and
by this Final Approval Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Approval Order dated July 18,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3w3uxn4u from
Leagle.com.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Seal Class Status Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN SKRANDEL v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. 9:21-cv-80826-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Aileen M. Cannon entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Defendant's unopposed motion to seal the
Plaintiff's unredacted motion for class certification, filed on
July 7, 2022:

   -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied
      without prejudice to be refiled in a more narrowly
      redacted form as set forth in this Order.

   -- The Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification and
      exhibits shall be refiled on or before August 9, 2022.

   -- Additionally, on or before August 9, 2022, Plaintiff shall
      file under seal unredacted versions of only the following
      exhibits attached to Defendant's Motion, and those
      exhibits shall remain under seal until further Order of
      the Court:

      a. Plaintiff's motion for class certification;

      b. Exhibit C to Plaintiff's motion for class
         certification (excerpts from the May 11, 2022
         Deposition of Peter Hesketh); and

      c. Exhibit I to Plaintiff's motion for class certification
         (Expert Report of Bo Martin).

On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Class Certification
along with a separate motion seeking leave to file the motion for
class certification under seal. The Court thereafter denied
Plaintiff's motion to file under seal. Plaintiff's generalized
statements about shielding information, the Court explained, were
not sufficient to overcome the presumption of openness in judicial
proceedings, nor would the Court seal materials central to the
case.


Costco is an American multinational corporation which operates a
chain of membership-only big-box retail stores.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JnPDkQ at no extra charge.[CC]

CUSCATLAN RESTAURANT: Suarez Sues Over Waitresses' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antonella V. Suarez and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff (s) v. Cuscatlan Restaurant LLC, Salvador Carbajal and
Maria Luz Galdamez, Individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00422 (M.D. Fla., July 12, 2022) is an action to recover
money damages from the Defendants for Plaintiff's unpaid minimum
wages, and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time, hourly restaurant employee, from November 19, 2021,
through May 13, 2022, or 25 weeks. She was hired as a waitress, and
she was paid at the rate of $6 an hour plus tips. The Florida
minimum wage for the relevant time of employment is $6.98 an hour.

The Plaintiff contends that Defendants, in this case, violated the
FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals the proper compensation for regular wages and overtime
compensation at the rate of time and one-half her regular rate.

Cuscatlan Restaurant LLC is a Central American/Salvadorean
cafe/restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FCA US: Nuwer, et al., Seek Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASON NUWER, AMARILLIS
GINORIS, and KEVIN VAN ALLEN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 0:20-cv-60432-AHS
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting their motion for class certification.

The evidence in this case demonstrates that Chrysler knowingly
manufactured and sold vehicles with defective active head
restraints ("AHRs") for more than a decade. Because the AHR defect
was a design defect common to all Class Vehicles, the Plaintiffs'
claims are particularly amenable to class certification. Indeed, a
federal court has already certified a class based on the exact same
defect. See Alger v. FCA US LLC, 334 F.R.D. 415 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8,
2020).

None of Chrysler's arguments should persuade this Court to hold
otherwise. Most of Chrysler's arguments go to the merits of
Plaintiffs' claims. 1More importantly, these arguments support
class certification because they raise questions capable of
classwide resolution. Chrysler principally contends that it is
"uncontroverted" that the defect is a manufacturing defect because
it purportedly arose from one equipment manufacturer's temporary
and The nature of the defect is far from "uncontroverted" -- the
evidence demonstrates the defect was inherent to the design, the
Plaintiffs contend.

FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 28,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OVNCh6
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin Widlanski, Esq.
          Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
          Rachel Sullivan, Esq.
          Gail McQuilkin, Esq.
          Robert J. Neary, Esq.
          Katherine A. Mitchell, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN &
          THROCKMORTON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9 th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-350
          E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
                  hst@kttlaw.com
                  gam@kttlaw.com
                  rs@kttlaw.com
                  rn@kttlaw.com
                  kmitchell@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter Prieto, Esq.
          John Gravante, III, Esq.
          Matthew Weinshall, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          SunTrust International Center
          One S.E. 3 rd Ave., Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
                  jgravante@podhurst.com
                  mweinshall@podhurst.com

               - and -

          George Franjola, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE FRANJOLA
          1740 SE 18th Ave., Suite 901
          Ocala, FL 34471
          Telephone: (352) 812-0462
          E-mail: gfranjola@franjolalaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Burger, Esq.
          SANTIAGO BURGER LLP
          2280 East Avenue
          Rochester, NY 14610
          Telephone: (585) 563-2400
          Facsimile: (585) 563-7526
          E-mail: mike@litgrp.com

FEDERAL INSURANCE: Seeks N.D. Ill. Proper Issuance of Subpoenas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MARY BILEK, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY d/b/a CHUBB, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-mc-22366-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2022) filed this action
seeking to enforce compliance with subpoenas properly issued by the
Northern District of Illinois.

The Defendant respectfully moves the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida to enter an Order to Show
Cause why the recipients of the subpoenas, Go Direct Lead
Generation, LLC c/o Andrew Weiss, should not be held in contempt
for failing to comply with the subpoenas. This is in connection
with the case filed by the Plaintiff alleging the Defendant of
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialers Act on September 23, 2020 by
having an unknown individual make a telemarketing call that began
with a prerecorded message soliciting health insurance to the
Plaintiff.

Federal Insurance Company d/b/a Chubb provides insurance services.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alfred C. Warrington, V, Esq.
          CLYDE & CO.
          1221 Brickell Ave., Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Tel: (305) 329-1799
          E-mail: Alfred.Warrington@clydeco.us

                - and –

          Arthur J. McColgan, Esq.
          Jeremy D. Kerman, Esq.
          WALKER WILCOX MATOUSEK LLP
          One North Franklin St., Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Tel: (312) 244-6700
          Fax: (312) 244-6800
          E-mail: amccolgan@walkerwilcox.com
                  jkerman@walkerwilcox.com

FEDEX GROUND: Court Refuses to Add CSPs as Parties in Chapman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
denies the Defendant's Motion to Add Contracted Service Providers
as Necessary Parties in the lawsuit styled TRAVIS CHAPMAN and JOHN
CHURCHWELL, individually, on behalf of all other similarly
situated, and as representatives of the State of California on
behalf of all aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. FEDEX GROUND
PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a FedEx Home
Delivery, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00410-TLN-DMC (E.D. Cal.).

The case arises out of alleged wage and hour violations by the
Defendant. As a central part of its business, the Defendant
contracts with Contracted Service Providers ("CSPs") to deliver
packages to its customers through a standardized agreement. Through
the standardized agreement, the CSPs obtain a service area and are
responsible for delivering all FedEx packages within the service
area. The CSPs hire drivers like the Plaintiffs and the Class
members to deliver FedEx packages within the CSPs' service areas.

The Plaintiffs allege the CSPs are the Plaintiffs' and the Class
members' direct but nominal employers, but the Defendant directs
and controls the Plaintiffs' and the Class members' work. The
Plaintiffs further allege the Defendant is the only client of the
CSPs and is the only sources of the CSPs' and drivers' incomes for
delivery services.

On Feb. 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against the Defendant in Shasta County Superior Court. The
Complaint contains seven claims: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
in violation of California Labor Code; (2) Failure to Furnish
Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (3) Failure to Timely Pay All
Wages Due Upon End of Employment; (4) violations of California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200-17210; (5) Private
Attorneys General Act Penalties under California Labor Code for
Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (6) PAGA Penalties under California
Labor Code for Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; and (7) PAGA Penalties under California Labor Code for
Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Due Upon Termination of
Employment.

The Defendant filed the instant motion on May 29, 2020, to join the
CSPs -- MWA HD 2.4, Inc., Goodman Transportation, Inc., and KJFox
Inc. -- as necessary parties to this action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 19.

The Defendant argues under Rule 19(a)(1)(A) that the Court cannot
obtain complete relief without joining the CSPs as parties to the
case and under Rule 19(a)(1)(B) that the CSPs have an interest in
this dispute. The Court will, therefore, examine whether the CSPs
are necessary parties under Rule 19(a)(1)(A) only.

The Defendant argues the Court should join the CSPs to this action
because they are the Plaintiffs' employers. Specifically, the
Defendant notes that CSPs employ and pay each driver and each CSP
is responsible for paying its employees in compliance with the
applicable state law. The Defendant also contends the Northern
District of California reached the same conclusion in a similar
putative class action -- Overpeck -- that the CSPs are necessary
parties to this action, citing Overpeck v. FedEx Ground Package
System, Inc. (Overpeck I), No. 4:18-cv-07553-PJH, 2020 WL 1557433
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2010).

In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue Rule 19 is not implicated
because they can recover from the Defendant what it owes them. The
Plaintiffs maintain the Overpeck I case is distinguishable from the
instant case because they are not attempting to hold the Defendant
vicariously liable for the CSPs' conduct. In reply, the Defendant
contends Overpeck I makes a key distinction between the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Labor Code cases for purposes of Rule 19.

After Overpeck I was decided, and after the briefing was submitted
by the parties in the instant case, the Overpeck court found on
defendants' dismissal for misjoinder that the CSPs were misjoined
(Overpeck v. FedEx Corp. (Overpeck II), No. 18-cv-07553-PJH, 2021
WL 497235 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2021)).

The Plaintiffs argue they are not attempting to hold FedEx
vicariously liable for the CSPs' conduct. Further, the Defendants
also contend that complete relief is not available without the CSPs
because the California Labor Code does not provide for joint and
several liability but rather relief can be obtained only from the
co-joint employer actually responsible for the violation.

In light of Hansber v. Ulta Beauty Cosmetics, LLC (Hansber II), No.
1:21-cv-00022-AWI-SAB, 2022 WL 2177121, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 16,
2022), the Court finds that the Plaintiffs are correct that the
Defendant's focus on the term "joint employer" is misplaced because
the Plaintiffs allege the Defendant "was their actual employer and,
therefore, is directly and fully liable for their unpaid
overtime."

The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs are further correct that
Rule 19(a)(1)(A) is not about whether the Plaintiffs can recover
everything they might be owed in some general sense but, instead,
concerns only whether the Plaintiffs can recover everything they
are owed by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs, therefore, seek to hold
the Defendant liable for its own conduct and can recover the full
extent of the relief as allowed by the Labor Code for the
Defendant's breaches, if any, even if it may be less than what the
Plaintiffs could recover from the CSPs for their separate
breaches.

Based on this, the Court concludes it can accord complete relief
among existing parties, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(A).
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion is denied.

Within 14 days following notice of the Court's ruling in this
Order, the Parties will submit a further case management statement
and proposed case schedule, including dates related to class
certification and discovery and expert disclosures related
thereto.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 18, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3defk8hw from Leagle.com.


FLORIDA: Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLANCA MEZA, by and
through her Guardian, Aide Hernandez, DESTINY BELANGER, by and
through her Guardian, Julie Belanger, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly, and DISABILITY RIGHTS FLORIDA, INC., v.
SIMONE MARSTILLER, in her official capacity as Secretary for the
FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Case No.
3:22-cv-00783-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant moves the Court
for a 30-day extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs'
Verified class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive
relief and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:

On July 19, 2022, AHCA was served with the complaint, the motion
for class certification and the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction for Plaintiff Blanca Meza. Each document raises complex
issues with potentially broad implications.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure of Civil
12(a)(1)(A)(i), AHCA's response to the Complaint is due by August
9, 2022. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.02(c), AHCA's response to the
Motion for Class Certification is also due on August 9, 2022.

The Plaintiffs have agreed to this extension on the condition that
it will not affect the briefing and hearing schedule for the
preliminary injunction motion. As Plaintiffs stated in their Notice
of Filing Proof of Service of the Court's Order on
Defendant, the Plaintiffs consented to a significantly shorter
extension -- 20 days from July 21, 2022 -- of the Defendant's
deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction.

AHCA is responsible for administering the Medicaid Program,
licensing and regulating health facilities.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PS2YUZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Erik M. Figlio, Esq.
          Alexandra E. Akre, Esq.
          Ausley McMullen, Esq.
          Post Office Box 391
          Tallahassee, FL 32302
          Telephone: (850) 224-9115
          E-mail: rfiglio@ausley.com
                  aakre @ausley.com

FOUNDATION ENERGY: Bid for Summary Judgment Denied as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Heritage Royalty Oil &
Gas, LLC v. Foundation Energy Management, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-03753 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered
an order denying as moot the following motions:

   -- Defendant's motion for summary Judgment;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for Extension of Time to File
Response/Reply;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to Strike Defendant's motion for summary
Judgment; and

   -- Plaintiff's unopposed motion to stay consideration of pending
motions
      and to extend class certification filing deadline to May
      27.

The Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment on November 29,
2021. The Plaintiff filed its motion to strike Defendant's motion
for summary judgment on January 6, 2022. The Defendant filed its
response to Plaintiff's motion to strike on January 21, 2022.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.

Foundation Energy is a manager of energy investments for
institutional partners.[CC]



FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Continued
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMMED USMAN ALI,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
FRANKLIN WIRELESS CORP., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00687-AJB-MSB
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael S. Berg entered an order
granting unopposed motion to continue the briefing schedule on
motion for class certification as follows:

   1. The deposition of Lead Plaintiff must be completed no
      later than August 22, 2022.

   2. The deposition of Lead Plaintiff's expert must be
      completed no later than August 29, 2022.

   3. The Defendants' opposition to Lead Plaintiff's Motion for
      Class Certification must be filed no later than September
      12, 2022.

   4. The deposition of Defendants' expert must be completed no
      later than September 19, 2022.

   5. Lead Plaintiff's reply in support of his Motion for Class
      Certification must be filed no later than September 26,
      2022.

   6. The hearing on Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification 12 is continued to October 27, 2022 at 2:00
      p.m. before United States District Judge Anthony J.
      Battaglia.

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

A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Bv2yiZ at no extra charge.[CC]


FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Court Modifies Class Cert Briefing Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL BERMAN, STEPHANIE
HERNANDEZ, and ERICA RUSSELL, Plaintiffs, v. FREEDOM FINANCIAL
NETWORK LLC, FREEDOM DEBT RELIEF, LLC, FLUENT, INC., and LEAD
SCIENCE, LLC, Defendants; FREEDOM FINANCIAL NETWORK, LLC and
FREEDOM DEBT RELIEF, LLC, Third Party Plaintiffs; and  DOES 1
through 5, Third Party Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01060-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
modifying the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification as follows:

                Event              Current          Proposed
                                    Date            Date

-- Defendants' deadline to      July 29, 2022    Aug. 12, 2022
    file Opposition to
    Plaintiffs' Renewed
    Motion for Class
    Certification:

-- Plaintiffs' deadline to      Aug. 12, 2022    Aug. 26, 2022
    file Reply in support of
    Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion
    for Class Certification:

-- Hearing on Plaintiffs'       Sept. 6, 2022    Sept 13, 2022
    Renewed Motion for
    Class Certification:L

Freedom Financial is a digital personal finance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oTraKF at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
          Chloe G. Chung, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
          Telephone: (310) 228-3700
          Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
          E-mail: jramsey@sheppardmullin.com
                  cchung@sheppardmullin.com

GARDNER RESOURCES: Sogbuyi-Whitney Suit Seeks Conditional Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECILIA SOGBUYI-WHITNEY
and ANNETTE GABAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. GARDNER RESOURCES CONSULTING, INC., CAREMARK
PHC LLC, CVS HEALTH SOLUTIONS LLC, and CORAM ALTERNATE SITE
SERVICES INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-10935-NMG (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting conditional
certification and issuance of notice of the following collective:

   "All individuals, excluding team leads, who worked for
   Gardner Resources Consulting and CVS as Epic Quality
   Assurance Consultants or "QA Consultants" in the United
   States between [insert date three years prior to the date
   that the Court issues an Order granting Conditional
   Certification] and the present, who were not paid overtime."

Sogbuyi-Whitney and Gabay signed a contract with Defendant Gardner,
a Massachusetts-based staffing agency, to work for the CVS
Defendants as QA consultants, assisting CVS with its Epic
electronic medical recordkeeping (ERM) system.

As QA consultants, Sogbuyi-Whitney and Gabay performed rote work,
running assigned scenarios in CVS's Epic ERM system. QA consultants
like Sogbuyi-Whitney and Gabay were assigned to particular medical
therapies and insurers and would then log into the Epic
recordkeeping system, create a fictional patient, designate the
particular insurance they had been assigned, and log each phase of
the fictional patient's care, including creating an appointment,
creating a referral, adding therapies and medications, billing, and
running claims.

In other words, CVS supplied the necessary information, and
Plaintiffs performed the rote work of entering that information
into the Epic electronic medical recordkeeping software and
reported the results back to CVS. If errors occurred, the
Plaintiffs merely reported them to their supervisors; they did not
have a role in diagnosing or fixing errors in the Epic ERM or in
"building" the Epic system.

The Plaintiffs were unable to exercise any discretion in the
performance of their work, nor were they subject to any exemptions
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that would make it lawful
to deny them overtime pay.

Sogbuyi-Whitney, Gabay, and numerous other Plaintiffs routinely
worked more than 40 hours per week and sometimes as many as 70
hours per week. These long hours were necessary in order to
complete daily workloads assigned by CVS. CVS and Gardner knew that
Plaintiffs were working more than 40 hours per week, both because
CVS was aware that Plaintiffs were logged into its remote work
system over long periods, and because various individuals
complained to both CVS and Gardner that they could not complete
their work in just 40 hours per week.

However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs at all for their
hours worked in excess of 40 per week. On the one occasion that
Defendants permitted Plaintiffs to accurately record more than 40
hours in a particular workweek, they failed to pay them an overtime
premium for those additional hours worked beyond 40 hours. Although
Plaintiffs self-reported their hours, they were instructed by their
CVS supervisors that QA consultants were not permitted to report
more than eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week.

As alleged in their Complaint, the Plaintiffs Sogbuyi-Whitney and
Gabay were not alone in suffering these overtime violations. Other
QA consultants were similarly situated with respect to Defendants'
common policy of failing to pay Plaintiffs at all for hours worked
beyond 40 per week, much less at time-and-a-half their regular
hourly rate.

The Plaintiffs and other employees who worked for Defendants
running scenarios in CVS's Epic ERM system did not receive any pay
for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, despite regularly
working in excess of 40 hours in order to meet daily assignment
deadlines.

Defendant Gardner is a staffing agency for Information Technology
and Life Sciences companies in need of workers. Gardner provided QA
consultants to the CVS Defendants to assist with testing of CVS's
Epic ERM system. While working for CVS, these QA consultants ran
through assigned scenarios in the Epic ERM utilizing different
assigned insurance plans and medical therapies.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bjdo14 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Harold Lichten, Esq.
         Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq.
         Matthew Carrieri, Esq.
         LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
         729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
         Boston, MA 02116
         Telephone: (617) 994-5800
         Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
         E-mail: apagano@llrlaw.com
                 hlichten@llrlaw.com

GERON CORP: Class Action Trial Scheduled for Oct. 31
----------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JULIA JUNGE and RICHARD JUNGE, on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated investors,

Plaintiffs,

     v.


GERON CORPORATION and JOHN A. SCARLETT,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00547-WHA(DMR)

(Consolidated with Case No. 3:20-cv-01163-WHA)
(Related Cases:
No. 3:20-cv-02823-WHA
No. 3:22-mc-80051-WHA)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

To: All persons who purchased Geron Corporation ("Geron") common
stock during the period from March 19, 2018, to September 26, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the
"Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California that the above-captioned
action (the "Action") has been certified to proceed as a class
action on behalf of the Class as defined above.

In the Action, Lead Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period,
Defendants Geron and John A. Scarlett made positive statements
about the study data results of a Phase 2 clinical study (the
IMbark study) involving the drug imetelstat—that the study's
median overall survival, a secondary endpoint, suggested a
potential benefit—while failing to disclose negative study data
results of the IMbark study, namely that the IMbark study data was
disappointing concerning one of the study's two primary endpoints,
total symptom score ("TSS"), and that there were no complete
remissions observed in the IMbark study data, in contrast to an
earlier imetelstat pilot study. Defendants deny all of Lead
Plaintiffs' allegations, and deny any wrongdoing or violation of
law. Please note: at this time, there is no judgment, settlement,
or monetary recovery. Trial in this Action is currently scheduled
for October 31, 2022.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION. A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the
"Notice") is currently being mailed to persons who have been
identified as potential members of the Class ("Class Members"). If
you have not yet received the full printed Notice, you may obtain a
copy of the Notice by downloading it from
www.GeronSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the Notice
Administrator, Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, at:

Geron Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions
P.O. Box 4574
Portland, OR 97208-4574
Info@GeronSecuritiesLitigation.com
1-844-754-5537

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to the
following representatives of Class Counsel:

Laurence D. King, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
1-800-290-1952

Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
1-800-290-1952

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a Class Member. If you want to remain a Class Member, you do
not need to do anything at this time other than to retain your
documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings in Geron
common stock. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself
from the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in the Action,
including all past, present, and future orders and judgments of the
Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you move, or if the
Notice was mailed to an old or incorrect address, please send the
Notice Administrator written notification of your new address.

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of this Court in this Action, however you
will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be
recovered for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion
postmarked no later than July 22, 2022 in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the full printed Notice.

Further information regarding this notice may be obtained by
writing to the Notice Administrator at the address provided above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
United States District Court for
the Northern District of California
URL// www.GeronSecuritiesLitigation.com


GOGO INC: $17.3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

ASHLEY PIERRELOUIS, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOGO INC., MICHAEL J. SMALL, NORMAN SMAGLEY,
BARRY ROWAN, and JOHN WADE,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-cv-04473
Honorable Jorge L. Alonso

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT
OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:  All persons who and entities that, during the period from
February 27, 2017 through May 4, 2018, inclusive, purchased or
otherwise acquired Gogo Inc. ("Gogo") common stock, and/or Gogo
3.75% convertible notes due March 1, 2020, and/or Gogo 12.5% senior
secured notes due July 1, 2022, and/or publicly traded call options
on Gogo common stock, and/or wrote publicly traded put options on
Gogo common stock, and were injured thereby (the "Settlement
Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons who and
entities that are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement;
(II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action for $17,300,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.

A hearing will be held by videoconference on August 30, 2022 at
11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso at the following
call in number: 872-703-5321, access code: 349518911, to determine
(i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated April 12, 2022 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Pierrelouis v.
Gogo Inc., c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173069, Milwaukee, WI
53217, 1-877-316-0158.  Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can
also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.GogoSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form online or postmarked no later than
September 29, 2022.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do
not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share
in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you
will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than August 9, 2022, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than August 9, 2022, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Gogo, or its
counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc.
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173069
Milwaukee, WI 53217
877-316-0158
www.GogoSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(888) 773-9224
settlements@glancylaw.com

-and-

LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 524-4290
aapton@zlk.com
                                                                   
                                     By Order of the Court


GOODNIGHT GROUP: Fact Discovery Deadline Extended to Sept. 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Guevara v. Goodnight Group
LLC, et al., Case No. :20-cv-05330-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Barbara Moses entered an order granting 30-day extension of the
fact discovery deadline so that the parties may participate in
private class mediation.

Fact discovery including fact depositions, is set to close on
August 16, 2022. The parties request a 30 day extension of the fact
discovery deadline to September 15, 2022, so that the parties may
participate in private class mediation. This is the parties fourth
request for an adjournment or extension of time to complete
discovery.

Goodnight Group is a privately owned company headquartered in
Austin, Texas.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q8LaW1 at no extra charge.[CC]

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Perry Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Cashiers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL WINSTON PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF HOUSTON,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-02468 (S.D. Tex., July 25, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked as a cashier at the Defendant's location
at 3265 E Broadway St., Pearland, Texas from January 2021 to the
present.

Goodwill Industries of Houston is a retail company, with its
headquarters located at 1140 West Loop North Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
         TRAN LAW FIRM
         2537 S. Gessner Road, Suite 104
         Houston, TX 77063
         Telephone: (713) 223-8855
         E-mail: trang@tranlf.com

GOYA FOODS: Permitted to File Sur-Reply to Oppose Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jose Ortiz, et al. v. Goya
Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-19003-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.), the
Court entered an order granting Goya Foods' request permitting them
to file a sur-reply in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

Goya Foods is an American producer of a brand of foods sold in the
United States and many Spanish-speaking countries.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vpOEuU at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ryan T. Warden, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          10 Madison Avenue, Suite 400
          Morristown, NJ 07960

GUIDANT GLOBAL: Ward FLSA Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as WILLIAM WARD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GUIDANT GLOBAL INC. D/B/A BARTECH
GROUP INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-10283, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on July 12,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01002-DSC to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant violated the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Ward
and the Putative Class Members overtime at one-and-one-half times
their regular rates.

Guidant Global Inc., d/b/a Bartech Group Inc., provides staffing
solutions to projects ranging from renewable energy, engineering,
information technology, and manufacturing.[BN]

HARRIS & HARRIS: Unlawfully Collects Medical Debt, Rahali Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SOUAD AZZAM RAHALI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD a/k/a HARRIS
& HARRIS OF CHICAGO and COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IRVING MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendants, Case No. 609728/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., July
25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and New York's General
Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and negligent acts of improperly collecting medical debt
against the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals for
health-related services from non-participating healthcare provider
Defendant Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Defendant
Columbia University Irving Medical Center was prohibited from
billing the Plaintiff and Class members, except for any applicable
copayment, coinsurance or deductible that would be owed if the
insured utilized a participating physician or hospital. Moreover,
Defendant Harris & Harris failed to provide validation and
verification to the Plaintiff and Class members concerning the
medical debt and failed to comply with several provisions of 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1692. As a result of the Defendants' deceptive acts,
the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered damages, says the
suit.

Harris & Harris, Ltd, also known as Harris & Harris of Chicago, is
a law firm and debt collection agency based in Illinois.

Columbia University Irving Medical Center Health, Inc. is a medical
services provider, with a principal place of business located at
622 W. 168th St., New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gregory Goodman, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY A. GOODMAN, PC
         380 North Broadway, Suite 305
         Jericho, NY 11753
         Telephone: (516) 597-5840
         Facsimile: (866) 415-1019
         E-mail: ggoodman@gganylaw.com

HOME DEPOT: Court Sets Amended Trial Date in Didzun Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD JAMES DIDZUN, an
individual; IAN McANDREWS and KATE McANDREWS, individually and for
their marital community; on behalf of themselves and persons
similarly situated, v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-01540-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik
entered an order setting amended trial date and related date as
follows:

   -- Trial Date:                           December 4, 2023

   -- Motion for class certification        March 7, 2023
      due and noted on the Court's
      calendar for the fifth Friday
      thereafter:

   -- Deadline for amending pleadings:      June 7, 2023

   -- Reports from expert witnesses         June 7, 2023
      under FRCP 26(a)(2) due:

   -- All motions related to discovery
      must be noted on the motion
      calendar no later than the Friday
      before discovery closes pursuant
      to LCR 7(d) or LCR 37(a)(2)

      Discovery completed by:               August 6, 2023

      Settlement conference held            August 20, 2023
      no later than:

      All dispositive motions must be       September 5, 2023
      filed by and noted on the motion
      calendar no later than the
      fourth Friday thereafter:

The Home Depot is an American multinational home improvement retail
corporation that sells tools, construction products, appliances,
and services. Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer
in the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Br2uko at no extra charge.[CC]

HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Whatley Seeks Unpaid OT for Non-Exempt Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON WHATLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HONDA DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF
AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00935-CLM (N.D. Ala.,
July 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Whatley has worked for Honda as a non-exempt employee since
March 2019.

Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC is an automobile
manufacturer, doing in business in Alabama. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Victoria L. Dye, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN BIRMINGHAM PLLC
         2317 Third Ave. N., Ste. 102
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Telephone: (659) 204-6363
         Facsimile: (659) 204-6388
         E-mail: vdye@forthepeople.com

                 - and –

         Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         8151 Peters Rd., Ste. 4000
         Plantation, FL 33324
         Telephone: (954) WORKERS
         Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
         E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com

                 - and –

         C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
         P.O. Box 4979
         Orlando, FL 32802-4979
         Telephone: (407) 420-1414
         Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
         E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

                 - and –

         Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
         PARMET PC
         3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
         Houston, TX 77056
         Telephone: (713) 999-5228
         E-mail: matt@parmet.law

HUNT MILITARY: Skinner FLSA Suit Moved From E.D. Ark. to W.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DALTON SKINNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HUNT MILITARY COMMUNITIES MGMT., LLC,
Case No. 4:21-cv-00746, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas on July 25, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Texas assigned Case
No. 5:22-cv-00799 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to compensate
the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Hunt Military Communities Mgmt., LLC is a real estate services
company, headquartered in Arkansas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Chris Burks, Esq.
         WHLAW | WE HELP
         1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745
         North Little Rock, AR 72114
         Telephone: (501) 891-6000
         E-mail: chris@wh.law

IDEXX LABORATORIES: Monopolizes POC Diagnostics Market, Yuen Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CAM YUEN, ARRIANNA GARCIA, KATHRYN HEBERLING, SUSAN MCVINNEY, SUNNY
STIMSON, ELLEN BERMAN, NEIL MURPHY, DENNIS WILD, ANDREA BURY,
MIRANDA SMELCER, MARCIA POTTS, SHERYL EMERSON, CHRYSTA CATALDO,
MARLENA GIGA, GINA GIORGIO, MICHELLE CARPENTER, VALERIE HITZ,
SHAVONNA ARMSTRONG, HILARY ALLRED, MELISSA MARSHALL, JOSEPH DUNCAN,
and DAWN REYNOSA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IDEXX LABORATORIES, INC. and
IDEXX DISTRIBUTION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04297 (N.D.
Cal., July 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, antitrust laws
and consumer protection laws in various states in the U.S.

According to the complaint, IDEXX has been engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme of blocking rivals from competing in the
point-of-care (POC) Diagnostic Products market and submarkets
through illegal long-term exclusive agreements with veterinary
product distributors. IDEXX used its dominant position in the
market and submarkets to cause veterinary practices to enter into
long-term exclusive contracts with baseline spending requirements
that require each practice to buy its analyzer and all of the
associated consumables from IDEXX for the duration of the
agreement. As a result of this anticompetitive scheme, IDEXX has
been able to impose supracompetitive prices for POC Diagnostic
Products on the Plaintiffs and similarly situated pet owners, says
the suit.

IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. is a provider of veterinary diagnostics
products, with its principal place of business located at One IDEXX
Drive, Westbrook, Maine.

IDEXX Distribution, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of IDEXX
Laboratories, headquartered in Westbrook, Maine. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         59A Montford Avenue
         Mill Valley, CA 94941
         Telephone: (800) 424-6690
         E-mail: jdavis@bm.net

                 - and –

         Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
         Richard A. Koffman, Esq.
         Daniel McCuaig, Esq.
         Daniel H. Silverman, Esq.
         COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
         1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 408-4600
         E-mail: bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
                 rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com
                 dmccuaig@cohenmilstein.com
                 dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com

                 - and –

         Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
         Michael J. Kane, Esq.
         Andrew C. Curley, Esq.
         Najah A. Jacobs, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                 mkane@bm.net
                 acurley@bm.net
                 njacobs@bm.net

                 - and –

         Daniel Walker, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
         Washington, DC 20006
         Telephone: (202) 559-9745
         E-mail: dwalker@bm.net

INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial on Class Action Set for February 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, 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 26, 2022, that a trial date on the
class action in connection with the acquisition of BOH Holdings has
been set for February 2023 after the case has been officially
remanded to the Southern District of Texas.

Independent Bank Group, Inc. is a party to a legal proceeding it
inherited in connection with its acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc.
and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH, that was completed on
April 15, 2014. Several entities related to R. A. Stanford, or the
Stanford Entities, including Stanford International Bank, Ltd., or
SIBL, had deposit accounts at BOH.

Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from
SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including
BOH, on August 23, 2009 in Texas state court, alleging, among other
things, that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL and other
Stanford Entities and seeks to recover damages and alleged
fraudulent transfers by the defendant banks.

On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission
to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which
motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended Class Action
Complaint presents previously un-asserted claims, including aiding
and abetting or participation in a fraudulent scheme based upon the
large amount of deposits that the Stanford Entities held at BOH and
the alleged knowledge of certain BOH officers. The plaintiffs seek
recovery from the Bank and other defendants for their losses.

The case has been inactive due to a Court-ordered discovery stay
issued March 2, 2015 pending the Court's ruling on plaintiff's
motion for class certificate and designation of class
representatives and counsel. On November 7, 2017, the Court issued
an order denying the plaintiff's motion. In addition, the Court
lifted the previously ordered discovery stay.

On January 11, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order providing
that the case be ready for trial on January 27, 2020. Due to agreed
upon extensions of discovery on July 25, 2019, the Court amended
the scheduling order to provide that the case be ready for trial on
January 11, 2021.

In light of additional agreed upon extensions of discovery
deadlines, the Court entered a new scheduling order on March 9,
2020, which provided that the case be ready for trial March 15,
2021. In light of delays in discovery associated with the COVID-19
pandemic, the parties agreed to amend the scheduling order with new
ready for trial date of May 6, 2021.

The Defendants have filed a motion to remand the case. The Bank
also filed its motion for summary judgment on February 12, 2021. On
the same day, the Bank also joined in on an omnibus motion for
summary judgment based on procedural issues common to all
Defendants. On March 19, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of
abandonment of five of the seven causes of action against the Bank.


On March 11, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to amend the
scheduling order, which was granted, effectively vacating the May
6, 2021 trial date, with a new trial date to be determined upon
remand. On January 20, 2022 the Court issued an opinion and order
denying the motion for summary judgment by the Bank and the other
defendants.

On the same date, the Court issued a suggestion of remand of the
case to the Southern District of Texas. As of March 11, 2022, the
case has been officially remanded to the Southern District of
Texas. A trial date has been set for February 27, 2023.

Independent Bank Group, Inc. is into lending to and accepting
deposits from businesses, professionals and individuals through its
principal bank subsidiary based in Texas.


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Batchelar Allowed Leave to File Correction
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Batchelar v. Interactive
Brokers, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01836 (D. Con), the Hon.
Judge Alvin W. Thompson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for leave to File Plaintiff's clarification and
correction in support of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.

Interactive Brokers is an American multinational brokerage firm. It
operates the largest electronic trading platform in the U.S. by
number of daily average revenue trades. The company brokers stocks,
options, futures, EFPs, futures options, forex, bonds, and
funds.[CC]



JACKSON CITY, MI: 903 West, et al., Seek to Certify Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as 903 West Washington LLC,
et al., v. City of Jackson, a municipal corporation, et al., Case
No. 2:22-cv-11110-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying the following classes pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b):

  A. All persons and entities who currently own or at one time
     owned Non -Occupied Residential Property located within the
     city of Jackson and who were illegally invoiced for
     inspection fees from a constitutionally void for its
     vagueness Chapter 14 inspection regimen from the effective
     date of the ordinance on March 22, 2012 and up to and
     including July 6, 2021 and subsequently paid them.

     The Plaintiffs believe the size of this class to be in
     excess of six thousand. See the city of Jackson's
     Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) HOME Investment
     Partnerships Program/(HOME)/2020-2024 Five-Year
     Consolidated Plan/2020-2021 Annual Action Plan.

  B. All persons and entities who refused to sign a consent to
     search pursuant to a Chapter 14 inspection demand by the
     city whereby an exterior code deficiency inspection was
     then conducted by the City from the public sidewalk,
     without providing a copy of the deficiency report to the
     homeowner within the statutorily Chapter 14 mandated time
     period for notice of violation which impaired their ability
     to appeal such deficiency determination to an impartial
     board, and the person or entity was then financially
     penalized for the refusal to sign a consent form, paid the
     penalties and subsequently consented to a search.

     The Plaintiffs believe the size of this class to be in
     excess of 60.

  C. All persons and entities who have refused to sign a consent
     to search pursuant to a Chapter 14 inspection demand by the
     city and the person or entity was financially penalized for
     the refusal to sign a consent form and which the city
     subsequently obtained and executed an ex parte search
     warrant without affording the subject of the search the
     opportunity to be heard in front of a neutral magistrate
     and the person or entity subsequently paid the penalties
     and search warrant fees. Plaintiffs believe the size
     of this class to be in excess of sixty. See correspondence
     from the city of Jackson set forth as Exhibit "B" complying
     with a FOIA request for documents related to obtaining
     search warrants for the period May 1, 2020 through April
     30, 2021.

  D. All persons and entities who currently own or at one time
     owned Foreclosed, Vacant or Abandoned real property located
     within the city of Jackson and who were coerced under
     penalty of law to register their real property and were
     illegally invoiced for registration fees, subsequently paid
     those fees, from a Constitutionally void Chapter 14
     Foreclosed, Vacant, or Abandoned Property Registration
     ordinance which compelled a registrant, under threat of
     fine and penalty, to surrender their Fourth Amendment
     rights by proving to the city, with their property
     registration, "A statement allowing authorized staff of
     the city to enter the premises for purposes of inspection",
     for an Article of the Chapter 14 ordinance which did not
     statutorily mandate for an interior inspection of
     foreclosed, vacant, or abandoned Property. Plaintiffs
     believe the size of this class to be in excess of two
     hundred fifty. See City of Jackson Fiscal Year 2021/22
     Adopted Budget Revenue Detail. The registration is valid
     for two years. Using the actual amount from 2018/19 and
     2019/20, divided by the registration fee of three hundred
     dollars ($300.00), results in the total number of
     registrations for that period.

  E. All persons and entities who currently own or at one time
     owned Foreclosed, Vacant or Abandoned real property located
     within the city of Jackson and who were coerced under
     penalty of law to remunerate the city for "monitoring" fees
     from a Constitutionally void for its vagueness a Chapter 14
     ordinance which did not provide a definition of
     "monitoring" or a statutorily mandated interior or exterior
     inspection schedule.

     The Plaintiffs believe the size of this class to be in
     excess of 250.

  F. All persons and entities who owned Foreclosed, Vacant or
     Abandoned real property from March 22, 2012 to July 6,
     2021, located within the city of Jackson, and who were the
     victim of a Constitutionally void for its vagueness
     Chapter 14 Non-Owner-Occupied Residential Inspection
     regimen illegally applied by the City to their Foreclosed,
     Vacant or Abandoned unoccupied real property which
     resulted in the subsequent demolition of that property.

     The Plaintiffs believe the size of this class to be in
     excess of 700.

The Plaintiffs also asks the Court to appoint Toivonen Law Office
as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs include 903 WEST WASHINGTON LLC, 207 SECOND STREET
LLC, and 321 WEST MASON LLC, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated.

The Defendants include CITY OF JACKSON, a municipal corporation AND
THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS SEVERALLY, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY: MATTHEW HAGERTY, city attorney, MARK
PORTERFIELD, assistant city attorney, FRANK DONOVAN, former Chief
Building Official, BRIAN TAYLOR, Chief Building Official, RICARDO
O'CONNOR, Chapter 14 Code enforcement official, MICHAEL BRANDT,
Chapter 14 Code enforcement official, MARK FISH, Electrical
Inspector, SVEN HARRISON, former Chapter 14 Code enforcement
official, SHANE LAPORTE, former Chapter 14 Code enforcement
official, LYDELL TANNER, Chapter 14 Code enforcement official,
DAVID BATTERSON, Chapter 14 Code enforcement official, DENNIS
DIFFENDERFER, former Chapter 14 Code enforcement official, WILLIAM
MILLS, former Chapter 14 Code enforcement official, SCOTT BARNETT,
former Chapter 14 Code enforcement official, CHARLIE WILLIAMS,
former Chapter 14 Code enforcement official, TIMOTHY PICKETT,
former 14 Code enforcement official, JERRY STACKHOUSE, former
Chapter 14 Code enforcement official, DONALD KITTLE, former Chapter
14 Code official, JAYSON STREBE, former Chapter 14 Code enforcement
official, and TIMOTHY BASORE, former Chapter 14 Code enforcement
official.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bmTP82 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John W. Toivonen, Esq.
          TOIVONEN LAW OFFICE
          120 N. Washington, Suite 300
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 402-5229
          E-mail: John@JWTLawGroup.com

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Stipulation to Extend Class Cert Reply OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NARGUESS NOOHI,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., DOES
1-100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 2:20-cv-03575-TJH-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. entered an order granting
stipulation to extend class certification reply in support
deadline.

The deadline for Plaintiff to file a Reply in Support of her Motion
for Class Certification is extended from August 1, 2022, to August
15, 2022.

Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational corporation founded
in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and
consumer packaged goods.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JmynMO at no extra charge.[CC]

JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarette, Lafayette School Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAFAYETTE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-04282 (N.D. Cal., July 25, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

The Lafayette School District case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Lafayette School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 3477 School Street in Lafayette, California.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

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

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

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

JUUL LABS: Faces Konawa Public Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
KONAWA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-04281 (N.D. Cal., July 25, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

The Konawa Public Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick.

Konawa Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 701 West South Street in Konawa, Oklahoma.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

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

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

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

LAB ELITE: Marrero Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTINE MARRERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAB ELITE, LLC, and ZISHAN ALVI, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03593 (N.D. Ill., July 12, 2022) is a collective
action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, against Defendants for violations of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the payment provisions of the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act, as well as the overtime provisions
of the Chicago Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from November of 2021
until February of 2022. The Plaintiff worked at the front desk
completing administrative duties, and she also worked as a tester
administering COVID-19 tests to Defendants' customers.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorney's
fee and costs as a result of Defendants' policy and practice of
failing to pay proper overtime compensation under federal and state
laws.

Lab Elite, LLC is a laboratory company that specializes in
Coronavirus and toxicology testing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Colby Qualls, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.  
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: colby@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

LADY JANE'S: Pugh Sues Over Hair Salon Employees' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
AUBRAY PUGH, OLIVIA LEES, and CASSIDY ELLIOTT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LADY JANE'S
HAIRCUTS FOR MEN HOLDING COMPANY, LLC; LADY JANE'S MURFREESBORO TN,
LLC; and LADY JANE'S NASHVILLE – COOL SPRINGS TN, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00556 (M.D. Tenn., July 25, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act including failure to pay minimum wages, failure
to pay overtime wages, and retaliation.

Ms. Pugh started to work for the Defendants as a hairstylist from
July 2020 until her promotion as a salon manager on October 31,
2021. She was terminated on June 15, 2022.

Ms. Lees started to work for the Defendants as a hairstylist from
March 2018 until she was promoted as a key holder. She resigned in
February 2022.

Ms. Elliott started to work for the Defendants as a hairstylist
from early 2019 until her promotion as a salon manager in June
2019. She resigned in February 2022.

Lady Jane's Haircuts for Men Holding Company, LLC is an owner and
operator of hair salon based in Michigan.

Lady Jane's Murfreesboro TN, LLC is an operator of a hair salon in
Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Lady Jane's Nashville - Cool Springs TN, LLC is an operator of a
hair salon in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
         ARCINIEGAS LAW
         The Atrium Building
         1242 Old Hillsboro Rd.
         Franklin, TN 37069
         Telephone: (629) 777-5889
         E-mail: Daniel@AttorneyDaniel.com

                  - and –

         David Weatherman, Esq.
         THE WEATHERMAN FIRM
         The Atrium Building
         1242 Old Hillsboro Rd.
         Franklin, TN 37069
         Telephone: (615) 538-7555
         E-mail: Daniel@AttorneyDaniel.com

LAKE COUNTY, MT: Jail Inmates Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lake County Inmates v.
Lake County Jail, Case No. 9:22-cv-00127-DWM (D. Mont.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certify the following
Class and Subclass:

   1. Conditions Class

      "All persons who are, have been, or will be incarcerated
      at the Lake County jail from September 3, 2018, through
      September 15, 2022."

   2. Tribal Member Subclass

      "All enrolled members of the Confederated Salish and
      Kootenai Tribes who are, have been, or will be
      incarcerated at the Lake County jail from September 3,
      2018, through September 15, 2022."

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c)(1), Counsel for the Defendant Lake
County were contacted, and Defendant Lake County opposes the relief
sought. Defendant Greg Gianforte has not yet appeared in this
action, the Plaintiffs say.

The Lake County Jail provides for the confinement of those
arrested, held for pretrial detention, and those convicted and
sentenced to jail by the courts.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 28,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P5CMFq
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy M. Bechtold
          BECHTOLD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          P.O. Box 7051
          Missoula, MT 59807
          Telephone: (406) 721-1435
          E-mail: tim@bechtoldlaw.net

               - and -

          Constance Van Kley, Esq.
          Rylee Sommers-Flanagan, Esq.
          UPPER SEVEN LAW
          P.O. Box 31
          Helena, MT 59624
          Telephone: (406) 306-0330
          E-mail: constance@uppersevenlaw.com
                  rylee@uppersevenlaw.com

LASALLE CORRECTIONS: Stanfield Bid for Conditional Cert Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edith Stanfield v. Lasalle
Corrections West LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01535-DJH (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification:

The Court further entered an order that the collective class of
potential plaintiffs is conditionally certified under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b) and shall consist of all hourly-paid Nurses 15
employed by Lasalle Corrections West, LLC, who worked over 40 hours
in any week in which they also received a nighttime shift
differential since September 1, 2021, for hourly-paid Nurses of
Prairieland Detention Center and April 1, 2021, for hourly-paid
Nurses of San Luis Regional Detention Center.

The Plaintiff filed this action in September 2021, seeking damages,
on behalf of herself and a group of similarly situated nurses, for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards 22 Act (FLSA).

In January 2020, the Plaintiff began work as an hourly paid nurse
at San Luis Detention.

Lasalle Corrections operates two correctional facilities, San Luis
Regional Detention Center in San Luis, Arizona and Prairieland
Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cWdRqr at no extra charge.[CC]

LOS ANGELES, CA: Brewster Loses Renewed Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lamya Brewster, et al. v.
City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-02257-JGB-SP (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered an order:

1. denying the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Certify Class;

2. denying the Defendants' Motion to Decertify Classes; and

3. vacating the August 1, 2022 Hearing (in chambers).

The Plaintiffs' Renewed motion for Class Certification (MCC) seeks
certification of their Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment
section 1983 claims for two proposed classes:

   (1) Official Police Garage (OPG) 30 Day Class: Vehicle owners
       during the class period of November 2, 2012 through July
       1, 2017, whose vehicles were:

       (i) impounded under the authority of LAPD SO7 for a 30
           day impound;

      (ii) not released from impound until the 30th day of the
           impound or later; and

     (iii) the owner retrieved their impounded car from an OPG,
           incurred and paid all fees and charges for an impound
           of 30 days or more.

   (2) General OPG Class: Vehicle owners during the class period
       of November 2, 2012 through July 1, 2017, whose vehicles
       were:

       (i) impounded under the authority of SO7 for a 30 day
           impound;

      (ii) not released the first day of the impound [OR not
           released from impound until such time, if any, to be
           determined by the Court or jury, that the impound
           became unlawful based on duration of the impound
           alone]; and

     (iii) the owner retrieved their impounded car from an OPD
           and paid all accrued fees and charges.

The Defendants opposed the Renewed MCC on November 11, 2021; and
Plaintiffs replied on December 8, 2021.

The Defendants moved for decertification of classes on November 22,
2021. The Plaintiffs opposed on December 13, 2021; and
Defendants replied on December 20, 2021.

On November 2, 2014, Brewster filed a class action complaint
against the Defendants seeking injunctive relief and damages under
42 U.S.C. section 1983. The Complaint alleged the Defendants
violated Brewster’s Fourth Amendment rights by impounding her
vehicle pursuant to a policy under which LAPD officers could cause
a vehicle to be seized and then impounded for 30 days under certain
conditions.

Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the nation’s film and television industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QhzNe1 at no extra charge.[CC]

MARGARITA IBANEZ: Thompson Files Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCOISE H. THOMPSON, Plaintiff v. MARGARITA IBANEZ DE SENDADIANO,
Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-61408-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2022)
brings this complaint on behalf of herself and other current and
former employees of the Defendant similarly situated to her to
recover overtime compensation and other relief against the
Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who is a certified nursing assistant, was hired by
the Defendant to perform duties for the primary benefit of the
Defendant.

The Plaintiff claims that she regularly worked 52 plus hours per
week during the initial five months of her employment with the
Defendant and 76 hours per week in the final eight weeks of her
employment with the Defendant. However, the Defendant denied her of
her lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours she worked in
excess of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiff says.

Margarita Ibanez de Sendadiano was granted power of attorney of the
person and property of both her parents Antonio de Sendadiano and
Betty de Sendadiano, regularly exercised the authority to hire and
fire employees, determine the work schedules of employees, set the
rate of pay of employees, and/or control the finances and
operations of her aforementioned parents and direct all work
activities of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated current
and former employees of the Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Rush, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER J. RUSH & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          Compson Financial Center, Suite 227
          1880 North Congress Avenue
          Boynton Beach, FL 33426
          Tel: (561) 369-3331
          Fax: (561) 369-5902
          E-mail: crush@crushlawfl.com
                  eservice@crushlawfl.com

MATRIX ABSENCE: Court Strikes Weeks Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tina Weeks, et al., v.
Matrix Absence Management Incorporated, Case No. 2:20-cv-00884-SPL
(D. Ariz), the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order:

   1. granting the Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiffs'
      motion to certify class; and

   2. directing the Clerk of Court to strike the Plaintiff
      Samantha Stocklein's motion to certify class and its
      associated documents and Plaintiffs' response to the
      Defendant's motion for decertification.

Matrix is a insurance company provide services like disability
managemennt and workman compensation.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OOOaoM at no extra charge.[CC]

META PLATFORMS: Facing GBP2.3 Billion Suit From Facebook Users
--------------------------------------------------------------
Telecompaper reports that Meta is facing a GBP 2.3 billion class
action lawsuit in the UK which claims that 44 million Facebook
users were exploited between October 2015 and December 2019,
reports The Guardian.

The lawsuit claims that Meta violated the 1998 Competition Act by
imposing an "unfair price" on UK users for free access the social
media platform by handing over personal data, which is used to
generate most of Facebook's income. The case is being filed at the
Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) as an opt-out case by Dr Liza
Lovdahl Gormsen, a competition law specialist at the British
Institute of International & Comparative Law. As an opt-out case,
affected Facebook users will not need to actively opt-in to the
case to receive damages, and will be included in the claim unless
they opt out. The case is supported by litigation funding company
Innsworth in exchange for a share of any damages. [GN]

MISSOURI: District Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Pate v. White
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Northern Division, dismisses without prejudice the lawsuit entitled
JERMAINE CORTEZ PATE, Plaintiff v. CARL WHITE, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-CV-006 RLW (E.D. Mo.).

The Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant, who is currently
incarcerated at the Moberly Correctional Center (MCC) in Moberly,
Missouri. On February 7, 2022, he filed a civil action pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 3626(a)(2), which was construed as a complaint
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Plaintiff purported to bring the case
on behalf of himself and eight other inmates. Superintendent Carl
White was named as the Defendant, and sued in his official capacity
only. The complaint was typewritten but not on a Court-provided
form.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff stated that he was an inmate at the
MCC, which is part of the Missouri Department of Corrections. As an
inmate at the MCC, he alleged that he had been exposed to various
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Those conditions
included asbestos, toxic black mold, standing water in the housing
units, lead-based paint, wastewater pollution, vermin control
violations, food handling violations, insufficient ventilation,
poor water and air quality, inadequate medical service, and
inadequate cell space. As a result, the Plaintiff sought injunctive
relief.

Because he was a prisoner, the Court screened his complaint, and
determined that it was deficient. First, the action was not on a
Court-provided form, as required. Additionally, the Plaintiff
appeared to be attempting to bring claims on behalf of others,
which he lacks standing to do. Finally, the Court noted that the
Plaintiff had not filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis or paid the filing fee.

On Feb. 11, 2022, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint on the Court-provided form within 30 days. He was
also directed to either file a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis or pay the filing fee. The Court advised him that a
failure to comply would result in the dismissal of this action.

The Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint on Feb. 18, 2022,
along with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a
motion to appoint counsel.

The Plaintiff's amended complaint is on a Court-provided form, and
names MCC Superintendent Amanda Lake as the sole Defendant. Lake is
sued in both her individual and official capacities. In the caption
section, the Plaintiff has written: "Judicial Notice -- plaintiff
seeks to amend complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 asking
enforcement of the consent decree entered in Parton v. White, Case
No. 2-81-cv-19 DDN, under 18 U.S.C. Section 401(3)." He has also
altered the form complaint so that "Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint
Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983" now reads "Amended Prisoner Civil
Rights Complaint Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 for the Enforcement
of Consent Decree Under 18 U.S.C. Section 401(3)." Beneath that,
the Plaintiff has written: "Judicial Notice: Reopen cause number
2-81-cv-19-DDN; dismiss instant case." He also asserts that a
filing fee is "not required as plaintiff seeks to enforce the
consent decree," and that he wants the "instant case" to be
dismissed and refiled "in cause number 2-81-cv-19-DDN."

In the "Statement of Claim," the Plaintiff asserts that "defendant
is in breach of the consent decree entered in Parton v. White, Case
No. 2-81-cv-19 DDN." More specifically, he states there is a
significant decrease in staff, that there is an "ongoing issue"
with "rampant" violence, that food service has become hazardous,
that the medical service is overwhelmed due to staff shortages, and
that surgeries and procedures are not being conducted in a timely
manner. The Plaintiff notes that "OSHA has been informed of the
inadequate living conditions," but that OSHA "lacks jurisdiction."

At the bottom of the "Statement of Claim," the Plaintiff asks that
the case be dismissed and that the Clerk of the Court file a copy
of this complaint in case number 2-81-cv-19-DDN, for enforcement of
the consent decree.

With regard to injuries, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
is in breach of the consent decree. Due to this breach, he seeks
$100 up to $1,000 per day that the Defendant is in breach, as well
as enforcement of the consent decree and an inspection of the
facility by an agency chosen by the Inspector General of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. He also requests that the
Clerk of Court "dismiss the instant action and ... file a copy of
this complaint in cause number 2-81-cv-19 DDN."

District Judge Ronnie L. White notes that based on the contents of
the amended complaint, it is clear that the Plaintiff did not
intend to file a new civil action, but was attempting to enforce a
consent decree in Parton, et al. v. White, et al., No.
2:81-cv-19-DDN (E.D. Mo.). In that case, three MCC inmates filed a
complaint on May 11, 1981, alleging unconstitutional conditions of
confinement. On April 15, 1983, the Court ordered the action to be
conditionally maintained as a class action. Subsequently, an
amended complaint was filed. On Dec. 8, 1983, a consent decree was
entered into by the parties, which resolved the disputed claims.

On Feb. 18, 2022 -- the same day the Court received his amended
complaint -- the Plaintiff submitted a motion to intervene in
Parton, et al. v. White, et al., No. 2:81-cv-19-DDN, which was
filed in that case. He followed that motion with a motion to reopen
consent decree proceedings on March 15, 2022; an affidavit on March
21, 2022; a "Motion for Leave of Court to Enforce Consent Decree"
on March 23, 2022; a "Motion to Enforce Consent Decree, Sanctions
for Civil Contempt, and for an Order to Show Cause" on March 28,
2022; and a motion for a preliminary injunction on April 1, 2022.
On April 8, 2022, the Court directed that the cause be served on
the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Missouri.
Subsequently, on April 20, 2022, the Plaintiff filed another motion
to modify the consent decree and for injunctive relief. The State
of Missouri entered its appearance, and on June 3, 2022, filed a
motion to dismiss. That motion is still pending.

Meanwhile, in the amended complaint filed on Feb. 18, 2022, the
Plaintiff repeatedly asks for the instant case to be dismissed, and
clarifies that he is attempting to enforce the 1983 consent decree.
Specifically, he asks for the case to be dismissed twice on the
first page, once in the "Statement of Claim," and again in the
section for "Relief." Later, in the section of the form complaint
regarding the grievance process, plaintiff notes that he "may not
bring an independent action for enforcement of the consent decree,"
and concludes that "the above-captioned case should be dismissed."
Finally, on the last page of the amended complaint, the Plaintiff
asserts that "[t]he complaint was wrongfully filed in the
above-captioned case."

In short, Judge White notes, it is now obvious that the Plaintiff
did not intend his original filing to constitute a new civil
action, he is asking for the instant action to be dismissed, and he
is actively litigating the consent decree in Parton, et al. v.
White, et al., No. 2:81-cv-19-DDN (E.D. Mo.). For all these
reasons, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice.

Judge White also rules that the Plaintiff's motions for appointment
of counsel and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied as
moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 18,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/dhf6xd55 from
Leagle.com.


NABORS COMPLETION: $91K in Unpaid Wages Awarded in Andrews Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled QUELLEN ANDREWS, Petitioner v. NABORS
COMPLETION & PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a Delaware corporation, now
known as C&J Well Services, Inc., Respondent, Case No.
2:22-cv-00883-DDP-JPR (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a
judgment that awards the Petitioner $91,414 in unpaid wages, among
other amounts.

On April 2, 2015, two former employees of Respondent NABORS,
Brandyn Ridgeway and Tim Smith, filed a putative class action
alleging, among other things, claims under Labor Code Sections
1194(a) and 1771 for failure to pay the minimum prevailing wage and
overtime, under Labor Code Section 226(e) for failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code Section 226(a),
and for related interest and penalties, as well as attorneys' fees
and costs, CACD Case No. 2:15-cv-03436-DDP-VBKx, the "Ridgeway
class action."

On June 29, 2015, NABORS brought a motion to compel arbitration of
Ridgeway and Smith's individual claims pursuant to 9 U.SC. Section
2, the Federal Arbitration Act, and a written arbitration agreement
that included a class action waiver. On Oct. 13, 2015, the Court
denied NABORS' motion to compel arbitration, finding the
arbitration agreement unenforceable.

NABORS timely appealed the denial of its motion to compel
arbitration.

On Feb. 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a
Memorandum, which reversed the Court's order denying the motion and
remanded with instructions. On March 30, 2018, Petitioner Quellen
Andrews, a putative class member in the Ridgeway class action,
commenced an individual arbitration at JAMS.

Andrews' individual claims were adjudicated by JAMS Arbitrator Hon.
Rosalyn Chapman (Ret.) resulting in an Interim Award issued Nov.
15, 2021 and a Final Arbitration Award issued Jan. 27, 2022, in
favor of Andrews.

On Feb. 8, 2022, Andrews filed the instant Petition to Confirm
Final Arbitration Award, For Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and
to Enter Judgment Against Nabors; Nabors appeared, filed an answer
and filed a crossclaim to vacate the Final Award.

On July 15, 2022, the Court granted Andrews's motion and confirmed
the Final JAMS Arbitration Award issued by Arbitrator Hon. Rosalyn
M. Chapman (Ret.) on Jan. 27, 2022, in the Arbitration JAMS Case
No. 1220058942 and denied NABORS' request to vacate the award.

Therefore, Judge Pregerson ruled that the Petitioner will recover
against NABORS these amounts:

   -- $91,414.36 in unpaid wages, $77,709.82 in statutory
      interest through Aug. 10, 2021, and continuing at $25.05
      per day, $15,172.94 in waiting time penalties under
      California Labor Code Section 203(a), $4,000 in penalties
      for wage statement violations under California Labor Code
      Section 226(e), $289,739 in attorneys' fees, and $3,932.64
      in costs as awarded by the Arbitrator; and

   -- Additional post-arbitration attorneys' fees in the amount
      of $5,940 and for costs in the amount of $400.

A full-text copy of the Court's Judgment dated July 18, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/dj6vhmja from Leagle.com.

Richard E. Donahoo -- rdonahoo@donahoo.com -- Sarah L. Kokonas --
skokonas@donahoo.com -- R. Chase Donahoo, DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, in
Tustin, California, Counsel for the Petitioner.


NABORS COMPLETION: C.D. California Gives Vela $148K in Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled FERMIN VELA, Petitioner v. NABORS COMPLETION
& PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., a Delaware corporation, now known as C&J
Well Services, Inc., Respondent, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01147-DDP-JPR
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California issued a judgment that awards
the Petitioner $148,468.34 in unpaid wages, among other amounts.

On April 2, 2015, two former employees of Respondent NABORS,
Brandyn Ridgeway and Tim Smith, filed a putative class action
alleging, among other things, claims under Labor Code Sections
1194(a) and 1771 for failure to pay the minimum prevailing wage and
overtime, under Labor Code Section 226(e) for failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code Section 226(a),
and for related interest and penalties, as well as attorneys' fees
and costs, CACD Case No. 2:15-cv-03436-DDP-VBKx, the "Ridgeway
class action."

On June 29, 2015, NABORS brought a motion to compel arbitration of
Ridgeway and Smith's individual claims pursuant to 9 U.SC. Section
2, the Federal Arbitration Act, and a written arbitration agreement
that included a class action waiver. On Oct. 13, 2015, the Court
denied NABORS' motion to compel arbitration, finding the
arbitration agreement unenforceable.

NABORS timely appealed the denial of its motion to compel
arbitration.

On Feb. 13, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued a
Memorandum, which reversed the Court's order denying the motion and
remanded with instructions. On March 30, 2018, Petitioner Fermin
Vela, a putative class member in the Ridgeway class action,
commenced an individual arbitration at JAMS.

Vela's individual claims were adjudicated by JAMS Arbitrator Hon.
Jeffrey King (Ret.) resulting in an Interim Award issued Nov. 22,
2021, and a Final Arbitration Award issued Feb. 15, 2022, in favor
of Vela.

On Feb. 18, 2022, Vela filed the instant Petition to Confirm Final
Arbitration Award, For Further Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and to
Enter Judgment Against Nabors; Nabors appeared, filed an answer and
filed a crossclaim to vacate the Final Award.

On July 15, 2022, the Court granted Vela's motion and confirmed the
JAMS Interim Arbitration Award, issued on Nov. 22, 2021, and Final
Award issued on Feb. 15, 2022, in Vela's Arbitration JAMS Case No.
1220058934, and denied NABORS' request to vacate the award.

Therefore, Judge Pregerson ruled that Petitioner Fermin Vela will
recover against Respondent NABORS these amounts:

   -- $148,468.34 in unpaid wages, including statutory interest
      through Nov. 17, 2021, and continuing at $23.04 per day on
      the unpaid wages and interest at the rate of 10% per annum
      until all wages and interest thereon are paid in full,
      $191,212.50 in attorneys' fees, and $4,909.42 in costs as
      awarded by the Arbitrator; and

   -- Additional post-arbitration attorneys' fees in the amount
      $8,532 and for costs in the amount of $402.

A full-text copy of the Court's Judgment dated July 18, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8cur5d from Leagle.com.

Richard E. Donahoo -- rdonahoo@donahoo.com -- Sarah L. Kokonas --
skokonas@donahoo.com -- R. Chase Donahoo, DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, in
Tustin, California, Counsel for the Petitioner.


NATERA INC: Court Appoints British Airways as Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HARVEY SCHNEIDER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
NATERA, INC., STEVE CHAPMAN, MICHAEL BROPHY, MATTHEW RABINOWITZ,
AND RAMESH HARIHARAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00398-LY (W.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Lee Yeakel entered an order:

  -- granting the Plaintiff British Airways Pension Trustees
     Limited's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and
     Approval of Selection of Counsel filed June 27, 2022;

  -- appointing the Plaintiff British Airways Pension Trustees
     Limited to serve as Lead Plaintiff.

  -- approving Plaintiff British Airways Pension Trustees
     Limited's selection of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
     as Lead Counsel for the class and Nix Patterson, LLP as
     Liaison Counsel for the class;

  -- denying Plaintiff Teamsters Local 639 Employers Pension
     Trust's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and
     Approval of Selection of Counsel filed June 27, 2022;

Natera is a clinical genetic testing company based in Austin, Texas
that specializes in non-invasive, cell-free DNA testing
technology.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cYalLV at no extra charge.[CC]

NEWBY COMMUNITIES: Court Extends Time to Prepare Pretrial Statement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martha Akers, et al v.
Newby Communities d/b/a Newby Management, et al., Case No.
8:21-cv-00140 (M.D. Fla.),  the Hon. Judge Mary S. Scriven entered
an endorsed order granting the parties joint motion for enlargement
of time to meet and confer for preparation of the joint final
pretrial statement:

  -- The deadline to meet and confer is stayed pending the
     court's resolution of defendants' motion for summary
     judgment and plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
     certification.

The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act.[CC]

NVR INC: Fails to Disclose Mortgage Assessments, Butakis Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN BUTAKIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NVR, INC., d/b/a NVHOMES; NVR MORTGAGE
FINANCE, INC.; and MUNICAP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-02971 (E.D. Pa., July 28, 2022) is an action against the
Defendants for violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and the Truth in Lending
Act.

According to the complaint, the properties at the Greystone are
purportedly subject to a "special assessment" pursuant to the
Neighborhood Improvement District Act 73 P.S. Section 831 et seq.
("NID"). The purpose of NID is to allow for the creation of
assessment-based neighborhood improvement districts to increase
revenue available for improving neighborhoods.

The Defendants, however, failed to disclose the material terms of
the special assessment at the Greystone to prospective purchasers.
The Defendants' failures include: failing to adequately disclose
the existence of the special assessment; failing to disclose that
any closing credits obtained by using Defendant NVR Mortgage
Finance, Inc. could not be used to pay off a portion of the special
assessment; and failing to disclose that the special assessment
would incur interest unless paid in full immediately, says the
suit.

NVR, INC. builds and markets homes and conducts mortgage banking
activities. The Company builds single-family detached homes, town
homes, and condominium buildings under the Ryan Homes, NVHomes, and
other trade names. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
           Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
           Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
           SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
           1109 Lancaster Avenue
           Berwyn, PA 19312
           Telephone: (888) 711-9975
           Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                  mds@sstriallawyers.com
                  jbk@sstriallawyers.com



ORC HOLDING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brittain Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUSTY BRITTAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORC HOLDING GROUP, LLC; and KRISTOPHER COPP,
Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-00271 (D. Neb., July 28, 2022) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Brittain was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

ORC HOLDING GROUP, LLC owns and operates a pizza restaurant at
Omaha, Nebraska. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          5000 Rockside Road
          Liberty Plaza Suite 520
          Independence, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 525-8890
          Email: james@simonsayspay.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 644-3425
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          Email: mike@fradinlaw.com

OREGON: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended to Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Terrill v. State of
Oregon, et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-00588 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Ann
L. Aiken entered an order on motion for extension of time as
follows:

   -- Motion for Class Certification           Sept. 30, 2022
      is due by:

   -- Defendants' Opposition to Motion         Oct. 31, 2022
      for Class Certification is due by:

   -- The Plaintiff's Reply in support         Nov. 18, 2022
      of Motion for Class Certification
      is due by:

   -- Discovery is to be completed 120
      days after the Court's ruling on
      the motion for class certification.

   -- The parties shall file amended
      pleadings and join all claims 120
      days after the Court's ruling on
      the motion for class certification.

   -- Expert Witness Disclosures and
      Reports are due 30 days after the
      close of fact discovery.

   -- Expert Rebuttal Reports are due 30
      days after Expert Disclosures.

   -- Expert Discovery to be completed 30
      days after Rebuttal Reports are due.

   -- Dispositive Motions are due 30 days
      after close of Expert Discovery.

   -- Pretrial Order is due 30 days
      following the Court's ruling on any
      dispositive motions.

Oregon is a state in the Pacific Northwest region of the Western
United States.

The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities
Act.[CC]

PADDA LAW: E.D. Missouri Dismisses Aye Suit Over Jurisdiction Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Eastern Division, dismisses the lawsuit captioned SAMUEL AYE,
Plaintiff v. GUPREET PAADA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:22-cv-562 JMB (E.D. Mo.), for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

The matter comes before the Court on review of Plaintiff Samuel
Aye's response to the Court's June 29, 2022 order to show cause.

The Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant currently incarcerated
at Jackson County Jail in Murphysboro, Illinois. On May 23, 2022,
the Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting he was bringing a federal
question action pursuant to "42 U.S.C. Section 1983, breach of
contract, gross negligence, medical malpractice, and class action
Rule 23, F.R.C.P." The complaint lacked a Caption, but it appeared
he was suing three private actors: Gupreet Paada, M.D., Padda Law
Firm, and Padda Pain Management Clinic.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged he was diagnosed with a
bulging disc in 2012 and became paralyzed from the neck down in
2017. He claimed his treating provider, Defendant Dr. Paada,
disregarded his need for surgery. It was unclear from the complaint
whether the Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time he incurred his
alleged injuries. For relief, he sought actual damages, punitive
damages, and compensatory damages in the amounts of
"$5,000,000,000" and "$15,000,000,000."

On June 1, 2022, the Court reviewed the Plaintiff's complaint
pursuant to Section 1915 and found it was subject to dismissal for
three reasons. First, the complaint was defective because it did
not contain a Caption listing the specific defendants he intended
to sue and failed to allege how each defendant was personally
responsible. Second, the Defendants appeared to be private parties
and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 only imposes liability on government
actors. Third, the Plaintiff did not allege a violation of the U.S.
Constitution or a federal statute, which is required to bring a
claim under Section 1983. In consideration of plaintiff's
self-represented status, the Court directed him to submit an
amended complaint.

On June 21, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Although he again failed to include a Caption, he listed the
Defendants as Gupreet Padda M.D., Padda Pain Management Clinic, and
Padda Law Firm. The amended complaint changes the original spelling
of "Paada" to "Padda."

Within the amendment, the Plaintiff clarified he was not
incarcerated at the time he accrued his injuries. He further
indicated he was not bringing suit against a federal official or
agency and it was not his intent to bring any claims pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983. He admitted the Defendants were private actors
and entities.

Under the section of the form complaint titled, "Basis of
Jurisdiction - Federal Question," the Plaintiff framed his claims
as follows:

   * Tort Claim -- Personal Injury -- Mo. Rev. Stat. 516.120
   * Tort Claim -- Breach of Contract, Mo. Rev. Stat. 400.2.725
   * Tort Claim -- Negligence -- Mo. Rev. Stat. 400.3
   * Tort Claim -- Medical Malpractice/Medial Liability
   * Tort Claim -- Due Process -- Mo. Rev. Stat. 400.9

Under the section of the form complaint titled, "Basis of
Jurisdiction - Diversity of Citizenship," the Plaintiff indicated
he and the three listed Defendants were citizens of Missouri.

The Plaintiff alleged Dr. Padda failed to provide him with proper
medical care in 2013 because he did not recommend surgery to treat
a fractured spine. He asserts he fell in 2017 because of a bulging
disc and is now permanently injured. He appears to attribute the
fall to Dr. Padda's alleged negligence from four years prior. He
also complains that on one occasion Dr. Padda improperly directed
him to leave the medical clinic and wrongly accused him of seeking
pain medication. The Plaintiff asserts that Dr. Padda cannot refuse
to treat him because he has government-issued insurance.

On June 29, 2022, the Court reviewed the Plaintiff's amended
complaint and determined that he did not sufficiently establish
subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the Plaintiff made no
reference to a violation of a specific federal statute, federal
treaty, or provision of the United States Constitution, and
acknowledged he was not suing the federal government, a federal
official, or a federal agency. Moreover, diversity jurisdiction did
not appear to exist because he explicitly stated that he and each
of the three Defendants were Missouri citizens.

The Court ordered the Plaintiff to show cause as to why this action
should not be dismissed. He was given thirty days to submit a
response.

     A. Plaintiff's Response to the Court's Show Cause Order

On July 14, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a response to the Court's
June 29, 2022 order to show cause. He alleges subject matter
jurisdiction exists in this action because of "complete diversity
of citizenship." He explains, Dr. Gupreet Padda, was not born in
the U.S.A., but is proprietor of The Diagnostic and Pain Management
Clinic, of which all exist in the same State of Missouri, City of
St. Louis, as the Plaintiff resides when violations of United
States federal laws occurred. According to this statement, the
Plaintiff appears to be alleging that he and the Defendants are
citizens of Missouri. As to the jurisdictional amount, he states he
is seeking $70,000,000 in actual and punitive damages.

Under the section the Plaintiff titles as "violation of federal
laws under the Constitution," he asserts he is suing the Defendants
pursuant to: (1) Missouri Revised Statute 516.105, Civil Tort
Claim, Medical Malpractice/Medical Liability; (2) Missouri Revised
Statute 516.120, Civil Tort Claim, Personal Injury; (3) Missouri
Revised Statute 400.3, Civil Tort Claim, Negligence; (4) Missouri
Revised Statute 400.7, Civil Tort Claim, Breach of Contract; (5)
Missouri Revised Statute 400.9, Civil Tort Claim, Due Process; and
(6) Missouri Revised Statute.

                 B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

District Judge E. Richard Webber notes that the Plaintiff asserts
that the Court has diversity and federal question jurisdiction over
his case. However, the Plaintiff has not established that either
basis for jurisdiction is present.

The Plaintiff has also asserted an amount in controversy that
exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. However, he has failed to
establish the diversity of the parties, Judge Webber points out.
Specifically, he states in both his amended complaint and show
cause response that both himself and the Defendants are Missouri
citizens. The fact that he is currently incarcerated in Jackson
County Jail in Illinois would not change the diversity jurisdiction
analysis, and he does not assert that he is an Illinois citizen.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of
diversity jurisdiction in this action. The Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate the existence of federal question jurisdiction in this
action, Judge Webber adds.

                     C. Preservice Dismissal

Judge Webber opines that the Plaintiff has not carried his burden
of establishing the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over this
action.

As the Court noted in its show cause order, the action appeared to
sound in state law tort claims, such as medical malpractice and
negligence. The Court gave the Plaintiff an opportunity to
demonstrate otherwise. The Plaintiff's show cause response attempts
to inject a federal issue into this action by merely stating that
this lawsuit involves questions of federal law and diverse parties.
However, the Plaintiff contradicts those conclusory statements by
citing to only state tort laws and an assertion that all parties
are citizens of Missouri.

In short, Judge Webber explains, nothing on the face of the amended
complaint or show cause response establishes that the Plaintiff's
claims against the Defendants were created by federal law, or
involves a substantial question of federal law. Therefore, the
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of federal
question jurisdiction. As diversity jurisdiction is also not
present, the case must be dismissed.

Accordingly, Judge Webber holds that the action is dismissed
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Judge
Webber adds that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken
in good faith.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 18,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3hkp39c9 from
Leagle.com.


PANAMERICAN ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Perozo Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO M. PEROZO, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. PANAMERICAN ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS CORP, 170 KAJU
LLC, CESAR I. CASTILLO and JOHN E. GOMEZ, individually Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-22139 (S.D. Fla., July 12, 2022) seeks to recover
money damages from the Defendants for Plaintiff's unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a full-time,
non-exempted, employee from approximately April 1, 2020, to April
8, 2022, or 105 weeks. He had the position of project manager but
he performed non-exempted multiple duties including construction
work.

Panamerican Engineering Contractors Corp. and 170 Kaju LLC are
construction companies dedicated to residential and commercial new
construction and remodeling projects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PAPARAZZI LLC: Gilbert Suit Moved From E.D. Michigan to D. Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HEATHER GILBERT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PAPARAZZI, LLC, Case No 2:22-cv-11339,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah on July 25, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Utah assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-00484-DAO to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and violation of the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act by falsely representing its jewelry and accessories
products as lead and nickel free.

Paparazzi, LLC is a manufacturer of jewelries and other
accessories, with its primary place of business in St. George,
Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Nick Suciu III, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
         6905 Telegraph Road, Ste. 115
         Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
         Telephone: (313) 303-3472
         E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com

                 - and –

         Patrick Wallace, Esq.
         900 W. Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (919) 600-5000
         Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
         E-mail: pwallace@milberg.com

                 - and –

         Karl S. Gwaltney, Esq.
         MAGINNIS HOWARD
         7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
         Raleigh, NC 27615
         Telephone: (919) 526-0450
         Facsimile: (919) 882-8763
         E-mail: kgwaltney@maginnishoward.com

PARKER LORD: Harris Sues Over Press Operators' Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
COREY HARRIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARKER LORD CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00218-CB (W.D. Pa., July 12, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation owed to the plaintiff, on his own behalf and
on behalf of all those similarly situated, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its Cambridge
Springs Plant in Crawford County, Pennsylvania facility from
September 21, 2018 through May 20, 2022. His was employed as a
certified press operator.

Cary, North Carolina-headquartered Parker Lord Corporation is a
diversified technology and manufacturing company developing and
selling adhesives, coatings, motion-management devices and sensing
technologies for the aerospace, automotive, building and
construction, electronics, oil and gas and transportation
industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
       
          Michael J. Bruzzese, Esq.
          220 Koppers Building
          436 Seventh Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8676

PET FOOD: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Holmes Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
RAYLYNN HOLMES, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PET FOOD EXPRESS, LTD., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 22CV014140 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., July 12, 2022) is a
representative action brought by the Plaintiff for recovery of
penalties under the Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004,
California Labor Code section 2698 et seq.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated various
provisions of the law including: (1) failure to pay minimum wages,
including overtime; (2) failure to provide lawful meal periods; (3)
failure to authorize and permit lawful rest periods; (4) failure to
timely pay wages due and payable during employment; (5) failure to
provide accurate itemized employee wage statements; (6) failure to
reimburse necessary expenses; (7) failure to keep accurate payroll
records; (8) failure to timely pay all wages owed upon separation
of employment; and (9) failure to provide suitable seating.

The Plaintiff was employed in an hourly, non-exempt position by
Defendants during the relevant time period. She worked in
Defendants' retail stores approximately 5 days for 40+ hours per
week.

Pet Food Express, Ltd. is a California chain of retail stores that
offers pet food, with a focus on premium brands, holistic, and
organic pet food, as well as other pet supplies, and self-service
dog washing facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com

PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARL KENDALL, SUZANNE
RAINEY and VINCENZO PERNICE, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, v. PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
BOARD OF OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, THE BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
7:20-cv-00071-D (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:

   1. Granting final approval to the class action settlement in
      this action on the terms of the Class Action Settlement
      Agreement, fully executed on March 30, 2022 and previously
      filed with the Court on March 31, 2022;

   2. Certifying the Class as defined in the Settlement
      Agreement;

   3. Appointing Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and
      Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel under FED. R. CIV.
      23(g); and

   4. Finding that the manner in which the Settlement Class was
      notified of the Settlement was the best practicable under
      the circumstances and adequately informed the Settlement
      Class members of the terms of the Settlement, how to lodge
      an objection and obtain additional information; and

Pharmaceutical Product is a global contract research organization
providing comprehensive, integrated drug development, laboratory
and lifecycle management services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BsIluh at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
                  donr@capozziadler.com

PRINCESS K INVESTMENTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Aliaga Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LIZARDO ALIAGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRINCESS K INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a THE KAROL
HOTEL, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01698-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla., July
28, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Aliaga was employed by the Defendant as cook.

PRINCESS K INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a THE KAROL HOTEL operates a hotel
and restaurant located at Ulmerton Rd, Clearwater, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PSP GROUP: Faces Nunez Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
ROLANDO NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PSP GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:22-cv-01703-WFJ-MRM (M.D. Fla., July 28, 2022) brings this
complaint as a class action against the Defendant seeking for
injunctive relief as a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct
that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that he received telephonic sales
communications from the Defendant on or about July 14, 2022 and
July 20, 2022 to his cellular telephone number, which has been on
the National Do-Not-Call Registry on August 21, 2006. The Defendant
did not obtain his prior express written consent to receive such
telephonic sales communications. Accordingly, in an attempt to
promote its services, the Defendant allegedly engages in
unsolicited text messaging to individuals who have registered their
telephone numbers on the NDNC Registry without obtaining their
express written consent, says the Plaintiff.

As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were harmed in
the form of violations of their statutory rights, statutory
damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy. Thus,
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and other relief as the Court
deems necessary.

PSP Group, LLC sells pet supplies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: 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
          Tel: (954) 907-1136
          Website: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

RAUSCH STURM: Stenner Bid for Class Certification Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stenner v. Rausch Sturm
LLP, Case No. 2:22-cv-00828 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Stephen C.
Dries entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion to stay her
motion for class certification and for relief from the local rules
setting an automatic briefing schedule.

   -- For administrative purposes only, the court terminates the
      plaintiff's motion for class certification.

   -- The court stays briefing on the plaintiff's class cert
      motion and will re-set a briefing schedule at the Rule 16
      scheduling conference.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.

Rausch Sturm is a debt collection agency.[CC]

RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Loses Bid to Impose Sanctions on Fox's Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Melissa Damian of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida denies the Defendant's motion for
sanctions in the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL FOX, on behalf on
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE
RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
17-CV-24284-COOKE (S.D. Fla.).

In the Motion, Ritz-Carlton seeks an award of sanctions against
Plaintiff Michael Fox's counsel pursuant to Title 28, United States
Code, Section 1927, on grounds his counsel has allegedly multiplied
these proceedings through their "unreasonable and vexatious"
conduct. In response, Mr. Fox argues his counsel conducted
themselves professionally and in good faith and that it is
Ritz-Carlton's counsel, who is unnecessarily multiplying these
proceedings through their motion practice.

The Court observes that the litigation in this case, which has been
ongoing for four and a half years, is contentious, to say the
least. Four years after the case was filed, Ritz-Carlton filed the
Motion now before the Court, contending that Mr. Fox's lawsuit and
class certification motion are so entirely baseless that his
counsel's pursuit of the claims is egregious and must be
sanctioned.

In November 2017, Mr. Fox filed this consumer class action on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against
Ritz-Carlton alleging violations of Section 509.214 of the Florida
Statutes, which requires every public food establishment that
includes an automatic gratuity or service charge in the price of
the meal to provide notice that the automatic gratuity is included
on both the food menu and on the face of the bill provided to the
customer.

According to the allegations in the Motion for Class Certification
(which are consistent with the allegations in the Amended
Complaint), from April 4 through April 7, 2017, Mr. Fox stayed at
the Ritz-Carlton Key Biscayne in Miami, Florida. During his stay,
Mr. Fox ordered and paid for food and beverages from three separate
public food service establishments located on the hotel property:
Lightkeepers, Cantina Beach, and Key Pantry. He alleges that each
of these establishments charged him automatic gratuities without
providing adequate notice, in contravention of Section 509.214 of
the Florida Statutes.

Mr. Fox filed the original complaint on Nov. 28, 2017, and, after
Ritz-Carlton filed a Motion to Dismiss, Fox filed the operative
Amended Complaint on Feb. 15, 2018. On Jan. 22, 2019, District
Judge James Lawrence King dismissed the case sua sponte for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. Mr. Fox appealed the dismissal order.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
reversed the order dismissing Counts One, Two, Four, and Five,
affirmed the dismissal of Count Three, and remanded the case for
further proceedings. The case was reassigned to Judge Cooke after
remand.

On Oct. 1, 2021, Mr. Fox filed his Motion for Class Certification.
Ritz-Carlton then filed several motions to exclude evidence related
to the Motion for Class Certification, as well as the Motion for
Sanctions now before the Court. It is the grounds asserted by
Ritz-Carlton in its own motions that serve as the basis, primarily,
for the sanctions motion now before the Court.

     Ritz-Carlton's Motions to Exclude Plaintiff's Evidence
                in Support of Class Certification

Ritz-Carlton filed three motions to exclude declarations submitted
by Mr. Fox in support of the Motion for Class Certification: (1)
Motion to Exclude Unfiled Declaration of James Francis; (2) Motion
to Exclude Declarations of Edward Coleman; and (3) Motion to
Exclude Reply Declaration of Plaintiff Michael Fox and Plaintiff's
Deposition Errata.

In the Motion for Class Certification, Mr. Fox cites the
declaration of his attorney, James A. Francis (the "Francis
Declaration"), and the exhibits thereto. Although Mr. Fox filed the
referenced exhibits concurrently with the Motion for Class
Certification, he failed to file the Francis Declaration itself.
Therefore, without first conferring with Mr. Fox's counsel or
otherwise bringing to their attention that the Francis Declaration
had not been filed and without having seen the Declaration,
Ritz-Carlton filed a Motion to Exclude the Francis Declaration. The
Motion to Exclude was based on the untimeliness of the Declaration
and attacked what Ritz-Carlton assumed the substance of the
Declaration to be.

The Court denied Ritz-Carlton's Motion to Exclude the Francis
Declaration, finding that Mr. Fox's counsel's failure to timely
file the Francis Declaration was excusable, and rejected
Ritz-Carlton's arguments that the Declaration was otherwise
inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. In denying the
Motion to Exclude the Francis Declaration, the Court also pointed
out that the Motion violated the Court's Local due to
Ritz-Carlton's counsel's failure to confer with Mr. Fox's counsel
prior to filing the Motion.

Mr. Fox also filed the declarations of another one of his
attorneys, Edward Coleman, in support of class certification. In
the First Coleman Declaration, submitted in support of the Motion
for Class Certification, Mr. Coleman sets forth his observations,
conclusions, and inferences drawn from the review of documents and
data produced by Ritz-Carlton in discovery (the "First Coleman
Declaration"). Mr. Fox submitted another declaration from Mr.
Coleman (the "Third Coleman Declaration") with his Reply in Support
of Class Certification. The Third Coleman Declaration is similar to
the first in that it also contains Mr. Coleman's inferences,
observations, and opinions based on his review of documents and
data produced by Ritz-Carlton.

Ritz-Carlton moved to exclude the First and Third Coleman
Declarations on grounds the Declarations were not based on personal
knowledge, were improper lay opinions, and were improper reply
evidence.

Finding the Coleman Declarations were not proper summaries under
Rule 1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and that they included
arguments of counsel that are inappropriate in a declaration to be
used as evidence, the Court granted the Motion to Exclude the
Coleman Declarations.

Mr. Fox also submitted his own Declaration in support of his Reply
in Support of Class Certification. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Fox
timely served his deposition transcript corrections (the "Fox
Errata"). Ritz-Carlton argued that the Fox Declaration and the Fox
Errata are "shams" and moved to exclude them both. The Court
disagreed and denied the motion, finding that Ritz-Carlton's
challenges may more appropriately be used as bases for attacking
Mr. Fox's credibility on cross-examination and do not demonstrate
that the Declaration or Errata are shams.

Thus, of its three Motions to exclude declarations submitted by Mr.
Fox in support of class certification, Ritz-Carlton prevailed on
one.

        Mr. Fox's Motion to Quash the Silverman Subpoena

In addition to its motions to exclude declarations offered by Mr.
Fox, Ritz-Carlton also cites Fox's attempts to prevent the
deposition of Meredith Silverman in support of its sanctions
motion. Mr. Fox moved to quash the Silverman subpoena, and the
Court denied the motion. Ritz-Carlton deposed Ms. Silverman shortly
thereafter.

                    The Motion for Sanctions

On Dec. 3, 2021, Ritz-Carlton filed the Motion for Sanctions
concurrently with its Motion to Exclude the Coleman Declarations
and Motion to Exclude the Fox Declaration and Fox Errata. In the
Motion, Ritz-Carlton argues that Mr. Fox's counsel has engaged in
"unreasonable and vexatious" conduct warranting sanctions pursuant
to Section 1927. The alleged misconduct includes filing and
maintaining a putative class action based on demonstrably false
allegations that they took no discovery on.

Ritz-Carlton argues that the foregoing conduct has substantially
multiplied proceedings and necessitated the filing of the numerous
evidentiary motions. Thus, Ritz-Carlton requests that the Court
impose sanctions against Mr. Fox's counsel and reimburse
Ritz-Carlton for the expenses it incurred in addressing Mr. Fox's
alleged misconduct.

In response, Mr. Fox argues that his counsel's conduct throughout
this litigation has been appropriate. Contrary to Ritz-Carlton's
allegations, Mr. Fox claims he has diligently pursued discovery and
worked cooperatively and in good faith with Ritz-Carlton's previous
attorneys -- that is, apparently, until Ritz-Carlton's current
counsel entered the case. Mr. Fox argues that it is Ritz-Carlton's
counsel, who has needlessly multiplied these proceedings and acted
vexatiously (although Mr. Fox did not cross move for sanctions).

The first allegedly vexatious conduct challenged by Ritz-Carlton is
the initial filing of Mr. Fox's lawsuit, in which Ritz-Carlton
alleges Mr. Fox's counsel used "baseless allegations to force
class-wide discovery" while engaging "in virtually no discovery."

In any event, even if Section 1927 was the proper mechanism for
attacking the bases for the filing of a lawsuit, Ritz-Carlton has
not demonstrated that Mr. Fox's allegations are entirely baseless
such that their filing rises to the level of egregious, Judge
Damian finds. Rather, the Court observes that this litigation has
been ongoing for four and a half years. Although Ritz-Carlton
initially moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim, after the case was remanded from the Eleventh
Circuit (which scrutinized Mr. Fox's claims for subject matter
jurisdiction), Ritz-Carlton appears to have abandoned its 12(b)(6)
challenge and instead answered the Amended Complaint. Nor did
Ritz-Carlton file a motion for judgment on the pleadings or
exercise any other legal challenge to the sufficiency of the claims
asserted in the Amended Complaint, Judge Damian points out.

Judge Damian also finds that Ritz-Carlton's argument that Mr. Fox
has engaged in no discovery in furtherance of his claims is also
belied by the record. As Ritz-Carlton admits in the Motion, Mr. Fox
issued interrogatories and requests for production and deposed
Ritz-Carlton's corporate representative. Therefore, it appears Mr.
Fox did pursue discovery, just not the discovery that Ritz-Carlton
apparently wanted him to conduct.

Thus, the Court finds that Ritz-Carlton has not demonstrated that
the filing and pursuit of this lawsuit warrants an award of
sanctions.

Ritz-Carlton also fails to demonstrate that Section 1927 sanctions
are warranted on grounds Mr. Fox's allegations in support of class
certification are "demonstrably false" or that Mr. Fox's counsel
acted egregiously in filing the Motion for Class Certification
based on those allegations, Judge Damian holds.

The Court has already rejected Ritz-Carlton's challenges to the
Francis and Fox Declarations, offered in support of the Motion for
Class Certification, and further notes that Mr. Fox submitted ample
evidence in support of the Motion, including documents produced by
both parties in discovery and excerpts from the deposition
testimony of Ritz-Carlton's corporate representative. Therefore,
Judge Damian holds, Ritz-Carlton's claim that the Motion for Class
Certification is supported by no admissible evidence is false and
certainly does not warrant an award of sanctions.

In sum, the Court finds that Ritz-Carlton has not demonstrated that
Mr. Fox's counsel's conduct in this case has been so egregious that
it amounts to bad faith. Although the Court excluded the Coleman
Declarations and denied Mr. Fox's Motion to Quash, the record
reflects that the filing of these documents by Mr. Fox's counsel
was neither unreasonable nor vexatious.

Thus, Judge Damian holds that sanctions are not justified under 28
U.S.C. Section 1927.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 18, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2b4amut5 from Leagle.com.


ROBERT HAMMER: Zelaya Wins Bid to Seal Documents
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISABEL ZELAYA, et al., v.
ROBERT HAMMER, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00062-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge Christopher H. Steger entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs' motions to seal are granted.

   2. The Plaintiffs and the United States shall work together
      to ensure that the correct information, as delineated by
      the Order, is redacted from

      (1) Plaintiffs' Opening Memorandum of Law in Support of
          Class Certification and

      (2) Transmittal Declaration of Jeremy A. Berman in Support
          of Plaintiffs' Opening Memorandum Of Law In Support Of
          Class Certification and exhibits to the Opening Brief.

   3. Within ten days of entry of this Order, Plaintiffs shall
      file the redacted versions of the papers in the public
      record.

The Plaintiffs have filed this motion to redact from the public
record information which the United States has previously
designated as "Confidential." In response to, and support of, the
motion to seal, the United States has filed the "United States'
Motion to Retain Portions of Plaintiffs' Exhibits to Motion for
Class Certification Under Seal." The standards to
seal set forth in the Court's Order Governing Sealing Confidential
Information are incorporated herein, and this matter is ripe for
review.

This action arises from a raid at a meatpacking plant staffed by
both white and Latino workers in Bean Station, Tennessee.
Plaintiffs allege that -- in the way the raid was conducted --
federal agents engaged in racial discrimination in violation of the
Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, unreasonable search and
seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, conspiracy to violate
civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1985, and failure to
prevent a violation of Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section
1986.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zOaDOL at no extra charge.[CC]

ROMOLO CHOCOLATES: Underpays Production Staff, Parmenter Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA PARMENTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROMOLO CHOCOLATES, INC. and
ANTHONY STEFANELLI, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00233-SPB (W.D.
Pa., July 25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Ms. Parmenter was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
production worker from approximately September 2021 through May
2022.

Romolo Chocolates, Inc. is a chocolate shop and cafe owner, with
its headquarters located at 1525 West 8th Street, Erie,
Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jason T. Brown, Esq.
         BROWN, LLC
         111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
         Jersey City, NJ 07310
         Telephone: (877) 561-0000
         Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
         E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Stipulation for Class Certification OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENYON NORBERT, et al., v.
SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-02724-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an
order granting stipulation for class certification:

1. certifying, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and Rules 23(b)(2) of
   the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following defined
   Classes and Subclasses:

   (a) Outdoor Class: All inmates who are pretrial detainees and
       have been incarcerated in San Francisco County Jail 3
       (formerly known as County Jail 5) located in San Bruno,
       California, at any point during the time period May 20,
       2017 to the present, and who do not have outdoor access
       as part of their incarceration at San Francisco County
       Jail 3.

   (b) Confinement Class: All inmates who are pretrial detainees
       and have been incarcerated in County Jail 3 (formerly
       known as County Jail 5) located in San Bruno, California,
       at any point during the time period from May 20, 2017 to
       the present, and who have fewer than one hour per 24 hour
       period of time out of their cells as part of their
       incarceration at San Francisco County Jail 3.

      (1) Confinement Subclass 1: All inmates in the Confinement
          Class who are classified by the San Francisco County
          Sheriff's Office in general population housing.

      (2) Confinement Subclass 2: All inmates in the Confinement
          Class who are classified by the San Francisco County
          Sheriff's Office in administrative segregation
          housing.

2. appointing the Plaintiffs Montrail Brackens and Troy
   McAllister and Jose Poot as representatives of the Outdoor
   Class and the Confinement Class;

3. appointing the Plaintiff Troy McAlister as a representative
   of the Confinement Subclass 1, appointing the Plaintiff
   Montrail Brackens as a representative of the Confinement
   Subclass 2;

4. appointing the Plaintiff Jose Poot as a representative of the
   Confinement Subclass 1 and 2; and

5. directing the parties to separately enter a stipulation for
   named Plaintiffs Kenyon Norbert, Marshall Harris, Armando
   Carlos, and Michael Brown to dismiss their claims against
   defendants without prejudice. the dismissal will change the
   status of named plaintiffs Kenyon Norbert, Marshall Harris,
   Armando Carlos, and Michael Brown from being named plaintiffs
   but they will remain members of the class.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BDG7bs at no extra charge.[CC]

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Gallagher Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT J. GALLAGHER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01083-SEP (E.D. Mo.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the
following class:

   "All persons who within the statute of limitations: (1) owned
   a Missouri-titled vehicle on which Defendant had a lien or
   encumbrance; (2) made a final payment to satisfy the lien
   with non-certified funds; and (3) either or both of the
   following occurred: (a) Defendant did not release the lien or
   encumbrance within five business days after Defendant
   received payment in full electronically or by way of
   electronic funds transfer, whichever occurs first; or (b) the
   owner of the vehicle (or any person who delivered to
   Defendant an authorization from the owner to receive the
   certificate or such documentation) was not sent a certificate
   or separate document evidencing Defendant's release of its
   lien within five business days, after Defendant received
   payment in full electronically or by way of electronic funds
   transfer, whichever occurs first."

   Excluded from the class are: (1) Santander Consumer USA and
   its affiliates, officers, /or directors; (2) members of the
   judiciary and their staff to whom this action is assigned;
   (3) Plaintiff's counsel; and (4) those class members meeting
   the above class definition, but whose loan contained an
   arbitration clause. Plaintiff also moves for an order
   appointing the undersigned as class counsel.

Santander Consumer provides automotive financing services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 28,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oPZKFN
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
         DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
         60 South Park Place
         Painesville, OH 44077
         Telephone: (440) 352-3391
         Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
         E-mail: nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com

SCOTT FRAKES: Hanes Loses Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELVIS HANES v. SCOTT
FRAKES, et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-00156-RGK-PRSE (D. Neb.), the Hon.
Judge Richard G. Kopf entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction;

   2. denying the Plaintiff's motion for hearing;

   3. denying the Plaintiff's motion to appear by telephone;

   4. denying the Plaintiff's motion to compel production; and

   5. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court said, "There is little likelihood that the Plaintiff will
succeed on the merits of his First Amendment Establishment Clause
claim. To prevail, the Plaintiff must prove that O-HELP is coercive
and that the object of the coercion is religious rather than
secular. The alleged religious aspect of O-HELP is that the DBT
skills used in the program are "psychological and behavioral
translations of meditation practices from Eastern spiritual
training." But according to the declaration of Dr. Jeff Melvin,
Chief Psychologist for Sexual Offense Services at NDCS and
administrator of the program, O-HELP "is a clinical treatment
program designed for lowering sexual recidivism risk" which "does
not promote, endorse or require any participants to affirm or hold
a particular religious view." This public interest would not be
served by granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary
injunction. Finally, Plaintiff's motion for class certification
will be denied because "a pro se plaintiff who is not an attorney
cannot maintain a class action." "Every court that has considered
the issue has held that a prisoner proceeding pro se is inadequate
to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class
action"."

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OSpDiw at no extra charge.[CC]

SEALAND CONTRACTORS: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Infatino
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COREY INFANTINO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SEALAND
CONTRACTORS CORP. and DANIEL J. BREE, Case No.
6:20-cv-06782-EAW-MWP (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marian W. Payson
entered amended scheduling order as follows:

  -- All factual discovery in this        September 22, 2022
     case, including depositions,
     shall be completed on or
     before:

  -- Any motions for class                November 7, 2022
     certification shall be filed
     by no later than:

  -- Dispositive motions, if any,         November 7, 2022
     shall be filed no later than:

Sealand is a heavy highway and bridge contractor.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OOigZz at no extra charge.[CC]

SECURITAS SECURITY: Williams Sues Over Supervisors' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
COLLETTE WILLIAMS, Individually, and on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES
USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02452-MSN-TMP (W.D. Tenn.,
July 12, 2022) is brought against the Defendant as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiff and other
similarly situated current hourly-paid supervisors.

The Plaintiff alleges that she and similarly situated hourly-paid
supervisors worked "off-the-clock" at the direction and inducement
of Defendant. However, Defendant failed to record such "off the
clock" compensable time into its time keeping system, says the
Plaintiff.

Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. provides security services
for its customers throughout most states in the U.S., including the
Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Gibbs FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONNIE GIBBS, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS
MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., a Foreign for Profit Corporation, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02153-SHM-cgc (W.D.Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting conditional certification and approving
court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b).

The Plaintiff Connie Gibbs filed the instant Complaint on March 12,
2021, and requested that the case proceed as a collective action on
behalf of all current and former employees of Sedgwick who held the
job position Disability Representative Senior.

The Plaintiff and Opt-In Plaintiffs work(ed) for Sedgwick in the
positions of "Disability Representative Senior" and/or "Absence
Management Care Team Representative." In these roles, the Plaintiff
and Opt-In Plaintiffs at times were classified as exempt from the
Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA's) requirement to pay overtime
compensation, were paid a salary, and were not paid overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Sedgwick Claims provides claims and productivity management
services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zkyWlP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David V. Barszcz, Esq.
          Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
          LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A.
          533 Versailles Drive, 2nd Floor
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone: (407) 622-6544
          Facsimile: (407) 622-6545
          E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney
                  dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robin A. Wofford, Esq.
          Lois M. Kosch, Esq.
          Meryl C. Maneker, Esq.
          Leticia C. Butler, Esq.
          WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1600
          San Diego CA 92101,
          Facsimile: (619) 236-9669;
          E-mail: rwofford@wilsonturnerkosmo.com,
                  lkosch@wilsonturnerkosmo.com,
                  mmaneker@wilsonturnerkosmo.com,
                  lbutler@wilsonturnerkosmo.com,

               - and -

          Thomas L. Henderson, Esq.
          Thomas.henderson@ogletreedeakins.com
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 300
          Memphis TN 38119
          Facsimile: (901) 767-7411

SIMONE MARSTILLER: Has Until Sept. 8 to Respond to Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Meza, et al., v. Simone
Marstiller, Case No. 3:22-cv-00783 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Laura Lothman Lambert entered an endorsed order granting the
Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to
complaint and plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

   -- The Defendant shall have up to and including September 8,
      2022 to respond to the complaint and motion for class
      certification, says Judge Lambert.

The suit alleges civil rights violation.[CC]

SOCLEAN INC: Benson Consumer Suit Moved From N.D. Ill. to W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTINE BENSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SOCLEAN, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03580,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on July 25, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01060-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Deceptive
Trade Practices Act by failing to disclose to consumers that its
continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) cleaning device emits
ozone.

SoClean, Inc. is a manufacturer of cleaning devices, with its
principal place of business in Peterborough, New Hampshire. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         227 Monroe Street, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (866) 252-0878
         E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com

                  - and –

         Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
         Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq.
         SHARP LAW FIRM
         4820 W. 75th St.
         Prairie Village, KS 66208
         Telephone: (913) 901-0505
         E-mail: rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com
                 sbradshaw@midwest-law.com

                  - and –

         Gary E. Mason, Esq.
         Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
         MASON LLP
         5101 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 305
         Washington, DC 20016
         Telephone: (202) 429-2290
         E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                 dperry@masonllp.com

STABLE ROAD: Joint Stipulation on Class Cert Schedule Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Stable Road Acquisition Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-05744-JFW-SHK (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge  John F. Walter entered an order granting the Joint
Stipulation Regarding Class Certification Schedule, submitted by
Lead Plaintiff Hartmut Haenisch and Defendants Stable Road
Acquisition Corp., SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, Brian Kabot, Momentus
Inc., Dawn Harms and Fred Kennedy, as follows:

   1. The parties shall not be required to submit a proposed
      schedule to the Court for Lead Plaintiff's anticipated
      motion for class certification, and other applicable
      deadlines, prior to submitting their Rule 26(f) joint
      report on or before 10 August 8, 2022.

   2. The parties' Rule 26(f) joint report shall provide a
      proposed schedule for Lead Plaintiff's anticipated motion
      for class certification, and other applicable deadlines.

Stable Road is a blank check company.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OQoJmP at no extra charge.[CC]

SUSHI TO GO: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Staff, Sam Li Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAM LI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUSHI TO GO CHERRY HILL, LLC, CINDY "DOE,"
and JOHN ZHANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04734 (D.N.J., July
25, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid
minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery person and general
restaurant support staff at the Defendants' restaurant, Sushi To Go
Cherry Hill, in Cherry Hill, New Jersey from September 2021 to
April 1, 2022.

Sushi To Go Cherry Hill, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator
located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Yongjin Bae, Esq.
         HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
         136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
         Flushing, NY 11354
         Telephone: (718) 353-8588
         Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
         E-mail: ybae@hanglaw.com

SUSHINATI LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gilstrap Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN GILSTRAP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUSHINATI LLC; HOUSE OF KOREA, LLC; THE
KOREA HOUSE, LLC; 3501SEOUL LLC; SHELLY CHOI; and MIKE CHOI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00434-DRC (S.D. Ohio., July 26, 2022)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Gilstrap was employed as server.

SUSHINATI LLC operates a sushi restaurants in the Cincinnati. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Riley Kane, Esq.
          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 715-8711
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          Email: akimble@billerkimble.com
                 abiller@billerkimble.com
                 rkane@billerkimble.com

                - and -

          Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq.
          FINNEY LAW FIRM LLC
          4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Ste 225
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
          Telephone: (513) 943-6659
          Facsimile: (513) 943-6669
          Email: matt@finneylawfirm.com


TCP HOT: Delcid, et al., Seek Initial Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OTTO DELCID, LUZ ROMAN,
MINA KALLAMNI, MARY MOLINA, CARLO GARCIA, and ANDREA FAHEY on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TCP HOT
ACQUISITION LLC and IDELLE LABS, LTD, Case No. 1:21-cv-09616-VSB
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e):

   1) preliminarily approving the proposed class action
      settlement;

   2) preliminarily certifying the class for settlement
      purposes; and

   3) granting approval of the proposed notice plan.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 27, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JkWQCl at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-Mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.**
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-Mail: mroberts@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: 215-592-1500
          E-Mail: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
                  cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
          Jennifer Czeisler, Esq.
          Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq.
          Russell Busch, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-Mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
                  jczeisler@milberg.com
                  gwhitener@milberg.com
                  rbusch@milberg.com

TCR LOGISTICS: Bodin, Horton Seek FLSA Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY BODIN, and all
others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), v. TCR
LOGISTICS CORPORATION, and JEAN DIEDERICKS, Case No.
3:22-cv-03951-TKW-ZCB (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff, Ashley Bodin, and
Opt-in Plaintiff, Travon Horton, ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of the above styled
      Case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
      Act (FLSA) for the following two (2) classes:

      a. Any and all Delivery Drivers who worked for the
         Defendants during the previous 3-years who were not
         paid overtime wages during their training periods.

      b. Any and all Delivery Drivers who worked for the
         Defendants during the previous 3-years and were
         required in one or more workweeks to operate vehicles
         weighing less than  10,000 pounds without receiving
         overtime wages for work in excess of 40-hours per week.

   2. appointing Plaintiff, Ashley Bodin, as the Representative
      of the Class with authority to negotiate and appear at
      mediations on behalf of the class;

   3. appointing the law firm of USA Employment Lawyers – Jordan
      Richards PLLC, and Jordan Richards, Esq., as lead counsel
      for the class;

   4. expediting discovery production from the Defendants,
      within 10 calendar days of the Court's Order granting this
      Motion, of a complete list, electronically in an Excel
      spreadsheet, of each and every Delivery Driver listed
      alphabetically from "A" to "Z" -- including their last
      known home address, cellular telephone number, e-mail
      addresses and job location, a separate field corresponding
      with each name -- who was ever employed as a Delivery
      Driver by Defendants at any time within three years of the
      date notice is sent;

   5. permitting the Plaintiffs' counsel to send a Court-
      Approved Notice to all such persons about their rights to
      opt-in to this collective action by filing a Consent to
      Join Lawsuit;

   6. granting the putative class 120 days to submit the
      Consents to Join forms; and

   7. awarding such other and further relief as the court deems
      just and proper.

TCR owns and operates a logistics company that works in conjunction
with FedEx to deliver packages to FedEx's residential and
commercial customers in Northern Florida. Plaintiff worked with
dozens of similarly situated Delivery Drivers who performed
identical duties as Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed this collective action lawsuit seeking to
recover unpaid overtime wages from the Defendants based on
violations of the FLSA, for their failure to pay proper overtime
wages to herself and to all other Delivery Drivers.

The Plaintiff alleges that Delivery Drivers are paid a day rate and
are required to work in excess of 40 hours per week during their
initial training period. The Plaintiff also alleges that Delivery
Drivers are misclassified as exempt employees during weeks when
they drive vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds.

TCR is located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This organization
primarily operates in the Transportation Service.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 28, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zv11qB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael B. Kelly, Esq.
          Jacob W. Landreth, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          890 S. Palafox St. Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 483-5930
          E-mail: Zaray.avino@csklegal.com
                  Michael.kelly@csklegal.com
                  Jacob.landreth@csklegal.com

TG THERAPEUTICS: Robbins LLP Reminds Investors of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TGTX) securities between January 15, 2020 and May 13,
2022, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. TG
Therapeutics is a commercial stage biopharmaceutical company. The
Company's therapeutic product candidates include Ublituximab, an
investigational glycoengineered monoclonal antibody for the
treatment of B-cell non-hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic
leukemia ("CLL"), and relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis; and
Umbralisib, or UKONIQ, an oral inhibitor of PI3K-delta and
CK1-epsilon for the treatment of CLL, marginal zone lymphoma
("MZL"), and follicular lymphoma ("FL").

If you would like more information about TG Therapeutics, Inc.'s
misconduct, click https://robbinsllp.com/tg-therapeutics-inc/

What is this Case About: TG Therapeutics, Inc. (TGTX) Overstated
the Clinical and Commercial Prospects of its New Drugs

According to the complaint, in January 2020, TG Therapeutics
initiated a rolling submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to
the FDA, requesting accelerated approval of Umbralisib as a
treatment for patients with previously treated MZL and FL (the
"Umbralisib MZL/FL NDA). In December 2020, the Company initiated a
rolling submission of a Biologics License Application ("BLA") to
the FDA for Ublituximab in combination with Umbralisib as a
treatment for patients with CLL (the "U2 BLA").

In May 2021, TG Therapeutics submitted a supplemental NDA ("sNDA")
for Umbralisib to add an indication for CLL and small lymphocytic
lymphoma ("SLL") in combination with Ublituximab (the "U2 sNDA").
In September 2021, TG Therapeutics submitted a BLA for Ublituximab
as a treatment for patients with relapsing forms of multiple
sclerosis ("RMS") (the "Ublituximab RMS BLA").

Then, on November 20, 2021, TG Therapeutics advised that the FDA
was evaluating "the benefit-risk of the U2 combination in the
treatment of CLL or SLL, and the benefit-risk of UKONIQ in
relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) or follicular
lymphoma (FL). In addition, as part of the benefit-risk analysis,
the overall safety profile of the U2 regimen, including adverse
events (serious and Grade 3-4), discontinuations due to adverse
events, and dose modifications, is expected to be reviewed",
stating that the FDA's concern "appears to stem from an early
analysis of overall survival from the UNITY-CLL trial." On this
news, TG Therapeutics' stock price fell $8.16 per share, or almost
35%, to close at $15.20 per share on November 30, 2021.

On April 15, 2022, TG Therapeutics announced it had "voluntarily
withdrawn the pending Biologics License Application
(BLA)/supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) for the combination
of ublituximab and UKONIQ® (umbralisib) (combination referred to
as U2) for the treatment of adult patients with chronic lymphocytic
leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL)." The press
release stated that "[t]he decision to withdraw was based on
recently updated overall survival (OS) data from the UNITY-CLL
Phase 3 trial that showed an increasing imbalance in OS." On this
news, TG Therapeutics' stock price fell $1.93 per share, or 21.81%,
to close at $6.92 per share on April 18, 2022.

Then, on May 31, 2022, TG Therapeutics announced that the FDA
extended the Prescription Drug User Fee Act date for Ublituximab to
December 28, 2022 "to allow time to review a submission provided by
the Company in response to an FDA information request, which the
FDA deemed a major amendment." On this news, TG Therapeutics' stock
price fell $0.75 per share, or 14.51%, to close at $4.42 per share
on May 31, 2022.

Finally, on June 1, 2022, the FDA announced that, due to safety
concerns, it had withdrawn its approval for Umbralisib for the
treatment of MZL and FL. Specifically, the FDA provided that
"[u]pdated findings from the UNITY-CLL clinical trial continued to
show a possible increased risk of death in patients receiving
[UKONIQ]. As a result, we determined the risks of treatment with
[UKONIQ] outweigh its benefits." On this news, TG Therapeutics'
stock price fell $0.51 per share, or 11.53%, to close at $3.91 per
share on June 1, 2022.

Next Steps: If you acquired shares of TG Therapeutics, Inc. (TGTX)
securities between January 15, 2020 and May 13, 2022, you have
until September 16, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead
plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

Contact the firm to learn more:

Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action
against TG Therapeutics, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts
when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock
Watch today. [GN]

TIFFANY & CO: Cody Suit Alleges Illegal Wiretapping to Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE CODY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TIFFANY & CO., Defendants, Case No.
30-2022-01272211-CU-MT-CXC–ROA (Cal. Sup., Orange Cty., July 28,
2022) is an action against the Defendant for illegal wiretapping of
electronic communications with the Defendant's website
www.tiffany.com in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act.

According to the complaint the Defendant has secretly deployed
keystrol monitoring software that the Defendant uses to
surreptitiously intercept, monitor, and record the communications
of all visitors to its website. The Defendant failed to inform
visitors and failed to seek their express or implied consent prior
to the wiretapping, says the suit.

TIFFANY & CO. operates jewelry stores and manufactures products
through its subsidiary corporations. The Company offers necklaces
and pendants, earrings, bracelets, rings, engagement suite, wedding
band sets, fine watches, fragrance, and home accessories. Tiffany &
Co serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

TRINET GROUP: Faces ERISA Suit Over Retirement Plan Mismanagement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trinet Group, 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 26, 2022, that the company is named
defendant in a class action lawsuit alleging violations  under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On September 29, 2020, a class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
the directors of certain TriNet subsidiaries and other TriNet
employees on behalf of participants in two retirement plans
available to TriNet's eligible worksite employees, the TriNet
401(k) Plan and the TriNet Select 401(k) Plan.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
certain fiduciary obligations to Plan participants under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to
overseeing plan investment and recordkeeping fees.

Trinet Group, Inc. is a provider of HR expertise, payroll services,
employee benefits, employment risk mitigation services and human
capital management software for small and medium-size businesses
based in California.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Boston Retirement System Wins Class Status Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
et al., v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-06361-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg
entered an order:

   1. granting motion for class certification;

   2. appointing BRS, David Messinger, Salvatore Toronto, and
      Irving S. and Judith Braun as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Labaton Sucharow as class counsel.

The Court said, "The Defendants' affirmative defense of actual
knowledge does not defeat certification, because the actual
knowledge asserted concerns pieces of information disseminated in
news stories, rather than the full scope of the issues Uber faced
that Plaintiff avers were not disclosed until after the IPO.
Further, the proposed class representatives and counsel have
demonstrated that they will adequately serve the class.

Uber is a transportation company which provides on demand rides and
food delivery. The company was founded in San Francisco in 2009 and
has since expanded globally. On May 10, 2019, Uber conducted its
IPO, in which it sold 180,000,000 shares of common stock to the
public.

The IPO was priced at $45 per share and generated nearly $8 billion
in proceeds for Uber. The IPO was conducted pursuant to several
documents filed by defendants with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, including an April 11, 2019 Registration Statement on
Form S-1, which, after amendment, was declared effective by the SEC
on May 5, 2019.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zJ7uQ1 at no extra charge.[CC]

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Illegal Suspension, Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN MAHWIKIZI, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RAISER,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-CV-3680 (N.D. Ill., July 12, 2022) is
a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, challenging Uber's willful suspension of
drivers, and riders from the Uber App for "non-mask wearing"
violations and for unlawful misclassification of its drivers as
independent contractors.

The Plaintiff alleges that Uber's mask wearing policy violates the
American Disabilities Act insofar because it did not allow for
either driver or rider to take down a mask in order to drink, or
eat, or laborious breathing due to health conditions; nor did Uber
take that into account in deciding whether to suspend a driver or
rider. The Plaintiff also asserts that Uber misclassified its
drivers as independent contractors when, in fact, each driver is
and/or was an employee of Uber; and when, in fact, Uber exerted
full control of the rides rather than truly allowing drivers to be
independent contractors.

As a result of Uber's unlawful misclassification of its drivers as
independent contractors, Uber has uniformly violated the
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay its drivers at least the minimum
wage required by federal and Illinois law for every hour worked,
says the suit.

Mr. Mahwikizi is a resident of Cook County, Illinois. Between
October 2015 and February 2022, Plaintiff worked for Uber as a
driver in the Chicago, Illinois area.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is an American mobility service provider,
allowing users to book a car and driver to transport them in a way
similar to a taxi.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]

UNITED AMERICAN: FLSA Settlement in Logan Nixed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA LOGAN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED AMERICAN
SECURITY, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00257-NYW (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge Nina Y. Wang entered an order denying the joint motion for
approval of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) settlement:

  1. The joint motion for approval of FLSA Settlement is denied
     without prejudice; and

  2. On or before August 28, 2022, the Parties shall either
     dismiss this action pursuant to their settlement and Rule
     41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Renew their
     motion based on the instruction provided in this Order.

The Court said, "The court cannot conclude that the fee requested
by the Lazzaro Attorneys is reasonable. Although the court may do
so, the court declines to sua sponte adjust the lodestar fee for
the Lazzaro Attorneys or disregard certain billed entries, given
the Parties' contractual agreement as to the $6,000 fee. Instead,
the court finds it appropriate to deny the Motion without
prejudice, with leave to re-file if the Parties so choose. This
court notes that the weight of authority in this District appears
to lean against the need for court approval of FLSA settlements
where there are no disputes pertaining to the agreement and where
all plaintiffs participated in the settlement. While the fees to
the Lazzaro Attorneys are not adequately supported by the record,
they also do not appear egregious on their face. However, should
the Parties continue to seek judicial review of their Settlement
Agreement, they must cure the deficiencies."

Mr. Bailey initiated this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons that are or were hourly, full-time,
non-exempt security guards employed by United American Security.

Mr. Bailey alleged generally that he worked for Defendant as a
full-time, non-exempt security guard and regularly worked more than
40 hours per week. He asserted that he and other similarly situated
employees were required to arrive at work approximately 10 to 15
minutes prior to the start of their shift for a "pass down," which
involves "several shift-change duties that are essential for a
security guard to perform his or her job," such as learning about
security issues that occurred on the previous shift and security
issues that could potentially occur on the next shift.  Mr. Bailey
alleged that he and other similarly situated workers were not paid
for any of this "pass down" work.

In the Stipulation, the Parties indicated that they had stipulated
to the conditional certification of the following class:

   "All hourly security guards of Defendant who did not have an
   arbitration agreement with Defendant and who: (1) worked for
   Defendant in Colorado at any time between January 26, 2018
   through the present; (2) worked forty hours or more in any
   workweek; (3) relieved a preceding shift; and (4) were
   required to arrive at work before his or her shift began to
   perform "pass on" or "pass down" duties, but [were] not paid
   for that time."

United American Security LLC provides security services.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Jrmo0K at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED OF OMAHA: Filing of Class Cert. Bids in Nieves Extended
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN NIEVES,
individually, and on behalf of a class, v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation, Case No.
3:21-cv-01415-H-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Karen S. Crawford
entered an order granting the joint motion to extend the class
discovery cutoff and other class related deadlines as follows:

  1. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated but all class
     discovery shall be completed by all parties on or before
     November 23, 2022.

     "Complete" means that all discovery under Rules 30 through
     36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery
     subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated sufficiently in
     advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by
     the cut-off date, considering the times for service, notice
     and response set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil
     Procedure. Counsel must promptly and in good faith meet and
     confer regarding to all discovery disputes in compliance
     with Civil Local Rule 26.1(a).

  2. Any discovery motions related to class certification shall
     be filed no later than December 19, 2022.

  3. A motion for class certification shall be filed no later
     than January 16, 2023.

  4. All other terms and conditions in the Scheduling Order
     filed on April 20, 2022 shall remain in full force and
     effect.

The Defendant is a provider of medicare supplement insurance, life
insurance, finance and mortgages.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zqg0SD at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Reply in Support of Class Cert Bid Due August 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS CALIXTO, et. al., v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et. al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01551-PLF (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Friedman entered
an order granting the Parties' joint motion for an extension of
time.

The Defendants shall file the certified administrative record and
Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel on
or before August 9, 2022, the Court says.

The United States Department of the Army is one of the three
military departments within the Department of Defense of the U.S.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oL5q3W at no extra charge.[CC]

UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, James Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HALBERT JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LLC, d/b/a
ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-01668 (S.D. Il., July 26, 2022) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Plaintiff James was employed by the Defendant as staff.

UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LLC is a security and facility
services company that provides security services and smart
technology to its clients in a range of specialty sectors such as
education, healthcare, retail, commercial real estate, and
government and corporate campuses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan Avenue Suite 2600
          Chicago, Il 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575
          Email: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                 cpsons@bormeslaw.com

               -and-

          Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
          35 East Wacker Drive Suite 650
          Chicago, Il 60601
          Telephone: (312) 726-3400
          Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com

               -and-

          David T. Butsch, Esq.
          Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
          BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
          231 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 260
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-5700
          Email: butsch@butschroberts.com
                 roberts@butschroberts.com

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI: Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dimitryuk v. University Of
Miami, Case No. 0:20-cv-60851-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order granting its unopposed motion for
extension of time, providing a one-week extension of time to
respond to Plaintiff's Motion for class certification, up to and
including August 5, 2022, and granting such other relief as the
Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.

The Plaintiffs filed the Motion on July 15, 2022. Pursuant to Local
Rule 7.1(c)(1) of the Southern District of Florida, the
University's response is due on or before Friday, July 29, 2022.

Due to professional responsibilities of counsel for the University,
the University requests a one-week extension of the deadline within
which the University is required to respond to the Motion, up to
and including August 5, 2022.

This motion is being filed in good faith, is not for the sake of
delay, and the relief requested will not be prejudicial to
Plaintiffs.

Further, on July 27, 2022, counsel for the University contacted
Plaintiffs' counsel to advise them that the University would be
seeking a one-week extension and Plaintiffs' counsel advised that
Plaintiffs did not oppose the requested extension.

The motion relates to cases in RE: UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI COVID-19
TUITION AND FEE REFUND LITIGATION.

The University of Miami is a private research university in Coral
Gables, Florida.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 27, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zsV7pU at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew L. Lines, Esq.
          Eric D. Isicoff, Esq.
          Jordan D. Isicoff, Esq.
          ISICOFF RAGATZ
          601 Brickell Key Drive, Suite 750
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 373-3232
          Facsimile: (305) 373-3233
          E-mail: Isicoff@irlaw.com
                  Lines@irlaw.com
                  Jordan@irlaw.com

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Time to File Rule 23 Class Cert Bid Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER NELSON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-00066-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.), the Hon. Court entered an order
extending the time for the Plaintiff to file his Rule 23 Motion for
Class Certification.

This is the parties' fourth request for an extension of this
deadline. The first request was made on November 19, 2021 and
granted on December 2, 2021. The second request was made on January
21, 2022 and granted on January 25, 2022. The third request was
made on March 14, 2022 and granted on March 15, 2022.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.

A copy of the Courts's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cTDckJ at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah L. Jones, Esq.
          Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NE 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
                  josh@thiermanbuck.com
                  leah@thiermanbuck.com
                  joshh@thiermanbuck.com

WALMART INC: Bid to Seal Class Cert Briefings Due Sept. 2
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thomas Merck, individually
and as representative of the class, v. Walmart Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-02908-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison
entered an order granting the Parties joint motion to extend
deadline for motions to seal related to class certification
briefings.

The Parties now be allowed up to and including September 2, 2022,
to file any motions to seal related to class certification
briefing, the Court says.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JknRWi at no extra charge.[CC]

WALMART INC: Court Grants Stipulation to Set Briefing Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN MILLAM, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. WALMART INC., Case No.
5:22-cv-01090-SSS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes
entered an order granting stipulation to set briefing schedule on
motion to dismiss and adjourn class certification deadline:

   1. If Defendant files a motion to dismiss or other motion in
      lieu of an answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint,

      the Plaintiff's opposition shall be due on or before
      September  30, 2022,

      the Defendant's reply shall be due on or before October
      14, 2022, and

      the motion shall be set for hearing on October 28, 2022,
      at 2:00 2 p.m.; and

   2. Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion for class
      certification is adjourned and shall be set separately
      following the submission of a joint Rule 26(f) report in
      advance of the initial Status Conference.

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JlQJh9 at no extra charge.[CC]

WALMART INC: Faces Bolden Suit Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements
------------------------------------------------------------------
LYNN BOLDEN and SANDRA GIORGI, individuals, on behalf of
themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
Plaintiffs v. WALMART, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-04758-CAS-KS (C.D. Cal., July 12, 2022) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated consumers in the United States and
California, challenging Defendant's misleading weight management
claims relating to its "Spring Valley Garcinia Cambogia" dietary
supplement. The lawsuit further alleges violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law,
and the False Advertising Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant markets its dietary
supplement that Defendant falsely claims is an effective aid in
"weight management" despite the fact that the product's only
purportedly active ingredients, Hydroxycitric Acid and Chromium
Picolinate, are scientifically proven to be incapable of providing
such weight-loss benefits.

The Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendant to (a) cease
marketing the product using the misleading and unlawful tactics
complained of herein, (b) destroy all misleading, deceptive, and
unlawful materials, (c) conduct a corrective advertising campaign,
(d) restore the amounts by which it has been unjustly enriched, and
(e) pay restitution damages and punitive damages, as allowed by
law.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          Lilach Halperin, Esq.   
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  mike@consumersadvocates.com
                  lilach@consumersadvocates.com

WARDEN NORSWORTHY: Williams Loses Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON WILLIAMS v. WARDEN
NORSWORTHY, ET AL., Case No. 1:21-cv-00406-MJT-CLS (E.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Michael J. Truncale entered an order:

   1. overruling objections and adopting the Magistrate Judge's
      report and recommendation

   2. denying the motion for class certification.

The Magistrate Judge found that plaintiff, proceeding pro se, could
not adequately protect the interests of the class. The Court
agrees. The authorities cited by the Magistrate Judge establish
that courts have been unwilling to permit a person
who is not represented by counsel to act as a class representative.
As plaintiff does not satisfy the adequacy requirement, the
remaining requirements listed in Rule 23 need not be considered.
Moreover, plaintiff has not established that he is entitled to have
counsel appointed to represent him and the class, the Court says.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cUUaiy at no extra charge.[CC]

WELLMED MEDICAL: Faces Pillow Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
AHOLUSI PILLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLMED MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00026 (M.D. Tenn., July 25, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee.

Wellmed Medical Management, Inc., is a provider of medical claims
and other Medicare services, with its principal address located at
9900 Bren Road East, Minnetonka, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
         J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
         Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
         Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
         JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
         Attorneys at Law
         262 German Oak Drive
         Memphis, TN 38018
         Telephone: (901) 754-8001
         Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
         E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com

WEXFORD HEALTH: Extension of Time to File Class Cert Deferred
-------------------------------------------------------------
MILLIGAN v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-01411-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville
entered an order granting second joint motion to defer ruling on
plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file motion for class
certification.

The Court also entered an order that on August 5, 2022, the
Plaintiff will either withdraw the Motion or will file her Reply in
support of her motion for extension.

Wexford Health is a healthcare services company headquartered in
Foster Plaza Two in Green Tree, Pennsylvania, near Pittsburgh.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zdwAF6 at no extra charge.[CC]

WIRELESS TIME: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Zamora Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NATALY ZAMORA, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. WIRELESS TIME PARTNERS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01710 (M.D. Fla., July 28, 2022) arises
from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee, alleges the Defendant of failure to properly compensate
her for all hours she has worked. The Defendant allegedly did not
include the non-discretionary bonuses she received when calculating
her regular and overtime rate of pay. Consequently, despite
regularly working more than 40 hours a week, the Defendant failed
to pay her proper overtime at the proper overtime rate in
accordance with the FLSA, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals to
recover all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, pre- and post-judgment
interest at the highest rate allowable by law, and other relief to
which they may show themselves to be justly entitled.

Wireless Time Partners, LLC operates cell phone stores all over the
U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave.
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Tel: (407) 420-1414
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

                - and –

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM
          2537 S. Gessner, Suite 104
          Houston, TX 77063
          Tel: (713) 223-8855
          E-mail: trang@tranlf.com
                  service@tranlf.com

WORLD BACK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fox Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN FOX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WORLD BACK TO WORK, INC.; ROB WRIGHT; DAVID
SHOR; JEFF SHULEM; and HEIDI KIRCHER, Defendants, Case No.
22STCV24082 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., July 25, 2022) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.

Plaintiff Fox was employed by the Defendants as entry screener.

Founded in March 2020, the company offers comprehensive services
and an on-staff team of Medical, Epidemiology, Labs and Covid
Compliance Experts, with the ability to support client needs
throughout the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Genie Harrison, Esq.
          Jennifer Ostertag, Esq.
          Mia Munro, Esq.
          GENIE HARRISON LAW FIRM, APC
          523 W. 6th Street, Suite 707
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 805-5301
          Facsimile: (213) 805-5306
          Email: genie@genieharrisonlaw.com
                 jennifer@genieharrisonlaw.com
                 mia@genieharrisonlaw.com

ZOOSK INC: Flores-Mendez, Greenmeyer Lose Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN FLORES-MENDEZ, an
individual, and TRACEY GREENAMYER, an individual, and on behalf of
classes of similarly situated individuals, v. ZOOSK, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-04929-WHA (N.D. Cal. ), the Hon. Judge William Alsup
entered an order denying the plaintiffs move for class
certification.

The Plaintiffs claim injury stemming from a massive data breach in
January 2020 by the "ShinyHunters,"which occurred because Zoosk
allegedly failed to adequately protect plaintiffs' personal
information.

Zoosk argues that Ms. Greenamyer waived any right to represent the
class or subclass because she signed Zoosk's Terms of Use, which
contained a valid class action waiver. In response, the Plaintiffs
argued that Zoosk effectively waived enforcement of its class
action waiver by participating in litigation for nearly two years
and never once raising the issue. Zoosk, however, raised this
affirmative defense in its answer to plaintiffs' first amended
complaint dated February 16, 2021, and in its answer to the
operative complaint. Consequently, this order finds Zoosk has not
waived the defense.

First, Zoosk's contract was not procedurally unconscionable.
Contracts of adhesion are often procedurally unconscionable, but
not always, especially when reasonable market alternatives exist.

Second, Zoosk's contract is also not substantively unconscionable
under California law.

In doing so, the Court rejected the argument that a contractual
provision is substantively unconscionable for making an individual
action less financially attractive than a class action. Further,
our court of appeals has held that it is not a legally cognizable
issue that a provision requiring individual action deters litigants
from bringing claims. Zoosk's Terms of Use mirror almost exactly
those upheld in Concepcion, and are valid for similar reason.
Accordingly, this order does not find Zoosk's Terms of Use to be
substantively unconscionable. Due to the valid class-action waiver
that Ms. Greenamyer agreed to in Zoosk's Terms of Use, Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is denied, the Court says.

The case is putative class action by data-breach victims.

The plaintiffs Juan Flores-Mendez and Tracy Greenamyer used
defendant Zoosk, Inc.'s online dating platform. Zoosk offered a
free service and a premium subscription service for a fee, and
customers provided their personal information to Zoosk upon
joining.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3d0D0jF at no extra charge.[CC]

[*] Morgan Lewis Adds Two New Partners to Litigation Bench
----------------------------------------------------------
Continuing to add to the firm's extensive roster of former
government officials, Morgan Lewis will welcome two partners from
separate divisions of the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Kathryn
(Kate) Deal and Justin Weitz.

Mr. Weitz has served in the DOJ for nearly 10 years, most recently
as the acting principal assistant chief in the Criminal Division's
Market Integrity and Major Frauds Unit. He will be resident in
Washington, DC, and will advise on complex financial, securities,
and procurement enforcement matters as well as the dynamic area of
cryptocurrency.

Ms. Deal has more than 16 years of experience handling class
actions, mass proceedings, and other civil litigation in private
practice. Most recently, she served as an assistant US attorney
(AUSA) for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where she
prosecuted economic crimes and other federal offenses. She will be
resident in Philadelphia and will focus on high-stakes trial work
and the defense of complex litigation, including putative class
actions, mass torts, and related government proceedings.

"Today's complex litigation and enforcement issues are rarely able
to be handled in a vacuum. Kate and Justin's skillsets each add
depth to the cross-practice rapid-response approach we bring to
clients who need comprehensive, practical guidance delivered with a
business-minded solution," said Firm Chair Jami McKeon. "Their
individual backgrounds within government, leading of
cross-discipline teams, and extensive trial records enhance our
ability to serve as a trusted advisor to our corporate clients and
tackle emerging issues across numerous sectors. This fits well with
our dedicated industry approach to address the unique challenges
and opportunities facing companies across a sector."

Prior to joining the US Attorney's Office, Ms. Deal was a partner
at another global law firm, where she represented Fortune 500
clients at trial and in aggregate civil litigation, including
putative class actions, collective and mass proceedings,
multidistrict litigation, and state attorney general actions. As a
seasoned trial lawyer, she secured trial and arbitration victories
for clients, including in product liability, securities fraud,
trademark infringement, unfair competition, sexual harassment, and
unlawful discrimination cases. Her trial experience extends to
bellwether cases in multidistrict and mass tort programs. In
addition, she has defeated or favorably resolved portfolios of
putative class, mass, and individual actions and arbitrations,
involving alleged violations of privacy-based statutes, consumer
protection laws, and civil RICO provisions, among other claims. She
has advised clients on compliance and risk mitigation programs,
data privacy, arbitration agreements, and corporate governance.
During her recent tenure as an AUSA, she investigated and
prosecuted a variety of white collar crimes, ranging from pandemic
fraud and money laundering to public corruption and violations of
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

As acting principal assistant chief in DOJ's Market Integrity and
Major Frauds Unit, Justin spearheaded the team dedicated to
investigating and prosecuting corporate fraud. Prior, he served as
assistant chief in the Securities and Financial Fraud Unit, where
he worked on criminal investigations and prosecutions related to
financial markets, securities law violations, securities fraud
related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and procurement fraud. He played
a key role in building the procurement fraud and bribery program
within the Fraud Section, which focuses on large and multinational
investigations into alleged misconduct, fraud, and corruption
involving government contractors. He also served as a trial
attorney in the Fraud Section and in the Public Integrity Section.
In addition, Justin is an adjunct professor at Georgetown
University Law Center, where he co-teaches a course on complex
securities investigations.

"We have a long tradition of attracting high-caliber, accomplished
talent, and Justin and Kate are just two recent examples," said J.
Gordon Cooney, leader of Morgan Lewis's global litigation practice.
"Their combined backgrounds will only be increasingly relevant for
our clients and add strength to our litigation and enforcement
bench across practices, positioning us well to address developing
trends coming from courts and the US government."

Morgan Lewis is one of the most active class action defense law
firms in the United States for federal and state representations.
The firm's 350-strong practice spans across the globe, with a
noteworthy track record in regions where collective actions are
most frequently filed.

Morgan Lewis is proud of its many alumni who are currently serving
in the government, such as Assistant Attorney General Kenneth
Polite of the DOJ's Criminal Division. Morgan Lewis is now home to
more than 40 DOJ and US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
alumni. In Philadelphia, that includes partner Zane Memeger, who
served as the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
for nearly seven years before rejoining the firm in 2017. Partner
Kelly Gibson held numerous national and regional leadership roles
at the SEC, including serving as the acting deputy director of the
Division of Enforcement, as leader of the Enforcement Division's
nationwide Climate and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)
Task Force, and as director of the SEC's Philadelphia Regional
Office, until joining the firm in May 2022. She reunited with
Jeffrey Boujoukos, who also served as director of the SEC's
Philadelphia Regional Office, to co-lead of the firm's securities
enforcement practice.

In DC, Justin will reunite with Sandra Moser, the former chief of
the DOJ's Fraud Section who joined the firm in September 2020. His
arrival also follows that of former government agency leaders in
DC, David Plotinsky and Erin Martin, who joined the firm earlier
this year from the DOJ and the SEC, respectively. Also in DC,
partner Barron Avery, who focuses on procurement fraud matters,
joined Morgan Lewis as leader of the government contracts team.

                       About Morgan Lewis

Morgan Lewis -- http://www.morganlewis.com-- is recognized for
exceptional client service, legal innovation, and commitment to its
communities. Our global depth reaches across North America, Asia,
Europe, and the Middle East with the collaboration of more than
2,200 lawyers and specialists who provide elite legal services
across industry sectors for multinational corporations to startups
around the world.


                            *********

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 ***