/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220912.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, September 12, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 176

                            Headlines

1268 2ND AVE: Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
22ND CENTURY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 24, 2023
316 TOWING: Hyde Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class of Drivers
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: William Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
ACCURATE CONSOLIDATED: Molina Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages

AFNI INC: Green Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
AIRWEAVE LLC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ALAN RICHARD TEXTILES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ALTSLEEP LLC: Adler Sues Over False & Misleading Practices
AMEE BAY LLC: Helton Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California

AMERIGAL CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrientos Says
ANYTIME SOJU: Faces Kim Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
APEX PIZZA: Opperman Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
APHRIA INC: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in Securities Suit
AZURE POWER: Faces Gilbert Suit Over Drop in Share Price

B.P. EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Miller Case With Prejudice
CENTERSPACE LP: Hall Files Suit in D. Minnesota
CENTIMARK CORP: Lingle Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
CENTIMARK CORP: Lingle Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
CITIZENS DISABILITY: Court Certifies Class in Thrower TCPA Suit

COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL: Can Compel Arbitration in Greenwood Suit
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Deceptive Cable TV Pricing Scheme
DCOR LLC: Green Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
DOMINIUM PROPERTY: Ohio Court Recommends Dismissal of McComb Suit
DREYER'S GRAND: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Rice Class Suit

EQUIFAX INC: Faces Biddle Suit Over Alleged FCRA Violations
EXELON CORP: Habich Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
FULLSTORY INC: Hasson Sues Over Wiretapping of Website Visitors
GLOBUS MEDICAL: Schneider FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
GOOGLE LLC: May Enlarge Briefs on Bid to Dismiss Hammerling Suit

J.M. SMUCKER: Clark Mislabeling Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
J.M. SMUCKER: Ferguson Liability Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
KEYBANK NA: Fails to Secure Confidential Mortgage Info, Bozin Says
KIA AMERICA INC: Moon Files Suit in S.D. New York
LATCH INC: Faces Brennan Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price

LOS TRES POTRILLOS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cordoba Alleges
LOUISIANA: Gov.'s Peremptory Exception in City Bar Suit Reversed
M & M FRUIT INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gutierrez Alleges
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Shachno Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
MASSAGE ENVY: Valenzuela Privacy Suit Removed to the C.D. Cal.

MCDERMOTT INT'L: Dismissal of Supplemental Edwards Suit Recommended
MDL 2873: Abbott Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Beckius Sues Over PFAS' Hazardous Effects on Humans
MDL 2873: Brookover Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Dodge Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS

MDL 2873: Gregoire Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
MDL 2873: Williams Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Young Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MERRILL GARDENS: Holguin Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
META PLATFORMS: Settles Cambridge Analytica Class Action Suit

MICHAEL KORS: Valenzuela Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. California
MRS BPO: Reed Class Suit Remanded to Cook County Circuit Court
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Valenzuela Suit Removed to C.D. California
NELNET SERVICING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Carlson Alleges
NELNET SERVICING: Herrick Files Suit in D. Nebraska

ONETOUCHPOINT CORP: Haid Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
PARLER INC: Golden Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
POINT PICK-UP: Duarte Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
PRACTICE RESOURCES: Bachura Files Suit in N.D. New York
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Ct Junks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement

R & B CORPORATION: Friedman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
RESERVEBAR EXPRESS: Berman TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: LCERS Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
SEDGWICK COUNTY, KS: Gilmore Must Show Cause in Suit v. Easter
SEZZLE INC: Sliwa Suit Removed to C.D. California

SIMM ASSOCIATES INC: Pinchera Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
SIMON QUICK ADVISORS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Initial Case Management Conference Order Entered
SPOKEO INC: Tellez Files Suit in C.D. California
STATE FARM: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Velazquez Suit

STONETRASH INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SUJA LIFE: Lumbra Files Suit in N.D. New York
SUMMIT NATURALS: Gamez Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
SUPERIOR HOTEL: Conditional Cert of FLSA Class Ok'd in Davis Suit
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Schwartz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D.N.Y.

TEXAS: Dismissal of Piazza's Claims v. Comptroller Hegar Affirmed
TFORCE FREIGHT: Tappin Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. California
THINK GOODNESS: Troche Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
THORLEY INDUSTRIES: Demarzio Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
TRACY, CA: Vargas Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.

TRANSPORT INC: Bid for Prelim Approval of Class Settlement Denied
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Blaise Suit Remanded to Cook County Cir. Court
TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Faces Dicker Suit Over Drop in Share Price
UNITED STATES: Carr, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Seeks Leave to File Response Under Seal

VALENTINO USA: Rosario, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes
VI-JON LLC: Faces Kane Suit Over Mislabeled Laxative Products
WEBER-STEPHEN: Gorczyca Sues Over Misleading Product Warranties
WELLS FARGO: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Carey Suit Alleges
YODLEE INC: Order Continuing Schedule Entered in Wesh Class Suit

ZAXBY'S COMPANY: Dorton Suit Removed to M.D. Florida

                            *********

1268 2ND AVE: Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Huber Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 1268 2nd Ave. LLC d/b/a Serena's
Wine Bar and Hasan Senyurt, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07037
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2022) arises from the Defendants' violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law for failure
to provide statutory minimum wages, overtime compensation, and
spread of hours pay, as well as statutory damages for the violation
of the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work at Serena's
Wine Bar from approximately January 1, 2017, until July 12, 2022.
He had work duties in the kitchen such as making salad, preparing
deliveries, dishwashing and cooking pasta.

1268 2nd Ave. LLC owns and operates a restaurant/wine bar located
in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

22ND CENTURY: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due March 24, 2023
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Youssif Gayed v. 22nd
Century Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03828-DSF-JPR
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered an order
extending the class certification and trial deadlines as follows:

  -- Class Certification Motion            March 24, 2023
     Filing Deadline:

  -- The Defendant's Deadline              April 20, 2023
     to File Opposition:

  -- The Plaintiff's Deadline to           May 12, 2023
     File Reply:

  -- Class Certification Hearing:          June 5, 2023

  -- Discovery Cut-off:                    November 6, 2023

  -- Expert Witness Exchange
     Deadline

                   Initial:                June 18, 2023

                  Rebuttal:                July 24, 2023

                  Cut-off:                 November 6, 2023

  -- Motion Hearing Cut-off:               January 29, 2024

  -- ADR Cut-off:                          February 12, 2024

Century Technologies provides information technology services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q9nrcF at no extra charge.[CC]


316 TOWING: Hyde Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class of Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUSTIN HYDE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. 316 TOWING &
ROAD SERVICE, INC., and MAKSIM LISOVSKIY, Case No.
2:22-cv-00103-RWS (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:

   A. Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action;

   B. Approving his proposed Notice and Consent to Join and
      proposed method of distribution including mailing and
      emailing;

   C. Approving the form and content;

   D. Directing the Defendants to produce the requested contact
      information of each putative collective member in an
      electronically importable and manipulable electronic
      format, such as Excel, within seven days after this
      Court's Order is entered;

   E. Allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin on the
      date on which Defendants produce the collective members'
      names and contact information, in which collective members
      may submit Consents to Join this lawsuit as opt-in
      plaintiffs; and

   F. Awarding costs and a reasonable attorneys' fee and grant
      all other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled,
      whether specifically prayed for or not.

The Plaintiff worked as a salaried Driver for 316 Towing & Road
Service, Inc., and Maksim Lisovskiy, in Georgia.

The Plaintiff brought this suit individually and on behalf of all
other current and certain former employees (collectively Drivers)
who worked for Defendants, who are similarly situated, to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The Plaintiff brought this action as a collective action pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiff asks this Court to
conditionally certify the following collective:

   "All Drivers employed by Defendants since June 1, 2019."

316 Towing is a freight shipping trucking company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wW1XUF at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy R. Handschuh, Esq.
          Amanda I. Elliott, Esq.
          MITCHELL – HANDSCHUH LAW GROUP
          3390 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 520
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 262-9488
          Facsimile: (404) 231-3774
          E-mail: jeremy@m-hlawgroup.com
                  amanda@m-hlawgroup.com

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: William Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KEYONNA WILLIAM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES D/B/A
ABBOTT NUTRITION, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-10550, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Sept. 1, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-04161 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf
of a Class of similarly situated consumers against Defendant Abbott
Laboratories d/b/a Abbott Nutrition regarding Cronobacter sakazakii
and Salmonella Newport infections connected to powdered infant
formula products.

Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices
and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Max Abram Aidenbaum, Esq.
          Thomas G. McNeill, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          500 Woodward Avenue Suite 4000
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 223-3093
          E-mail: maidenbaum@dickinsonwright.com
                  TMcNeill@dickinsonwright.com

ACCURATE CONSOLIDATED: Molina Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Molina, Gregory Eaglin, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated and aggrieved v. Accurate Consolidated Service,
Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV402121 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Aug. 18, 2022), is brought against
the Defendants to recover penalties arising from unpaid wages
earned and due.

The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendants for unpaid
and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and
rest period policies, failure to pay always due to discharge or
quitting employees, failure to maintain required records, failure
to provide itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay wages
during employment, failure to identify employees for necessary
expenditures and or losses incurred in discharging their duties,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants in the State of
California as non-exempt employees.

The Defendant is a California corporation, organized and existing
under the laws of the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matem, Esq.
          Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Phone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                 jboxer@maternlawgroup.com

               - and –

          Corey B. Bennett (SBN 267816)
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1330 Broadway, Suite 428
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (510) 227-3998
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          Email: cbennett@maternlawgroup.com


AFNI INC: Green Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Afni, Inc. The case
is styled as Leslie Green, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Afni, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01290-JES-JEH
(C.D. Ill., Aug. 31, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Afni -- https://afni.com/ -- is a global contact center company
that is based in the US and has clients all over the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP - CHICAGO, IL
          227 W Monroe St., Ste. 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 283-3814
          Fax: (773) 496-8617
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N Pennsylvania Ave
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Fax: (405) 239-2112
          Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW FIRM
          4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
          Oklahoma City, OK 73108
          Phone: (405) 389-4989


AIRWEAVE LLC: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Airweave, LLC. The
case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Airweave, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-05188
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2022).

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

Airweave -- https://www.airweave.com/ -- is an innovative mattress
company and brand using no springs or foam based in Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALAN RICHARD TEXTILES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alan Richard
Textiles, LTD. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Alan Richard Textiles,
LTD., Case No. 1:22-cv-05189 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2022).

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

Alan Richard Textiles -- https://www.alanrichardtextiles.com/ --
are a national wholesaler of home furnishing and window covering
supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALTSLEEP LLC: Adler Sues Over False & Misleading Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Adler, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ALTSLEEP, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-05854-JLS-KS (C.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2022),
is brought to seeking to enjoin the Defendant's false and
misleading practices with regards to the Defendant's sleep-aid
products labeled as "natural," and recover damages and
restitution.

The Defendant falsely and misleadingly represents that the Products
are "natural," when, in fact, they contain non-natural ingredients.
the Defendant professes that its Product is a "Natural dietary
supplement to promote restful sleep so you wake up feeling
refreshed." The Defendant's sleep aid products are deceptively
labeled as "natural," despite containing non-natural ingredients.
The following products all contain multiple synthetic and/or highly
processed ingredients (collectively, the "Products"): Alteril
Natural Sleep Aid, Alteril Fast Acting Softgels Natural Sleep Aid,
The Natural Choice Alteril PM with Turmeric Natural Sleep Aid.

The word "natural" is prominently displayed on the front label of
each and every Product's packaging. To the detriment of the
consumer, the Products are not, in fact, "natural." All of the
Products contain at least one or more of the following non-natural
ingredients: Hypromellose; Polyethylene Glycol; Polyvinyl Alcohol;
Colloidal Silicon Dioxide; FD&C Yellow #5; Magnesium Stearate;
Maltodextrin; Microcrystalline Cellulose; and/or Silicon Dioxide.

To label the Products as "natural" creates consumer deception and
confusion. A reasonable consumer purchases the Products believing
they are "natural" based on the Products' labeling. However, a
reasonable consumer would not deem the Products "natural" if the
consumer knew that the ingredients contained in the Products are
synthetic, highly processed, and/or non-natural. The Defendant's
misrepresentations about the Products were uniform and were
communicated to the Plaintiff, and every other member of the
Classes, at every point of purchase and consumption, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Defendant's Products
including but not limited to Alteril Natural Sleep Aid from Rite
Aid in Los Angeles, California.

the Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells "natural" sleep-aid
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Crosner, Esq.
          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          Blake Jones, Esq.
          Chad Saunders, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, PC
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (310) 496-5818
          Fax: (310) 510-6429
          Email: mike@crosnerlegal.com
                 zach@crosnerlegal.com
                 blake@crosnerlegal.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Phone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          Email: mreese@reesellp.com

               - and -

          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
          Los Angeles, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 393-0070
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          Email: ggranade@reesellp.com


AMEE BAY LLC: Helton Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JORDAN KEITH HELTON, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiff
v. AMEE BAY LLC, an unknown business entity; THREE SAINTS BAY, LLC,
an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2022-00027268, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on Sept. 1, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-01301-LL-BGS to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges ten causes of action: (1) unpaid overtime;
(2) unpaid meal period premiums; (3) unpaid rest period premiums;
(4) unpaid minimum wages; (5) final wages not timely paid; (6)
wages not timely paid during employment; (7) non-compliant wage
statements; (8) failure to keep requisite payroll records; (9)
unreimbursed business expenses; and (10) violation of the
California Business & Professions Code.

Amee Bay, LLC renders marine engineering services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          410 West Arden Avenue Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brandon Daniel Saxon, Esq.
          Lindsay Christine David, Esq.
          GORDON & REES
          101 West Broadway Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 696-6700
          Facsimile: (619) 696-7124
          E-mail: bsaxon@gordonrees.com
                  ldavid@grsm.com

AMERIGAL CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrientos Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE BARRIENTOS; ENRIQUE GARCIA; FIDEL HERNANDEZ, and OSCAR NOE
MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERIGAL CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.; JUAN MAYET
JR.; LUIS EZEQUIEL; and CAPITOL PAVING OF D.C. INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02618 (D.C., Aug. 30, 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.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers.

AMERIGAL CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. operates as a single-family
construction business. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Hanna, Esq.
          Arlus Stephens, Esq.
          Nicolas Mendoza, Esq.
          Murphy Anderson PLLC
          1401 K St. NW Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 223-2620
          Facsimile: (202) 296-9600
          Email: mhanna@murphypllc.com
          astephens@murphypllc.com
          nmendoza@murphypllc.com

ANYTIME SOJU: Faces Kim Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEHO KIM, on behalf of himself and a class and collective of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ANYTIME SOJU INC, 112
WEST INC. and SEUNGEUN JEONG, in their individual and professional
capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07049-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
18, 2022) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, illegal retention of
employee gratuities, failure to pay for all hours worked, and
failure to provide accurate wage notices and wage statements.

Plaintiff Jeho Kim is an adult resident of the state of New York
and was employed by Defendants as a server at Anytime NYC and 112
West from January 31, 2022, to February 27, 2022.  

Anytime Soju Inc. operates a Korean restaurant called "Anytime
NYC."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Kim, Esq.
          RYAN KIM LAW, P.C.
          222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Telephone: (718) 573-1111
          E-mail: ryan@ryankimlaw.com

APEX PIZZA: Opperman Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL OPPERMAN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. APEX PIZZA HOLDINGS LLC, HPG PIZZA I, LLC, HPG PIZZA
II, LLC, DCT ENTERPRISES OF COLORADO, LLC, ROB PRANGE, JIM PARRISH,
DOE CORPORATION 1-10, and JOHN DOE 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-02110-WJM (D. Colo., Aug. 18, 2022) seeks appropriate
monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants'
willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals with minimum wages, failure to adequately reimburse
delivery-related expenses, and failure to provide meal breaks and
rest breaks as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent the delivery drivers who have
worked at the Defendants' Papa John's stores. He has been working
with the Defendant since approximately January 2021.

Apex Pizza Holdings LLC owns or partially owns or funds several
Papa John's Pizza stores in Colorado with or for Heritage Partners
Group, an investment and operations platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Laura E. Farmwald, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 715-8711
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  lfarmwald@billerkimble.com

               - and -

          David Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID LICHTENSTEIN, LLC
          1556 Williams St., Suite 100
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 831-4750  
          Facsimile: (303) 863-0835
          E-mail: dave@lichtensteinlaw.com

APHRIA INC: Court Grants Bid to Certify Class in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE APHRIA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 18
Civ. 11376 (GBD) (JW) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge George B. Daniels of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Proposed Lead Plaintiffs Shawn Cunix and Elizabeth Alexander
brought the action against Defendants Aphria; Victor Neufeld; Carl
Merton; Cole Cacciavillani; John Cervini; Andrew DeFrancesco; and
SOL Global Investments Corp., formerly known as Scythian
Biosciences Corp., asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5(b), 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5(b), as well as Section 20(a).

On Sept. 30, 2020, the Court granted motions to dismiss by
Defendants Cacciavillani, Cervini, and DeFrancesco. Thus, only
claims against Defendants Neufeld, Merton, and Aphria remain.

On Jan. 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 which
the Defendants opposed. Their proposed "Class" or proposed "Class
Members" includes "all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Aphria securities on domestic exchanges or in
domestic transactions between July 17, 2018 and April 12, 2019,
inclusive [the "Class Period"], and were damaged thereby."

Judge Daniels holds that the proposed Class easily satisfies the
Rule 23(a) requirements: Numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
adequacy. He finds that (i) 25.27 million Aphria shares were traded
each week on average during the Class Period and there are at least
thousands of class members; (ii) there is no allegation that
certain proposed Class Members were injured by one set of material
misrepresentations and others were injured by another set; (iii)
the claims are "virtually identical" to the proposed Class claims;
(iv) the Plaintiffs' claims are "virtually identical" to the Class
claims and thus, as they assert "directly aligned with the
interests of the Class; and (v) the Plaintiffs' counsel, Levi &
Korsinky, adequate to represent the Class.

Judge Daniels also finds that the proposed Class definition is
limited by time period, specifies Aphria securities, and only
includes members who purchased or acquired on a domestic exchange
or transaction. Hence, ascertainability is satisfied.

Judge Daniels further holds that the proposed Class satisfies the
Rule 23(b)(3) requirements: Predominance and superiority. He finds
that (i) without any direct rebuttal evidence, and when considering
all the evidence presented of market efficiency, Aphria stock
traded in an efficient market throughout the Class Period; and (ii)
the Plaintiffs outline why a class action is superior the cost of
individual actions would be prohibitive and wasteful as there are
likely thousands of class members.

As to the Class Period, the Defendants argue that Dec. 3, 2018 --
the day the Hindenberg Report was released -- should be the last
day of the class period. The Plaintiffs now, however, argue in
their reply briefings that the Hindenberg Report was not a "clear
and unambiguous" disclosure and that the truth, that they will
prove at trial, was revealed "through a serious of partial
corrective disclosure culminating on Monday, April 15, 2019."

Judge Daniels finds that it cannot be said that "no substantial
doubt" exists as to the curative effect of the Hindenberg Report.
Thus, this factual dispute is inappropriate for the Court to
determine at this time. At this stage of the proceedings, the Class
Period will remain between July 17, 2018 and April 12, 2019,
inclusive.

Finally, Alexander failed to sufficiently demonstrate that she
purchased Aphria shares in a "domestic transaction" and, therefore,
lacks standing to represent the Class. The Plaintiffs argue that
Proposed Lead Plaintiff Alexander purchased shares of Aphria stock
-- through her U.S. based broker, TD Ameritrade -- from U.S. market
makers that "only have offices in the United States."

Judge Daniels holds that even with the additional documents
submitted in the declaration, the facts are insufficient to incur
'irrevocable liability' in the United States. There is no
information regarding where and on what terms there was a "meeting
of the minds" or "prior acts" obligating the trading parties to one
another. Thus, Alexander has not shown how she engaged in a
domestic transaction under the Exchange Act and therefore cannot
serve as a class representative.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Daniels grants the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

Judge Daniels certifies the following class: All persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Aphria securities on
domestic exchanges or in domestic transactions between July 17,
2018, and April 12, 2019, inclusive, and were damaged thereby.

Shawn P. Cunix is appointed as the Class Representative and Levi &
Korsinsky is appointed as the Class Counsel.

The Clerk of Court is ordered to close ECF Nos. 169 and 176,
accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2022 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yf2uedcr from
Leagle.com.


AZURE POWER: Faces Gilbert Suit Over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------
CARSON D. GILBERT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AZURE POWER GLOBAL LIMITED; RANJIT
GUPTA; ALAN ROSLING; HARSH SHAH; and PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07432 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2022) is a
class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Azure securities between June 15, 2021 and
August 26, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), the Plaintiff
seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the complaint, on August 29, 2022, Azure announced the
resignation of its CEO, less than two months after his appointment.
The Company also disclosed that it had "received a whistleblower
complaint in May 2022 alleging potential procedural irregularities
and misconduct by certain employees at a plant belonging to one of
its subsidiaries." During the Company's review of these
allegations, Azure "discovered deviations from safety and quality
norms" and "also identified evidence of manipulation of project
data and information by certain employees."

On this news, the Company's stock fell $4.61, or 44%, to close at
$5.85 per share on August 29, 2022, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that there were procedural irregularities, including
deviations from safety and quality standards, at one of Azure's
plants; (2) that certain project data was manipulated; (3) that, as
a result of the foregoing, the Company's internal controls and
procedures were not effective; (4) that Azure had received a
credible whistleblower report alleging such misconduct; and (5)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis, says the
suit.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit alleges.

AZURE POWER GLOBAL LIMITED operates as an independent solar power
producer. The Company designs, constructs, maintains, and operates
solar energy projects. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave., Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com

               - and -

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

B.P. EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Miller Case With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAROLYN MILLER v. B.P. EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC.,
ET AL., SECTION "R" (5), Civil Action No. 17-4441 (E.D. La.), Judge
Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana grants BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP American
Production Company, and BP p.l.c.'s motion for summary judgment and
dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint.

The case arises from Miller's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals
following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Plaintiff alleges that she was exposed to crude oil and
dispersants following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill by virtue of
her presence "in and around Dauphin Island, Mississippi and from
consumption of contaminated seafood."

Ms. Miller asserts that this exposure has resulted in a number of
conditions including: congestion, pain, discharge, sinusitis,
rhinitis, eye burning, eye irritation, depression, memory loss,
headaches, dizziness, chest soreness, shortness of breath,
pleurisy, dyspnea, obstructive airway disease, asthma, anemia,
laryngitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease ("GERD"), dysphagia,
diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, cramps, abdominal pain, hand swelling,
rashes, acne, and skin irritation.

Ms. Miller's case was originally part of the multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. Her case
was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs
who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater
Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. Miller
is a plaintiff who opted out of the settlement.

After the Plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to the
Court. On July 28, 2021, the Court issued a scheduling order that
established, among other deadlines, that the Plaintiff's expert
disclosures had to be "obtained and delivered" to the defense
counsel by no later than July 8, 2022.

The Defendants now move for summary judgment, arguing that, because
the Plaintiff has not identified any expert testimony, she is
unable to carry her burden on causation. The Plaintiff has not
filed an opposition to the Defendants' motion.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence,
negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants, as
a result of the oil spill and its cleanup. The Defendants contend
that the Plaintiff cannot prove that exposure to oil or dispersants
was the legal cause of her alleged injuries, and thus that she
cannot prove a necessary element of her claims against them.

Judge Vance explains that under the general maritime law, a party's
negligence is actionable only if it is a 'legal' cause' of a
plaintiff's injuries. To prevail in a toxic tort case, a plaintiff
must show both general causation and specific causation. Specific
causation is whether a substance caused a particular individual's
injury. Expert testimony is required to establish general
causation.

The Plaintiff has not disclosed any experts on either general or
specific causation, nor has she purported to offer any other type
of causation evidence as to any of her medical conditions. As she
is unable to create an issue of material fact on causation, Judge
Vance grants summary judgment.

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment is granted and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/msaeyada from Leagle.com.


CENTERSPACE LP: Hall Files Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centerspace, LP, et
al. The case is styled as Gary Hall, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Centerspace, LP, Centerspace Inc.,
Case No. 0:22-cv-02028-KMM-DTS (D. Minn., Aug. 17, 2022).

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

Centerspace -- https://www.centerspacehomes.com/ -- is a real
estate company focused on the ownership, management, acquisition,
and redevelopment of apartment communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brittany N. Resch, Esq.
          Raina Borrelli, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775
          Fax: (608) 509-4423
          Email: brittanyr@turkestrauss.com
                 raina@turkestrauss.com


CENTIMARK CORP: Lingle Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANTHONY LINGLE, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. CENTIMARK
CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 34-2021-00311991, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Aug. 19, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01471-JDP to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against Defendant: (1)
failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages;
(3) meal period violations; (4) rest break violations; (5) wage
statement violations; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) failure to
reimburse expenses; (8) unfair competition; and (9) Private
Attorney General Act claims.

CentiMark Corporation is a national roofing contractor company
headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Nader, Esq.
          Paul M. Smith, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 840-3150
          Facsimile: (916) 840-3159   
          E-mail: michael.nader@ogletree.com
                  paul.smith@ogletree.com

CENTIMARK CORP: Lingle Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANTHONY LINGLE, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. CENTIMARK
CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 34-2021-00311991, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Aug. 19, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-at-00873 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against Defendant: (1)
failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages;
(3) meal period violations; (4) rest break violations; (5) wage
statement violations; (6) waiting time penalties; (7) failure to
reimburse expenses; (8) unfair competition; and (9) Private
Attorney General Act claims.

CentiMark Corporation is a national roofing contractor company
headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Nader, Esq.
          Paul M. Smith, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 840-3150
          Facsimile: (916) 840-3159   
          E-mail: michael.nader@ogletree.com
                  paul.smith@ogletree.com

CITIZENS DISABILITY: Court Certifies Class in Thrower TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GENE THROWER and ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CITIZENS DISABILITY, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No.
20-10285-GAO (D. Mass.), Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr., of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts grants the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs have brought the putative class action alleging that
Citizens employed marketing practices targeted at them that violate
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). In brief, they
claim that the Defendant unlawfully placed calls and sent text
messages to their cell phones without having received express
consent to do so.

Citizens assists disabled persons with applying for Social Security
Disability Insurance ("SSDI") benefits in exchange for a percentage
of the benefits they are ultimately awarded. It markets itself to
potential customers directly by contacting them via telephone, text
message, or email. To identify potential customers, Citizens works
with marketing partners -- referred to as "lead generators" -- that
operate websites frequented by individuals who may qualify for SSDI
benefits. These websites often promise access to online shopping
discounts or other benefits to induce potential SSDI applicants to
fill out consent forms. After an individual fills out a form on a
lead generator website, the lead generator sells the individual's
contact information to Citizens. Citizens then uses that
information to contact the individual to sell its services. The
identities of potential customers and their contact information are
referred to as "leads."

The TCPA prohibits companies from placing "any call (other than a
call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express
consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing
system ("ATDS") or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any
telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service." The
Plaintiffs commenced the action under the TCPA, alleging that
Citizens sent text messages and placed calls to them and others on
their cell phones using an ATDS without first obtaining express
consent. Citizens denies those allegations and argues that all
individuals who received marketing calls had expressly consented to
receive such calls by filling out consent forms on lead generator
websites. Citizens also denies using an ATDS.

The Plaintiffs moved to certify the following class: All persons in
the United States who (1) received a text message call or telephone
call by or on behalf of the Defendant, (2) on his, her, or its
cellular telephone, (3) from the last four years through the date
notice is sent to the Class, (4) for the same purpose as Defendant
(or its agent) placed the text message or telephone call to the
Plaintiffs, (5) using the same equipment that was used to call or
text the Plaintiffs, and (6) for who the Defendant claims it
obtained express consent to place the text message or telephone
call in the same manner that the Defendant contends it obtained
express consent to call or text the Plaintiffs.

In seeking class certification, a plaintiff must demonstrate that:
1) there are so many putative class members that joinder of all
members is impracticable; 2) common questions of law or fact exist
within the class; 3) the named plaintiff's claims or defenses are
typical of those of the class; and 4) the named plaintiff will
fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. A
putative class action plaintiff must also satisfy at least one of
three sub-parts of Rule 23(b). Id. 23(b).

Rule 23(b)(3) -- which is relied upon in the case -- authorizes
certification if "the court finds that the questions of law or fact
common to class members predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members, and that a class action is superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy." A court applying Rule 23(b)(3) must consider
individual class members' possible interests in separate actions,
the effect of any pre-existing litigation, the suitability of the
forum, and any expected difficulties in managing the class action.
A putative class action plaintiff "must affirmatively demonstrate
his compliance" with Rule 23.

The Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the proposed class is
ascertainable and that it satisfies both Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

Judge O'Toole holds that they have done so. He finds that the
record before the Court at this stage indicates that Citizens'
records are sufficiently detailed to identify class members. Each
customer listed in those records is assigned a "vendor lead
code"—a unique identifier that corresponds to the lead generator
responsible for that lead. Those codes, Citizens admits, can be
used to determine whether the lead for a given customer came from
the same lead generators as the leads related to Thrower and
Abante. The proposed class is ascertainable.

The commonality requirement is also satisfied, Judge O'Toole
opines. The Plaintiffs' allegations raise multiple common issues,
including whether the forms filled out by customers on lead
generator websites conveyed consent to be contacted, and whether
Citizens called customers using an ATDS. The named Plaintiffs'
interest in avoiding unlawful marketing appears directly aligned
with similar interests of members of the proposed class. There is
also no suggestion that their attorney is incapable of effectively
representing the class in the litigation.

With ascertainability established and Rule 23(a) satisfied, Judge
O'Toole turns the certification inquiry to Rule 23(b)(3).
Certification is appropriate under this rule if the plaintiff
demonstrates the predominance of common issues over individual
issues and the superiority of a class action as a method for fairly
and efficiently adjudicating this controversy.

Thrower and Abante have cleared both of those hurdles, Judge
O'Toole opines. He says, all signs point to general uniformity
among consent forms on lead generator websites. The Plaintiffs did
not produce the language that was later interpreted by the
Defendant as conveying consent to be contacted. They checked boxes
to fill out prepackaged forms that were provided to them on the
websites they visited, which were presumably identical to the forms
provided to all other users of those same websites. The legal
aspect of the consent inquiry can be dealt with on a class-wide
basis. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated that common issues
predominate.

The superiority factors militate in favor of class certification as
well. As is often the case in TCPA cases, class members will have
little incentive to litigate their claims individually. Although
their claims would depend on similar factual and legal issues, each
claim would have limited monetary value, making the prospect of
individual suits unlikely.

Indeed, the putative class members' interest in class certification
is particularly strong because there is a "considerable disparity
in resources" between them and the corporate defendant, and because
they seek injunctive relief that "is not available for a simple sum
of money." Injunctive relief as to one plaintiff among thousands
has little impact. Finally, the need to adjudicate individualized
issues separately will be limited, and any individualized
adjudications that become necessary will have minimal impact on
efficiency and fairness. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated
superiority and carried their burden of compliance with Rule
23(b)(3). The merits of their claims will be decided on a
class-wide basis.

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification is granted.

The following class is certified, subject to amendment: "All
persons or entities in the United States who: 1) received a text
message or telephone call from or on behalf of the defendant
Citizens Disability, LLC; 2) on their cellular telephone; 3) no
earlier than February 12, 2016, and no later than the date notice
is sent to the class; 4) for the same purpose for which the
defendant (or its agent) contacted the named plaintiffs; 5) using
the same equipment or automated system that was used to contact the
named plaintiffs; and 6) pursuant to leads generated by the same
marketing partners that generated leads as to the named
plaintiffs."

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yrkwwkeu from Leagle.com.


COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL: Can Compel Arbitration in Greenwood Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMIE GREENWOOD, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL, LTD.;
COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL WISCONSIN, LLC; COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL ARIZONA,
LLC; COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL COLORADO, LLC; COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL
KANSAS, LLC; COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL IDAHO, LLC; COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL
ILLINOIS, LLC; COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL MICHIGAN, LLC; COTTONWOOD
FINANCIAL MISSOURI, LLC; COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL OHIO, LLC; COTTONWOOD
FINANCIAL TEXAS, LLC; COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL UTAH, LLC; COTTONWOOD
FINANCIAL VIRGINIA, LLC; COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL WASHINGTON, LLC;
COTTONWOOD FINANCIAL AUSTIN, CSO; and CF NEW MEXICO, LLC,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-2459-L (N.D. Tex.), Judge Sam
A. Lindsay of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division:

    (i) grants the Defendants' Motion to Motion to Compel
        Arbitration;

   (ii) denies without prejudice their Motion to Dismiss
        Plaintiff's Class Claims; and

  (iii) denies their Motion to Stay Proceeding.

Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration,
Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Claims, and Stay Proceeding, filed Jan.
7, 2022. On July 29, 2022, the United States Magistrate Judge
entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Court grants the
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration, denies without prejudice
their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Claims, and grants their
Motion to Stay Proceeding pending resolution of the arbitration.

On Aug. 12, 2022, the Defendants filed objections in which they
agreed that the Plaintiff should be compelled to arbitrate but
contend that the magistrate judge "erred by not deciding whether
the Plaintiff could arbitrate her class claims." Regarding the
latter issue, the Defendants argue that the magistrate judge
overlooked Fifth Circuit authority that clearly provides that the
issue of the availability of class arbitration is a threshold or
"gateway" issue for the court, not arbitrators to decide.

For support, the Defendants rely on 20/20 Communications,
Incorporated v. Crawford, 930 F.3d 715 (5th Cir. 2019). They assert
that the magistrate judge's reliance on Pedcor Management Company
Welfare Benefit Plan v. Nations Personnel of Texas, Incorporated,
343 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2003), for the proposition that --
arbitrators are supposed to decide whether an arbitration agreement
forbids or allows class arbitration -- is misplaced. In addition,
they contend that the Loan Agreement at issue prohibits class
arbitration altogether and, thus, requires dismissal of Plaintiff's
class claims.

The Defendants appear to be conflating the issue of arbitrability
(which claims are arbitrable) and the issue of whether the
Plaintiff's class claims should be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. They never previously
raised the argument that they now assert -- that the issue of
whether the Plaintiff's class claims is arbitrable is a gateway
issue that should be decided by the court, rather than the
arbitrator. They, instead, sought, and continue to seek, dismissal
of the Plaintiff's class claims on the ground that the Loan
Agreement prohibits class arbitration and that dismissal of such
claims is required under the Loan Agreement.

The Defendants further assert that the Loan Agreement does not
permit the Plaintiff to assert class claims in any venue,
arbitration or otherwise. It was in this context that the
magistrate judge determined that the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's class claims and argument that such claims should
be dismissed in light of the Loan Agreement's waiver language
should be decided by the arbitrator.

Generally, an issue raised for the first time in an objection to a
magistrate judge's report is not properly before the district
court. In not presenting their argument regarding the issue of
arbitrability or the availability of class arbitration to the
magistrate judge and asserting the argument for the first time in
their objections, the Defendants waived this legal argument.
Accordingly, this objection by the Defendants is overruled.

Even if not waived, Judge Lindsay agrees with the magistrate judge
that the issue of whether the Loan Agreement requires dismissal of
the Plaintiff's class claims against the Defendants should be
decided by the arbitrator. The Report does not address in detail
this issue, and Judge Lindsay's reasons for reaching this
conclusion differ slightly from those of the magistrate judge and
focus on the language of the Arbitration Provision in the Loan
Agreement.

While the Arbitration Provision states that the Plaintiff waives
her right to bring class claims or participate as a member of a
class action in any lawsuit, it makes clear that all disputes
regarding the Loan Agreement, the Arbitration Provision, and claims
by the Plaintiff, whether in an individual or representative
capacity, would be decided by the arbitrator, not the court. In
other words, even if the Defendants' interpretation of the
Arbitration Provision in the Loan Agreement is correct, the
parties' agreement requires that the Defendants' argument -- that
dismissal of the Plaintiff's class claims is appropriate because
she waived her right to bring such claims in any venue, including
arbitration -- must be presented to the arbitrator to decide,
together with all other "disputes" of the parties.

Accordingly, while the availability of class determination is not
necessarily always decided by the arbitrator, the parties'
arbitration agreement in the case requires that the arbitrator
decide the issues raised by the Defendants regarding the viability
and arbitrability of Plaintiff's class claims.

As all claims in the action are subject to arbitration, Judge
Lindsay determines that there is no reason for the Court to retain
jurisdiction over the action as recommended by the magistrate
judge. He, therefore, rejects the recommendation that he grants the
Defendants' request to stay the proceedings in this case pending
resolution of the arbitration.

Judge Lindsay concludes that the findings and conclusions of the
magistrate judge are correct, and accepted as those of the Court,
except for the magistrate judge's recommendation that the Court
stays the proceedings in the case pending resolution of the
arbitration, which is rejected. Accordingly, he grants the
Defendants' Motion to Motion to Compel Arbitration); denies without
prejudice their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Claims, which
issue will be decided by the arbitrator; and denies the Defendants'
Motion to Stay Proceeding, as it has determined that all claims and
disputes of the parties are subject to arbitration, and there is no
reason for it to retain jurisdiction over the action. Further, the
action is dismissed with prejudice.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to term all pending motions. If
the Plaintiff wishes to pursue her claims against the Defendants,
she must do so in arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration
Provision in the Loan Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3vcbp4up from
Leagle.com.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Deceptive Cable TV Pricing Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD CHRISTIANSON; ISABEL PRADO; NEIL MOURA, and DANIEL POLINSKY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and COXCOM, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01290-RSH-MSB (S.D. Cal., Aug. 30,
2022) seeks to challenge a deceptive pricing scheme whereby Cox
covertly increased the monthly service rate for its cable TV
service plans in the middle of promised fixed-rate term contracts.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that for years, Cox has
enticed them and other customers to enter into 24-month contracts
for Cox's cable TV service plans by promising a fixed monthly rate
for two years. Customers who entered into these 24-month contracts
gave up their ability to freely quit or downgrade their service for
the 24 months without incurring a significant early termination
fee. Customers locked themselves into these 24-month contracts
because Cox had represented to them that Cox was similarly locking
itself into charging no more than the promised fixed rate during
the contract term.

However, Cox's representations were false because Cox intended to,
and did, increase the monthly service rate mid-contract by
increasing two disguised monthly service charges labeled on the
bill as the "Broadcast Surcharge" and the "Regional Sports
Surcharge." Cox failed to adequately disclose these service charges
during the signup process, and Cox never disclosed the fact that
Cox could, and would, use these service charges as a covert way to
increase the monthly service rate mid-contract despite Cox's
promises to the contrary, says the suit.

COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. offers telecommunications and technology
solutions. The Company provides analog and digital video, internet
access, telephone, television, and home security services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
          Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
          HATTIS & LUKACS
          11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120
          Bellevue, WA 98005
          Telephone: (425) 233-8628
          Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
          Email: dan@hattislaw.com
                 pkl@hattislaw.com

DCOR LLC: Green Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled KEVIN GREEN, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DCOR, LLC, a limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 56-2022-00567633-CU-OE-VTA, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on Aug. 19, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-05916 to the proceeding.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges claims solely under state
law, including claims that: (i) DCOR failed to pay all minimum
wages; (ii) failed to pay overtime premium wages; (iii) failed to
provide legally compliant meal periods and pay meal period premium
pay; (iv) failed to provide legally compliant rest periods and to
pay rest period premium pay; (v) failed to reimburse for
employment-related expenses; (vi) failed to timely pay final wages
at termination; and (vii) failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements all in violation of multiple California Labor Code
sections as well as the applicable California Industrial Welfare
Commission wage orders and the California Business and Professions
Code.

DCOR, LLC is an oil & natural gas company in Oxnard,
California.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chandra A. Beaton, Esq.
          Kathleen M. Fellows, Esq.
          LIGHTGABLER
          760 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 300
          Camarillo, CA 93010
          Telephone: (805) 248-7208
          Facsimile: (805) 248-7209
          E-mail: cbeaton@lightgablerlaw.com
                  kfellows@lightgablerlaw.com

DOMINIUM PROPERTY: Ohio Court Recommends Dismissal of McComb Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT MCCOMB, Plaintiff v. DOMINIUM PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-369 (S.D. Ohio),
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Dayton,
recommends that the Dominium Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be
granted.

The case is presently before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss
filed by Dominium, Karen Stegall, Kirsten Dottillis, Alicia Lake,
Karen Kline, and Douglass Turner (collectively, the "Dominium
Defendants").

The Plaintiff filed the instant case against the Dominium
Defendants, Defendant Larry Lasky, Penny Magos, and "Melody Jane
Doe aka formerly Melody Morris" on Sept. 2, 2020. Before all of the
Defendants had responded, on Nov. 16, 2020, the Plaintiff filed his
first motion for leave to file an amended complaint in order to add
details related to his claims against Defendants Lasky, Dottillis,
and Lake. The very next day, he filed a second motion for leave to
file an amended complaint as well as a request for leave to remove
Penny Magos and "Melody Jane Doe aka Melody Morris" as defendants.

In order to better understand the nature of Plaintiff's requests,
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson ordered the Plaintiff to file a
proposed second amended complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed
a Proposed Second Amended Complaint on Dec. 9, 2020. In response,
Defendant Lasky filed a memorandum in opposition, objecting to,
among other things, the Plaintiff's designation of the parties.

Thereafter, the case was transferred to Judge Silvain. Upon review
of the relevant filings, he issued an Order on Aug. 9, 2021,
concluding that Defendant Lasky's objections to the Plaintiff's
Second Complaint were well-taken and identifying additional
deficiencies in Plaintiff's proposed pleading. In particular, he
noted that the Plaintiff's Second Complaint sought to assert claims
on behalf of the Plaintiff's family members and to certify the
matter as a class action lawsuit.  In light of the fact that
Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, he held that these claims were
improper because the Plaintiff could not represent parties other
than himself. As a result, in granting the Plaintiff's request for
leave to file an amended complaint, Judge Silvain indicated that
the Second Complaint filed by the Plaintiff was improper and
granted leave to file a new amended complaint correcting these
deficiencies.

Additionally, Judge Silvain directed the Plaintiff that "any
proposed complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8," meaning that it "must contain, among other things, 'a short and
plain statement showing that he is entitled to relief.'" He
specifically advised the Plaintiff that the allegations contained
in his proposed complaint "must be simple, concise, and direct."
Further, with regard to the Plaintiff's request to "subtract third
party Defendant's Penny Magos and Melody Jane Doe aka formerly
Melody Morris," he granted the Plaintiff's request to remove these
defendants. However, the Plaintiff was also informed that "he
cannot reserve the right to add the parties back" and that if he
later "seeks to add parties, he must comply with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure." With these defects outlined, the Plaintiff was
ordered to file a new proposed amended complaint by Aug. 26, 2021.

When the Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or request
an extension of time for his filing, the Court ordered the
Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint that complied with
the Court's prior Order or to show cause no later than Sept. 23,
2021 why the undersigned should not recommend that this case be
dismissed for failure to prosecute. In this Order, Judge Silvain
advised the Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court's Order
could result in dismissal. As a result, the Plaintiff filed another
amended complaint on Sept. 14, 2021 ("Third Complaint").

Shortly thereafter, the Dominium Defendants filed the instant
motion to dismiss asserting that the Plaintiff's Third Complaint
fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Court's orders and, therefore, should be dismissed.

In their Motion, the Dominium Defendants contend that the
Plaintiff's Third Complaint should be dismissed due to his failure
to comply with the Court's Aug. 9, 2021 and Sept. 2, 2021 Orders as
well as Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Silvain finds that Plaintiff's Third Complaint is so
"verbose, confused and redundant that its true substance, if any,
is disguised." Moreover, this is not the first pleading that the
Plaintiff has filed containing unnecessary prolixity. As noted
previously, the Plaintiff's prior two complaints were just as long
or shorter than his Third Complaint. Further, despite the
Plaintiff's assurances otherwise, the uncured deficiencies
remaining in his Third Complaint suggest a basic inability or
unwillingness to comply with the Court's orders, thus warranting
dismissal.

The Plaintiff has been afforded more than one opportunity to amend
his complaint, has been directed to correct the defects identified
in his prior pleading -- including the "short and plain statement"
mandate of Rule 8—and has been specifically advised that failure
to comply could result in dismissal of his case. Despite this, the
Plaintiff has filed yet another prolix and confusing pleading,
preventing both the Court and the Defendants from being able to
readily identify the claims asserted. Accordingly, Judge Silvain
will recommend that the Dominium Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be
granted and that his Third Complaint be dismissed for failure to
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Additionally, Judge Silvain notes that Defendant Lasky has
separately filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant To Civil Rule
12(B)(6) on the basis that the Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted against him. The Plaintiff,
in turn, has filed a Motion in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss and to Strike Attorney Roderer's Motion to Dismiss Brief,
which Judge Silvain construes as a response to Defendant Lasky's
motion.

However, because the foregoing analysis applies equally to
Defendant Lasky as it does the Dominium Defendants and serves to
dismiss the Plaintiff's claims against him, Judge Silvain finds it
unnecessary to address the specific arguments raised in either of
these motions. As a result, he also will recommend that Defendant
Lasky's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Civil Rule 12(B)(6) and the
Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
and to Strike Attorney Roderer's Motion to Dismiss Brief be denied
without prejudice to renewal pending the disposition of the Report
and Recommendations.

Similarly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is also ripe
for review. However, for the reasons explained and the fact that
there is no operative complaint in the case for the Plaintiff to
move for summary judgment on, Judge Silvain will also recommend
that the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied without
prejudice to renewal pending disposition of the Report and
Recommendations.

Judge Silvain concludes that he has informed the Plaintiff on two
separate occasions that his failure to comply with the Court's
orders and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure could result in
dismissal of his case. The Plaintiff's Third Complaint does not
conform with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the
Court's Aug. 9, 2021 Order, thus warranting dismissal.

Judge Silvain recommends that (i) the Dominium Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss be granted; (ii) the Plaintiff's Third Complaint be
dismissed with prejudice; (iii) Defendant Lasky's Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Civil Rule 12(B)(6) be denied without prejudice to
renewal; (iv) the Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Attorney Roderer's Motion to
Dismiss Brief be denied without prejudice to renewal; (v) the
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied without prejudice
to renewal; and (vi) the case be terminated on the Court's docket.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2022 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/4mfb4s95 from
Leagle.com.


DREYER'S GRAND: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Rice Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAWRENCE RICE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DREYER'S GRAND ICE CREAM,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 21 C 3814 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary
Feinerman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, grants Dreyer's motion to dismiss the
complaint.

Mr. Rice brings the putative class action against Dreyer's,
alleging that the front label of its Haagan-Dazs "Vanilla Milk
Chocolate Almond" ice cream bars is deceptive. Dreyer's
manufactures, labels, markets, and sells Haagan-Dazs brand ice
cream products.

Haagan-Dazs "Vanilla Milk Chocolate Almond" ice cream bars contain
vegetable oil as well as milk chocolate, almonds, and vanilla ice
cream. The product's front label describes the bars as "vanilla ice
cream dipped in rich milk chocolate and almonds" and displays
pictures of chocolate chunks, almonds, and a vanilla flower. The
front label does not mention vegetable oil, but the ingredients
list on the back states that the non-ice cream portion of the
product consists of a "milk chocolate and vegetable oil coating
with almonds."

Mr. Rice purchased the product in Illinois. He alleges that because
its front label does not disclose the presence of vegetable oil, he
was misled into believing that the product does not contain
vegetable oil. He claims that, had he been aware that the product
contained vegetable oil, he would not have purchased it or would
have paid less for it.

The complaint purports to bring state law claims for statutory and
common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
and breach of express and implied warranty, and a claim under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et seq.
In addition to monetary relief, Rice seeks an injunction forbidding
Dreyer's from deceiving consumers about the product's ingredients.

Dreyer's moves under Civil Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss
the complaint.

First, Dreyer's contends that Rice does not have Article III
standing to seek injunctive relief. Because Article III standing is
jurisdictional, it must be addressed before the merits. Rice argues
that he faces a threat of future harm because he "intends to
purchase the product again when he can do so with the assurance"
that the front label's "representations are consistent with the
product's composition."

Judge Feinerman opines that Rice's argument simply confirms that
Rice will not again purchase the product while being deceived by
its front label. That absent putative class members might be
unaware of the presence of vegetable oil in the product, and thus
deceived by its front label, does not warrant a different
conclusion. The reason is plain: "That a suit may be a class action
adds nothing to the question of standing, for even named plaintiffs
who represent a class must allege and show that they personally
have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by other,
unidentified members of the class to which they belong."

Because Rice fails to plausibly allege a risk of an imminent injury
to himself, he lacks standing to seek injunctive relief for unnamed
class members who might face that risk. Accordingly, the complaint
is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to the extent
it seeks injunctive relief.

Turning to the merits, Rice claims that the product is deceptively
labeled in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq., because
the front label does not disclose that the product's coating
contains vegetable oil. He argues that accompanying the phrase
"dipped in rich milk chocolate" with representations of chocolate
chunks rendered the front label ambiguous because "milk chocolate"
means "no vegetable oils." In support, he offers the opinions of
chocolatiers and dictionary definitions suggesting that chocolate
should not contain vegetable oils. But "what matters" for purposes
of Rice's ICFA claim "is how consumers actually behave," not what
experts in the pertinent field understand or believe.

As for actual consumers, Rice refers to a consumer survey reporting
that sixty percent of respondents who viewed the product's front
label "expected that the product would contain more cacao bean
ingredients than it did and would not contain lower quality
chocolate substitutes." But that survey, even taken at face value,
does not suggest that consumers expected the product to not contain
any vegetable oil. The cited survey therefore does not render
plausible Rice's claim that the product's front label is
deceptive.

Because the product is not deceptively labeled, Judge Feinerman
dismisses Rice's ICFA claim is dismissed. He opines that Rice's
common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims fail for
the same reason, as an element of both claims is "a false statement
of material fact." And given the failure of Rice's fraud claims,
his unjust enrichment claim -- which, as he admits, "is predicated
on the same allegations of deceptive advertising as his ICFA claim"
-- necessarily fails as well.

The same result obtains for Rice's warranty and MMWA claims. Rice
submits that the product's front label expressly warranted that the
product has a "coating containing 'rich milk chocolate.'" Because
the coating indisputably contains chocolate, Rice does not state a
viable breach of express warranty claim, Judge Feinerman holds. The
ordinary purpose of an ice cream bar is consumption, and Rice does
not allege that Dreyer's product is unfit to eat, so his implied
warranty claim fails as well. And because Rice's MMWA claim is
based on his state law warranty claims, it also fails as a matter
of law.

For these reasons, Judge Feinerman grants Dreyer's motion to
dismiss. Rice's claims are dismissed without prejudice (a) for want
of subject matter jurisdiction insofar as they seek injunctive
relief and (b) on the merits insofar as they seek monetary relief.
Rice has until Sept. 20, 2022, to file an amended complaint. If he
does not replead, the dismissal without prejudice of his claims for
damages relief will convert automatically to a dismissal with
prejudice, and judgment will be entered. If Rice repleads, Dreyer's
will file a responsive pleading by Oct. 11, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3bmubuee from
Leagle.com.


EQUIFAX INC: Faces Biddle Suit Over Alleged FCRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARK BIDDLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX, INC.; and EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03519-LMM-CCB (N.D.
Ga., Aug. 31, 2022) alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

According to the complaint, on August 2, 2022, Equifax confirmed
that due to a "glitch" in its technology systems, the company
provided inaccurate credit scores to lenders about potentially
millions of individuals who applied for credit from mid-March
through early April (hereinafter "the Glitch").

The damages that Plaintiff and Class Members bear as a result of
the Glitch cannot be rectified by merely updating the affected
credit reports. In addition, while consumer reporting agencies
offer consumers one free credit report per year, consumers who
request more than one credit report per year from the same consumer
reporting agency must pay a fee for the additional report. Such
fees constitute out-of-pocket costs to Plaintiff and Class Members,
says the suit.

EQUIFAX INC. is a consumer credit reporting agency. The Company
brings buyers and sellers together through its information
management, transaction processing, direct marketing, and customer
relationship management businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
          N. Nickolas Jackson
          THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C
          Piedmont Center
          3535 Piedmont Road
          Building 14, Suite 230
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 978-6971
          Email: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
                 njackson@thefinleyfirm.com

               -and-

          Brian Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Ave. Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-8340
          Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com

               -and-

          Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
          P.O. Box 111,
          Haines Falls, NY 12436
          Telephone: (516) 426-6870
          Email: pcwhalen@gmail.com

EXELON CORP: Habich Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOEL HABICH, individually and on behalf of a class
of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXELON CORPORATION,
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, ACLARA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and ACLARA
METERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2022L006413, was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 19,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-04438 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff contends that on July 29, 2020, a structural fire
destroyed his Orland Park restaurant. He asserts that the fire
caused him to lose his business as well as property damage, mental,
physiological, emotional and personal injuries. The Plaintiff
asserts claims against ComEd and Exelon for (1) negligent and
willful and wanton selection, installation, and testing of the
smart meter, as well as negligent and willful and wanton training
and failure to warn related to the smart meters, and (2) negligent
infliction of emotional distress. The Plaintiff further asserts
claims for strict liability against Aclara Technologies and Aclara
Meters.

Exelon Corporation is engaged in the business of energy generation,
sale, and delivery throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen Joseph Dunn, Jr.
          GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          One East Wacker Drive, Suite 2510
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 880-1010
          E-mail: gdunn@gjdlaw.com

Defendants Exelon Corporation and Commonwealth Edison Company are
represented by:

          Brian O. Watson, Esq.
          Sarah E. Finch, Esq.
          RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
          70 W. Madison St., Ste. 2900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 471-8700
          Facsimile: (312) 471-8701
          E-mail: bwatson@rshc-law.com
                  sfinch@rshc-law.com

               - and -

          Paul Kelly, Esq.
          Kellett McConville, Esq.
          KELLY & KING, P.C.
          19 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 553-5290
          Facsimile: (312) 553-5291
          E-mail: pek@kellykinglaw.com
                  mkm@kellykinglaw.com


Defendants Aclara Technologies, LLC and Defendant Aclara Meters,
LLC are represented by:

          James W. Ozog, Esq.
          David J. O'Connell, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
          222 W. Adams Suite 2250
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 572-8400
          E-mail: jozog@goldbergsegalla.com
                  doconnell@goldbergsegalla.com

FULLSTORY INC: Hasson Sues Over Wiretapping of Website Visitors
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH HASSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FULLSTORY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01246-RJC (W.D. Pa., Aug. 30, 2022) is a class action
against FullStory for wiretapping the electronic communications of
visitors to various websites that use FullStory's session replay
software in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and
Electronic Surveillance Control Act.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, FullStory's wiretap is
deployed through a snippet of JavaScript computer code embedded on
the websites of FullStory's clients, which enables FullStory to
secretly intercept and record website users' electronic
communications, including website visitors' mouse movements,
clicks, keystrokes, URLs of web pages visited, and other electronic
communications in real-time ("Website Communications").

After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications,
FullStory uses those Website Communications to recreate the website
visitor's entire visit to the website through what is known as
session replay, which is available to FullStory and its clients.
FullStory's conduct results in the electronic equivalent of
"looking over the shoulder" of the website visitor for the entire
duration of their website interaction, says the suit.

FULLSTORY, INC. provides software solutions. The Company offers
digital experience intelligence platform that captures every user
interaction with total privacy [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
          Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          Email: gary@lcllp.com
                 kelly@lcllp.com
                 jamisen@lcllp.com
                 elizabeth@lcllp.com
                 nickc@lcllp.com
                 patrick@lcllp.com

GLOBUS MEDICAL: Schneider FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CODY SCHNEIDER and JOSEPH JASKOLSKI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 220601611, was removed
from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
Aug. 18, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-03299 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the New York Labor Law on
behalf of themselves and all other individuals employed by
Defendant as trainees during any time since March 16, 2019.

Globus Medical, Inc. is a publicly traded medical device company
headquartered in Audubon, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J. Puma, Esq.
          Brett A. Janich, Esq.
          Antonia M. Moran, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5000
          E-mail: michael.puma@morganlewis.com
                  brett.janich@morganlewis.com
                  toni.moran@morganlewis.com

GOOGLE LLC: May Enlarge Briefs on Bid to Dismiss Hammerling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY HAMMERLING and KAY JACKSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-09004-CRB (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, grants the Parties' stipulation to enlarge the
briefs on Google's forthcoming motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint against
Google on Aug. 8, 2022. Their Amended Complaint asserts 10 causes
of action for: (1) common law intrusion upon seclusion; (2)
invasion of privacy; (3) fraud under both affirmative
misrepresentation and omission theories; (4) violation of
California's unfair competition law under the fraudulent, unfair,
and unlawful prongs; (5) violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act; (6) breach of contract; (7) breach of implied
contract; (8) unjust enrichment; (9) relief under the Declaratory
Judgment Act; and (10) relief under California's Invasion of
Privacy Act.

Section I.C of the Court's General Standing Order sets the maximum
page-length for briefs filed in support of any motions, or in
opposition thereto, to 15 pages. The Parties agree that an
additional five pages for the opening brief and for the opposition
is necessary to address the number of issues that Google intends to
raise in its forthcoming motion to dismiss, which is due on Sep. 9,
2022.

The Court previously granted the Parties' stipulation agreeing to
the same enlargement of briefs with respect to Google's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' original Class Action Complaint.

Now, the Parties agree and stipulate that the maximum page-length
for the memorandum of points and authorities in support of Google's
forthcoming motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's class action
complaint, and the Plaintiffs' opposition thereto, is 10 pages.

Having considered the Parties' stipulation to enlarge the briefs on
Google's forthcoming motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended
Class Action Complaint, and good cause appearing therefor, Judge
Breyer enters the Parties' stipulation pursuant to Civil Local Rule
7-12. The maximum page-length for the memorandum of points and
authorities in support of Google's forthcoming motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint, and the Plaintiffs'
opposition thereto, is 20 pages.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdh43dpu from Leagle.com.

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP BENJAMIN BERKOWITZ --
bberkowitz@keker.com -- THOMAS E. GORMAN -- tgorman@keker.com --
IAN KANIG CHRISTINA LEE -- clee@keker.com -- in San Francisco,
California, Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE LLC.


J.M. SMUCKER: Clark Mislabeling Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KIMBERLEY CLARK, on her own behalf and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. THE J. M.
SMUCKER COMPANY and THE FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
6:21-cv-00457, was transferred from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri on August 18,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:22-cv-00535-BP to the proceeding.

The suit arises from the Defendants' false and deceptive labeling
and advertising of their Folgers ground coffee products. The
Defendants have allegedly sold the products to consumers based on
the representation that they contain enough ground coffee to make
up to a specific number of servings. e.g., "240 6 floz cups".
However, by following Defendants' own preparation instructions, the
Folgers ground coffee products do not contain nearly enough ground
coffee to make the number of servings represented, says the suit.

THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY is an American manufacturer of jam,
peanut butter, jelly, fruit syrups, beverages, shortening, ice
cream toppings, and other food products in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bonner Charles Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          1561 Long Haul Road
          Grangeville, ID 83530
          Telephone: (541) 359-2827
          E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com

J.M. SMUCKER: Ferguson Liability Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TYNEISHA FERGUSON, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE J.M. SMUCKER
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00173, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Sept. 1,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 5:22-cv-01547-SL to the proceeding.

This consumer class action arises out of Defendant's alleged
unlawful and unreasonable conduct directly causing a Salmonella
outbreak impacting potentially thousands of U.S. consumers,
including Plaintiff, who purchased and/or consumed certain lots of
Jif peanut butter.

The J.M. Smucker Company, also known as Smucker, is an American
manufacturer of food and beverage products headquartered in
Orrville, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          Daniel M. Solar, Esq.
          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Michael A. Smith, Jr., Esq.
          DANNLAW
          15000 Madison Avenue
          Lakewood, OH 44107
          Telephone: (513) 645-3488
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: bflick@dannlaw.com
                  dsolar@dannlaw.com
                  msmith@dannlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
          Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
          Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW
          77 West Washington Street, Ste. 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: jeff@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com  

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ronald Y. Rothstein, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN-CHICAGO
          35 West Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 558-5600
          Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
          E-mail: RRothste@winston.com

               - and -

          Palmer G. Vance, II, Esq.
          STOLL KEENON OGDEN, PLLC - LEXINGTON
          300 W. Vine Street, Suite 2100
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 231-3000
          Facsimile: (859) 253-1093

KEYBANK NA: Fails to Secure Confidential Mortgage Info, Bozin Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BOZIN, as Executor of the Estate of AURORA MURGU,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KEYBANK, N.A.; and OVERBY-SEAWELL CO., Case No.
1:22-cv-01536 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 30, 2022) arises out of the
Defendants' unreasonable, unlawful, and unfair practices with
regard to their collection and maintenance of the highly sensitive
and confidential mortgage information.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
insufficient and unreasonable data security practices caused,
facilitated, and exacerbated the data breach and its impact on the
Plaintiff and the Class. The alleged data breach exposed the
Plaintiff's and Class's highly personally identifiable information
and financial information to criminals, including their names,
addresses, loan numbers, and Social Security numbers, says the
Plaintiff.

KEYBANK, N.A. operates as a bank. The Bank offers online banking,
insurance, investments, credit cards, and loans, as well as
mortgage and wealth management services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          DANNLAW
          15000 Madison Avenue
          Lakewood, OH 44107
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          Email: notices@dannlaw.com

               -and-

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          Email: www.attorneyzim.com
                 firm@attorneyzim.com

KIA AMERICA INC: Moon Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Kia America, Inc., et al. The
case is styled as Stacie Moon, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc., Hyundai Motor America,
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-07433-JPO
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2022).

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

Kia America, Inc. -- https://www.kia.com/us/en -- provides a wide
range of cars that meet your lifestyle.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B Katz, Esq.
          KENT, BEATTY & GORDON, LLP
          Eleven Times Square, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 421-4300
          Fax: (212) 421-4303
          Email: jbk@kbg-law.com


LATCH INC: Faces Brennan Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
SLATER BRENNAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LATCH, INC. f/k/a TS INNOVATION ACQUISITIONS
CORP.; LUKE SCHOENFELDE; GARTH MITCHELL; and BARRY SCHAEFFER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-07473 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2022) is a
class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Latch securities between May 13, 2021 and August
25, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), the Plaintiff seeking to
pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the complaint, on August 25, 2022, after the market
closed, Latch revealed that it would restate financial statements
for 2021 and the first quarter of 2022 due to revenue recognition
errors related to the sale of hardware devices. Specifically, the
Company stated that "certain revenue recognition errors occurred as
a result of unreported sales arrangements due to sales activity
that was inconsistent with the Company's internal controls and
procedures."

On this news, Latch's stock fell $0.13, or 12.2%, to close at $0.95
per share on August 26, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that there were unreported sales arrangements
related to hardware devices; (2) that, as a result, the Company had
improperly recognized revenue throughout fiscal 2021 and first
quarter 2022; (3) that there were material weaknesses in Latch's
internal control over financial reporting related to revenue
recognition; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Latch would
restate financial statements for fiscal 2021 and first quarter
2022; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis,
the suit says.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, alleges the suit.

LATCH, INC. operates as a technology company. The Company
specializes in keyless entry security systems to open and manage
every door in an apartment building from a smartphone. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          230 Park Ave., Suite 358
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com

                -and-

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

                -and-

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

LOS TRES POTRILLOS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cordoba Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA CAROLINA CORDOBA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v LOS TRES POTRILLOS RESTAURANT BAR,
INC.; JUAN CARLOS LUNA; MARIO VALDEZ; PEDRO LUNA; and YOLANDA
VALDEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05168 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 30,
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 Cordoba was employed by the Defendants as kitchen staff.

LOS TRES POTRILLOS RESTAURANT BAR, INC. operates as a restaurant in
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Liggieri, Esq.
          L & D LAW P.C.
          LIGGIERI & DUNISHA
          11 Broadway, Ste. 615
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 374-9786

LOUISIANA: Gov.'s Peremptory Exception in City Bar Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY BAR, INC., et al. v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, Case No.
2021 CA 1437 (La. App.), the Court of Appeal of Louisiana for the
First Circuit reverses the trial court's judgment granting the
Governor's peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause
of action and remands the matter to the trial court for proceedings
consistent with its Opinion.

On Jan. 11, 2021, City Bar, Inc. and other Louisiana business
owners operating bars serving alcohol and/or food pursuant to
lawfully issued permits by Louisiana authorities, filed the class
action lawsuit against John Bel Edwards in his official capacity as
the Governor of Louisiana.

The other Plaintiffs are ROSIE'S TAVERN, LLC, BIG DAN'S BAR, INC.,
BIG TYME INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A BIG DADDY'S PUB & GRUB, CD
ENTERPRISES OF HOUMA LLC D/B/A LARUSSA'S LOUNGE, CKBCPB5 LLC D/B/A
THE CHATTER BOX, DE & BC ENTERPRISES, LLC D/B/A D&B SPORTS BAR,
DOUG MCCARTHY ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A "501", JOM LLC D/B/A JUST ONE
MORE, LONGSHOTS 1, LLC D/B/A LONGSHOTZ, MY PLACE BAR & GRILL, LLC,
THE OUTER LIMITS BAR, LLC, PARADISE SPORTS BAR & DAIQUIRIS, LLC
D/B/A EPIC LOUNGE, POOL DO'S SPORTS BAR LLP, R&J LAPEYROUSE, LLC
D/B/A JEAUX'S NEW HORIZON, R. HEASLEY, LLC D/B/A RAM ROD'S SALOON,
SANDI'S ANCHOR LOUNGE, LLC D/B/A DA CAMP, TAP DAT, LLC D/B/A THE
BRASS MONKEY, TIPSY. CAJUN, LLC WANOUS, LLC, D/B/A AJ'S 2ND ST.
PUB, 910 E MAIN 33, LLC D/B/A QUARTER TAVERN, GROS MARINE SERVICES,
MADISONVILLE RIVERSIDE BAR, LLC, SWIDERSKI INVESTMENTS LLC DBA
LENNY'S AND YE OLDE MEMORIES, LLC.

In the petition, the bar owners alleged that they were uniquely
singled-out by a series of Executive Orders (sometimes referred to
collectively as the "Bar Closure Orders") closing and restricting
the operation of bars statewide for the purpose of slowing the
spread of COVID-19. They sought just compensation for the taking of
their property, permits, business operations, and income, to serve
the public good under the Governor's authority to confiscate or
commandeer private property pursuant to Article I, Section 4 of the
Louisiana Constitution and the Louisiana Health Emergency Powers
Act, La. R.S. 29:760, et seq. (LHEPA).

In their original and amended petitions, the bar owners alleged the
following facts: On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization
declared a global pandemic in response to the spread of COVID-19,
an infectious disease. That same day, Governor Edwards declared a
statewide public health emergency under LHEPA as a result of the
imminent, yet then-unknown threat posed to Louisiana citizens by
COVID-19. On March 22, 2020, Governor Edwards signed 33 JBE 2020,
commonly referred to as the "Stay at Home Order," directing
Louisiana citizens to stay at home unless taking essential trips
and ordering the closure of non-essential businesses. The Stay at
Home Order mandated the closure of pool halls, concert and music
halls, and bars.

Beginning in April of 2020, the Federal Government released a
series of guidelines for "opening up America again," which included
a three-phased approach to re-opening the country based on advice
of public health experts. On April 30, 2020, Governor Edwards
renewed the statewide Stay at Home Order, and three weeks later,
issued an order moving Louisiana into Phase 1 of reopening. The
order permitted certain businesses, including bars with a
state-issued food services permit, to reopen at 25% occupancy.
However, bars without food service permits issued by the Louisiana
Department of Health remained closed to the public.

On June 5, 2020, Governor Edwards issued an order moving Louisiana
into Phase 2 of the reopening, initially permitting bars, which had
been shuttered for nearly two and a half months, to be reopened.
Bars serving food were allowed to operate at 50% capacity. However,
on July 11, 2020, the Governor issued another order mandating the
re-closure of all bars, but no other businesses, for on-premises
consumption. On July 23, 2020, the Governor extended the Bar
Closure Order, but permitted all other non-essential businesses to
reopen under certain restrictions. In August of 2020, the Governor
extended the Bar Closure Order on August 6th and 26th.

On Sept. 11, 2020, the Governor issued an order moving Louisiana
into Phase 3 of the reopening. Although all other businesses were
allowed to operate at 75% capacity, bars were allowed to reopen at
25% capacity and under certain conditions: (1) the parish where the
bar is located had 5% or less COVID-19 positivity for two weeks,
and (2) the Parish elected to opt-in and reopen bars.

After being essentially closed for nine months, by mid-October to
early November, bars around the state were beginning to reopen at
25% capacity. However, on Nov. 24, 2020, in response to an increase
in COVID-19 cases, the Governor issued an order moving Louisiana
from a Phase 3 reopening to a modified Phase 2 shutdown effective
through at least Feb. 10, 2021. Modified Phase 2 order effectively
forced bars to close again entirely.

The bar owners alleged that the Governor's Bar Closure Order and
extensions thereof (referred to collectively as the Bar Closure
Orders) deprived them of the lawful use of their permits, in
particular, the right to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption,
as the bars had been effectively closed since the March 2020 Stay
at Home Order, except for brief, sporadic periods during the Phase
2 and Phase 3 orders when 25% occupancy was allowed.

The bar owners asserted three causes of action which they claimed
entitled them to just compensation and damages caused by the Bar
Closure Orders. In Count I of the petition, the bar owners asserted
a cause of action for inverse condemnation under Article I, Section
4 of the Louisiana Constitution. They based their takings claims on
the three-pronged test for evaluating takings claims under the
Louisiana Constitution enunciated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in
State Through Department of Transportation and Development v.
Chambers Investment Co., Inc., 595 So.2d 598, 603 (La. 1992). The
Plaintiffs alleged that their constitutional property rights were
taken and damaged under the Bar Closure Orders for the express
purpose of protecting the public by removing or reducing a risk to
public health or safety and that the removal of a threat to public
health or safety caused by the existing use or disuse of property
constitutes a "public purpose" under Article I, Section 4 of the
Constitution.

In Count II of the petition, the bar owners alleged that the Bar
Closure Orders constituted a "regulatory taking" under Article I,
Section 4 of the Louisiana Constitution and the jurisprudence
construing that provision. They cited Louisiana jurisprudence
recognizing that a regulatory taking occurs when a regulation
destroys a major portion of the property's value or eliminates the
practical economic uses of the property. They alleged that the Bar
Closure Orders destroyed the value of their permits by preventing
them from engaging in the sole economic use of those permits,
on-premises consumption of alcoholic beverages. Therefore, the bar
owners claimed, the closure of bars for on-premises consumption
constituted a regulatory taking.

In Count III of the petition, the bar owners asserted a cause of
action for the "statutory taking" of their property. They alleged
that the Bar Closure Orders, which were issued under the authority
of LHEPA, which provides that the Governor may, "subject to any
applicable requirements for compensation, commandeer or utilize any
private property if he finds this necessary to cope with the
disaster or emergency." They also cited a similar provision
contained in the Louisiana Homeland Security Assistance and
Disaster Act, La. R.S. 29:724(D)(4). They also cited La. R.S.
29:771(C), insisting that it mandates compensation for private
property "lawfully taken or appropriated by a public health
authority for its temporary or permanent use during a public health
emergency declared by the governor." The bar owners maintained the
closure of their businesses to protect some members of the public
from other members of the public constitutes a statutory taking
through the inverse commandeering or utilization of private
property under LHEPA, entitling them to just compensation and
damages caused by that statutory taking.

The Governor filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of
no cause of action, asserting that the bar owners could not state
cognizable takings claims under Louisiana law. He argued that his
exercise of the State's police power to implement life-saving
measures in promulgating the Bar Closure Orders did not constitute
a "taking" of the bar owners' property, regardless of whether that
property consists of permits to sell alcohol or the bars
themselves. He insisted that the use of a bar as a place for
alcohol consumption and social gathering at the time the
regulations were implemented threatened to injure the larger
community by increasing the spread of COVID-19. Accordingly, the
Governor posited that he discharged his duty to protect the lives
of Louisiana citizens in an emergency by restricting activities at
bars, and any damages resulting to the bar owners from those
restrictions are not compensable under Louisiana law.

The trial court agreed with the Governor's position and granted the
objection of no cause of action. In oral reasons for ruling, the
court found that the Bar Closure Orders did not constitute takings
for use of the bar owners' properties or rights by the government,
but instead were implemented as safety measures to protect the
public. It found there had been no expropriation of the bar owners'
properties that would entitle them to just compensation under
Louisiana law. It stressed that the pressure of a great danger,
like a global pandemic, justified reasonable restrictions of
constitutional rights for the safety of the general public.

The bar owners appealed, arguing that the trial court erred finding
that they failed to allege a constitutional or statutory cause of
action for compensation and damages for the inverse condemnation or
use of their private property as a result of the Governor's orders
issued to cope with the COVID-19 emergency.

The Court of Appeals explains that on an objection of no cause of
action, a court may consider only whether the plaintiff has stated
a legally cognizable claim on the face of the petition; it may not
evaluate the likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed in
establishing the elements of that cause of action. Examining the
allegations of the petition, it finds that the bar owners have
alleged sufficient facts to state cognizable takings claims under
Article I, Section 4 of the Louisiana Constitution against the
Governor in his official capacity.

The bar owners alleged that they had constitutionally protected
property rights in lawfully issued alcohol permits and income
derived from their business enterprises acting as bars. They
further alleged that these rights were taken and damaged by the
Governor for the express purpose of protecting the public by
removing or reducing a risk to public health or safety, satisfying
the "public purpose" prong of the constitutional takings' analysis.
Finally, the bar owners alleged that the Governor's Bar Closure
Orders constituted regulatory takings and damaged their property
rights, and thus, constituted takings in the constitutional sense.

As the jurisprudence demonstrates, a court can only determine
whether the bar owners can satisfy this prong of the State Through
Department of Transportation and Development v. Chambers Investment
Co., Inc., 595 So.2d 598, 603 (La. 1992) test after all of the
facts of the case are developed and those facts are properly
analyzed in the context of takings jurisprudence. The Court of
Appeal thus holds that the trial court erred in finding that the
Governor's Bar Closure Orders could not constitute takings in the
constitutional sense under any circumstances. Although there may be
procedural mechanisms available to the Governor to challenge the
efficacy of the bar owners' takings claims, it simply concludes
that an objection of no cause of action was not an appropriate
one.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeal reverses the trial court's
judgment granting the Governor's peremptory exception raising the
objection of no cause of action. It remands the matter to the trial
court for proceedings consistent with its Opinion. Appeal costs, in
the amount of $1,708, are assessed to Appellee Edwards, in his
official capacity as the Governor of Louisiana.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3wzwj2d6 from Leagle.com.

Jimmy R. Faircloth, Jr. -- info@fairclothlaw.com -- Mary Katherine
Price, Richard F. Norem, III -- enorem@fairclothlaw.com -- in
Alexandria, Louisiana, Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellants City
Bar, Inc., et al.

James M. Garner -- jgarner@shergarner.com -- Darnell Bludworth --
dbludworth@shergarner.com -- Joshua S. Force --
jforce@shergarner.com -- Christopher T. Chocheles --
cchocheles@shergarner.com -- Josie N. Serigne, Jack M. Weiss --
jmweiss@lsu.edu -- in New Orleans, Louisiana, Matthew F. Block, in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee John Bel
Edwards, In His Official, Capacity as Governor of the State of
Louisiana.


M & M FRUIT INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gutierrez Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
GENARO GUTIERREZ CALIXTO (A/K/A RUBEN), individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M & M FRUIT INC.
(D/B/A SUNRISE MARKET PLACE); and BASHIR ALKANDI, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-07471 (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2022) is an action against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate
wage statements.

Plaintiff Gutierrez was employed by the Defendants as stock
worker.

M & M FRUIT INC. owns and operates a deli, located at New York, NY,
under the name "Sunrise Market Place". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL, P.C.
          60 E 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          Email: catalina@csmlegal.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Shachno Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MATTHEW SHACHNO and JACKSON GAGE, individuals, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2022-00019579- CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
Aug. 18, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-01215-MMA-JLB to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs seek recovery for: (1) violation of
the Unfair Competition Law; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3)
failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to provide meal periods;
(5) failure to provide rest periods; (6) failure to provide
accurate wage statements; (7) failure to reimburse employees for
required business expenses; (8) failure to provide wages due upon
separation of employment; (9) failure to provide gratuities; and
(10) failure to pay sick pay wages.

Marriott International, Inc. is an American multinational company
that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel,
residential, and timeshare properties.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joseph W. Ozmer II, Esq.
          Kristapor Vartanian, Esq.
          J. Scott Carr, Esq.
          KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
          333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2225
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 493-3980
          Facsimile: (404) 400-7333
          E-mail: jozmer@kcozlaw.com
                  kvartanian@kcozlaw.com
                  scarr@kcozlaw.com

MASSAGE ENVY: Valenzuela Privacy Suit Removed to the C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SONYA VALENZUELA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 22STCV23456, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 17,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-05817 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that Massage Envy's website,
https://www.massageenvy.com "secretly monitors the keystrokes and
mouseclicks" of visitors engaging with the Website's chatbot
feature, and claims that Massage Envy is thus "wiretapping" those
visitors to the Website in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, California Penal Code.

Massage Envy Franchising LLC is an American massage and skin care
national franchisor, based in Scottsdale, Arizona.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Becca J. Wahlquist, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 547-4900
          Facsimile: (213) 547-4901
          E-mail: BWahlquist@kelleydrye.com

MCDERMOTT INT'L: Dismissal of Supplemental Edwards Suit Recommended
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIRIAM EDWARDS, et al., Plaintiffs v. McDERMOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
4:18-cv-04330 (S.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, recommends that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Section 10(b) Supplemental Class Action Complaint be
granted.

The lawsuit is a securities class action lawsuit brought on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of McDermott against McDermott
and two of its former top executives, President and CEO David
Dickson and Executive VP and CFO Stuart Spence.

In the Corrected Class Action Complaint, Lead Plaintiff Nova Scotia
Health Employees' Pension Plan brings claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The crux of the Corrected Class Action
Complaint is that Defendants made misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the true risks and costs of McDermott's May 2018 merger
with Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., N.V. The Corrected Class Action
Complaint's proposed class consists of those persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired McDermott common stock between
Dec. 18, 2017 and Sept. 7, 2019.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Corrected Class Action
Complaint. In the spring of 2021, Judge George C. Hanks, Jr. denied
the motion to dismiss and ordered that discovery proceed.

Last fall, Novia Scotia sought leave to file a Supplement to its
Corrected Class Action Complaint. Over vigorous opposition, Judge
Edison granted Novia Scotia leave to file the Supplement. He also
set a briefing schedule for the Defendants' anticipated motion to
dismiss the Supplement.

In short, the 30-page Supplement carries forward the allegations of
securities fraud from Sept. 17, 2019, through McDermott's
bankruptcy filing on Jan. 23, 2020. In doing so, the Supplement
adds roughly 20 allegedly false and misleading statements made by
Defendants, ranging in time from late September 2019 through Jan.
23, 2020. The Supplement also offers a new theory of liability,
arguing that Defendants had a duty to disclose that it was planning
for a potential bankruptcy filing. Section V of the Supplement,
titled "Additional Partial Corrective Disclosures," pleads November
4-5 of 2019 and January 21-23 of 2020 events and stock drops as
partially corrective of alleged misstatements previously pleaded in
the Corrected Class Action Complaint. Finally, the Supplement seeks
to expand the class definition to cover the time period from Sept.
18, 2019 through Jan. 23, 2020.

As expected, the Defendants have moved to dismiss the Supplement,
raising a number of distinct arguments. First, they contend that
the Supplement fails to allege any actionable false or misleading
statement. Second, they argue that there is no legal duty to
disclose bankruptcy planning, and creating such a duty would lead
to disastrous policy consequences. Third, they insist that the
alleged misrepresentations are nothing more than non-actionable
puffery, statements of opinion, or protected forward-looking
statements. Fourth, they aver that the Supplement fails to
establish the requisite inference of scienter required under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").

As a preliminary matter, Judge Edison needs to address Nova
Scotia's objection to various news articles attached to the Motion
to Dismiss as Exhibits 4-6 and 8-9. Nova Scotia objects to these
exhibits on the grounds that they are not attached to or
incorporated in the Supplement. Nova Scotia is correct, Judge
Edison finds.

In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court may
consider: (1) the pleadings and any attachment to the pleadings;
(2) documents incorporated into the complaint by reference; and (3)
documents that a defendant attaches to its motion to dismiss if
those documents are referenced in the plaintiff's complaint and are
central to the plaintiff's claim. Because the news articles at
issue clearly do not fall with any of these well-defined
exceptions, Judge Edison strikes Exhibits 4-6 and 8-9 from
consideration.

To state a claim for a violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a
plaintiff must first plead a material misrepresentation or
omission. Judge Edison finds that Nova Scotia has failed to allege
any actionable misrepresentation or omission by the Defendants.

By his count, the Supplement identifies approximately 20 statements
that it contends are materially false or misleading. A close look
at those statements, however, fails to reveal any statement made by
Defendants that was factually untrue or misleading at the time it
was made. Although the Supplement is well-written and certainly
conveys its thematic message that the Defendants reportedly knew
that bankruptcy was a foregone conclusion, Nova Scotia cannot point
to a single statement in which Defendants affirmatively denied the
possibility that it would file for bankruptcy protection.

The Supplement fails to identify a materially false or misleading
statement. Because he has concluded that the Supplement does not
allege an actionable misrepresentation, Judge Edison must now
determine whether the Supplement alleges an actionable omission.

After carefully reviewing the documents referenced in the
Supplement, which clearly indicate that McDermott analyzed both
in-court and out-of-court options to address its capital structure,
Judge Edison is unwilling to jump to the conclusion that the
Defendants knew all along that bankruptcy was the only real
alternative to its business problems. All told, he refuses to fault
the Defendants for failing to disclose that McDermott was
considering bankruptcy. In reaching this conclusion, he follows the
reasoning of the overwhelming majority of federal courts which have
held that a company's "failure to disclose its bankruptcy planning
does not make its other disclosures misleading." Accordingly, Nova
Scotia has failed to allege an actionable omission.

In short, the Supplement has failed to identify a misleading
statement or material omission actionable under Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5(b). Judge Edison thus recommends that the Supplement's
new Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) claims be dismissed. Nova
Scotia's Section 20(a) claim against Dickson and Spence likewise
fails, as it is predicated on a successful Section 10(b) claim.
Because he has concluded that Nova Scotia has failed to identify a
misleading statement or omission, Judge Edison need not address
whether the Supplement's federal securities claims should also be
dismissed for the failure to allege scienter.

For the reasons he explained, Judge Edison recommends that the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Section 10(b)
Supplemental Class Action Complaint be granted. The claims arising
out of the alleged additional materially false and misleading
statements and omissions set forth in paragraphs 6 to 15 of the
Supplement should be dismissed. At the same time, the
recommendation is not intended to impact the additional partial
corrective disclosures set forth in paragraphs 16 to 24 of the
Supplement, or the extension of the class period to Jan. 23, 2020,
as described in paragraph 4 of the Supplement.

The Clerk will provide copies of the Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have 14 days from receipt to file
written objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b) and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections
within the time period mentioned will bar an aggrieved party from
attacking the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2022 Memorandum &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/2a6byez6 from
Leagle.com.


MDL 2873: Abbott Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN ABBOTT, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. 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-02950-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 1, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.

As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges
the suit.

The Abbott case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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.[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

MDL 2873: Beckius Sues Over PFAS' Hazardous Effects on Humans
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH BECKIUS AND DENISE BECKIUS, husband and wife, Plaintiffs v.
3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., BASF
CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba
Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.,
CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS INC., CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, L.L.C., and TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. Defendants, Case
No. 2:22-cv-02771-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 19, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning,
design defect, strict products liability, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express and implied warranties, punitive damages, and
loss of consortium.

The case arises from a personal injury sustained by Plaintiff
Joseph Beckius, the spouse of Plaintiff Denise Beckius, 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 firefighter trainees 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, says the suit.

Plaintiff Joseph Beckius regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training exercises, live fire emergencies, and
while maintaining and cleaning AFFF stations during his time
serving in the Navy. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was
diagnosed with testicular cancer in November 2016, the suit
alleges.

The Beckius case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence R. Cohan, Esq.
          Joshua C. Cohan, Esq.  
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY P.C.
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market St., 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3887
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: lcohan@smbb.com
                  jcohan@smbb.com

MDL 2873: Brookover Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
HARLAN BROOKOVER, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. 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-02945-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 1, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.

As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges
the suit.

The Brookover case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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.[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

MDL 2873: Dodge Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
---------------------------------------------------------------
EARL DODGE and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA
MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.; KIDDE FIRE
FIGHTING, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE
& SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, INCLUSIVE; Case No.
2:22-cv-02770-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 19, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.

This suit deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF") that were
designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds. AFFF
compounding includes Perfluoro octane Sulfonate (commonly known as
"PFOS"), PerfluorooctanoicAcid (commonly known as "PFOA"), and/or
other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with PFOS and
PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS") which are manmade organofluorine
compounds (in this case commonly referred to as fluorinated
surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants). The compounds are designed
to lower the surface tension of water so as to create a
firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for
example, jet fuel fires.

The Plaintiff joined the U.S. Air Force and was subsequently
assigned to Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. At all times
relevant, Plaintiff lived/worked on Base at Cannon AFB using and
drinking the water. On information and belief, Cannon AFB has a
PFAS environmental contamination level of 27,000 ppt (EPA max of
70ppt). In or about 2015, Dodge was diagnosed with thyroid disease
and commenced on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical
intervention via thyroidectomy. As known by Defendants, thyroid
disease is a disease linked to PFAS contamination, says the suit.

The Dodge case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
          VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
          700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (888) 215-7834
          E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com  

               - and -

          S. James Boumil, Esq.
          BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
          120 Fairmount Street
          Lowell, MA, 01852
          Telephone: (978) 458-0507
          E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com

               - and -


          Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
          KYROS LAW
          17 Miles Rd.
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (800) 934-2921
          E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

MDL 2873: Gregoire Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
-------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE GREGOIRE and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.;
KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS,
LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100,
INCLUSIVE; Case No. 2:22-cv-02780-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 19, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict
liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violations of the
Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.

This suit deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF") that were
designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds. AFFF
compounding includes Perfluoro octane Sulfonate (commonly known as
"PFOS"), PerfluorooctanoicAcid (commonly known as "PFOA"), and/or
other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with PFOS and
PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS") which are manmade organofluorine
compounds (in this case commonly referred to as fluorinated
surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants). The compounds are designed
to lower the surface tension of water so as to create a
firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for
example, jet fuel fires.

The Plaintiff joined the United States Marine Corps and was
subsequently assigned to Quantico, Virginia (2004-2008). At all
times relevant, Plaintiff lived/worked on Base at Quantico using
and drinking the water. On information and belief, Quantico, inter
alia, has suspected PFAS environmental contamination. In or about
2008, Gregoire was diagnosed with thyroid disease and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via
thyroidectomy. As known by Defendants, thyroid disease is a disease
linked to PFAS contamination, says the suit.

The Gregoire case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
          VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
          700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (888) 215-7834
          E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com  

               - and -

          S. James Boumil, Esq.
          BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
          120 Fairmount Street
          Lowell, MA, 01852
          Telephone: (978) 458-0507
          E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com

               - and -


          Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
          KYROS LAW
          17 Miles Rd.
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (800) 934-2921
          E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

MDL 2873: Williams Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. 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-02951-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 1, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to exercise
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.

As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges
the suit.

The Williams case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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.[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

MDL 2873: Young Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL YOUNG, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. 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-02755-RMG
(D.S.C., Aug. 17, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable, ordinary and appropriate care in the design,
manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling,
marketing, and distribution of AFFF products containing synthetic,
toxic PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human
health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and
can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. He relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the
suit.

As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges
the suit.

The Young case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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.[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

MERRILL GARDENS: Holguin Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RAMONA CHRISTINA HOLGUIN, an individual, on behalf
of herself, the State of California, as a private attorney general,
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERRILL
GARDENS, LLC; and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-04686,
was removed from the United States District Court for the Central
District of California to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California on Aug. 18, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-01042-JLT-BAM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint asserts 11 causes of action: (1) failure
to pay all minimum wages; (2) failure to pay all overtime wages;
(3) failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period
premiums; (4) failure to pay meal periods and pay missed meal
period premiums; (5) failure to maintain accurate employment
records; (6) failure to pay wages timely during employment; (7)
failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation; (8)
failure to reimburse business expenses; (9) failure to furnish
accurate itemized wage statements; (10) unfair competition law, and
(11) Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act penalties.

Merrill Gardens, LLC owns and operates senior living
communities.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Diane Marie O'Malley, Esq.
          Samantha A. Botros, Esq.
          Alexa F. Galloway, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          425 Market Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
          E-mail: domalley@hansonbridgett.com
                  sbotros@hansonbridgett.com
                  agalloway@hansonbridgett.com

META PLATFORMS: Settles Cambridge Analytica Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Dobberstein, writing for The Register, reports that Meta's
Platforms has reached an agreement to settle the consumer lawsuits
brought as a result of Cambridge Analytica's unauthorized
harvesting of user data -- an outcome that means Facebook execs
won't be required to testify in court.

A filing dated August 26 requested that judge Vince Chhabria put
the class action on hold for sixty days while parties finalize a
written settlement. The amount of the settlement on the
four-year-old lawsuit remains undisclosed.

The lawsuit, brought by a group of users, alleges that UK-based
Cambridge Analytica created a Facebook app called "This Is Your
Digital Life" that was downloaded 300,000 times and harvested
users' data. The app also accessed data describing users' Facebook
Friends, potentially accessing personal information of 80
million-plus users.

All that data is alleged to have been used during the USA's 2016
Presidential election, campaigners for Brexit, and by Russian
misinformation operatives.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg was hauled in to testify before US
Congress to explain how his company had enabled data harvesting and
why it had not policed it properly.

Zuck's 2018 appearance in Congress was rather odd - the CEO
answered several questions about the business he founded with bland
comments along the lines of "I do not recall."

The fallout for Facebook from the revelations includes the loss of
two previous privacy cases, a $5 billion penalty levied by the US
Federal Trade Commission, and a $630,000 fine levied by UK
authorities.

By settling the lawsuit, Zuckerberg and soon-to-be-former COO
Sheryl Sandberg avoid having to appear at their September 20
scheduled depositions.

"It is a measure of how desperate Zuckerberg is to avoid answering
questions about Facebook's cover-up of the Cambridge Analytica data
breach that Facebook has settled this case just days away from him
being cross-examined under oath for six hours," stated Carole
Cadwalladr, the journalist who investigated and reported on
Facebook's entanglement with Cambridge Analytica.

Cadwalladr argued the settlement was proof Facebook was "prepared
to pay almost any sum of money" to spare its executives from taking
the stand -- and likely embarrassing themselves and further
damaging whatever smidgen of positive reputation Meta/Facebook
possesses after whistleblower Frances Haugen dished on how it
blithely ignores the harm it does to users. Not to mention various
other scandals that seem always to produce an apology and promise
to do better . . . until the next scandal reveals fresh misdeeds.
[GN]

MICHAEL KORS: Valenzuela Privacy Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SONYA VALENZUELA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL KORS (USA), INC., a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 22STCV23635, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Aug. 19, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-05902-SPG-AFM to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that MK's website https://www.michaelkors.com
"secretly deployed 'keystroke monitoring' software to
surreptitiously intercept, monitor, and record the communications
(including keystrokes and mouse clicks) of all of visitors to its
Website." The Plaintiff alleges that MK "has violated and continues
to violate the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal
Code."

Michael Kors (USA), Inc. designs and sells apparel, accessories,
and footwear.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Becca J. Wahlquist, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP  
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 547-4900
          Facsimile: (213) 547-4901
          E-mail: BWahlquist@kelleydrye.com

MRS BPO: Reed Class Suit Remanded to Cook County Circuit Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CORIE REED, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, L.L.C. d/b/a MRA
ASSOCIATES OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-CV-04066 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge Edmond E. Chang of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, remanded the case
back to the Cook County Circuit Court.

Ms. Reed brought the proposed class action in state court against
MRS BPO, a debt collection agency, alleging violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (commonly known in debt-collection
circles as the FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. She claims
that MRS violated the FDCPA in two ways: (1) by sharing her private
information with a third-party letter vendor without her consent;
and (2) by placing language or symbols other than MRS' address on
the debt collection letter.

According to MRS, Reed incurred a debt related to a JPMorgan Chase
Bank account. When she failed to pay the debt, her account went
into default. As part of trying to collect the outstanding debt,
MRS used a letter vendor to send a letter to Reed about the
defaulted account. MRS gave the letter vendor Reed's name and
address, the details of her account -- including that she owed
money -- and other personal information. The letter vendor then
populated a prewritten template with some or all of the information
and mailed the letter to Reed on MRS' behalf.

Ms. Reed received and read the letter, which came in an envelope
with a transparent window that showed her name, address, and a
return address. The envelope window also showed a bar code and a
series of numbers other than MRS' address. Reed had not given MRS
consent to share her personal information with the letter vendor.

MRS removed the case to federal court, invoking federal-question
jurisdiction.

Judge Chang explains that removal of a case to federal court is
typically governed by 28 U.S.C. Section 1441. Generally speaking,
so long as a case could have been filed in federal court, the case
may be removed. If, after removal, it appears that the district
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case will be remanded.
The party seeking removal has the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction." So in removal cases such as the present case, MRS
bears the burden of showing that the Plaintiff had Article III
standing at the time of removal. Failure to meet this burden
results in the remand of the removed case.

To have standing to bring a federal case, a "plaintiff must have
(1) suffered an injury in fact (2) that is fairly traceable to the
challenged conduct of the defendant and (3) that is likely to be
redressed by a favorable judicial decision." The question in the
case is whether Reed suffered an injury in fact arising from the
nonconsensual communication of her information by MRS to the
mailing vendor and from MRS' inclusion of symbols other than its
address on the envelope mailed her.

Ms. Reed herself contends that the answer is no. She says that she
has not alleged a concrete harm beyond the statutory violation, nor
are there any facts in the Complaint that could support such an
allegation. Judge Chang opines that the Complaint simply lacks
"clearly alleged facts demonstrating each element" of standing. So
there is no Article III jurisdiction over the case.

Disclosure to the letter vendor is inapt to the tort of public
disclosure of private facts. It is true that Reed's motion for
class certification nods to potential privacy concerns, for
example, by alleging that an unauthorized third party (the letter
vendor) now possesses Reed's information and that MRS disregarded
the propriety and privacy of the information it disclosed. However,
neither the Complaint nor Reed's jurisdictional statement include
facts suggesting that the mailing vendor made her information
public, or that more than a single person even read Reed's
information. If anything, based on the allegations that a letter
template was used, it is plausible that the information was simply
populated by computer into the pre-made letter template. So, again,
there are no allegations of a concrete injury in fact sufficient to
confer Article III standing.

Judge Chang concludes that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction because Reed has not alleged a concrete injury
sufficient to satisfy Article III. The case is dismissed for lack
of federal subject matter jurisdiction and remanded forthwith back
to the Cook County Circuit Court. The status hearing of Sept. 2,
2022, is vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yjssktak from
Leagle.com.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Valenzuela Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sonya Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV24136 was removed from
the Superior Court of CA County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for Central District of California on Aug. 30,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-06177-MEMF-SK to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company -- https://www.nationwide.com/
-- operates as an insurance and financial services provider.[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
          Phone: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                 dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com
                 vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joel D Siegel, Esq.
          Paul M. Kakuske, Esq.
          Pooja Shah, Esq.
          DENTONS LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5704
          Phone: (213) 623-9300
          Fax: (213) 623-9924
          Email: joel.siegel@dentons.com
                 paul.kakuske@dentons.com
                 pooja.l.shah@dentons.com

               - and -

          Sonia Renee Martin, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          1999 Harrison Street Suite 1300
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: (415) 882-5000
          Fax: (415) 882-0300
          Email: sonia.martin@dentons.com


NELNET SERVICING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Carlson Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CARLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NELNET SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-03184 (D. Neb., Aug. 31, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
personal identifiable information ("PII") for student loan
borrowers who used Defendant's loan servicing portal, including,
but not limited to, name, address, email address, phone number, and
Social Security number.

On or before July 21, 2022, Defendant learned of a network
disruption on its network (the "Data Breach"). The PII of the
Plaintiff and the Class was compromised due to the Defendant's
negligent and careless acts and omissions and the failure to
protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members. In addition to the
Defendant's failure to prevent the Data Breach, the Defendant
waited several months after the Data Breach occurred to report it
to the states' Attorneys General and affected individuals, says the
suit.

The Defendant has also purposefully maintained secret the specific
vulnerabilities and root causes of the breach and has not informed
Plaintiff and Class Members of that information. As a result of
this delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea
their PII had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to
be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms
of personal, social, and financial harm, including the sharing and
detrimental use of their sensitive information. The risk will
remain for their respective lifetimes, the suit alleges.

Nelnet Servicing, LLC provides education services. The Company
offers educational services in loan servicing, payment processing,
education planning, and asset management. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Rd., 4th Floor
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
          Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com

               -and-

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
          BUSINESS DIVISION
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Email: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                 rmaxey@ForThePeople.com

NELNET SERVICING: Herrick Files Suit in D. Nebraska
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nelnet Servicing,
LLC. The case is styled as Jesse Herrick, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC,
Case No. 4:22-cv-03181 (D. Neb., Aug. 30, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Nelnet Servicing -- https://www.nelnet.com/ -- provides education
services. The Company offers educational services in loan
servicing, payment processing, education planning, and asset
managemen.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary M Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP - CHICAGO, IL
          227 W Monroe St., Ste. 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 283-3814
          Fax: (773) 496-8617
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com


ONETOUCHPOINT CORP: Haid Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shira Haid, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ONETOUCHPOINT CORP. ("OTP"), Case No. 2:22-cv-00946-BHL
(E.D. Wis., Aug. 17, 2022), is brought against OTP for its failure
to secure and safeguard her and approximately 1,073,316 other
individuals' personally identifiable information ("PII") and
personal health information ("PHI"), including names, addresses,
healthcare member IDs, and other information provided during health
assessments.

On April 28, 2022, OTP detected encrypted files on some of its
systems and began investigating the incident. OTP's investigation
later revealed that an unauthorized party had accessed certain OTP
servers on April 27, 2022 (the "Data Breach"). On June 3, 2022, OTP
provided a summary of its investigation to its customers. It did
not send out letters to individuals impacted by the breach until
July 27, 2022. OTP reported that the scope of information involved
includes an individual's name, member ID, and information that may
have been provided during a health assessment, including dates of
service, description of service, diagnosis codes, and other medical
information.

OTP owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and
maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure,
protect, and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' PII/PHI
against unauthorized access and disclosure. OTP breached that duty
by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain
reasonable security procedures and practices to protect patients'
PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of
OTP's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations,
the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class members'
PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action seeks to remedy
these failings and their consequences, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff previously received healthcare services through
Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative which was a healthcare
provider customer of OTP.

The Defendant is a mailing and printing services vendor, which
offers print, marketing execution, and supply chain management
services to organizations in the healthcare sector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
          Riley W. Prince, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312.621.2000
          Fax: 312.641.5504
          Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
                 aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
                 rprince@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
          Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          One Haverford Centre
          361 Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: (610) 642-8500
          Email: bfj@chimicles.com
                 seh@chimicles.com
                 amk@chimicles.com


PARLER INC: Golden Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled DALE T. GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARLER, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 22-CA-005372, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida
to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, on Aug. 18, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:22-cv-01893-MSS-SPF to the proceeding.

The suit arises from the Defendant's engagement in telephonic sales
calls to consumers to promote its goods and services without having
secured prior express written consent as required by the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.

Parler, Inc. operates a social media platform.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Neil P. DiSpirito, Esq.
          BROWN RUDNICK LLP
          601 Thirteenth Street NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 536-1794
          Facsimile: (617) 289-0794
          E-mail: ndispirito@brownrudnick.com

POINT PICK-UP: Duarte Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled COLLEEN DUARTE, an individual, on behalf of
herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. POINT PICK-UP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. SCV-270882, was removed
from the Superior Court of California in and for the County of
Sonoma to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, on Aug. 19, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-04789 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action against PPUP, all of
which are predicated upon her alleged employment status under the
California Labor Code: (1) unlawful, unfair and deceptive business
practices; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to pay
overtime wages; (4) failure to provide required meal periods; (5)
failure to provide required rest periods; (6) failure to provide
accurate itemized statements; (7) failure to reimburse employees
for required expenses; (8) failure to pay wages when due; and (9)
wrongful termination in violation of public policy, on an
individual basis.

Point Pick-Up Technologies, Inc. is a mobile app delivery platform
that provides on-demand, pre-scheduled, and recurring same-day
delivery needs.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cary G. Palmer, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 341-0404
          Facsimile: (916) 341-0141
          E-mail: Cary.Palmer@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Jamielee F. Martinez, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.   
          333 West San Carlos Street, Suite 1625
          San Jose, CA 95110
          Telephone: (408) 579-0404
          Facsimile: (408) 454-0290
          E-mail: Jamie.Martinez@jacksonlewis.com

PRACTICE RESOURCES: Bachura Files Suit in N.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Practice Resources,
LLC. The case is styled as John Bachura, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Practice Resources, LLC, Case
No. 5:22-cv-00905-LEK-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2022).

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

Practice Resources, LLC is a premier medical billing and practice
management company centrally located in downtown Syracuse.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.-NEW YORK OFFICE
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 558-5500
          Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Ct Junks Prelim Approval of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA VECCHIO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC., EXAMONE WORLD WIDE, INC., and EXAMONE LLC,
Case No. 1:16-cv-05165-ER-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo
Ramos entered an order denying preliminary approval of class and
collective action settlement.

Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Dcp7Kr at no extra charge.[CC]


R & B CORPORATION: Friedman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R & B Corporation of
Virginia. The case is styled as Esther Friedman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. R & B Corporation of
Virginia doing business as: d/b/a Credit Control Corporation, Case
No. 7:22-cv-07424 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2022).

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

R & B Corporation of Virginia doing business as Credit Control
Corporation -- https://creditcontrol.net/ -- provides superior
collection services for clients, professional communications with
consumers, and an energized working environment for employees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com


RESERVEBAR EXPRESS: Berman TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BARRY BERMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESERVEBAR EXPRESS CORP.
d/b/a MINIBAR DELIVERY, Defendant, Case No.
50-2022-CA-005114-XXXX-MB, was removed from the Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Aug.
18, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 9:22-cv-81282 to the proceeding.

The action was commenced by the Plaintiff on May 26, 2022, alleging
purported claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and its Florida analog, the Florida Telephone Solicitation
Act.

Reservebar Express Corp. provides on-demand delivery of wine,
spirits, beer & mixers.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Josh A. Migdal, Esq.
          Yaniv Adar, Esq.
          MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
          80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 374-0440           
          E-mail: josh@markmigdal.com
                  yaniv@markmigdal.com

SANTANDER HOLDINGS: LCERS Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Santander Holdings
USA, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lycoming County Employees'
Retirement System, The Liverpool Limited Partnership, Elliott
International L.P., and others similarly situated v. Santander
Holdings USA, Inc., Banco Santander, S.A., Edith E. Holiday,
Homaira Akbari, Javier Maldonado, Juan Carlos Alvarez de Soto,
Leonard Coleman Jr., Mahesh Aditya, Robert J. McCarthy, Stephen A.
Ferriss, Victor Hill, William F. Muir, William Rainer, Defendants;
New Castle County, Sheriff; Case No. 2022-0723-LWW (Del. Chancery
Ct., Aug. 16, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."

Santander Holdings USA, Inc. -- https://www.santanderus.com/ --
operates as a holding company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory V Varallo, Esq.
          Phone: (212) 554-1408
          Fax: (212) 554-1444

               - and -

          Glenn McGillivray, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP-WILMINGTON
          500 Delaware Ave Ste 901
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (212) 554-1944
          Email: glenn.mcgillivray@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Meyer, Esq.
          Phone: (212) 554-1408
          Fax: (212) 554-1444


SEDGWICK COUNTY, KS: Gilmore Must Show Cause in Suit v. Easter
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER GILMORE, Plaintiff v. JEFF EASTER, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-3181-JWL-JPO (D. Kan.), Magistrate James P.
O'Hara of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
requires the Plaintiff to show good cause to Judge John W.
Lungstrum why the action should not be dismissed due to the
deficiencies in his complaint and gives him the opportunity to file
an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies.

The Plaintiff, a detainee at the Sedgwick County Adult Detention
Center in Wichita, Kansas ("SCADC"), filed the pro se civil rights
case under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. He captions his Complaint as
being brought in his own name, as well as by "1400 Unknown
Inmates."

In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges a "refusal to obey laws,
conspiracy to deprive rights to constitutionally protected
activities." He alleges that although he "posted private sureties
in amount of $500,000 against a $300,000 required bond pursuant to
Pledge of Assets KSA 84-3-104, KSA 84-1-206, KSA 84-9-108" the
attorney for the Sheriff's Department told them to ignore his
documents and "Negotiable Instruments" and to deny him legal
materials, access to the law library, or "anything to do with
Electronic Filing."

As Count I, the Plaintiff claims a conspiracy to interfere with
civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3). He claims that there
is correspondence from multiple staff at the jail to him and staff
members, indicating to deny him any access to legal materials,
copies, law library, Electronic Filing, or to recognize or respond
to Electronic Documents and Negotiable Instruments.

As Count II, the Plaintiff claims "Civil Rights and Elective
Franchise" under 28 U.S.C. Section 1343(a)(1)(2)(3). He alleges
that "all accused" were warned multiple times to cease and desist
in their individual capacities and staff could have prevented or
aided in preventing "but chose to ignore his written
notifications." I

The Plaintiff alleges "Prohibited Activities" under 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962(a)(b)(c) as Count III. He claims: Interfering with
Meaningful Access to Courts; Interfering with Commerce; and
Depriving Income or Maintaining Income from Illegal Acts.

The Plaintiff alleges as Count IV that in April 2022, another
inmate was severely beaten by officers and he gave a statement
about the incident to a detective. He alleges that staff and
investigators are attempting to coverup the criminal acts.

The Plaintiff names as defendants: Jeff Easter, Sedgwick County
Sheriff; the Sedgwick County Board of Commissioners; Laura
Oblinger, Retained Attorney for Sheriff's Department; (fnu) Pray,
Lieutenant; (fnu) Anderson, Corporal; (fnu) Sauls, Corporal; and
the Sedgwick County Sheriff's Department. He seeks $1.4 billion in
monetary relief, the appointment of a Special Master & Amicus
Curiae, immediate release on previously posted bond, appointment of
counsel, and "equipment to complete tasks.

Initially, Judge O'Hara finds that the Plaintiff's bald allegation
of a conspiracy is insufficient to state a claim. He says, the
Plaintiff fails to assert factual allegations in support of his
claim. To state a claim for conspiracy, the Plaintiff must include
in his complaint enough factual allegations to suggest that an
agreement was made.  A bare assertion of conspiracy, absent context
implying a meeting of the minds, fails to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level. The Plaintiff provides no factual
information whatsoever to demonstrate any type of agreement was
made between anyone. Such conclusory allegations fail to state a
plausible claim for relief.

The Plaintiff's conspiracy allegation under Section 1985(3) fails
because he has not shown discriminatory animus against him based on
his membership in a protected class and therefore Section 1985 does
not provide the Court with a basis for jurisdiction. He has failed
to state a valid claim of conspiracy and should show good cause why
this claim should not be dismissed.

Next, the Plaintiff claims that he has been denied access to legal
materials, copies, a law library and electronic filing. It is
well-established that a prison inmate has a constitutional right of
access to the courts. However, it is equally well-settled that in
order "to present a viable claim for denial of access to courts, an
inmate must allege and prove prejudice arising from the defendants'
actions."

Judge O'Hara holds that the Plaintiff has not alleged that staff at
the SCADC prevented him from accessing the courts or caused him
actual injury. The claim is not plausible, particularly since he
was able to file the action in federal district court as well as a
Motion to Waiver of All Filing Fees/Costs and a Motion to Appoint
Counsel for Primary Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's claim is subject to
dismissal.

In Count IV, the Plaintiff alleges that another inmate was beaten
and staff and investigators attempted to coverup the criminal acts.
It is well-settled that a Section 1983 claim must be based on the
violation of a plaintiff's personal rights and not the rights of
someone else. To the extent the Plaintiff raises claims on behalf
of others, a review of the allegations contained in his Complaint
indicates he lacks standing to do so. "General observations" about
prison conditions are not actionable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
The Plaintiff should show good cause why his claims in Count IV
should not be dismissed for lack of standing.

As Count II, the Plaintiff claims "Civil Rights and Elective
Franchise" under 28 U.S.C. Section 1343(a)(1)(2)(3). He alleges
that "all accused" were warned multiple times to cease and desist
in their individual capacities and staff could have prevented or
aided in preventing "but chose to ignore his written
notifications." He alleges "Prohibited Activities" under 18 U.S.C.
Section 1962(a)(b)(c) as Count III. He claims: Interfering with
Meaningful Access to Courts; Interfering with Commerce; and
Depriving Income or Maintaining Income from Illegal Acts. Section
1962 deals with prohibited activities under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Judge O'Hara holds that the Plaintiff fails to assert factual
allegations in support of these claims. The Plaintiff refers to
"all accused" or "prohibited activities," but fails to explain what
each Defendant did to him; when the Defendant did it; how its
action harmed the Plaintiff; and what specific legal right the
Plaintiff believes the defendant violated. The Court "will not
supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's
complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff's behalf."

To the extent the Plaintiff seeks to modify his bond in his
criminal case, the Court would be prohibited from hearing his claim
under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). The Younger
doctrine requires a federal court to abstain from hearing a case
where (1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) that
implicate an important state interest; and (3) the state
proceedings offer an adequate opportunity to litigate federal
constitutional issues." Judge O'Hara holds that the Plaintiff's
claims are insufficient to trigger any of the Younger exceptions.
If this claim is construed as a petition for habeas corpus, the
Plaintiff fares no better.

The Plaintiff also seeks $1.4 billion in monetary relief, the
appointment of a Special Master & Amicus Curiae, immediate release
on previously posted bond, appointment of counsel, and "equipment
to complete tasks." Judge O'Hara finds that the request for
compensatory damages is barred by 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(e),
because the Plaintiff has failed to allege a physical injury. His
request for release must be brought in a habeas action. A Section
1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a
constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but
not to the fact or length of his custody.

The Plaintiff's caption suggests he is attempting to bring the
action in his own name, as well as on behalf of 1400 inmates at the
SCADC. Judge O'Hara says the case cannot proceed as a class action
with any pro se plaintiff as class representative. A pro se
plaintiff cannot adequately represent a class.

The Plaintiff has also filed a "Motion to Waiver of All filing
Fees/Costs." He alleges that "the plaintiffs and aggrieved parties
are without adequate resources or ability to earn income." He
asserts that the proper remedy would be to offset any fees or
expenses against future settlements by the Defendants. He claims
that he is competent, but designated as a patient under an illegal
commitment order under K.S.A. Section 20-3303. He also claims that
400 of the aggrieved parties that are part of the class action are
also mentally ill. He alleges that the Prison Litigation Reform Act
("PLRA") does not apply because he is civilly committed and 28
U.S.C. Section 1915 only applies to prisoners.

Judge O'Hara holds that despite the Plaintiff's claim that he is
subject to competency proceedings under K.S.A. Section 22-3303, he
remains subject to Sections 1915 and 1915A. Therefore, he is
required to either pay the filing fee or submit a motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will provisionally grant
leave to proceed without prepayment of fees. However, the Plaintiff
is required to either pay the statutory filing fee of $402 or file
a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees. The Court
will direct the Clerk to provide him with forms and instructions
for filing a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of
fees. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to waive the fee is
denied.

The Plaintiff has also filed a motion seeking the appointment of
counsel, stating that he is civilly committed under K.S.A.
Section22-3303, and suffers from a traumatic brain injury. He
states that he has been unsuccessful in his attempts to obtain
counsel. Judge O'Hara has considered the Plaintiff's motion for
appointment of counsel. He concludes that (1) it is not clear at
this juncture that the Plaintiff has asserted a colorable claim
against a named defendant; (2) the issues are not complex; and (3)
the Plaintiff appears capable of adequately presenting facts and
arguments. He denies the motion without prejudice to refiling the
motion if the Plaintiff's Complaint survives screening.

Finally, the Plaintiff is required to show good cause why his
Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons stated. He is
also given the opportunity to file a complete and proper amended
complaint upon court-approved forms that cures all the
deficiencies. If the Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint
within the prescribed time that cures all the deficiencies, the
matter will be decided based upon the current deficient Complaint
and may be dismissed without further notice for failure to state a
claim.

In light of the foregoing, Judge O'Hara provisionally grants the
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Plaintiff should
either pay the $402 filing fee or submit a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis by Sept. 19, 2022. He denies the
Plaintiff's Motion to Waiver of All Filing Fees/Costs and denies
without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel for
Primary Plaintiff.

Judge O'Hara grants the Plaintiff until Sept. 23, 2022, in which to
show good cause, in writing, to Judge Lungstrum why his Complaint
should not be dismissed for the reasons stated. He is also granted
until Sept. 23, 2022, in which to file a complete and proper
amended complaint to cure all the deficiencies.

The Clerk is directed to send Section 1983 and in forma pauperis
forms and instructions to the Plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/24vjmwe2 from Leagle.com.


SEZZLE INC: Sliwa Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Sliwa, individual, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sezzle, Inc., Case No. 22STCV24110 was
removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 26, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-06093 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Sezzle -- https://sezzle.com/ -- is a publicly traded financial
technology company providing an alternative payment platform
offering interest-free installment plans at selected online
stores.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jack Frank Altura, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue 34th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 928-9823
          Fax: (213) 928-9850
          Email: Jack.Altura@troutman.com


SIMM ASSOCIATES INC: Pinchera Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simm Associates, Inc.
The case is styled as John Pinchera, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Simm Associates, Inc., Case No.
3:22-cv-01280-BEN-DEB (S.D. Cal., Aug. 30, 2022).

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

SIMM Associates -- https://www.simmassociates.com/ -- is a
family-owned and operated financial services business assisting
clients as accounts receivable management specialists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN STIEGLITZ
          11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Phone: (323) 979-2063
          Fax: (323) 488-6748
          Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


SIMON QUICK ADVISORS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simon Quick Advisors,
LLC. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Simon Quick Advisors, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-07387 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2022).

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

Simon Quick Advisors -- https://simonquickadvisors.com/ -- offer
holistic financial planning solutions for affluent families,
business owners and executives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SKYWEST AIRLINES: Initial Case Management Conference Order Entered
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY HOROWITZ, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SKYWEST
AIRLINES, INC., a Utah Corporation; and DOES 1 Through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-04674-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Maxine M. Chesney entered an order modifying the Court's Initial
Case Management Conference Order:

  1. The Class Certification Motion Filing Date is continued
     from September 26, 2022 to October 27, 2022.

  2. The Class Certification Opposition Filing Date is continued
     from October 26, 2022 to November 30, 2022.

  3. The Class Certification Reply Filing Date is continued from
     November 14, 2022 to December 19, 2022.

  4. The Class Certification Hearing if continued from December
     2, 2022 to January 6, 2023.

SkyWest is an American regional airline headquartered in St.
George, Utah, United States. SkyWest is paid to staff, operate and
maintain aircraft used on flights that are scheduled, marketed and
sold by a partner mainline airline.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TDvUm2 at no extra charge.[CC]

SPOKEO INC: Tellez Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spokeo, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Dana Tellez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Spokeo, Inc., Does 1-50 inclusive,
Case No. 2:22-cv-06169 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 30, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Spokeo -- https://www.spokeo.com/ -- is a people search website
that aggregates data from online and offline sources.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 762-1910
          Fax: (619) 756-6991
          Email: todd@lcllp.com


STATE FARM: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Velazquez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDITH VELAZQUEZ, et al.,
v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, the Hon. Judge Nitza I.
Quinones Alejandro entered a revised scheduling order as follows:

  1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class     October 14, 2022
     certification under Rule 23
     shall be filed by:

  2. Any dispositive motions shall        November 14, 2022
     be filed by:

  3. A final pretrial conference          February 13, 2023
     will be held on:

State Farm operates as an insurance company.

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

STONETRASH INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rebecca Stonetrash,
Inc. The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Stonetrash, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-05134 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2022).

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

StoneTrash -- https://stonetrash.com/ -- is an online marketplace
for the Stone & Tile industry.[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


SUJA LIFE: Lumbra Files Suit in N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Suja Life, LLC. The
case is styled as Rachel Lumbra, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Suja Life, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00893-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Suja Juice -- https://www.sujaorganic.com/ -- is an organic,
non-GMO, cold-pressed juice company based in San Diego, California.
Suja produces cold-pressed juices, waters and drinking
vinegars.[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


SUMMIT NATURALS: Gamez Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------
The case styled JASMINE GAMEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUMMIT NATURALS INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 22STCV22841, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Aug. 19, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-05894 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant manufactures and sells
High Key Mini Cookies throughout the United States, and that
Defendant "deceptively sells its cookies in oversize packaging" in
violation of the California Business and Professions Code, the
Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Summit Naturals Inc. is a health food company.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          William P. Cole, Esq.
          Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
          Richard L. Hyde, Esq.
          AMIN TALATI WASSERMAN, LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (202) 918-7949
          Facsimile: (312) 884-7352
          E-mail: william@amitalati.com
                  matt@amintalati.com
                  richard@amintalati.com

SUPERIOR HOTEL: Conditional Cert of FLSA Class Ok'd in Davis Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTY DAVIS and KRISTY
ROGERS, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SUPERIOR HOTEL PROPERTIES, INC. and SUPERIOR HOTEL
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-02079-PKH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon.
Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective action, for approval and distribution of notice, and for
disclosure of contact information.

The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Superior in May of 2022,
alleging violations of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs allege that, rather
than paying its housekeeping staff an hourly rate, Superior paid
them by the room: $5 after a guest had checked out and $3 while the
guest was still checked in.

The Plaintiffs claim that Superior required them to work an average
of six days per week, that they and their fellow housekeepers had
each worked more than 40 hours during at least one week, and that
they had not been paid overtime for those weeks. Further, the
Plaintiffs assert that Superior required its housekeepers to live
at the hotel Superior operated, with Superior deducting $225 "rent"
per week from their paychecks. If a guest complained or left a bad
review about a room that a given housekeeper had cleaned, Superior
allegedly deducted money from that housekeeper's paycheck.

On August 16, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their motion to certify. They
seek conditional certification of the following class under the
FLSA:

   "All Housekeeping employees who lived or resided at the Hotel
    within the last three years."

Both parties have approved this definition of the collective. The
parties have also approved a printed notice.

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



SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Schwartz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synergetic
Communication, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Chaim Schwartz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Synergetic Communication, Inc., Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC,
Case No. 7:22-cv-07412 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2022).

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

Synergetic Communications -- https://www.syncomcorp.net/ -- is a
collection agency located in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com


TEXAS: Dismissal of Piazza's Claims v. Comptroller Hegar Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Rockey Piazza, Linda Piazza, and Paul Denucci, as
Assignees of Best Buy Stores, Inc., Appellants v. Glenn Hegar, in
His Capacity as Comptroller of Public Accounts of The State of
Texas, and Ken Paxton, in His Capacity as Attorney General of The
State of Texas, Appellees, Case No. 03-19-00246-CV (Tex. App.), the
Court of Appeals of Texas for the Third District, Austin, affirms
the district court's judgment granting the Comptroller's plea to
the jurisdiction and dismissing the Appellants' claims for
declaratory judgment and a tax refund.

In 2018, the Appellants sued the Comptroller in district court for
a tax refund of $9,130,865.86 plus interest under Chapter 112 of
the Texas Tax Code and for "limited declaratory findings." The
Comptroller responded with a plea to the jurisdiction.

Between 1998 and 2007, Best Buy had a rebate program for certain
goods customers purchased. When customers submitted rebate forms,
Best Buy partially refunded the retail price but did not refund any
of the sales tax the customers paid on the full retail price. In
the sales tax context, tax is collected by a seller adding the
sales tax to an initial sales price and then charging that amount
to the buyer as part of the new sales price, and a person who
collects a tax holds that money in trust for the State. When such a
tax is charged to a buyer, the buyer's understanding is that the
portion of the sale attributed to tax will be paid to the
government, and the buyer also knows that any profit the seller
makes in the transaction is through the sales price alone. Best Buy
remitted the collected taxes to the State.

In 2002, the Appellants filed suit individually and as a class
action against Best Buy in Travis County District Court Cause No.
D-1-GN-02-001252, seeking a refund directly from Best Buy, but
later they amended their petition to seek an assignment from Best
Buy of the right to seek a tax refund from the Comptroller. Best
Buy initially proposed a settlement to refund the sales tax to
members of the class if Best Buy could receive assurances by
agreement with the Comptroller or by declaratory judgment that it
would be allowed to credit the refunds against its future sales tax
payments. The Comptroller agreed to allow a credit for most of the
refunds but concluded that some were barred by the statute of
limitations.

The Appellants then amended their petition to add the Comptroller
as a defendant, but the Comptroller filed a plea to the
jurisdiction. The district court granted the Comptroller's plea,
dismissed the Comptroller from the suit, severed the Appellants'
individual claims against Best Buy into Cause No. D-1-GN-07-000712,
and dismissed the Appellants' class action claim to compel an
assignment of refund rights from Best Buy.

The Appellants appealed the dismissal of the class action claim
against Best Buy but did not appeal the dismissal of their claims
against the Comptroller. In June 2007, the Court of Appeals
reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case,
holding that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the
Appellants' claims to compel Best Buy to assign its tax refund
rights and to certify a class. The reinstated class action claim
against Best Buy was consolidated into Cause No. D-1-GN-07-000712.
The Appellants and Best Buy then settled their case subject to a
class fairness hearing by agreeing that Best Buy would assign to
the Appellants and individual class members its right to bring a
tax refund claim.

On April 16, 2008, the Appellants, through the class counsel, filed
a tax refund claim for $11,054,086.76 with the Comptroller on
behalf of the individual settlement class members (the First
Administrative Proceeding). On April 17, the district court signed
an Order Granting Preliminary Approval to the Best Buy Settlement
Class in Cause No. D-1-GN-07-000712 (the Appointment Order), which
certified the class for settlement purposes only, appointed class
counsel "to represent the Settlement Class Members in the
presentation of their individual claims for refunds to the
Comptroller and to pursue any and all necessary administrative
appeals and proceedings in all courts," and granted class counsel
the power of attorney "to represent such Settlement Class Members
in their individual claims against the Comptroller." On that same
day, "a duly authorized representative of Best Buy" signed and
executed the 2008 Assignment.

On April 24, 2008, Best Buy emailed the Comptroller's audit
division explaining, among other things, that the managed audit for
the audit period March 2003 through February 2007 was currently
scheduled to close on April 29, 2008; and that "Best Buy's audit
staff has worked diligently on the managed audit and expects to
agree and pay the audit assessment."

On April 28, 2008, the assistant director of tax administration
with the Comptroller responded, among other things, that "the
Comptroller's office cannot and does not agree to toll the statute
of limitations beyond such tolling as may be provided by law"; that
"Best Buy could not approach the state for a right that it has
assigned away"; and that "if the third party assigned its right
back to Best Buy, Best Buy could file a claim."

In June 2008, Best Buy mailed a cover letter with a $9,130,765.86
sales tax refund claim to the Comptroller (the Second
Administrative Proceeding). The next month, the Comptroller's audit
processing section denied the refund claim in the First
Administrative Proceeding, and the Appellants "appealed the denial
and filed a timely request for a refund hearing." After a contested
case hearing, the Comptroller issued the 2010 Decision, affirming
the denial of the refund claim.

The "settlement-class representatives, along with the other
Assignees" then sued the Comptroller in district court. The
Comptroller filed a plea to the jurisdiction. The district court
granted the Comptroller's plea to the jurisdiction, and the
Appellants then appealed. In February 2013, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the dismissal.

In the Second Administrative Proceeding, the Comptroller's Staff
had "denied the refund claim on the grounds that the sales tax in
question had not been refunded to the customers who had received
the rebates and that the refund claim had been assigned to a third
party," although the record does not indicate when the claim was
denied. In July 2016, the claim was referred to the State Office of
Administrative Hearings (SOAH) for a hearing based on the parties'
written submissions.

In November 2016, the Appellants dismissed Best Buy from the suit
in Cause No. D-1-GN-07-000712, agreeing that they "have no basis
for a claim for damages against Best Buy." Best Buy in turn agreed
to an injunction compelling it to assign the class its tax refund
claims. The Appellants and Best Buy filed the 2017 Agreed Order,
titled "Agreed Final Injunction and Class Certification Order,"
which the district court signed in July 2017.

The 2017 Agreed Order appoints class counsel and defines the class
to include "all individuals or entities who redeemed a mail-in,
retailer rebate for a taxable purchase made from Best Buy" between
March 1998 and July 2007. It states, among other things, that "Best
Buy voluntarily agrees to an order compelling it to assign to the
Class all its rights to seek reimbursement from any part of the
State of Texas" and "to execute 'Exhibit C' as further evidence of
the full and complete assignment agreed to and ordered by the
Court."

On Aug. 2, 2017, Best Buy, through a "duly authorized
representative," executed the 2017 Assignment that was attached to
the 2017 Agreed Order as Exhibit C. Like the 2008 Assignment, the
2017 Assignment purports to assign Best Buy's "right to file a
request for a refund and to receive the refund" and describes the
tax refund that is the subject of the assignment as "Sales Tax" for
the period of "March 1, 1998 to July 16, 2007" for "Transactions:
All claims asserted or that can be asserted in Docket No.
101,957."

The 2018 Decision indicates that the 2017 Assignment was submitted
as evidence in the Second Administrative Proceeding and notes that
"on that same date Aug. 2, 2017, Best Buy filed a motion to
substitute the class plaintiffs as the Claimants," which the
administrative law judge approved, allowing Best Buy to withdraw
from the proceeding. The administrative law judge signed his
proposal for decision on Nov. 17, 2017, recommending that the
refund claim should be denied because the Texas Tax Code "does not
give the Comptroller the statutory authority to grant a class
action refund claim." The Comptroller signed his 2018 Decision on
March 29, 2018, adopting the administrative law judge's proposal
for decision, as changed. The Appellants filed a motion for
rehearing, which the Comptroller denied.

The Appellants then brought the underlying suit in district court.
The Comptroller filed a plea to the jurisdiction, raising four
grounds at issue on appeal: (1) the Appellants could not receive a
refund because Best Buy never refunded the taxes as required by
Section 111.104(f) of the Texas Tax Code, (2) the Appellants'
rehearing motion failed to state any grounds of error that could
result in their entitlement to a tax refund, (3) Best Buy had
already assigned its right to a tax refund prior to bringing the
underlying administrative refund claim, and (4) the Texas Tax Code
does not provide for a class action tax refund suit. The district
court granted the plea, and the Appellants appeal from this
dismissal.

On appeal, the Appellants raise the issue of whether the district
court erred in granting the Comptroller's plea to the jurisdiction
on any of the four grounds raised in the plea.5 The Appellants bear
the burden to establish that the district court erred in granting
the Comptroller's plea to the jurisdiction. See Creative Oil & Gas,
LLC v. Lona Hills Ranch, LLC, 591 S.W.3d 127, 133 n.5 (Tex. 2019).
Because we conclude that the Appellants have not met this burden as
to the independent ground that Best Buy had already assigned its
right to bring a refund claim in the 2008 Assignment prior to the
2017 Assignment, we consider only this ground in affirming the
district court's judgment on appeal.

In their live petition, the Appellants asserted that "Best Buy on
June 17, 2008, filed the underlying administrative proceeding" and
that in 2017, Best Buy "assigned to the Class Best Buy's right to a
refund in SOAH Docket No. 304-16-5197.26, Comptroller Hearing No.
101,957." The Comptroller's plea challenged the legal effect of the
pleaded fact that Best Buy assigned its right to a tax refund in
the 2017 Assignment to the Appellants, arguing that the right had
already been assigned in the 2008 Assignment. In his reply in
support of his plea, the Comptroller further asserted that "without
a valid assignment, the Assignees of Best Buy are not the proper
parties to bring this claim."

Although the Appellants contest the merits of the Comptroller's
challenge to their ownership of Best Buy's claim on appeal, they do
not assign error to the district court's ruling on this issue as a
jurisdictional issue. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals applies the
well-established standard for reviewing a ruling on a plea to the
jurisdiction. It finds that in their response to the plea and to
the evidence presented by the Comptroller, the Appellants neither
asserted that a fact issue exists as to the relevant, underlying
facts nor presented controverting evidence as to those facts;
rather, they challenged the legal effect of those
facts—specifically, the legal effect of the 2008 Assignment. They
concede that "Best Buy and the class attempted, on April 17, 2008,
to assign Best Buy's claims to a group of individuals but not a
class." But in their appellate briefing, they raise inchoate
arguments for why the 2008 Assignment was void and should not be
considered to have precluded the effect and validity of the 2017
Assignment.

The Appellants assert that the class counsel "possessed an April
17, 2008 assignment to an existent 'Best Buy Settlement Class'
which, Assignees of Best Buy firmly established, was in no way a
class." However, although the 2008 Assignment described the
assignees to be "collectively known as the 'Best Buy Settlement
Class,'" the actual assignees of the 2008 Assignment were "persons
or entities" who made certain purchases: "The Assignor assigns all
rights and interest to the tax refund herein described that the
Assignor may have to the persons or entities who made purchases
described in the 'Transactions' below, collectively known as the
'Best Buy Settlement Class.'"

The Appellants state that the authority of the individuals'
attorneys to accept Best Buy's assignment was voided by the
decision in Assignees of Best Buy and that "an 'assignment' from
2008 may exist on paper, but under this Court's decision, it is
void and a nullity." However, Assignees of Best Buy did not address
or expressly void any assignment; rather, it addressed the district
court's jurisdiction to sign the order appointing "settlement-class
counsel to represent the individual Assignees in the presentation
of their individual refund claims to the Comptroller." The
Assignees of Best Buy Court concluded that the district court
lacked jurisdiction, that "those portions of the settlement orders
purporting to appoint settlement-class counsel as counsel for the
individuals are void," and that "the Assignees did not properly
exhaust their administrative remedies because settlement-class
counsel lacked authority to file individual refund claims on their
behalf."

The Appellants argue that "a counterparty to the assignment had to
accept the assignment" and that "when Best Buy signed the 2008
Assignment, the attorneys for the individuals now within a class
had no authority to negotiate for and accept an assignment of Best
Buy's claims -- there was simply no one to receive the assignment."
But the class counsel's lack of authority to represent the
assignees and to file the individual refund claims in the First
Administrative Proceeding does not impact the validity of the 2008
Assignment. Tthe Court of Appeals finds that the Appellants neither
asserted nor produced evidence that the assignees of the 2008
Assignment -- "the persons or entities" -- reassigned or disclaimed
the assignment, and the Appellants do not identify any authority
that would support that the 2008 Assignment was void in this
context.

The Appellants assert that "Best Buy's attempted assignment to the
2008 consumer 'group' was never a gift. Best Buy intended to
relieve its obligations to its customers in return for its
customers' release." But, the Court of Appeals finds that Best
Buy's reasons for the 2008 Assignment do not impact its validity in
the case. And the 2008 Assignment's language neither required
acceptance (there was no signature block for the receiving party)
nor predicated the assignment on receiving a contractual benefit.

Finally, the Appellants argue that "if the Comptroller wished to
argue that the 2008 assignment was valid (which it is not), it
should not have adopted the PFD in its Decision" and note that the
2018 Decision mentions in an endnote that "this assignment was
subsequently voided by the Third District Court of Appeals in
Assignees of Best Buy" and that Best Buy "subsequently executed
another Assignment of Refund Claim pursuant to an order of the
District Court in the class action lawsuit." But, the Court of
Appeals finds that the Appellants do not explain or provide legal
argument as to how this statement in the Comptroller's 2018
Decision precludes the Comptroller from making this argument in
district court.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the district
court's judgment dismissing the Appellants' claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/596rtxkz from Leagle.com.


TFORCE FREIGHT: Tappin Labor Suit Transferred to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANDREW D. TAPPIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TFORCE FREIGHT, INC., a
Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00322 was transferred from the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
Aug. 19, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-04755-LB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges six causes of action against
Defendant: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to
provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay timely wages; (4) failure
to provide accurate itemized wages statements; (5) failure to
indemnify necessary business expenses; and (6) violation of the
California Business & Professions Code.

TForce Freight, Inc., a subsidiary of TFI International, is an
American less than truckload freight carrier based in Richmond,
Virginia.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian D. Berry, Esq.
          J.P. Schreiber, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001   
          E-mail: brian.berry@morganlewis.com
                  jp.schreiber@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Daniel N. Rojas, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: daniel.rojas@morganlewis.com

THINK GOODNESS: Troche Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Think Goodness, LLC.
The case is styled as Veronica Troche, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Think Goodness, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-07399 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 30, 2022).

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

Think Goodness -- https://thinkgoodness.com/ -- is an on-line
retail store services featuring jewelry.[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


THORLEY INDUSTRIES: Demarzio Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thorley Industries,
LLC. The case is styled as Mahala Demarzio, Drea Layne, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Thorley
Industries, LLC doing business as: 4MOMS, Case No. 2:22-cv-01245-NR
(W.D. Pa., Aug. 29, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Thorley Industries, LLC doing business as 4MOMS --
https://www.4moms.com/ -- is dedicated to making innovative, easy
to use baby products that make life easier for parents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          707 Grant Street, Suite 125
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-7229
          Fax: (412) 281-4229
          Email: arihn@peircelaw.com


TRACY, CA: Vargas Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------
The case styled PATRICK VARGAS, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF TRACY; SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY; RANDALL BRADLEY, in his official capacity as
Fire Chief of the South San Joaquin County Fire Authority; DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
STK-CV-UWT-2022-0005692, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Joaquin to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on August 17, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-at-00859 to the proceeding.

The suit arises from the Defendant's alleged retaliatory actions
against the Plaintiff while he was employed as Fire Division Chief
of the South San Joaquin County Fire Authority, as well as
Defendant's violations of state statutes.

The City of Tracy is a municipal corporation in the state of
California.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bijal M. Patel, Esq.
          TRACY CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          333 Civic Center Plaza
          Tracy, CA 95376
          Telephone: (209) 831-6132
          Facsimile: (209) 831-6137
          E-mail: Bijal.Patel@cityoftracy.org

               - and -

          Ruth M. Bond, Esq.
          Steve Cikes, Esq.
          RENNE PUBLIC LAW GROUP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 848-7200
          Facsimile: (415) 848-7320
          E-mail: rbond@publiclawgroup.com
                  scikes@publiclawgroup.com

TRANSPORT INC: Bid for Prelim Approval of Class Settlement Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE VASQUEZ v. P.A.M.
TRANSPORT, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 5:21-cv-05143-PKH
(W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge P.K. Holmes, III entered an order
denying the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of the collective and class action settlement with leave to re-file
a motion for preliminary approval.

The Court has five areas of concern which currently prevent it from
granting full approval, as follows:

  -- First, although the Plaintiff's proposed notice references
     a consent form for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) opt-in
     plaintiffs, the Plaintiff has not provided the Court with a
     copy of this consent form.  The Court will not approve this
     settlement without first reviewing and approving the
     consent form for FLSA opt-in plaintiffs.

  -- Second, page 4 of Plaintiff's proposed notice contains
     incorrect section numbering.

  -- Third, section 3.5 of the proposed settlement, entitled
     "Non-Monetary Settlement Terms," indicates that Defendant
     has agreed not to reinstitute certain policies within the
     next five years. If the parties file a renewed motion for
     approval, then the motion should be accompanied by a brief
     that explains what enforcement mechanism, if any, is
     contemplated for these non-monetary terms.

  -- Fourth, the settlement agreement and proposed notice state
     that eligible settlement class members who do not opt out
     "will waive, release, and forever discharge" all claims
     against the Defendant "under the FLSA," as well as various
     other federal and state laws.

  -- Fifth and finally, although the "Legal Rights and Options"
     table on the cover page for Plaintiff's proposed notice
     includes summary instructions on how to file a consent
     form, it does not include any analogous instructions in the
     "Exclude Yourself" row on how to opt out of the Rule 23
     class.

P.A.M. is an irregular route over-the-road trucking company that is
based in Tontitown, Arkansas.

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

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Blaise Suit Remanded to Cook County Cir. Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HEATHER BLAISE, Plaintiff v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-05791 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Franklin U.
Valderrama of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

Ms. Blaise, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
brought the class action lawsuit against Transworld in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. (FDCPA).

On March 11, 2021, Blaise received a letter from a third-party
letter vendor on behalf of Transworld, a debt collection agency.
According to the Letter, Blaise allegedly owed a debt to a medical
provider for dermatology treatment. The Letter bears markings that
indicate it was generated by a letter vendor, including numbers and
barcodes found on the Letter.

In order for the vendor to send Blaise the Letter, Transworld had
to provide, and did provide, the vendor with Blaise's name and
address, the status of Blaise as a debtor, details of the alleged
debt, and other personal information. The vendor used this
information to populate a prewritten template which was printed and
mailed to Blaise on behalf of Transworld.

Ms. Blaise alleges that, because she did not give consent, the
disclosure of her personal information to the vendor violated
Section 1692c(b) of the FDCPA. She further alleges that the Letter
was mailed in an envelope with a clear window that revealed her
name and address, as well as her personal email address, that was
visible from the outside of the Envelope, in violation of Section
1692f(8) of the FDCPA. According to her, a third party saw her
email address before Blaise received the Letter.

Ms. Blaise filed the class action lawsuit against Transworld in the
Circuit Court of Cook County alleging violations of the FDCPA.
Transworld removed the suit to federal court. Blaise now moves to
remand the suit to the Circuit Court of Cook County based on the
Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Under the FDCPA, a plaintiff may recover statutory and actual
damages resulting from violations of the FDCPA. The issue before
the Court is whether Blaise has alleged an injury that satisfies
Article III standing.

Ms. Blaise asserts because there are no allegations in the
complaint that she suffered a concrete harm or appreciable risk of
harm apart from the statutory violation itself. Therefore, she
reasons Transworld improperly removed the case to federal court, as
the lawsuit belongs in state court.

Transworld, on the other hand, insists that the allegations in the
complaint satisfy Article III's standing requirement. It points to
Blaise's allegations that, among other things, the third-party
vendor and its employees impermissibly learned that Blaise owed a
consumer debt, the identity of the creditor to whom the debt was
allegedly owed, the age of the debt, and the amount of the debt,
along with Blaise's address and personal email address.

Ms. Blaise further alleges that she was dismayed and bewildered
when she saw the Envelope, as her email address was communicated to
whoever saw the Envelope. Furthermore, she alleges that she feared
that her private email address would be seen and used third parties
via fraud or identity theft, and that it indeed was viewed by a
third party before she received the Letter.

Judge Valderrama opines that no publicity has occurred, just
communication with a mail vendor, which is not a harm at which
Congress aimed by enacting the FDCPA. Accordingly, he finds that
Transworld has not met its burden of establishing Blaise's standing
based on Transworld's disclosure of her personal information to the
third-party mailing vendor.

Transworld also argues, in passing, that the Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over Blaise's Section 1692f claim based on the
improper disclosure of her email address on the Envelope. The only
cases cited by Transworld, Preston v. Midland Credit Management and
Lueck v. Bureaus, Inc., 2021 WL 4264368, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20,
2021) do not support Transworld's standing argument. In Preston,
the Seventh Circuit found that the use of language or symbols other
than a consumer's address -- specifically the phrases "Time
Sensitive Document" -- on an envelope violated Section 1692f(8).
However, as Transworld acknowledges, the Seventh Circuit in Preston
had no occasion to address whether the mere presence of that phrase
on envelopes was sufficient to confer Article III standing.

Next, Transworld argues that Blaise alleges a disclosure of private
information by alleging that Transworld included her email address
on the Envelope and hence, sufficiently pled a concrete injury.

Judge Valderrama finds that Transworld has not established standing
based on Blaise's allegation that the outside of the Envelope
included her email address -- even with the allegations that one
unknown third party saw it and she feared third parties would use
it to commit fraud or identity theft -- without any claim that any
third party actually used her email address to harm her. Therefore,
Blaise's envelope disclosure claim must be remanded. This finding
is bolstered by the Seventh Circuit's instruction that "any doubts
in favor of federal court jurisdiction favors remand."

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Valderrama grants Blaise's motion
to remand the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
The Clerk's Office is directed to remand the case to the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois forthwith. This civil case is
terminated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/34a6bash from
Leagle.com.


TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: Faces Dicker Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN DICKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS, INC.; CHENG LU; PATRICK
DILLON; XIAODI HOU; MO CHEN; JAMES MULLEN; MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
LLC; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC;
BOFA SECURITIES, INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; COWEN
AND COMPANY, LLC; NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.; RBC
CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC; OPPENHEIMER & CO.
INC.; PIPER SANDLER & CO.; ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED; and
VALUABLE CAPTIAL LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01300-LL-MSB
(S.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 2022) alleges violation of the Securities Act
of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff filed a class action on
behalf of all persons who: (a) purchased or otherwise acquired
TuSimple common stock pursuant and traceable to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with TuSimple's April 15, 2021
initial public offering ("IPO") (the "IPO Class"); and/or (b) that
purchased or otherwise acquired TuSimple securities between April
15, 2021 and August 1, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period") (the "10b-5 Class") (collectively, the "Classes").

The Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, including
in connection with the IPO effected by means of the Registration
Statement, the Defendants made materially false or misleading
statements and failed to disclose, inter alia, that: (i) TuSimple's
commitment to safety was significantly overstated and Defendants
concealed fundamental problems with the Company's technology; (ii)
TuSimple was rushing the testing of its autonomous driving
technology in order to deliver driverless trucks to the market
ahead of its more safety-conscious competitors; (iii) there was a
corporate culture within TuSimple that suppressed or ignored safety
concerns in favor of unrealistically ambitious testing and delivery
schedules; (iv) the aforementioned conduct made accidents involving
the Company's autonomous driving technology more likely; (v) the
aforementioned conduct invited enhanced regulatory scrutiny and
investigatory action toward the Company; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times, the Plaintiff asserts.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.

As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, TuSimple shares
traded as low as $7.05 per share, representing a decline of over
82% from the $40 IPO offering price.

TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS INC. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, develops self-driving technologies to
meet the demands of heavy-duty and semi-trucks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sophia M. Rios, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          401 B Street, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 489-0300
          Email: srios@bm.net

UNITED STATES: Carr, et al., File Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH CARR, BRENDA
MOORE, MARY ELLEN WILSON, MARY SHAW and CAROL KATZ, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, v. XAVIER BECERRA,
SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00988-MPS (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs file motion
for class certification and appointment of class counsel.

The Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action on behalf of:

   "all individuals who were enrolled in Medicaid in any state
   or the District of Columbia on March 18, 2020 or later and
   had their Medicaid eligibility terminated or reduced to a
   lower level of benefits on or after November 6, 2020, or will
   have their Medicaid eligibility terminated or reduced to a
   lower level of benefits prior to a redetermination conducted
   after the end of the Public Health Emergency (PHE), for a
   reason other than moving out of the state or the District
   (including through death) or voluntarily disenrolling from
   benefits."

The United States Department of Health and Human Services, is a
cabinet-level executive branch department of the U.S. federal
government created to protect the health of all Americans and
providing essential human services.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sheldon V. Toubman, Esq.
          Deborah A. Dorfman, Esq.
          Telephone: (475)345-3169
          DISABILITY RIGHTS CONNECTICUT
          846 Wethersfield Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06114
          E-mail: sheldon.toubman@disrightsct.org
                  deborah.dorfman@disright


UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE: Seeks Leave to File Response Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PENNY NINIVAGGI et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE, Case No. 20-cv-1478-SB (D. Del.), the
Defendant moves for leave to file their Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification, together with the Declaration of
James D. Taylor, Jr. and its accompanying exhibits, under seal.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TKAa2Y at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James D. Taylor, Jr., Esq.
          Marisa R. De Feo, Esq.
          Juliana G. Clifton, Esq.
          SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
          1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2300
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 421-6800
          Facsimile: (302) 421-6813
          E-mail: James.taylor@saul.com
                  Marisa.defeo@saul.com
                  Juliana.clifton@saul.com



VALENTINO USA: Rosario, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMIANA ROSARIO, as
Administratrix of the Estate of Josefina Benitez, ZION BRERETON,
ALICIA, JAMES CHOI and ANDREYA CRAWFORD, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. VALENTINO U.S.A., INC., Case
No. 1:19-cv-11463-MKV-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:

   1. Certifying the Second, Third, and Fourth Claims for Relief
      in Plaintiffs' operative complaint as a class action with
      respect to the following two classes:

      -- Full-Time Employee (FTE) Class

         "All non-executive Full-Time Employees paid a salary of
         under $100,000.00 annually, and who worked in
         Defendant's New York corporate office at any time from
         December 13, 2013 to Present;" and

      -- Freelancer Class

         "All "Freelance" employees who worked in New York and
         were paid day-rate any time between December 13, 2013
         and December 16, 2015;

   2. Appointing Plaintiffs' Counsel, Joseph & Norinsberg, LLC,
      as Class Counsel under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g);

   3. Approving the proposed Class Action Notice and notice
      plan;

   4. Appointing the Plaintiffs Crawford, Choi, Brereton, and
      the Estate of Josefina Benitez to be class
      representatives;

   5. Directing the Defendant to produce contact information and
      dates of employment for all putative class members, as
      follows:

      a. within fourteen days of the Court's Order, produce a
         computer-readable data file containing the names, last
         known mailing addresses, all known home and mobile
         telephone numbers, all known email addresses, job
         titles, and dates of employment of all:

         (1) FTEs who worked for Defendant in New York at any
             point from December 13, 2013 to Present; and

         (2) Freelancers who worked in New York and were paid a
             day-rate any time between December 13, 2013 and
             December 16, 2015; and

   6. Any such further relief as the Courts deems just and proper.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RljC0a at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
          Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
          JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
          110 East 59 th Street, Suite 3200
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 227-5700

VI-JON LLC: Faces Kane Suit Over Mislabeled Laxative Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY KANE, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VI-JON, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-07061 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2022) is a class action lawsuit
regarding the deceptive and misleading business practices of the
Defendant in connection with its manufacturing, marketing, and
sales of its Magnesium Citrate Saline Laxative products in
violation of the New York General Business Law and various state
warranty laws.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant improperly, deceptively,
and misleadingly labeled and marketed its affected products to
consumers, like Plaintiff, by failing to disclose on its packaging
that such products may contain Gluconacetobacter liquefaciens, a
harmful bacteria.

When purchasing the products, the Plaintiff reviewed the
accompanying labels and disclosures and understood them as
representations and warranties by Defendant that the products were
properly manufactured, free from defects, and safe for their
intended use. Accordingly, Plaintiff was injured in fact and lost
money as a result of the Defendant's improper conduct, says the
suit.

Vi-Jon LLC is one of the largest manufacturers of over-the-counter
drug products in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
                  cmaccarone@zlk.com

WEBER-STEPHEN: Gorczyca Sues Over Misleading Product Warranties
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATT GORCZYCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-04623 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 30, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for the marketing, manufacture, and sale of
grills sold under the Weber brand name (the "Products"), the
warranties of which include statements that condition the continued
validity of the warranty on the use of only an authorized repair
service and authorized replacement parts (a "tying arrangement" or
"unlawful repair restriction").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the tying arrangements
condition where a consumer product's warranty on the use of a
specific repair service violate state and federal law. Had the
Plaintiff been aware that the repair restriction was unlawful, he
would not have purchased the Product, or would have paid
significantly less for it, says the suit.

Further, the Defendant exacerbates these violations by stating on
the outside of the product packaging that the Products include a
limited warranty, but the tying arrangement is not reasonably
revealed to the consumer until after the point of sale, the suit
asserts.

WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS LLC manufactures cooking appliances. The
Company offers charcoal, gas, wood pellet, electric, and portable
grills, as well as drip pans, smoking chips, smokers and grill
centers, cleaning brushes, aprons, and gloves. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. McMorrow, Esq.
          HALUNEN LAW
          415 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (612) 548-5293
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          Email: mcmorrow@halunen.com

               - and -

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave, Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
                  jdiamond@bursor.com

               - and -

          Neal Deckant, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
                 jsmith@bursor.com

WELLS FARGO: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Carey Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRENT CAREY; and BENJAMIN D. ZEIGLER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-04976-LB (N.D. Cal., Aug. 31, 2022) is
a class action arising out of the December 31, 2021 exfiltration of
consumer data by a former employee at one of the largest banks in
the United States, Wells Fargo (hereinafter, the "Data Breach").

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Wells Fargo failed to
reasonably secure and maintain personally identifiable information
provided and entrusted to it by consumers, inclusive of Plaintiffs
and the members of the Class - this PII includes consumers' names,
addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, and
Social Security numbers (collectively, the "PII").

By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII of the Plaintiffs and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal
and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard
that information from unauthorized access and intrusion.
Defendant's conduct in breaching these duties amounts to negligence
and recklessness and violates the California's Consumer Privacy
Act, the suit alleges.

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit,
investment and retirement, wealth management, and insurance
services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John J. Nelson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          280 South Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (858) 209-6941
          Email: jnelson@milberg.com

YODLEE INC: Order Continuing Schedule Entered in Wesh Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH WESCH, et al., v.
YODLEE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge entered an order continuing schedule as follows:

   -- Expert disclosure deadline:           October 25, 2022

   -- Expert rebuttal reports deadline:     November 22, 2022

   -- Close of expert discovery:            December 13, 2022

   -- Plaintiffs' motion for class          January 10, 2023
      certification shall be filed by:

   -- Yodlee's opposition shall be          February 3, 2023
      filed by:

   -- Plaintiffs' reply shall be            February 17, 2023
      filed by:

   -- Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion         March 13, 2023
      for class certification:

   -- The last day for hearing              August 7, 2023
      dispositive motions:

Yodlee is an American software company that develops an account
aggregation service that allows users to see their credit card,
bank, investment, email, and travel reward accounts.

A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 23, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AGAdo4 at no extra charge.[CC]

ZAXBY'S COMPANY: Dorton Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled HOPE DORTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZAXBY'S COMPANY RESTAURANTS
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-CA-005628, was removed from the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County,
Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on Aug. 19, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:22-cv-01903 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's single-count complaint seeks relief from Defendant,
on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly-situated
persons, for allegedly making or causing to be made unlawful
"telephonic sales calls" (specifically, text messages) without the
"prior express written consent" of the recipients, in violation of
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

Zaxby's Company Restaurants LLC is an American chain of fast casual
restaurants offering chicken wings, chicken fingers, sandwiches,
and salads.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Josh A. Migdal, Esq.
          Yaniv Adar, Esq.
          MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
          80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999  
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 374-0440
          E-mail: josh@markmigdal.com
                  yaniv@markmigdal.com


                            *********

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

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

Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***