---

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

              Tuesday, October 25, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 207

                            Headlines

ALCOA USA: Appeals Ruling in Butch Life Insurance Suit to 7th Cir.
ALTICE USA: McFarlane Suit Has Final Judgment & Order of Dismissal
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces $1-Bil. Suit in UK Over Antitrust Violations
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Offers $7.5M for Class Action Over Baggage Fees
AMPLIFY ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Pipeline Leaks for $50M

ARGO GROUP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Violations
BALL STATE: Class Action Lawsuit Over Tuition Fee Refunds Revived
BARILLA AMERICA: Falsely Advertises Made in Italy Pasta, Suit Says
BOX HILL: Agrees to Settle Breach Class Action for $33 Million
BRP GROUP: Rosen Law to Probe Potential Securities Claims

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Securities Suit in TX Court
CAMPBELL SOUP: N.J. Court Dismisses Securities Suit With Prejudice
CANADA: Veterans' Class Action Over Retirement Benefits Certified
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Class Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 7
CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Mislabeling Suit for $100,000

DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Bid to Transfer Dale Suit to S.D.N.Y. Denied
DREAMFIELDS BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Products
DUPONT DE NEMOURS: PFOA Suit Granted Class Action Status
EMPOWER RETIREMENT: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Scheme
ERIE COUNTY, NY: CSEAI Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.

FIELDALE FARMS: $57.4M in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Antitrust Suit
FORUM INVESTORS: Camarda Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duties
GOOD AMERICAN: Class Action Mulled Over Misleading Sales Emails
IDT CORP: Continues to Defend JDS1 Stockholder Suit
IN-N-OUT BURGERS: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

INTERJET SA: Ordered to Pay $7.23M  in Consumer Class Action Suit
KAKAO GAMES: May Face Class Suit Over Data Center Damages From Fire
KIA AMERICA: Broadway Sues Over Unsafe and Defective Vehicles
KIA AMERICA: Horne Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
KING OAK ENTERPRISES: Easter Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages

KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANS: Seeks Denial of Hobbs Class Cert Bid
LASKO PRODUCTS: Velez Sues Over Defective Portable Space Heaters
LEXINGTON FRESH: Serrano Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
LINK GROUP: RL Group Launches Class Suit Over Woodford Collapse
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Sued Over Underpayment of Minimum Wages

MARINOSCI LAW: Bid to Extend Case Management Deadlines Filed
MARINOSCI LAW: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 2
MARRIOTT HOTEL: Stanger Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
MASSACHUSETTS INTERSCHOLASTIC: Bid for Injunctive Relief Denied
MCKESSON CORPORATION: Zachary Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments

MDL 2913: Carnegie Public Schools Sues Over E-cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Cinnaminson Township Balks at Youth E-cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Cle Elum-Roslyn Hits E-cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: E-cigarettes Target Youth Market, Quitman School Says
MDL 2913: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Shoreline School Says

MDL 2913: Educational Service Balks at Vape Ads Targeting Youth
MDL 2913: Faces Ohio Valley Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Maryetta Public Schools Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Mount Morris Central Hits E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: Pickaway County Balks at E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth

MDL 2913: Quinton Public Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: Raymond School Hits E-cigarette Ads Targeting Youth
MDL 2913: Southwestern Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Tahlequah Public Schools Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Timberlake Schools Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis

MDL 2913: Torrington School Alleges E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: Tupelo Public Schools Balks at Youth E-cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: University Place Balks at E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: Valliant School Says E-cigarettes Target Youth Market
MDL 2913: Wapanucka Public Says E-cigarettes Target Youth Market

MDL 2913: Warner Public Sues Over Youth E-cigarettes Crisis
MERCEDES-BENZ: Sued Over Deceptive Diesel Engine Emission Levels
MICHIGAN: $20-Mil. Settlement in Unemployment Fraud Suit Reached
MINTED LLC: Esparza Files Suit in S.D. California
MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS: Younas Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

MOSQUITO SQUAD: Class Cert Notice Plan Due Oct. 26
MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Extension of Class Briefing Deadlines Sought
MY PILLOW: Gaudreau TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
ND OTM: Demmons Sues Over Noxious Odors in Private Properties
NELNET INC: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class in Johansson Suit

NELNET INC: Johansson Class Action Allegations Stricken
NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Reaches Settlement in Shareholders' Class Suit
NESTLE USA: McMenamy Files Suit in N.D. New York
NEWREZ LLC: Yates Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Usury Class
NISSAN MOTOR: Court Enters Contribution Bar Order in Jackson Suit

NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL: Faces Class Action Over Tracking Code
OFFICIAL PEST PREVENTION: Wilkerson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Alich Sues Over Decline in Securities Value
PAPA MURPHY'S: Valenzuela Files Suit in C.D. California
PARKER THATCH: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PINK ENERGY: Faces Class Action Suit Over WARN Act Violations
PP&G INC: Easter Sues Over Evading Mandatory Minimum Wage Provision
PREMIER LAWN: Charlton Labor Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
PSC COMMUNITY: UJC's Prelim. Injunction Bid in 1199SEIU Suit OK'd
PUR COMPANY: Davis Sues Over False and Misleading Marketing

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vecchio Seeks Conditional Class Certification
RADIUS GLOBAL: Rubashkin FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
RCI ELECTRIC: Granados Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
REEDHEIN & ASSOCIATES: Adolph Seeks to Certify Class
RENAISSANCE TOWER: Faces Class Action Over Structural Damages

RESPONDUS INC: Court Won't Reconsider Order on Lewis' Dismissal Bid
RITE AID CORP: Settles Putative Labor Class Actions in California
RITE AID: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 19
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Gelizon Suit Removed to D. Nevada
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Wenzel Suit Removed to M.D. Florida

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA: Settles Prisoners' Class Action for $2.4M
SANTANDER BANK: Tepper Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: Farmer-Paellmann Sues Over Breach of Trust
SOUTH BROWARD: Kaplan Sues Over Disclosure of Health Information
SPERL INC: Preliminary Approval of Settlement Deal Sought

SSM HEALTH: Seeks Extension to Reply to Brashear Class Cert Bid
STATE FARM: Eves Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
STERICYCLE INC: FLSA Class Notice in Daniel Suit Approved in Part
SYNGENTA CROP: Anderson Sues Over Unlawful Monopolies
TEAM BLAZE: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages

TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Aphria Securities Suit
TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Authentic Brands Related Suit
TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Various Class Suits in Canada
TILRAY BRANDS: Settlement Reached in Braun, Noorian Suit
TILRAY BRANDS:Court Narrows Claims in ABG Suit

TODD UECKER: Salcedo Seeks Provisional Class Status
TRANSUNION LLC: BANA Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Konig Suit
TRAVEL INSURED: Joint Bid to Modify Class Cert Schedule Filed
TRIUS TRUCKING: Class Settlement in Mondrian Gets Final Approval
UNITED STATES: Agrees to Settle Immigration Class Action for $1.75M

UNITED STATES: Boyd Sues Over Breaches of Contractual Rights
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: Settles Overtime Wage Class Action for $15-Mil.
VERVENT INC: Turrey, et al., Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
VI-JON LLC: Seeks too Strike Addition of Three New Subclasses
VIRGINIA: May Face Class-Action Over Aides' Unpaid Overtime Wages

WEMAGINE.AI LLP: Court Dismisses Gutierrez Suit Without Prejudice
WILLIAM DOUGLAS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unsafe Condominiums
WILLIS TOWERS: Lyons Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
X HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Crispo Shareholder Class Suit

                            *********

ALCOA USA: Appeals Ruling in Butch Life Insurance Suit to 7th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALCOA USA CORP., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Edmond M. Butch, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alcoa USA
Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00258-RLY-MPB, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed a complaint against the Defendants following the termination
of their life insurance coverage.

Alcoa announced the termination of the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated retirees' life insurance coverage, to be effective January
1, 2020 despite Unions and Alcoa having negotiated that retirees
are entitled to company-paid life insurance. The Plaintiffs contest
that the retiree life insurance provided by the collective
bargaining agreements cannot be unilaterally terminated or modified
by the Defendants.

In September 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification through an Order entered by Judge Richard
Young.

The appellate case is captioned as Alcoa USA Corp., et al. v.
Edmond Butch, et al., Case No. 22-8017, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on October 12, 2022.
[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners ALCOA USA CORP., et al., are represented
by:

            David R. Fine, Esq.
            K&L GATES LLP
            17 N. Second Street
            Market Square Plaza
            Harrisburg, PA 17101
            Telephone: (717) 231-4500

                   - and -

            Robert J. Stein, III, Esq.
            DIVINCENZO SCHOENFIELD STEIN
            3 Park Plaza, Suite 1650
            Irvine, CA 92657
            Telephone: (714) 881-7002

Plaintiffs-Respondents EDMOND M. BUTCH, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Barry A. Macey, Esq.
            MACEY SWANSON LLP
            429 N. Pennsylvania Street
            Indianapolis, IN 46204
            Telephone: (317) 637-2345

                   - and -

            William Thomas Payne, Esq.
            FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC LLC
            429 Fourth Avenue
            Law & Finance Building
            Pittsburgh, PA 15219
            Telephone: (412) 281-8400

ALTICE USA: McFarlane Suit Has Final Judgment & Order of Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NEVILLE McFARLANE, DEANNA COTTRELL, EDWARD HELLYER,
CARRIE MASON-DRAFFEN, HASEEB RAJA, RONNIE GILL, JOHN FRONTERA,
SHARIQ MEHFOOZ, and STEVEN PANICCIA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALTICE USA, INC., a
New York Corporation, Defendant, Lead Case No. 20-CV-1297-JMF,
Consolidated with No. 20-CV-1410-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M.
Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York enters a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal.

The cause is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Uncontested Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Award
of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Service Awards to Class
Representatives. Due and adequate notice have been given to the
Settlement Class. The Court has considered the Settlement Agreement
and has reviewed the record in the litigation.

For purposes of the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal, Judge
Furman adopts all defined terms as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement filed.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for purposes of, and solely in connection with, the Settlement,
Judge Furman certifies the action as a class action on behalf of
the following Settlement Class: All current and former employees of
Altice USA, Inc. and its subsidiaries or predecessor companies
Cablevision and Suddenlink in the United States and its Territories
who received a Notification Letter stating that their PII may have
been compromised during the Data Security Incident.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Plaintiffs are
certified as the Class Representatives, and William B. Federman and
A. Brooke Murphy from Federman & Sherwood are certified as the
Class Counsel.

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, excluded
from the Settlement Class are the following persons who timely and
validly requested exclusion pursuant to the procedures established
by the Settlement Agreement and the Court: Philip Michael
D'Abbraccio, Axel Rivas Vicioso, Stephen E. O'Rourke, Sylvia L.
Ortega, and Sherry Odorizzi. These Persons will not be bound by the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Furman finds and concludes that the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate. He approves the Settlement (as set forth
in the Settlement Agreement), the releases of the Released Claims,
and all other terms in the Settlement Agreement. The Parties are
directed to perform in accordance with the terms set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. However, without seeking further Court
approval, the Settling Parties may jointly agree to make changes to
the Settlement Agreement.

By this Judgment, the Releasing Parties will be deemed to have (and
by operation of the Judgment will have) fully, finally, and forever
released, relinquished, and discharged all Released Claims against
the Released Parties.

The action is dismissed with prejudice. The Settling Parties are to
bear their own attorneys' fees and costs, except as otherwise
expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement and in the
Judgment.

Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Costs, Judge Furman grants the Motion.
Consistent with Section III.G of the Settlement Agreement, the
Defendant will pay the Class Counsel a $550,000 in attorneys' fees
and litigation expenses, consistent with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement. Per the Settlement Agreement, this award will
be paid separately and exclusively by Altice and will not in any
way reduce the benefits made available to Settlement Class
Members.

Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Service Awards to
Class Representatives, Judge Furman grants the request. Consistent
with the terms of Section III.F of the Settlement Agreement, the
Defendant will pay the Plaintiffs Service Awards in the amount of
$2,750 each. Per the Settlement Agreement, these Service Awards
will be in addition to the other benefits provided by the
Settlement to Settlement Class Members and will be paid separately
by Altice and will not reduce Settlement benefits to Settlement
Class Members.

The Order and Judgment is a final, appealable order, and will
constitute a judgment for purposes of Rules 54 and 58 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By incorporating the Settlement
Agreement's terms therein, Judge Furman determines that the Final
Judgment complies in all respect with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65(d)(1).

The Court reserves jurisdiction, without affecting in any way the
finality of the Order and Judgment, over (a) the implementation and
enforcement of the Settlement; (b) enforcing and administering the
Order and Judgment; (c) enforcing and administering the Settlement
Agreement, including any releases executed in connection therewith;
and (d) other matters related or ancillary to the foregoing.

There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Order and
Judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly
directed. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate ECF
Nos. 95 and 96 and to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/saxaycss from Leagle.com.


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces $1-Bil. Suit in UK Over Antitrust Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon faces a $1 billion class action lawsuit in the U.K., where
the company has been accused of using a "secretive" algorithm to
abuse its dominant position in e-commerce.

Amazon harms its customers by directing them to its "featured
offer," resulting in better-value deals being hidden and consumers
ending up paying more for products, according to the suit, which is
expected to be filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal in
October.

The suit alleges Amazon exploits its so-called "Buy Box" to steer
shoppers toward its own products and items from third-party sellers
who use its order fulfillment and delivery services.

The Buy Box is an area on Amazon's product pages that gives
customers a one-click option to "Buy Now" or "Add to Basket."
Amazon sets certain criteria for sellers to become Buy Box eligible
and, if accepted, they gain placement advantages for their
listings.

It adds that Amazon uses a "secretive and self-favouring algorithm
to ensure that the Buy Box nearly always features goods sold
directly by Amazon itself, or by third-party retailers who pay
hefty storage and delivery fees to Amazon."

The litigation is being led by Hausfeld, a specialist law firm.
Between 80% to 92% of Amazon purchases are made on its Buy Box
tool, according to Hausfeld.

Anyone who lives in the U.K. and made a purchase on Amazon since
October 2016 falls under the claimant class, Hausfeld added.

Hausfeld estimates total damages from the litigation in the region
of £900 million ($1 billion) if it succeeds. Julie Hunter, an
independent consultant, is the lead representative.

"Millions of consumers have paid too much and been denied choice.
This action seeks fair redress for them," said Lesley Hannah, one
of the Hausfeld partners leading the litigation. "Amazon takes
advantage of consumers' well-known tendency to focus on
prominently-placed and eye-catching displays, such as the Buy
Box."

"Amazon doesn't present consumers with a fair range of choices –
on the contrary, the design of the Buy Box makes it difficult for
consumers to locate and purchase better or cheaper options," Hannah
added. "Amazon should not be allowed to take advantage of its
customers in this anticompetitive way."

An Amazon spokesperson said the claim is "without merit and we're
confident that will become clear through the legal process."

"Amazon has always focused on supporting the 85,000 businesses that
sell their products on our UK store, and more than half of all
physical product sales on our UK store are from independent selling
partners," the spokesperson told CNBC. "We always work to feature
offers that provide customers with low prices and fast delivery."

The claim is the subject of an antitrust investigation by the
Competition and Markets Authority, the U.K. competition watchdog.
In July, the CMA initiated a probe into the company over concerns
that its U.K. marketplace "may be anti-competitive and could result
in a worse deal for customers." The European Commission, the EU's
executive arm, has opened a similar antitrust investigation into
Amazon's alleged "self-preferencing" practices.

Class action lawsuits of this type aren't common in the U.K.
They're "opt-out," meaning they're brought on behalf of every
individual that falls within the class unless they expressly opt
out, similar to U.S.-style class action cases. A recent change in
U.K. law paved the way for a flood of opt-out class action suits,
with other cases against Meta
and Google ongoing.

"It is a new process and all the courts involved in it are feeling
their way but there is clearly a trend for these mega actions for
consumers claiming many billions of pounds," said David Greene,
committee member of the London Solicitors Litigation Association.

"Clearly Amazon will fight the case at all stages including class
certification but the Tribunal has made a number of orders recently
for similar actions, certifying the opt out process. It is of
course difficult at this stage to assess the likelihood of success
in these cases but the Big Tech companies are well resourced to
fight." [GN]

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Offers $7.5M for Class Action Over Baggage Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Len Varley of Aviation Source News wrote that after two years of
litigation, US carrier American Airlines has agreed to pay $7.5
million as a settlement of a class action suit that accused it of
backtracking on promises of free checked bags on flights for
certain customers.

A preliminary approval motion was filed on Friday in the Texas
federal court, with the parties reaching the settlement arrangement
out of court - just two weeks before the trial was to commence.

The class action lawsuit originated in February 2021, when
passengers sued the airline for allegedly failing to honor a
promise that certain customers would be permitted one or checked
bags on a flight at no cost.

The complainants alleged that the airline failed to honor this
promise and charged baggage fees on their arrival at the airport.
These instances occurred over a period between 2013 and 2021.

American Airlines, Inc. ("American") has now agreed to pay a
minimum of $7.5 million to provide full 100% refunds to Settlement
Class Members who filed timely, valid claims.

There is no limit or cap on the number of money Americans will pay
over and above the $7.5 million minimum, and Americans will also
pay the settlement administration costs and attorneys' fees.

The preliminary approval motion stated that over the two years
since the process began, Counsel for the class action thoroughly
investigated and analyzed American's customer disclosures and
checked baggage policies.

Counsel spoke with American customers about their experiences, and
investigated those customer complaints and other pertinent public
information. Class Counsel also extensively researched and analyzed
the legal issues regarding the claims pled and American's defenses
and potential defenses.

Moreover, Class Counsel conducted extensive formal discovery in
this case, including reviewing more than 50,000 pages of internal
documents and data produced by American Airlines.

In putting forward the out-of-court settlement proposal, it stated:


"Rather than risk trial and appeal, which could lead to class
members getting zero or less-than-full compensation at an uncertain
time later, the settlement gives nearly every settlement class
member a guaranteed opportunity now to get 100% compensation."

Summary:
It is estimated by Class Counsel that the settlement classes
consist of over 2.8 million airline customers.

During this preliminary approval stage, the Court must make a
preliminary determination of the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the settlement terms and must direct the preparation of
the notice of the certification, proposed settlement, and date of
the final fairness hearing.

The case is listed as: Katherine M. Clearly et al. v. American
Airlines Inc., case number 4:21-cv-00184, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.[GN]

AMPLIFY ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Pipeline Leaks for $50M
------------------------------------------------------------------
maritime-executive.com reports that Amplify Energy has agreed to
pay out a total of $50 million in the settlement of a class action
lawsuit stemming from the October 2021 pipeline leak near
Huntington Beach, California. Details on the settlement were
contained in a court filing that notes that the company and the
class are continuing to pursue their claims against the owners and
operators of two containerships which they believe contributed to
the oil spill.

The spill, which released at least 25,000 gallons of crude,
occurred in federal waters from a pipeline operated by Amplify
running from the Elly platform to shore near Huntington Beach and a
processing plant in nearby Long Beach. The oil spill was first
detected on October 1, 2021, with the U.S. Coast Guard
investigating the slick to determine its origins. The plaintiffs in
the class action charge that Amplify ignored warnings and continued
to pump oil through the pipeline before the operation was finally
suspended the following morning. The Coast Guard oversaw a massive
clean-up operation along the California coast.

Amplify had previously reported that it reached a preliminary
settlement with the class that includes fishermen, businesses, and
property owners. According to the court filing, the agreement calls
for payments totaling $34 million for the commercial fishermen. In
addition, the company will pay $7 million to businesses, including
providers of surf lessons, operators of tourist sightseeing and
whale watching cruises, and businesses including those selling
swimwear and fishing bait. A further $9 million will be paid to the
owners of property along the affected coastline.

In addition to the financial payments, Amplify has agreed to
improve leak detection systems for the pipeline. For the next four
years, the company will conduct visual inspections of the pipeline
twice each year up from the regulatory requirement of inspections
every other year. Amplify will also increase training for its staff
and increase control room staffing on the Elly platform.

The court will meet in November to approve the settlement of the
class action, which comes after Amplify settled federal and state
claims. The company agreed to pay $7.1 in federal tines and to also
reimburse the US Coast Guard $5.8 million for costs it incurred
related to the spill and clean up. Amplify has also settled with
Huntington Beach.

According to the lawyers involved in this case, the settlement of
the class action clears the way for Amplify and the class to pursue
their claims against the shipping companies. A trial is expected to
begin in April 2023. The suit charges that the containerships MSC
Danit and the Beijing dragged their anchors across the pipeline
during a January 2021 storm. In addition to contributing to the
damage that weakened the pipeline by displacing it and cracking the
outer casing, the company also charges that neither shipping
company properly reported having drifted in the federally protected
zone and dragging their anchors during the storm. Amplify also
named the Marine Exchange of Southern California is the suit citing
the organization for negligence in not reporting the incident.

Amplify filed the lawsuit against MSC and COSCO in February 2022.
They are seeking punitive damages, reimbursement for the cost of
the repairs, and lost revenues. The suit also seeks to require the
Marine Exchange to notify companies of potential damage within 24
hours of an anchor dragging incident and for the Marine Exchange to
block larger areas in the anchorage during potential bad weather to
prevent damage to undersea property. The members of the class
action against Amplify have also filed suit against the shipping
companies.[GN]

ARGO GROUP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
An institutional investor, the Police & Fire Retirement System City
of Detroit, has filed a class action lawsuit against international
underwriter Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd. ("Argo" or the
"Company")(NYSE: ARGO), alleging it defrauded investors by issuing
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to
set appropriate reserves, changing of its underwriting policies,
and writing of policies outside of its "core" business.

The suit, brought in federal court in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, was filed by leading
investor law firm Grant & Eisenhofer.

The action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Argo common stock between February
13, 2018 and August 9, 2022 (the "Class Period"). The action is
captioned: The Police & Fire Retirement System City of Detroit v.
Argo Group International Holdings, Inc., Thomas A. Bradley, Scott
Kirk, Kevin J. Rehnberg, Mark E. Watson, III and Jay S. Bullock,
1:22-cv-08971 (S.D.N.Y.).

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges
that throughout the Class Period, Defendants touted that they
closely monitored Argo's underwriting policies and had the ability
to set appropriate reserves. Argo cultivated a narrative that it
had a long history of successfully managing its reserves and that
the Company had a "prudent reserving philosophy."

However, this narrative created by Argo was false and misleading.
Argo's reserves were wholly inadequate, its underwriting standards
were not prudent as represented, and Argo had dramatically changed
its underwriting policies on certain U.S. construction contracts as
far back as 2018. Further, these policies were underwritten outside
of the Company's "core" business including in certain states and
for certain exposures that were far riskier than investors
understood and that the Company no longer would service moving
forward.

The truth was partially disclosed on February 8, 2022, when Argo
reported that its fourth quarter results for 2021 would be
negatively impacted by $130 to $140 million worth of prior year
reserve development and non-operating charges. The Company admitted
that the largest reserve increases were related to construction
defect claims within Argo's U.S. Operations, in addition to reserve
increases in the Run-off segment. The Company also admitted that
the prior year reserve increase for construction defect primarily
related to the 2017 and prior underwriting years in business lines
that had either been significantly remediated or discontinued.

When investors learned the truth about Argo's reserves and
underwriting practices, the price of its common stock fell $7.11
per share (or 13.7%) in one day, dropping from a closing price of
$51.87 per share on February 8, 2022 to close at $44.76 per share,
on February 9, 2022. On February 10, 2022, the price of Argo's
common stock declined to $42.82 per share, for a two-day drop of
$9.05 per share (or 17.5%) wiping out over $315 million in market
capitalization.

Just months later, on August 8, 2022, Argo again shocked its
investors when it announced that it had entered into a Loss
Portfolio Transfer agreement with a wholly owned subsidiary of
Enstar Group Limited covering a majority of the company's U.S.
casualty insurance reserves. On this news, the price of Argo's
common stock declined $9.12 per share (or 28.3%) from an August 8,
2022 closing price of $32.22 to close at $23.10 per share on August
10, 2022. This drop caused the Company's market capitalization to
fall another $320 million. Argo's stock price is down more than 60%
this year, trading near its 52-week low.

For investors who purchased or acquired Argo common stock during
the Class Period, you are a member of this proposed Class and may
be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, which is a
court-appointed representative for the Class, by complying with the
relevant provisions for the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). See 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court by no later than December 19, 2022, which is
the first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York is open that is at least sixty days
after the publication of this notice. You do not need seek to
become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery.
You may also retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this
action.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights, please contact Caitlin M. Moyna at
Grant & Eisenhofer at 646-722-8513, or via email at
cmoyna@gelaw.com. [GN]

BALL STATE: Class Action Lawsuit Over Tuition Fee Refunds Revived
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Brown, writing for Fox59, reports that with COVID rapidly
spreading and vaccines just in the development phase in the spring
of 2020, Ball State University made the same decision a lot of
schools made. They moved to remote classes.

Student Keller Mellowitz had an objection. He'd paid student
activity fees. He'd paid tuition for in-person classes. Now, he was
getting neither and the university was not offering refunds.

So, Mellowitz sued.

In Marion County Superior Court his attorneys filed a class action
lawsuit claiming Ball State's refusal to reimburse students
amounted to a breach of contract and therefore damages should be
awarded. The lawsuit estimated as many as 20,000 Ball State
students were due some sort of payment.

As things slowly chugged along in the pandemic-slowed court system,
state government attempted to derail the class action suit.

In April of 2021, Governor Eric Holcomb signed into law House
Enrolled Act 1002. A portion of that new law retroactively banned
class action lawsuits against a "covered entity" which included
"state educational institutions".

With the lawsuit legislatively on ice, Mellowitz's attorneys would
eventually file an appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Earlier this month, three appeals court judges agreed that the
portion of the new law providing class action protection to state
schools was a "nullity", voided. The action was because the law
conflicted with long-established court rules.

Judge Terry Crone, who wrote the decision, ordered the class action
suit should proceed.

Neither Mellowitz or his attorneys were immediately available for
comment. A spokesman for Ball State declined to discuss the case
because it "under litigation".

It is not known how much money Ball State saved for itself by not
providing tuition and fees refunds, but the school received a large
chunk of federal pandemic relief.

In total, the university was given $77,500,000. After sharing
$27,700,000 with students in the form of emergency grants there was
still nearly $50,000,000 for Ball State to use at its discretion.
Colleges and universities commonly used these funds, in part, to
provide tuition, housing and meal plan refunds to their students.
[GN]

BARILLA AMERICA: Falsely Advertises Made in Italy Pasta, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher at topclassactions.com reports that a California judge
denied a bid by Barilla America Inc. to dismiss a class action
lawsuit that alleges it falsely advertises its pasta as being made
in Italy.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu disagreed with Barilla that
plaintiffs Matthew Sinatro and Jessica Prost lacked standing to sue
and found that their Barilla class action lawsuit stated a claim
upon which relief could be granted.

The judge dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief
because she found that they did not establish that they would be
injured again by the Barilla made in Italy representations.

Barilla class action says pasta ingredients are sourced outside of
Italy
Sinatro and Prost take issue with Barilla's labeling of its pastas
as "ITALY'S #1 BRAND OF PASTA." They claim that consumers are
willing to pay a premium for products that seem to be authentic
Italian products.

The Barilla class action lawsuit says that Italian pasta is one of
the most sought after products globally and that Italian durum
wheat is among the most desirable wheat varieties. However, Italy's
production of durum wheat cannot meet global demand, leaving
companies scrambling to make and sell pasta products purportedly
made from Italian durum wheat, the lawsuit states.

Barilla allegedly misleadingly labels its products as "ITALY'S #1
BRAND OF PASTA" to deliberately mislead consumers into thinking
their products are made in Italy from ingredients that are sourced
in Italy, the Barilla class action states.

However, Barilla pasta products sold in the United States are
actually made in Iowa and New York, and their ingredients are
sourced from countries other than Italy, the Barilla class action
lawsuit alleges.

The judge determined that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge
Barilla pasta products that they did not purchase because the
Barilla made in Italy statement is present on all of the products
named in the complaint.

Last year, Barilla faced a class action lawsuit alleging it
mislabeled its pasta sauces as having "no preservatives" even
though they contain the preservative citric acid.

Sinatro and Prost represented by Ryan J. Clarkson, Shireen M.
Clarkson, Katherine A. Bruce and Kelsey J. Elling of Clarkson Law
Firm PC.

The Barilla made in Italy class action lawsuit is Matthew Sinatro,
et al. v. Barilla America Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-03460, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.[GN]

BOX HILL: Agrees to Settle Breach Class Action for $33 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Thorn, writing for Aviation Australia, reports that hundreds
of students that enrolled with collapsed flight school Soar are set
to receive a five-figure payout after agreeing to a $33 million
settlement.

Soar collapsed into administration on 29 December 2020, and it came
with the company indirectly facing a class action from students
arguing its standards were so poor it didn't meet the subsequent
requirements to obtain a pilot licence.

The payout means many former students will now be able to enrol in
new courses and qualifications after having used up their limited
student loans.

The case was brought by Gordon Legal against Melbourne TAFE
provider Box Hill Institute (BHI), which partnered with Soar for
the course.

Of the final amount, $5.455 million in legal fees and $4.8 million
in administrative costs will be deducted, and the settlement still
has to be approved in a court hearing scheduled for 17 November.

The class action made a number of claims, including accusing BHI of
breaching its duty of care by working with the troubled flight
school.

It also stated BHI engaged in "misleading and deceptive conduct" by
suggesting to potential students that it would enable them to
subsequently obtain a CASA pilot licence.

In January 2020, Australian Aviation reported how those calling the
flight school in the days after its collapse were were presented
with a voice message bluntly informing them that the business
wouldn't be taking or responding to any messages.

It was the last chapter in a difficult history for the
once-prestigious flight school.

Founded in 2012, the company grew to have campuses at Moorabbin
Airport in Melbourne, Bendigo Airport in regional Victoria, and
Sydney's Bankstown Airport.

Its fleet of 50 aircraft comprised Bristell LSA, Technam P2006T,
Foxbat A22LS, Vixxen A32 and Aquila A210 aircraft, as well as a
CKAS 7D0F simulator.

However, things turned sour in 2019 when partners Box Hill demanded
the business supply documentation about its fleet and trainers.

Soar's registered training organisation status was then revoked
after an audit by the regulatory body for vocational education
before Gordon Legal launched its class action.

While the business eventually had its accreditation restored, it
still faced sanctions before it finally collapsed into
administration late in 2020.

Founder Neel Khokhani resigned in early 2019, though has insisted
it was purely a result of personal health reasons unrelated to the
company's struggles.

More seriously, the ATSB is also investigating an incident that saw
a Soar Aviation instructor and student die when one of its Aquila
AT01s crashed in NSW in 2020.

More recently, in a separate incident, the ATSB in May 2021 said a
Soar Aviation student pilot who crashed his Bristell aircraft and
suffered serious head injuries didn't have permission to conduct
the flight solo.

However, the report revealed the trainee believed he did have
authorisation, despite clearly not following the correct
procedures. [GN]

BRP GROUP: Rosen Law to Probe Potential Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of BRP Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: BRP) resulting from
allegations that the Company may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased BRP Group securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9278 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On September 13, 2022, market analyst NINGI
Research published a report alleging, among other things, that "BRP
has doctored its organic growth rate to beat analysts' estimates"
and that "the company misled investors by presenting inorganic
revenue as organic revenue through a self-proclaimed separate
agreement with an affiliate[.]"

The report also alleges that "in 2020 BRP's proprietary ‘MGA of
the Future' technology was misappropriated by an employee and
handed to a competitor, as alleged by BRP in a lawsuit" and that
"the company allegedly did not notice the misappropriation until
May 2021 but did not disclose the intellectual property theft to
investors to date, despite arguing in a lawsuit that the theft has
and will have severe damage to BRP's revenue and market share[.]"

On this news, BRP Group's stock fell $2.39 per share, or 7%, to
close at $29.98 per share on September 13, 2022.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Securities Suit in TX Court
--------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended August 27, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 27, 2022, that a class action
was filed against the company and a motion to dismiss the complaint
was filed by the defendants to which the plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion to dismiss.

On March 15, 2022, plaintiffs filed a second suit against the
company and several defendants in "Bell et al. v. Cal-Maine Foodset
al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-246, in the Western District of Texas,
Austin Division alleging that defendants violated the DTPA by
allegedly demanding exorbitant or excessive prices for eggs during
the COVID-19 state of emergency.

On August 12, 2022, the company and other defendants in the case
filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' class action complaint.
On September 6, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss and the company and other defendants filed their
reply on September 13, 2022. The court has not issued a ruling.

Cal-Maine Foods Inc. is into agriculture production based in
Mississippi.


CAMPBELL SOUP: N.J. Court Dismisses Securities Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-MJS (D.N.J.), Judge Noel L. Hillman of
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

In this consolidated putative securities class action, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made various materially false
or misleading statements regarding their ability to deliver
profitable growth to investors. The SAC was filed on Jan. 15, 2021
after the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") with
leave to file an amended complaint.

The lawsuit is a putative securities class action asserted against
Defendants Campbell and several of its top executives, including
former President and CEO Denise M. Morrison and Senior Vice
President and CFO Anthony P. DiSilvestro. The putative class, led
by court-appointed lead plaintiff the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension
and Retirement System, consists of those who purchased Campbell
common stock from July 19, 2017 through and including May 17,
2018.

The Plaintiffs' claims center around Campbell's public statements
regarding one of its many divisions, a relatively new fresh foods
division called Campbell Fresh ("C-Fresh"). As alleged in the SAC,
upon appointment as Campbell's CEO, Morrison promised to overhaul
the company's image and began by creating C-Fresh. Morrison
embarked on a crusade of acquisitions to bolster the C-Fresh
concept, ultimately acquiring Bolthouse Farms, a fresh food
producer, for $1.55 billion. In June of 2016, Bolthouse recalled a
protein drink it produced due to possible spoilage. Thereafter the
SAC alleges that C-Fresh's profit and sales declined.

The Plaintiffs allege that the negative impact of the recall was
not solely limited to "increased costs, production delays, and
reduced beverage production capacity" but also extended to loss of
critical shelf space from its largest supermarket chain customers
such as Target, Walmart, Publix, Kroger, and Albertsons. Changes in
shelf space allocations by retailers are referred to as "Modular
Resets", and according to the Plaintiffs can occur as infrequently
as once a year for some retailers.

According to the Plaintiffs, retailers made decisions about their
Modular Resets around two months before they were implemented,
thereby putting Campbell on notice of changes well before the date
of any Modular Reset. They contend that the Bolthouse recall caused
Campbell to miss the Modular Resets at its major retailers for
stocking its Bolthouse products, "making sales growth at these
customers impossible in FY 2018." These major retailers "often
replaced Bolthouse beverages with competitor products" which made
it "highly unlikely that Bolthouse could win back that shelf space
in FY 2018."

Modular Resets were of "critical importance" to Campbell's business
so information regarding them was saved in a shared document, the
"Modular Reset Tracker" which was accessible to "all C-Fresh sales
personnel" and "spelled out the impact of missed Modular Resets on
C-Fresh's prospective profitability months in advance of the
Modular Reset date." The Plaintiffs state that because of the need
to "sell-in" to upcoming Modular Resets, Campbell executives,
including Morrison, were "flying all over the country" at least
through July 2017 to meet with Bolthouse's top customers to try to
preserve and regain shelf space. They allege that the Defendants
concealed these facts from investors.

Compounding the issues stemming from the Bolthouse recall, in the
time leading into the class period, Campbell had internal data that
Bolthouse's carrot yields would be down for the remainder of 2017
due to excessive rainfall. Carrots were a key ingredient in
Bolthouse's products.

The Plaintiffs aver that due to irreversible problems at C-Fresh,
Morrison sought a "solution to suppress the disastrous problems
that the C-Fresh division was suffering as Campbell's fiscal year
2017 came to a close." That deal would be the acquisition of
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. The SAC alleges that it was critical for
Campbell to have a high credit rating in order to facilitate the
acquisition of Snyder's, which was being financed in part by debt.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants were motivated by the
acquisition and maintaining the company's credit score to make
misleading statements about the health of C-Fresh. They say that
this caused the company's stock to shoot up almost 5% overnight.
The Defendants continued to claim that C-Fresh would return to
profitability. According to the Plaintiffs, these statements were
materially false or misleading. They suggest that these allegations
are supported by information obtained from "multiple" former
Campbell employees serving as confidential witnesses ("CWs").

The SAC presents statements from 27 non-party CWs. The CW
statements generally focus on the Defendants' knowledge regarding
the status of C-Fresh's business-state and its knowledge relating
to growth goals and outward-facing statements regarding C-Fresh's
financial state.

The SAC further adds allegations that C-Fresh employees had access
to a spreadsheet called the Modular Reset Tracker which was
"incredibly important" because it tracked data related to Modular
Resets and C-Fresh products and thus was integral to planning. It
alleges that key Modular Resets had passed by August 2017, so
Morrison and DiSilvestro should have known they would not be able
to make up the shelf space until the next Modular Reset and that
that would have made their projections of growth in FY 2018
virtually impossible. They allege that this coupled with the
outsourcing of marketing responsibilities for C-Fresh products to a
"mercenary marketing group" that had divided attention and was not
knowledgeable about customer relationships made it impossible to
gain back Bolthouse shelf space.

The Plaintiffs also add that a poor carrot crop made clear to
Bolthouse's marketing and sales team by August 2017 that there
would be erosion in Bolthouse products for the rest of the calendar
year 2017. According to them, Morrison had expressed in a Sept. 1,
2016 earnings call regarding financial results for FY 2015, that
carrots were the "the chassis for our higher margin value added
[consumer packaged goods] business."

CWs also claim that on August 31, 2017, when Morrison told
investors there was a "robust innovation pipeline" for Bolthouse
beverage products, she knew that one of the company's new
beverages, the Pea Protein Milk, was not properly positioned for
launch because Campbell was using inferior quality peas to better
position it to meet its profit margins. They also allege that
Morrison knew by June 2017 that C-Fresh had missed the Modular
Resets for two major customers, Safeway and Albertsons, with
respect to the Pea Protein Milk, "thus foreclosing the opportunity
to get the new Pea Protein Milk product on the shelves of at least
Safeway and Albertsons for the entirety of FY 2018."

The Plaintiffs complain that statements made in press releases, SEC
filings, and investor conferences by Defendants directly contradict
the evidence of C-Fresh's failing state. As with the SAC, they have
generally separated these statements into date-driven categories,
arguing that false or misleading statements occurred on the
following dates: July 19, 2017; Aug. 31, 2017; Nov. 21, 2017; and
Feb. 16, 2018.

The Court dismissed the FAC on Nov. 30, 2020 on the basis that the
Plaintiffs had failed to raise an adequate inference of scienter.
The Plaintiffs filed the SAC on Jan. 15, 2021 in an attempt to
remedy the FAC's deficiencies. The Defendants filed the present
Motion to Dismiss on March 10, 2021. The Motion to Dismiss has been
fully briefed.

At the outset, Judge Hillman states that the Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over the case because it presents a federal
question under the Exchange Act.

Next, when considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Judge Hillman explains
that a court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. It is well settled that a pleading is sufficient if it
contains "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief."

The Defendants advance several main arguments concerning dismissal
of Plaintiffs' claims, many of which are similar to their arguments
when they moved to dismiss the FAC. They first advance arguments
explaining why the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the first element of a
Rule 10(b)(5) claim: a material misrepresentation or omission.

The Defendants argue that the statements complained of were neither
material nor false or misleading, and therefore, are not
actionable. They argue that all of the statements at issue were
either (1) forward-looking statements accompanied by meaningful,
cautionary language, rendering them within the PSLRA's safe harbor
provision, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-5(c); (2) statements of opinion;
or (3) non-actionable statements of corporate puffery. They also
argue that the CW statements do not support any alleged fraud, and
that the facts actually establish that no fraud occurred.

The Defendants additionally advance arguments that the Plaintiffs
cannot satisfy the second element of a Section 10(b) claim:
scienter. They argue that, even with the additions in the SAC, the
Plaintiffs still have not pled the strong showing of scienter
required to survive dismissal. They argue that (1) the Plaintiffs
have not presented competent evidence of any motive to commit
fraud; and (2) that there was no conscious misbehavior or
recklessness on behalf of any Defendant. As part and parcel of
their argument regarding conscious misbehavior or recklessness, the
Defendants argue that Morrison's departure, the core operations
doctrine, and simply a holistic review of the allegations do not
give rise to an inference of scienter.

The Defendants make an additional argument that as a result of
dismissal under either of the above two grounds, the Section 20(a)
claim must also be dismissed. Separately and finally, they contend
that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to sue on the basis of
statements made on Feb. 16, 2018 because the lead Plaintiff
purportedly last purchased Campbell stock during the putative class
period on Feb. 8, 2018.

Though the Plaintiffs have added allegations aimed at scienter,
Judge Hillman again finds that they are not enough to raise that
inference. Thus, even if he were to find the first element
sufficiently pled as to at least some of the statements complained
of, the second element is not sufficiently pled and as a result the
Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim cannot proceed on that basis.
Accordingly, he does not address the material misrepresentation
element and instead only focuses on the scienter element, which is
dispositive of both of the Plaintiffs' claims.

The Defendants challenge whether the Plaintiffs have pled the
strong inference of scienter needed to propel their SAC past the
pleading stage. A "strong inference" of scienter "need not be
irrefutable," but it must be one that is "cogent and compelling."
"A complaint will survive only if a reasonable person would deem
the inference of scienter cogent at least as compelling as any
opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent."

The SAC alleges that the Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded
that the projections and statements made by the Individual
Defendants were false and misleading. The Plaintiffs argue in the
alternative that the Defendants had sufficient motive and
opportunity to raise a strong inference of scienter.

The Plaintiffs claim that the following allegations form a strong
inference of scienter to survive dismissal: (1) the Individual
Defendants had access to information and were aware that their
public statements were not accurate; (2) Morrison's termination;
(3) Defendants were motivated to increase the company's credit
score to complete the Snyder's acquisition; and (4) C-Fresh was a
core operation of Campbell. These are much the same categories of
arguments as those raised in opposition to the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss the FAC. However, the pleading of additional facts
colors how the Court analyzes each of these factors.

Judge Hillman first discusses each basis for scienter. Then he
considers the complaint as a whole in determining whether the
Plaintiffs have shown a strong inference of scienter that is at
least as compelling as the Defendants' plausible nonculpable
explanation for its conduct.

Judge Hillman opines that (i) the additional facts that Plaintiffs
have pled regarding internal data available to the Defendants are
not enough to create an inference of scienter; (ii) the SAC as
drafted fails to include additional evidence to infer that the
resignation of Morrison had anything to do with her supposed
knowledge or reckless involvement with any fraud; (iii) in the
absence of further circumstantial evidence, an inference of
scienter based on the desire to maintain a credit rating is not "at
least as compelling as the Defendants' inference'; (iv) the
Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to make out a
plausible claim, under standard applicable to the case, that the
Defendants knew their statements were false or were reckless as to
the falsity of their statements; and (v) the additional imprecise
allegation regarding the carrot crop does not make the inference of
scienter more plausible than the innocent one.

Even though, as the Court recognized in dismissing the FAC, an
inference of fraud need not be the "of the 'smoking gun' genre,"
the SAC still asks a factfinder, and hence the Court, to make
illogical leaps in order to arrive at the conclusion that
sufficient facts are alleged to satisfy the element of scienter. As
it relates to scienter, the allegations of the SAC are still a
bridge too far. Accordingly, Judge Hillman dismisses Count One.

Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 creates a
cause of action against individuals who exercise control over a
"controlled person," including a corporation, that has committed a
violation of Section 10(b). Accordingly, liability under Section
20(a) is derivative of an underlying violation of Section 10(b) by
the controlled person. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to state
a claim for violation of Section 10(b) against the Defendants,
Judge Hillman opines that the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims
against the Individual Defendants necessarily fail. He dismisses
Count Two with prejudice as well.

For these reasons, Judge Hillman grants the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and dismisses the SAC with prejudice. An appropriate Order
will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yc747yfa from Leagle.com.

SHARAN NIRMUL -- snirmul@ktmc.com -- JOHNSTON DE F. WHITMAN, JR. --
jwhitman@ktmc.com -- JONATHAN F. NEUMANN -- jneumann@ktmc.com --
STEPHANIE M. GREY -- sgrey@klehr.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER &
CHECK, LLP, RADNOR, PA, LINDA P. NUSSBAUM --
lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C., NEW YORK, NY,
Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs.

JAMES E. CECCHI, DONALD A. ECKLUND, CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO P.C., ROSELAND, NJ, Liaison Counsel for
the Plaintiffs.

ROBERT A. MINTZ -- rmintz@mccarter.com -- BRIAN W. CARROLL --
bcarroll@mccarter.com -- GREGORY J. HINDY -- ghindy@mccarter.com --
McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, JUSTIN D. D'ALOIA,
STACY NETTLETON -- stacy.nettleton@weil.com -- AMANDA K. POOLER --
amanda.pooler@weil.com -- JOHN A. NEUWIRTH --
john.neuwirth@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, NEW YORK, NEW
YORK, Counsel for the Defendants.


CANADA: Veterans' Class Action Over Retirement Benefits Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Court has certified a class action against the
Government of Canada brought on behalf of approximately 10,000
Veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces. The representative
plaintiff, Sean Bruyea, alleges - on behalf of Veterans who
suffered debilitating injuries and illnesses as a result of their
service in the Canadian Armed Forces - that Canada provided
erroneous advice to these Veterans in its administration of the
Earnings Loss Benefit and the Supplementary Retirement Benefit,
causing loss to the Veterans and their dependants.

The Supplementary Retirement Benefit program was established by the
Government of Canada to compensate for lower pension earnings and
retirement benefits payable to Veterans who were unable to engage
in suitable gainful employment because of service-related injuries
and disabilities that rendered them totally and permanently
incapacitated. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is the sponsor and
administrator of the Supplementary Retirement Benefit program.

This class action touches on one of the most common complaints of
Veterans and their families - that the benefits scheme available to
Veterans is unduly complex and difficult to navigate. This is
especially true for Veterans suffering from cognitive and
psychological injuries and illnesses - who find it almost
impossible to determine which benefits they are entitled to.

The class action alleges that employees of Veterans Affairs Canada
- who were assigned to help ill and injured Veterans - lacked
sufficient training, expertise, and awareness of the various
benefit programs, including the Supplementary Retirement Benefit
program, to explain and communicate such programs to Veterans. As a
result, Veterans received erroneous advice about the Supplementary
Retirement Benefit and related benefits and, consequently, did not
receive the full value of the benefits to which they were
entitled.

This class action is brought on behalf of all former members of the
Canadian Armed Forces who received the Supplementary Retirement
Benefit upon termination of the program, but who received less for
the Supplementary Retirement Benefit than they would have received
had they been properly advised of the Supplementary Retirement
Benefit and how it was calculated.

On May 13, 2020, the Veterans Ombudsman issued a report about the
Supplementary Retirement Benefit payout. The Ombudsman concluded
that there were possible systemic issues relating to the way that
Veterans were counselled (or not counselled) regarding
Supplementary Retirement Benefit eligibility at the time it was
introduced. The Ombudsman determined that the complex eligibility
criteria for the Supplementary Retirement Benefit was difficult for
both Veterans Affairs Canada ("VAC") staff and Veterans to
understand, and that VAC did not provide clear, easy-to-understand
information which would enable Veterans to make an informed
decision on program application.

The hearing took place in Ottawa on June 6-8, 2022, and the Court's
decision was released on October 17, 2022.

A copy of the Certification Order can be found here:
https://bit.ly/3TAqpnn

Quotes - Representative Plaintiff, Sean Bruyea

"This class action is, at its heart, about addressing the
overwhelming and discouraging bureaucratic complexity in benefits
for Canada's disabled Veterans. We sacrificed so much, and in
return, we ask that Canada recognize that sacrifice, at the very
least, by having a duty to meaningfully inform our Veterans and
their families of the benefits they are entitled to because of
those sacrifices."

"I feel a profound honour to represent so many vulnerable Veterans
who, but for this class action, would not be given access to
justice. I am so deeply relieved that Justice Kane did not side
with the government's position that Canada owes no duty of care to
our most disabled Veterans."

Quotes - Class Counsel, Angela Bespflug, Murphy Battista LLP

"On October 17, 2022, the Federal Court certified this action as a
class proceeding. The action seeks justice for over 10,000 Veterans
of the Canadian Armed Forces who selflessly risked their lives in
service to their country and who sustained severe physical and
psychological injuries as a result. The action alleges that these
Veterans received less in income-replacement benefits than they
were entitled to receive because Canada failed to reasonably inform
them of the benefits available to them and, in fact, provided
erroneous advice to them with respect to these benefits."

"In light of the Federal Court's decision, we encourage Canada to
stop fighting Veterans who are totally and permanently
incapacitated. Canada should resolve the issues in this litigation
in a manner that recognizes the extraordinary sacrifices that these
Veterans have made for our country."

"This case is a humbling reminder of the selfless sacrifices that
Veterans have made. We'll continue to fight for the rights of
Canada's Veterans who sustained life-altering injuries while
serving their country." [GN]

CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Class Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 7
----------------------------------------------------------
Credit Acceptance Corp. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14, 2022, that
the Eastern District Court of Michigan scheduled the final hearing
for the settlement agreement of the putative class action against
the Company for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 on December 7,
2022.

On October 2, 2020, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer (now
former Chief Executive Officer), and its Chief Financial Officer
(now Chief Executive Officer) in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on alleged
false and/or misleading statements or omissions regarding the
Company and its business, and seeking class certification,
unspecified damages plus interest and attorney and expert witness
fees and other costs on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that
purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Acceptance common stock from
November 1, 2019 through August 28, 2020.

On May 28, 2021, the court issued an opinion and order appointing
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.

On July 22, 2021, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting similar violations, seeking similar relief and expanding
the putative class to include all persons and entities (subject to
specified exceptions) that purchased or otherwise acquired Credit
Acceptance common stock from May 4, 2018 through August 28, 2020.

On June 14, 2022, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle this putative class action. The agreement in principle
contemplated an aggregate cash payment by the Company of $12.0
million to settle claims brought on behalf of all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Acceptance
common stock from May 4, 2018 through August 28, 2020.

On August 24, 2022, the parties executed and filed with the court a
definitive stipulation and agreement of settlement, referred to
herein as the settlement agreement, which was consistent with the
agreement in principle and provides for a full release of all
claims against all defendants, including the Company and its
officers. The settlement agreement provides that the defendants
expressly deny any liability, wrongdoing or responsibility.

On September 19, 2022, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement agreement and scheduled for December 7,
2022, a hearing to consider final approval.

The settlement agreement provides that, upon final court approval
of the settlement agreement, the litigation would be dismissed with
prejudice.

Credit Acceptance Corporation -- https://www.creditacceptance.com/
-- is an auto finance company providing automobile loans and other
related financial products.[BN]

CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Agrees to Settle Mislabeling Suit for $100,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
mjbizdaily.com reports that multistate marijuana operator Curaleaf
Holdings will pay $100,000 to settle a class action lawsuit in
Oregon stemming from a deadly labeling mix-up in 2021.

Roughly 500 people will each receive $150 to $200, depending on how
many people file claims over mislabeled CBD drops, The Oregonian
reported.

Thursday's settlement in U.S. District Court in Portland does not
prevent consumers from pursuing individual personal-injury claims,
according to The Oregonian.

The class action lawsuit arose after an employee at Curaleaf's
Select manufacturing facility in Portland, Oregon, confused two
buckets labeled with similar identification numbers, one with THC
and the other with CBD.

As a result, about 500 bottles labeled as CBD wellness drops but
containing large doses of THC were sold.

Some consumers who ingested the mislabeled products went to medical
clinics while others reported feeling confused.

Massachusetts-headquartered Curaleaf said it implemented new safety
procedures after the accident, according to The Oregonian.

Also this week, Curaleaf settled - on confidential terms - a
wrongful death case related to the labeling accident, the newspaper
reported.

But two other personal-injury cases are pending.

In January, Curaleaf settled 10 lawsuits - also on undisclosed
terms - from people who reported feeling negative effects from the
mislabeled tinctures.

In August, Oregon regulators fined Curaleaf $130,000 and suspended
the company's business license for 23 days.

To identify consumers who qualify for compensation under the
settlement, a "class administrator will use state records, online
notices, proofs of purchase and personal testaments," Portland
attorney Michael Fuller told the newspaper.

In August, Curaleaf marijuana products were temporarily recalled in
New York because of labeling errors. [GN]

DEUTSCHE TELEKOM: Bid to Transfer Dale Suit to S.D.N.Y. Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY DALE, BRETT JACKSON, JOHNNA FOX, BENJAMIN
BORROWMAN, ANN LAMBERT, ROBERT ANDERSON, and CHAD HOHENBERY, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22 C 03189
(N.D. Ill.), Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies
Defendant T-Mobile US, Inc.'s motion to transfer the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Plaintiffs filed the suit under the federal antitrust statutes
challenging the 2020 merger between T-Mobile and Sprint. On April
29, 2018, wireless service providers T-Mobile and Sprint announced
their intention to merge.

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia sued to block the
merger. The case proceeded to trial in December 2019 before the
Honorable Judge Victor Marrero of SDNY. During the two-week bench
trial, the parties presented extensive evidence and testimony
regarding the potential pro- or anti-competitive effects of the
merger.

Judge Marrero ultimately ruled against the complaining States,
saying he was "not persuaded" by their prediction that the new
company formed by the merger would pursue anticompetitive behavior.
He also disagreed with the States' contention "that Sprint, absent
the merger, would continue operating as a strong competitor in the
nationwide market for wireless services." Finally, he rejected the
States' argument that DISH Network Corp. was unlikely to enter the
wireless services market as a viable competitor post-merger.

After Judge Marrero issued his decision, T-Mobile and Sprint
settled with twelve of the State Attorneys General. The settlement
included commitments by the merged company to provide low-cost
plans to residents of those states and nationwide broadband access
for educational purposes to qualifying households. In exchange, the
States agreed to forgo an appeal of Judge Marrero's decision and to
refrain from publicly opposing the merger. The settlement agreement
remains in force through April of 2025, and all disputes arising
out of the agreement are to be heard in the Southern District of
New York.

The merger closed on April 1, 2020. In T-Mobile's characterization,
the results have been emphatically pro-consumer. T-Mobile points to
its roll out of wireless plans targeted at low-income and prepaid
customers and an expanded network that competes with home internet
providers. It also lauds DISH as a rising competitor in the
wireless service market, emphasizing DISH's achievement of
FCC-imposed milestones for building out its own 5G network.

The Plaintiffs, naturally, espouse a dimmer view. They claim that
post-merger, the downward trend in wireless service plan prices has
reversed, with the big three wireless carriers (T-Mobile, Verizon,
and AT&T) instead raising rates, on top of customers facing higher
taxes, fees, and surcharges. Plaintiffs also allege that T-Mobile
has exploited the post-merger reduction in competition by enrolling
its customers in a program that sells their data to advertisers.
And contrary to T-Mobile's rosy description of DISH's place in the
market, the Plaintiffs bemoan the would-be competitor's
performance, noting that DISH remains primarily a "virtual" network
that resells access to the networks of other carriers.

Against the backdrop of these competing pictures of the commercial
wireless service environment, Plaintiffs bring antitrust claims
under Section 7 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Section 18) and
Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1). Purporting to
represent a nationwide class of AT&T and Verizon wireless
customers, the Plaintiffs allege that the reduction in competition
has caused the class members to pay billions of dollars more than
they otherwise would have absent the merger. In this action, they
seek to unwind the T-Mobile-Sprint merger, create a viable fourth
competitor in the marketplace, and recover damages for the
overcharges they sustained.

Delving into the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims is a task for a
later date, however. In the transfer motion presently before the
Court, the question is simply where those issues should be
litigated. The named Plaintiffs claim they chose the Northern
District of Illinois ("NDIL") because it is the most convenient for
them, and that the case should remain here. Of the seven, one
resides in this District, three others reside in Illinois, and the
remaining three reside in Indiana. T-Mobile contends the case
belongs back in Southern District of New York ("SDNY") because it
has the closest connection to the material events and is more
convenient in other relevant regards.

Judge Durkin first examines the private interest factors. A
district court considering a transfer motion "must evaluate both
the convenience of the parties and various public-interest
considerations." Relevant private interest factors include the
plaintiff's choice of forum, the situs of the material events, the
convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the relative ease of
access to evidence. The public interest analysis "focuses on the
efficient administration of the court system, rather than the
private considerations of the litigants. Considerations include
"the speed at which the case will proceed to trial, the court's
familiarity with the applicable law, the relation of the community
to the occurrence at issue, and the desirability of resolving
controversies in their locale."

With respect to the choice of forum, Judge Durkin concludes that
the Plaintiffs' choice of forum carries the "substantial" weight
ordinarily afforded to a plaintiff's choice to litigate in its home
forum, but is not entitled to any additional deference. Although
only one named Plaintiff resides in this District, the rest live
nearby. The nationwide class they seek to represent is of course
scattered throughout the country, but presumably benefits from any
lessened burden imposed on their representatives. Although the
Plaintiffs' choice of forum does not carry conclusive weight under
the circumstances of the case, "less deference does not mean no
deference." This factor therefore weighs against transfer.

With respect to the situs of the material events, Judge Durkin
finds that the Plaintiffs are no doubt correct that claiming the
merger occurred exclusively or predominantly in SDNY is a fiction.
T-Mobile has identified several key events that took place there,
including a substantial portion of the business negotiations, but
Plaintiffs point to other relevant events that occurred far from
SDNY. While Judge Durkin does not agree that the material events of
the case occurred primarily in New York, he says they certainly did
not occur in Chicago. This factor is therefore neutral.

The convenience of witnesses is often viewed as the most important
factor in the transfer balance. Because transfer to SDNY would
impose a greater burden on the Plaintiffs without conferring any
obvious benefit on T-Mobile, the party convenience factor cuts
against transfer.

Finally, modern litigation practices of sophisticated entities, by
which the vast majority of documentary evidence can be produced
electronically and transmitted anywhere, have greatly diminished
the importance of the ease of access to evidence factor.
Understandably, neither party addressed this factor in detail, and
Judge Durkin finds that it is neutral in the transfer calculus.

Judge Durkin now examines the public interest factors: time to
resolution, familiarity with law and facts, and relationship to the
community and desirability of resolving controversies in their
locale.

To evaluate the speed at which a case will proceed, courts look to
two statistics: (1) the median number of months from filing to
disposition for civil cases and (2) the median number of months
from filing to trial for civil cases." According to the data cited
by the parties, for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2022, the
median time to disposition of civil cases was 5.7 months in SDNY
and 7.2 months in NDIL. The median time to trial was 44.4 months in
SDNY and 48.9 months in NDIL. By both measures, cases tend to move
slightly quicker in SDNY, so this factor slightly favors transfer.

Regarding the familiarity with law and facts factor, Judge Durkin
holds that discouraging forum-shopping is undoubtedly a concern
when weighing a transfer motion. It is hard to deny that T-Mobile's
request to transfer the case to SDNY at least creates the
appearance of forum shopping, given that any purported efficiency
gain in that district is speculative and it is not T-Mobile's home
district. The Plaintiffs' chosen forum is not obviously
inconvenient, making the transfer motion more suspect. Given all
these considerations, Judge Durkin cannot say that SDNY's potential
familiarity with the subject matter of the case favors transfer,
and this factor overall counsels against granting T-Mobile's
motion.

Lastly, the allegations in the case carry nationwide implications
and defy categorization as a localized controversy. While the
Plaintiffs' counsel conceded that Chicago has no special connection
to the facts of the case, SDNY has no stronger interest. The third
factor is neutral.

On balance, Judge Durkin finds that T-Mobile has not met its burden
of showing SDNY is clearly a more convenient forum for this case
than NDIL. Several factors are neutral, and no factor strongly
favors transfer. On the other side of the scale, some convenience
factors favor keeping the case here, as does the usual preference
of respecting a plaintiff's choice of forum. "Unless the balance of
the factors is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's
choice of forum should rarely be disturbed." For the foregoing
reasons, T-Mobile's motion to transfer the case to the Southern
District of New York is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 7, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4w494zep from
Leagle.com.


DREAMFIELDS BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Williams at cannabisbusinesstimes.com reports that the
defendants have not yet responded to Cannabis Business Times'
requests for comment.

A class action lawsuit alleges that DreamFields Brands Inc. and Med
For America Inc., which "make, sell, and market the 'Jeeter' brand
of 'prerolls,'" have labeled products as having higher THC
percentages than those products contain.

The law firm Dovel & Luner represents plaintiffs Jasper Centeno and
Blake Wilson, who the complaint states both purchased mislabeled
Jeeter products at California dispensaries.

The lawsuit refers to a report by industry publication WeedWeek
published in September, which states that two diamond-infused
prerolls tested by the news outlet had "implied THC inflation" of
70% to 100% and 28% to 42%, respectively. These were two of nine
prerolls tested by independent labs that have been vocal about the
issue of potency inflation in the cannabis industry. Jeeter was one
of two companies that agreed to a second test by WeedWeek and
reimbursed its editor and publisher, Alex Halperin, for the cost of
the products.

The complaint points to WeedWeek's findings that both Jeeter
prerolls tested had allegedly contained THC percentages that fall
outside of the 10% margin of error permitted by California
Department of Cannabis Control regulations.

The complaint states: "For example, the Baby Jeeter Fire OG Diamond
Infused 5-Pack Preroll was listed as having 46% THC on the label.
Independent lab testing showed, however, that the actual THC
content of the product was substantially lower, between 23-27% THC.
Thus, the THC content was overstated by 70-100% -- substantially
more than the 10% margin of error allowed under the California
regulations."

Referring to each of the plaintiffs, the suit states: "If he had
known the truth, he would not have purchased the products, or would
have paid less for them."

The lawsuit alleges that if the defendants were to test its
products with an independent lab rather than the one they went
with, they "would have learned that the THC content of their
products was substantially overstated."

Georg Kallert of Landau Labs, which tested products for Jeeter,
told WeedWeek regarding the news outlet's findings for the Fire OG
product that "A review of provided CoAs shows moisture content
analysis was handled differently from Landau Labs . . . thus final
results were artificially lowered." (Landau Labs is not named in
the lawsuit.)

Addressing Jeeter's Churros Diamond Infused 5-Pack Preroll, which
WeedWeek said had "implied THC inflation" of 28% to 42%, Kallert
said Landau Labs stands by its results.

Jeeter declined to comment to WeedWeek, according to the outlet.

The lawsuit states that "the primary reason that consumers purchase
cannabis is for its psychological and medicinal effects, and those
psychological and medicinal effects are largely driven by the THC
content of the product."

In a prepared statement provided to CBT, attorney Christin Cho of
Dovel & Luner said: "Consumers are willing to pay more for cannabis
products with higher THC content, and expect to pay less for
cannabis products with lower THC content." [GN]

DUPONT DE NEMOURS: PFOA Suit Granted Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------
Conall Smith, writing for News10, reports that Hoosick Falls is
taking on another big corporation for its alleged involvement in
PFOA contamination in and around the village.

Out of four companies named, the chemical company DuPont was the
only one not to participate in a $65 million settlement with the
village over alleged PFOA contamination of the village's water.

Months after those settlement checks were distributed in July, a
federal judge in Albany has now granted class action status for
Hoosick Falls against DuPont. "We intend to get the additional
compensation from DuPont through either trial or settlement to make
the residents who own property whole with regard to the loss of
value of their property and to extend the medical monitoring
program to what has been medically recommended," explains Stephen
Schwarz, one of four class action attorneys that have been
appointed by the court.

DuPont, along with 3M, Honeywell and Saint-Gobain Performance
Plastics are alleged to have polluted water in Hoosick Falls with
PFOAs for decades. According to Schwarz, the class action
certification motion had not been decided before the three
companies settled with the village in 2021. That left DuPont open
for possible further litigation after a judge granted the class
action status.

Schwarz says the previous settlement was enough to help residents
with the devaluation of their homes and at least a decade of
medical monitoring, but more can be done. "We also would like to
make the residents of Hoosick Falls whole in regards to the
devaluation in which they have not been made by the previous
settlement. The previous settlement was obviously substantial but
we can establish more damages than were provided in that
settlement."  

This litigation first began in 2016, six years later, Schwarz says
he is hopeful to take the case to trial early next year. [GN]

EMPOWER RETIREMENT: Faces Class Action Over Fraudulent Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clara Hudson, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Empower
Retirement LLC is facing a lawsuit over an allegedly fraudulent
scheme in which it lures customers into high-cost accounts to
secure additional advantages for itself, according to a filing in a
Denver federal court.

The lawsuit, filed on Oct. 14, said Empower misrepresents its
advisers as being objective, when their compensation is tied
directly to enrolling participants into high-cost accounts operated
by an Empower subsidiary.

Empower said in an email on Oct. 17 that the allegations in the
lawsuits are without merit. "We will defend the matter vigorously,"
the company said. [GN]


ERIE COUNTY, NY: CSEAI Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The County of Erie,
et al. The case is styled as Civil Service Employees Association,
Inc., Local 1000, Afscme, Afl-Cio, Erie Unit of Local 815, and the
class of all similarly situated and affected members of Civil
Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, Afscme, Afl-Cio,
Erie Unit of Local 815, Petitioners v. The County of Erie, Mark
Poloncarz, Respondents, Case No. 812159/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Erie
Cty., Oct. 11, 2022).

The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 75 (Arbitration)."

Erie County -- https://www.erie.gov/ -- is a county along the shore
of Lake Erie in western New York State.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Diane M. Perri Roberts, Esq.
          Diane M. Perri Roberts, Esq.
          42 Delaware Ave Ste 120
          Buffalo, NY 14202-3924

The Respondent is represented by:

          Jeremy Christopher Toth
          Jeremy Christopher Toth, Esq.
          95 Franklin St Rm 1634
          Buffalo, NY 14202-3921


FIELDALE FARMS: $57.4M in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
16 C 8637 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
grants the Appointed Counsel's request of an interim award of
attorney's fees and costs and incentive awards for the named class
representatives.

In this lawsuit alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the chicken
industry against more than 20 defendants, the Court appointed the
law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as the interim counsel to
represent a putative class of end-user consumer plaintiffs (the
"End Users").

On Dec. 20, 2021, the Court approved settlements for the End Users
that the interim counsel negotiated with six defendant corporate
families, totaling $181 million, while the case continues to
proceed against the remaining defendants. In approving the
settlements, it appointed Hagens Berman and the law firm Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as the co-lead counsel for the
settlement class ("Appointed Counsel"). Following that order, it
certified the End User Class on May 27, 2022.

The Appointed Counsel seek an interim award of attorney's fees and
costs and incentive awards for the 26 named class representatives.
Two objections were filed, and one of the objectors sought
discovery on issues related to the counsel's fees. After briefing
on the objections and whether discovery was proper, the Court
ordered the Appointed Counsel to disclose certain information about
their prior fee requests and awards in other antitrust cases, and
their agreements with the named Plaintiffs.

Without the benefit of a prior government investigation to guide
them, the Appointed Counsel sought to represent a class of
consumers in this case shortly after it was filed in September
2016. Since then, the Court has appointed counsel for three classes
and more than 100 entities have opted out of the classes to file
their own direct actions. The more than 20 defendants are
represented by some of the most prominent law firms in the
country.

The Appointed Counsel successfully defended the case against a
significant motion to dismiss and achieved class certification.
They have shepherded the case through extensive discovery, as is
recounted in the declaration supporting their motion, and is
reflected in the more than 5,800 docket entries that make up the
case, including 18 scheduling orders. The Appointed Counsel has
briefed numerous motions in addition to the motions to dismiss and
for class certification.

The Appointed Counsel have been assisted by four other firms. The
Appointed Counsel and the assisting firms have submitted their
hours for the Court's review on a quarterly basis. Their collective
lodestar is 67,522.2 hours representing $32,853,802 in fees.

The Appointed Counsel seek a fee award of 33% of the settlement
total of $181 million, or $59.73 million. They also seek payment of
$8.75 million of the more than $9 million in litigation expenses
they have incurred. And they seek a $2,000 incentive award for each
of the named class representatives. As of Dec. 6, 2021, 1.2 million
class members filed claims, with only seven opt-outs and three
objections.

Judge Durkin opines that the Appointed Counsel have devoted
thousands of hours to the case. Their performance to date has been
exemplary. The road to some of the settlements was eventually
smoothed by later criminal indictments and corporate plea
agreements. But the Appointed Counsel's work appears to have
prompted the government investigations that led to those
indictments, rather than the reverse. A substantial award is
warranted as a proper incentive for high quality counsel to take on
complex cases, requiring a massive investment of time and money,
with such a high risk of non-payment.

Additionally, the Appointed Counsel's requested fee award is in
line with awards they have received in cases of similar magnitude.
Their fee request is well within the range of awards they have
received since 2016. Judge Durkin has no reason to characterize the
request as "exorbitant" or "selfish." He says there is simply
little to no precedent recommending anything other than an award of
30% to 33%. With this being the only real evidence of the "market
rate," he grants the Appointed Counsel's motion for 33% of the
relevant fund amount.

The Appointed Counsel seek $8.75 million out of more than $9
million in expenses. They informed the class that they would not
seek to recover the full amount of their expenses at this time. The
request for $8.75 million in expenses is granted. Expenses,
however, should be deducted from the common fund before the fee
award percentage is applied. Therefore, the Appointed Counsel will
be paid fees of 33% of the settlement fund minus $8.75 million in
expenses.

According to the Appointed Counsel, each named Plaintiff has spent
at least 40 hours on the case. Each named Plaintiff was required to
comply with discovery including a deposition. This is not an
insignificant burden for individual people to bear. Furthermore, an
award of $2,000 for each named Plaintiff is less than is customary.
Judge Durkin finds that $2,000 per named Plaintiff is a reasonable
award.

Therefore, the Appointed Counsel's motion is granted as follows:
(1) expenses are awarded in the amount of $8.75 million; (2)
incentive awards in the amount of $2,000 are awarded to each of the
24 class representatives, with a twenty-fifth $2,000 award being
shared by class representatives David and Leslie Weidner; and (3)
attorney's fees are awarded in the amount of $57.4 million, which
is 33% of the settlement fund after deducting the expenses and
incentive awards. Lastly, while Judge Durkin appreciates the spirit
of the objections, including the most recent filing of Oct. 6,
2022, he says they were not material to a case of this size,
alleging antitrust violations, subject to Seventh Circuit
precedent, so no objector "incentive award" is appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 7, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ujjv5wz from
Leagle.com.


FORUM INVESTORS: Camarda Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX CAMARDA and ASHLEY MORROW, Plaintiffs v. FORUM INVESTORS III
LLC, FORUM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT III LLC, MARSHALL KIEV, RICHARD
KATZMAN, STEVEN BERNS, JEFFREY NACHBOR, JASON LUO, and JAMES
TAYLOR, Defendants, Case No. 2022-0917-KSJM (Del. Ch., Oct. 14,
2022) is a verified stockholder class action complaint brought by
the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated former stockholders of Forum Merger III Corporation, in
connection with the merger between Forum III and Electric Last
Mile, Inc. (Legacy ELMS), pursuant to an agreement and plan of
merger executed on December 10, 2020, asserting claims for breach
of fiduciary duty against the Defendants.

This action challenges certain Defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties in connection with the transaction and other
Defendants' aiding and abetting of the same. To serve their own
personal financial interests, Forum Management, Sponsor, and Kiev
(referred here as Control Defendants) arranged an unfair merger
transaction that significantly overvalued Legacy ELMS.
Collectively, the Control Defendants stood to reap tens of millions
of dollars in windfall gains from their "Founder Shares," upon the
closing of the transaction, says the suit.

Thus, seeking to ensure that the transaction received the requisite
stockholder approval, the Control Defendants and the other
conflicted outside directors on Forum III's Board of Directors
issued a materially misleading proxy statement, which falsely
assured Forum III stockholders that Legacy ELMS could achieve
significant growth and production with the capital it would receive
from the transaction, and ultimately become cash positive by the
end of 2022. In truth, the Legacy ELMS business had little to no
chance of meeting the cash flow or production targets Defendants
gave stockholders; and the business would not have the cash or
resources necessary to do so, even with the transaction proceeds,
says the complaint.

In breach of their fiduciary duties to Forum III's public
stockholders, the Control Defendants and Director Defendants
elevated their own personal financial interests in achieving any
business combination over their obligation to secure a fair
transaction for Forum III's public stockholders. All Defendants
omitted or materially misrepresented facts concerning Legacy ELMS's
financial state, cash needs, production capabilities, and
likelihood of becoming cash flow positive in the near term, as well
as Taylor and Luo's equity transactions. As a result, Plaintiffs
and the Class were significantly harmed, the suit further asserts.

Forum Investors III LLC was a Delaware Limited Liability Company
and the Sponsor of Forum III. At the time of the transaction,
Sponsor owned over 20% of Forum III's issued shares, including all
the Founder Shares.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph L. Christensen, Esq.
          CHRISTENSEN & DOUGHERTY LLP
          1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          
               - and -

          Maxwell R. Huffman, Esq.
          Alex M. Outwater, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101  

               - and -

          Jing-Li Yu, Esq.
          Justin O. Reliford, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169

               - and -

          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          Two Penn Center Plaza
          1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 1020
          Philadelphia, PA 19102

GOOD AMERICAN: Class Action Mulled Over Misleading Sales Emails
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are investigating whether a
class action lawsuit can be filed against Good American for
potentially false and misleading sales emails. Specifically,
they're looking into whether the company is promoting "weekend
only" sales or other "limited-time" deals that are knowingly and
routinely extended, creating a false sense of urgency among
customers.

This Alert Affects:
Washington residents who receive marketing emails from Good
American.

How Could a Class Action Lawsuit Help?
A class action lawsuit could provide $500 to Good American
customers and force the company being sued to make changes to its
marketing emails.

What You Can Do
If you receive sales emails from Good American, help this
investigation by filling out the form on this page. You may be able
to help get a class action lawsuit started.
Attorneys working with ClassAction.org would like to speak with
Washington residents who receive marketing emails from Good
American.

It's being investigated whether the company is misleading consumers
by advertising "weekend" sales and other "limited-time" offers,
only to later send an email announcing the sale has been extended.

Specifically, attorneys are looking into whether the company's
sales emails violate a Washington-specific law and, if so, whether
a class action lawsuit could be filed to allow consumers the chance
to recover $500 for the messages.

Do you receive emails from Good American advertising "weekend"
sales and other limited-time offers?
If so, fill out the form on this page today. You may be able to
help get a class action lawsuit started.

How Could a Sales Email Break the Law?
A law known as the Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA) was passed
in Washington state in 1998 to cut down on unwanted, misleading or
otherwise "spammy" emails.

The CEMA specifically states that emails sent with "false or
misleading information" in the subject line are prohibited.

Attorneys believe that emails advertising sales as "limited-time
offers" when they're actually not could violate the CEMA and create
an unfair and false sense of urgency among customers.

How Could a Class Action Lawsuit Help?
A class action lawsuit brought under the CEMA could provide $500
per email and force the company being sued to make changes to its
marketing emails.

If you receive sales emails from Good American, you may be able to
help get a class action lawsuit started on behalf of yourself and
other Washington consumers.

To learn more about your rights and what you could be owed, fill
out the form on this page. It doesn't cost anything to get in touch
or to speak to one of the attorneys handling this
investigation.[GN]

IDT CORP: Continues to Defend JDS1 Stockholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------
IDT Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended July 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 14, 2022, that the putative class action and
derivative complaint filed by JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and
all other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and
derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant is
scheduled to continue and to end in December 2022.
  
On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and
derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, filed
a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, The Patrick
Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and
beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly
held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors.

The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Straight
Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi
Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling
stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties
to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims
between Straight Path and the Company related to potential
indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under
the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC"), as well as the sale of Straight Path's
subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to the Company in
connection with that settlement.

That action was consolidated with a similar action that was
initiated by The Arbitrage Fund. The Plaintiffs are seeking, among
other things, (i) a declaration that the action may be maintained
as a class action or in the alternative, that demand on the
Straight Path Board is excused; (ii) that the term sheet is
invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the unfair price stockholders
received in the merger between Straight Path and Verizon
Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight Path’s Class B
common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas, Davidi Jonas, and
the Company to disgorge any profits for the benefit of the class
Plaintiffs.

On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On September 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was ultimately denied, and which denial
was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court.

On February 17, 2022, the court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment.

On March 10, 2022, JDS1, LLC withdrew its application to serve as
class representative and lead plaintiff.

On May 16, 2022, the court denied The Arbitrage Fund's motion to
serve as class representative and lead plaintiff, and approved
intervenor Ardell Howard's motion to serve as class
representative.

The trial commenced on August 29, 2022 for a period of five days.
The trial is currently scheduled to continue and conclude in
December 2022.

The Company is vigorously defending this matter (see Note 14). At
this stage, the Company is unable to estimate its potential
liability, if any.

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


IN-N-OUT BURGERS: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against In-N-Out Burgers. The
case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. In-N-Out Burgers, Case No. 1:22-cv-08628
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2022).

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

In-N-Out Burger -- http://www.in-n-out.com/-- is an American
regional chain of fast food restaurants with locations primarily in
California and the Southwest.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


INTERJET SA: Ordered to Pay $7.23M  in Consumer Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kylie Madry at yahoo.com reports that Mexican airline Interjet,
which was declared bankrupt by a judge in August, has been ordered
to pay out 144 million pesos ($7.23 million) to thousands of
clients in a class action lawsuit, the country's consumer
protection office said Friday.

The ruling is a win for fliers who faced flight cancellations,
delays and unjust charges from 2018 to 2020, the prosecuting office
known as Profeco said in a statement.

A spokesperson for Interjet did not immediately respond to a
Reuters request for comment.

Interjet abruptly stopped flying in 2020, and the carrier's union
has since been protesting for what they allege amounts to months of
unpaid wages and benefits.

Interjet's outstanding payments are suspended until a March
deadline, by which it is required to reach a deal with its
creditors, according the August bankruptcy ruling.

Other affected passengers will have until next October to join a
second phase of the class action suit, Profeco said. [GN]

KAKAO GAMES: May Face Class Suit Over Data Center Damages From Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Hae-rin, writing for The Korea Times, reports that a group of
consumers with an attorney are preparing a class action lawsuit
against Kakao to seek compensation for damages suffered due to the
fire that destroyed its main data center on Oct. 15.

Shin Jae-youn, a partner attorney at Seoul-based law firm LKB &
Partners, set up an online community titled, "Compensation for
damages due to Kakao Talk fire disruption," on Oct. 16.

The attorney posted that those who experienced inconveniences and
damages from the disruption and wish to take part in the class
action suit against Kakao are encouraged to leave a message with
details about what kind of damage they experienced.

"No matter what the cause of the fire, claims can be made against
Kakao for damages over its negligence in not preparing for such a
situation in advance," he said.

As of Oct. 18 at noon, 137 people, most of whom identified
themselves as business owners and company workers who rely heavily
on Kakao's mobile messenger and Daum's and Kakao's email services
to communicate and suffered grave setbacks at work, have joined
Shin's online community.

In a phone interview with The Korea Times on Oct. 17, Shin said
that this incident is the first case in which a large number of
people suffered damages directly related to a communication service
disruption. The attorney said that free users of Kakao's affected
services could also get compensation for their losses, provided
that there is proof that the damages were caused by a Kakao
service.

"It (Kakao Talk) is a free service, but that does not mean that it
is exempt from its responsibility to compensate for consumers for
damages. The company profits enormously from its business, which
almost all Koreans rely heavily on, so accordingly, it should be
held more heavily accountable," Shin said.

There are likely to be more victims than those who joined his
online community and he may file a lawsuit with Kakao for not
having prepared for such a situation in advance, regardless of the
cause of the fire, the attorney said.

Shin has represented several class action suits for consumer
damages, including the case of Terra-Luna cryptocurrency victims
against the co-founder of Terraform Labs, Do Kwon, and the case
against Kakao Games by users of the company's latest mobile game,
Uma Musume.

Meanwhile, other experts are skeptical about the class action
suit's chance of winning the case.

Ted Koo, an IT-specialized attorney at Seoul-based law firm Lin,
told The Korea Times that Kakao could not have foreseen this type
of damage to free users of its services. Thus, he believes it is
unlikely that the company will be held responsible for providing
compensation.

Also, the fact there were alternative services that consumers could
have used instead could lower their chances of getting
compensation, Koo said. Most of the services that went haywire over
the weekend are not monopolized by Kakao. For example, Line and
Telegram are available, although they are not as widely used.

However, Shin refuted Koo's point. "There are several alternative
services to those of Kakao (that were disrupted over the weekend),
but considering the number of its users, Kakao overwhelms all the
others (in Korea). The fact that there are alternative services to
Kakao may limit its responsibility to provide damage compensation
to a certain extent, but that should not exempt it entirely," Shin
said.

On Oct. 16, Kakao announced it will compensate paid users of the
company's webtoon app and music streaming platform Melon by
extending users' paid memberships for three days. The company
formed an emergency planning committee to figure out compensation
measures for the rest of the victims of the service disruption.
[GN]

KIA AMERICA: Broadway Sues Over Unsafe and Defective Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Preston Broadway, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KIA AMERICA, INC., HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, and
HYUNDAI KIA AMERICA TECHNICAL CENTER, INC., Case No. 0:22-cv-02511
(D. Minn., Oct. 11, 2022), is brought arising from a defect in the
Defendants' vehicle which make the vehicles easy to steal, unsafe,
and worth less than they should be if they did not have the
defect.

The Defendants manufacture, design, produce, distribute, and sell
the "Defective Vehicles," which are hereby defined as: "all Kia
models from 2011-2021 that lack an engine immobilizer." All these
vehicles share the same "Defect" — a lack of an engine
immobilizer — and therefore suffer a common injury.

The vehicles are defective because, among other things, Defendants
manufactured and designed them without engine immobilizers, an
electronic security device that prevents engine ignition without a
key. Anyone can steal a Defective Vehicle by stripping the plastic
cover off the ignition column, exposing the vulnerable key cylinder
and electronics, and using a USB drive, a knife, or similar tool to
turn the ignition and start the vehicle without a key or code.

The Defendants did not disclose this defect, which is a material
fact, and a fact that a reasonable person would rely on when
purchasing a vehicle. The Defendants' advertising, labeling, and
other marketing concealed or otherwise failed to disclose, reveal,
or provide notice to customers, including Plaintiff, that these
vehicles are defective and are not fit for the ordinary purposes
for which the vehicles are used in that they are easy to steal,
unsafe, and worth less than they should be if they were not
defective. The Defendants had the capability and means to add an
engine immobilizer or similar device, yet they failed to do so. The
Defendants also knew just how dangerous it was to not have an
engine immobilizer, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a 2022 Kia Forte on August 7, 2021, in
Garden City, KS, for personal, family or household purposes.

The Defendants manufactured, designed, and put into the stream of
commerce the Defective Vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Kaitlyn L. Dennis, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 333-8844
          Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                 dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                 kdennis@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
          Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LLC
          Cornerstone Building
          One Central Avenue West, Suite 101
          St. Michael, MN 55376
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Fax: (763) 226-2515
          Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 chad@throndsetlaw.com
                 jason@throndsetlaw.com


KIA AMERICA: Horne Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary Horne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KIA AMERICA, INC. and HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., Case
No. 1:22-cv-04062-SEG (N.D. Ga., Oct. 11, 2022), against the
Defendants, on behalf of similarly situated consumers who purchased
or leased vehicles manufactured and sold by Defendants, as a result
of the Defendants' unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business
practices.

The Defendants manufacture and sell motor vehicles in the United
States and Georgia. These products include popular models like the
Hyundai Tucson and Santa Fe and the Kia Sportage and Sorento. The
Defendants' vehicles suffer from a significant defect: they do not
include an engine immobilizer. An engine immobilizer is designed to
prevent vehicle theft when a vehicle is left unattended. An engine
immobilizer works by transmitting a code to the vehicle when the
key is inserted in the ignition switch or a key fob is inside the
vehicle. Thefts of Kia and Hyundai vehicles has risen substantially
across the United States as knowledge of the defect is now
widespread. Because vehicles manufactured and sold by Kia and
Hyundai suffer from a defect, thieves only need to gain access to a
vehicle, and once inside, strip the ignition column and insert a
screwdriver, knife, or even a USB cord to start the vehicle. Kia
and Hyundai are aware that their vehicles lack engine immobilizers.
Kia and Hyundai are aware that thefts of vehicles manufactured and
sold by them have increased nationwide.

Despite the rise in vehicle thefts, Kia and Hyundai have not issued
a recall or offered to install vehicle immobilizers in the affected
vehicles. The Plaintiff purchased a vehicle manufactured by the
Defendants which suffers from the defect. The Plaintiff would not
have purchased the vehicle or would have paid less for the vehicle
had the Plaintiff known about the defect. As a result of the
Defendants' unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business
practices, consumers of these products, including the Plaintiff,
have suffered an ascertainable loss, injury-in-fact, and otherwise
have been harmed by Defendants' conduct, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a 2016 Kia Optima from Subaru of Gwinnett
in Duluth, Georgia in March 2021.

Kia America, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal
place of business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cale Conley, Esq.
          CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN, LLP
          4200 Northside Pkwy NW
          Building One, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Phone: (404) 467-1155
          Email: cale@conleygriggs.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Phone: (612) 436-1804
          Fax: (612) 436-4801
          Email: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                 jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                 zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com

KING OAK ENTERPRISES: Easter Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Easter, and Erika Minnick, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KING OAK ENTERPRISES, INC. dba EBONY
INN, a Maryland Corporation; TOMMIE BROADWATER, an individual; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-02591-GJH (D. Md.,
Oct. 11, 2022), is brought against the Defendants for damages due
to the Defendants evading the mandatory minimum wage provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, illegally absconding with Plaintiffs'
tips and demanding illegal kickbacks including in the form of
"House Fees."

These causes of action arise from Defendants' willful actions while
the Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants from. During their time
being employed by Defendants, Plaintiffs were denied minimum wage
payments as part of Defendants' scheme to classify Plaintiffs and
other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors." Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiffs minimum wages for all hours worked in
violation of the FLSA. The Defendants also charged the Plaintiffs
and other dancers to work. Furthermore, the Defendants' practice of
failing to pay tipped employees in violation the FLSA's minimum
wage provision. As a result of Defendants' violations, Plaintiffs
and the FLSA Collective Members seek to recover double damages for
failure to pay minimum wage, interest, and attorneys' fees, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers at Ebony Inn.

The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located in Fairmount Heights, Maryland under the name "Ebony
Inn."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Finnegan, Esq.
          GOLDBERG FINNEGAN CANNON, LLC
          8401 Colesville Road, Suite 630
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Phone: (301) 589-2999
          Email: kfinnegan@goldbergfinnegan.com

               - and -

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          Frank M. Mihalic, Jr., Esq.
          CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
          8827 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 273-1230
          Fax: (310) 858-1063
          Email: kristensen@cz.law
                 fmihalic@cz.law

KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANS: Seeks Denial of Hobbs Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAVARES HOBBS, RICARDO
BELL, and ROBERT SHAW, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION HOLDINGS, INC.,
and SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01421-JLR-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order denying certification of any class or subclass
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and for such other
and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following classes:

   -- Class A

      "All current and former truck drivers who have been
      employed by Defendants while being based out of the
      Walmart Dedicated location in Johnstown, New York and/or
      the Target Dedicated location in Amsterdam, New York, at
      any time from February 17, 2015 until the date of class
      notice."

   -- Class B

      "All current and former truck drivers who have been
      employed by Defendants while being based out of the
      Defendants' Syracuse, New York location, at
      any time from February 17, 2015 until the date of class
      notice."

      Membership in Class B is limited to time logged as
      "sleeper berth" or "off duty" in New York State.

   -- Class C:

      "All current and former truck drivers who have been
      employed by the Defendants while being based out of a work
      location outside of New York State, but who have made at
      least one pickup and/or delivery in New York State and
      logged sleeper berth time in New York State, at any time
      from February 17, 2015 until the date of class notice.
      Membership in Class C is limited to time logged as
      "sleeper berth" or "off duty" in New York state.

      The Classes exclude the group of Drivers identified by
      Swift's Rule 30(b)(6) witness as being paid hourly,
      typically operating a "day cab" truck without a sleeper
      berth, and who return home every night.

Knight-Swift is a publicly traded, American motor carrier holding
company based in Phoenix, Arizona.

A copy of Defendants' motion dated Oct. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Tm8PDp at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Nestico, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200
          Charlotte, NC 28210
          Telephone: (510) 740-2946
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Joshua Konecky, Esq.
          Nathan Piller, Esq.
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: jkonecky@schnedierwallace.com
                  npiller@schneiderwallace.com

The Defendants are represented by

         Brian D. Murphy, Esq.
         SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         30 Rockefeller Plaza
         New York, New York 10112
         Telephone: (212) 653-8700
         Facsimile: (212) 653-8701
         E-mail: bmurphy@sheppardmullin.com

LASKO PRODUCTS: Velez Sues Over Defective Portable Space Heaters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Velez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lasko Products, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08581-JLR
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2022), seeks damages and an injunction to stop
the Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with
regards to their low profile portable space heaters that describes
on its packaging and in website copy provided to third-party
sellers such as Amazon.com and Home Depot as having an "Automatic
Temperature feature which controls room temperature" and an
"Easy-to-read digital display that allows you to control the warm
air to your comfort level" ("Product").

This feature relies on a temperature control panel and thermostat
inside of the device to ensure the temperature matches what the
user sets. However, due to defective design and manufacture of the
temperature control board, including the internal thermostat, the
device is capable and does consistently overheat the area. The
Defendant's manuals indicate that when the temperature is set, the
heater will turn on when the room temperature reaches one degree
below the set temperature, and shut off when two degrees above the
set temperature. However, a significant percentage of the devices
will regularly exceed the set temperature. For example, if the
temperature is set to 72 degrees, a common occurrence is for the
temperature control panel to disregard this setting and keep
rising, above 80 and 90 degrees.

Depending on the degree of malfunction, a room in which a heater is
located could sustain temperatures exceeding 100° F (38° C),
which is unsafe. If an individual is exposed to above-normal
temperatures for an extended period of time, they could suffer
hyperthermia. The Consumer Products Safety Commission ("CPSC") has
identified numerous hyperthermia deaths from room heaters. This
poses a greater risk to young children, people with disabilities
and senior citizens, who may be less capable of recognizing and
correcting the conditions. To the extent the device contains heat
sensors that monitor a room's temperature to prevent room
temperatures from reaching an unsafe level, these elements are
defective and fail to adequately and consistently function under
normal use conditions. The temperature control failures suffer from
defects including but not limited to lack of adequate calibration
which can lead to sustained elevated temperatures. Related to the
Product's defective temperature control system is its high failure
rate where the unit will shut off prematurely after several minutes
plugged in. The cause of this behavior is likely due to the
circuitry design and sensors in the temperature control unit.

The Product defects are compounded by Defendant's failure to
adequately address customer concerns which include not honoring the
promised three-year manufacturer warranty. Defendant describes its
warranty as "limited" and that it warrants against defects in
workmanship and/or materials. Defendant defines the warranty's
duration as applying to only the original purchaser for three years
from the date of original purchase or until the original purchaser
sells or transfers the product, whichever first occurs. This type
of warranty leads the consumer to believe that proof of purchase is
not needed so long as he or she owns the product and seeks coverage
within three years. Defendant's attempt to impose a duty to furnish
documentary proof on purchasers is not reasonable given this
description. The burden to prove that the purchasers are not the
original purchasers and that they have possessed the Product for
longer than three years is on Defendant.

Plaintiff paid more for the Product than he otherwise would have
had he known of the defects, as would not have bought it or would
have paid less. The Product is sold for a price premium compared to
other similar products, no less than $79.99, a higher price than it
would otherwise be sold for, absent the misleading representations
and omissions, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff bought the Product at Home Depot.

The Defendant is a leading seller of fans, heaters, air purifiers,
and humidifiers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
          Great Neck NY 11021-3104
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


LEXINGTON FRESH: Serrano Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis De Jesus Serrano, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. LEXINGTON FRESH FARM INC. (D/B/A SMILEY'S
DELI), AMIR KAREEM, NAYEEM GHESANI, and NASIR GHESANI, Case No.
1:22-cv-08604 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2022), is brought for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to
pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The
Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants employed as
general worker, delivery worker, and florist at the deli.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located in
Lexington Ave, New York, under the name "Smiley's Deli."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


LINK GROUP: RL Group Launches Class Suit Over Woodford Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hans van Leeuwen, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that the Aussie-run class action funder behind a long-running suit
against National Australia Bank has trained its sights on Link
Group, launching a case in England over the GBP3.7 billion ($6.7
billion) collapse of the Woodford investment empire.

London-based litigation wrangler RGL Group, which is run by
Australian ex-banker James Hayward, says it has marshalled about
3200 investors for a claim against Link that it reckons will
ultimately be worth more than GBP100 million.

It is understood RGL and two other separate lawsuits arising from
the Woodford collapse will go to a case management hearing in
December, where a judge may decide to group them into a single
court case.

The Woodford saga last month scuppered a $2.5 billion takeover bid
for Link from Canadian legal technology firm Dye & Durham, after
Britain's financial regulator said Link would need to set aside
more than $500 million to deal with the fallout.

RGL has spent more than six years pursuing National Australia Bank
and its former UK subsidiary CYBG, now known as ASX-listed Virgin
Money, in a case it says could be worth hundreds of millions of
dollars.

That case involves about 1345 litigants who are looking for
compensation relating to a business lending product that they say
went sour.

Competing class actions
The RGL action against Link is one of three suits that have been
filed against the ASX-listed company's UK subsidiary, Link Fund
Solutions.

The other two, launched by law firms Leigh Day and Harcus Parker,
reportedly have 20,000 investors already joined to their actions.

LFS was the supervisory manager of star stock-picker Neil
Woodford's flagship fund when investors began bolting for the exit
in mid-2019, amid what turned out to be justified fears over the
portfolio's liquidity.

RGL reckons about 300,000 investors were trapped in the Woodford
Equity Income Fund when it was closed for good.

LFS is still unwinding the illiquid portfolio, and has so far
returned almost GBP2.6 billion to investors. Some estimates say
WEIF punters, depending on when they invested, could ultimately be
out of pocket by up to 40 per cent.

The class actions can continue to sign up more claimants as they go
along, so the three litigation groups are now in effect competing
to harvest disgruntled investors.

RGL asserted it was charging the lowest success fee, of 25 per
cent. It also touted the fact that it was the only one of the three
suits to also target stockbroker Hargreaves Lansdown, which was
still recommending Woodford's funds not long before they were
gated.

Link and Dye & Durham have returned to the negotiating table
following the collapse of the merger, with the Canadian firm
offering $1.27 billion for some chunks of the Australian company.
That will not include LFS, which Link bought from Capita in 2017.

Mr Hayward set up RGL in 2015. It treats its lawsuits as a kind of
asset: funders bankroll RGL's management of the case, in return for
a cut of the potential winnings. RGL hires lawyers to run the case,
and recruits and vets individual litigants for the class actions.

Some observers say the aim of firms like RGL is to press defendants
into a settlement, rather than engage in the cost of a full trial.

In the case against NAB and Virgin Money, the two banks have
resisted this option, and have dismissed RGL's claim as "without
foundation". [GN]

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Sued Over Underpayment of Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Cortes, on behalf of himself, the State of California, and
others similarly situated and aggrieved v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, a California public entity; and DOES 1
100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV33273 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 11,
2022), is brought against the Defendants under the Private
Attorneys General Act and for violations of the California Labor
Code by failing to pay proper compensations resulting in the
underpayment of minimum wages.

the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Aggrieved
Employees for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of
minimum wages. the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff
and Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked by virtue of,
including but not limited to, interrupted meal periods,
time-rounding policies and practices, payment according to
scheduled hours worked instead of actual time worked, and mandated
pre-shift/post-shit and/or other mandated off the-clock work
policies and practices, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a citizen of the State of California who worked
as a full-time non-exempt employee for the Defendants in the State
of California.

The Defendants own, operate or otherwise manage the largest county
operated mental health department in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          Michael Crosner, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          Michael W. Jones, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          433 N. Camden Dr., Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (310)496-5818
          Fax: (310) 510-6429
          Email: mike@crosnerlegal.com
                 zach@crosnerlegal.com
                 jamie@crosnerlegal.com
                 michael.jones@crosnerlegal.com


MARINOSCI LAW: Bid to Extend Case Management Deadlines Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROY M. BURKE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. MARINOSCI LAW GROUP,
P.C., P.A., , Case No. 9:22-cv-80725-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion and
enter an order modifying the schedule to extend the deadline to
complete class certification discovery to November 18, 2022 and the
deadline to file a motion for class certification to December 4,
2022.

The Court entered its Order Setting Trial, Setting Pre-Trial
Deadlines, and Referring Certain Matters to Magistrate Judge
(Scheduling Order) on June 8, 2022, which set the deadline for
completion of class certification discovery on November 4, 2022 and
the deadline for filing a motion for class certification on
November 18, 2022.

Since the entry of the Scheduling Order, the Parties have
participated in formal and informal discovery directed to both the
class issues and the merits of the Parties' claims and defenses at
issue, and continue to do so.

In mid-September, the Plaintiff asked for October dates for a Rule
30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EGRpxh at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477

The Defendant is represented by

          Ernest H. Kohlmyer, III
          SHEPARD, SMITH, KOHLMYER & HAND, P.A.
          2300 Maitland Center Parkway, Suite 100
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone (407) 622-1772
          E-mail: skohlmyer@shepardfirm.com

MARINOSCI LAW: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 2
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BURKE v. MARINOSCI LAW
GROUP, P.C., P.A., Case No. 9:22-cv-80725 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Aileen M. Cannon entered an order on motion for extension of
time:

  -- The deadline for the close of           November 18, 2022
     class certification discovery is:

  -- The deadline for Plaintiff to           December 2, 2022
     file a motion for class
     certification is:

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

Marinosci Law is a law firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[CC]

MARRIOTT HOTEL: Stanger Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Timothy Stanger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC. d/b/a GAYLORD OPRYLAND
RESORT & CONVENTION CENTER, Case No. 3:22-cv-00800 (M.D. Tenn.,
Oct. 10, 2022), is brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant employs individuals who it pays a tipped hourly rate
of less than the $7.25 per hour minimum wage mandated by the FLSA
as well as compulsory service charges and tips (referred to herein
as "Tipped Employees"). The Defendant has routinely comingled tips
and service charges, categorizing large amounts of service charges
as tips. The Plaintiff alleges that this pay practice violates the
FLSA in two ways. First, it fails to satisfy the requirements of
the FLSA to take the "tip credit" to meet the minimum wage
requirement as to Plaintiff and other Tipped Employees. Second, it
results in an underpayment of overtime by not counting all service
charges when calculating the regular rate for purposes of
calculating the proper overtime rate for the Plaintiff and other
Tipped Employees, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has been employed at Defendant's Gaylord Opryland
Resort & Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee since June 2021
as a bartender.

The Defendant operates Gaylord Opryland Resort & Convention
Center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Phone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                 jfrank@barrettjohnston.com


MASSACHUSETTS INTERSCHOLASTIC: Bid for Injunctive Relief Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARAH JONES, as next friend of her minor child
"Jimmy," on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated;
and JOHN SMITH and JANE SMITH, as next friends of their minor child
"Timmy," on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
Plaintiffs v. MASSACHUSETTS INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 22-CV-11426-AK (D. Mass.), Judge Angel Kelley
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denies
the Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief.

In this action, the Court is asked to issue an injunction requiring
Defendant Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association
("MIAA"), which governs high school athletics in the Commonwealth,
to permit two students enrolled in a statewide virtual public high
school to participate in athletics as members of the teams of their
local brick-and-mortar high schools.

The Plaintiffs in the action are Sarah Jones, mother of "Jimmy,"
and John and Jane Smith, parents of "Timmy." Jimmy is a 17-year-old
student at The Education Cooperative Connections Academy ("TECCA"),
a statewide online public school in Massachusetts that serves
students in kindergarten through 12th grade. Jimmy was born in the
Russian Federation in 2005, adopted by Sarah Jones at the age of 18
months, and attended Duxbury High School before enrolling at TECCA
in 2021. Sarah Jones cites Jimmy's club hockey schedule as well as
challenges related to his organization and processing abilities,
likely related to his potential neglect and malnourishment as an
infant in Russia, as factors in her decision to enroll him in
TECCA.

Timmy is a 16-year-old, 10th grade student at TECCA. He suffers
from a social anxiety disorder and sensory integration dysfunction.
Timmy attended brick-and-mortar public schools, where he
experienced bullying, until 6th grade. His parents chose to enroll
him at TECCA beginning with his 7th grade year in 2019, citing the
psychological harm inflicted upon him by bullying at his prior
school as a factor in their decision.

MIAA is a not-for-profit association that governs most high school
athletics in Massachusetts. It includes approximately 375 member
schools, including a large majority of the public secondary schools
in the Commonwealth. Pursuant to state statute, local school boards
have delegated to MIAA the power to govern and regulate competitive
athletic events with its member schools.

TECCA is a public school certified by the Massachusetts Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education ("DESE") that is open to
students throughout all of Massachusetts. As a statewide virtual
school, it is distinct from district virtual schools, which enroll
students from only a limited geographic area in online classes. The
school is subject to state achievement and accountability
standards, is accountable to DESE, and does not charge tuition.
TECCA offers a full array of special educational services for
students with disabilities.

Pursuant to the rules and procedures described infra, students at
TECCA had for many years played for the athletic teams of their
local district brick-and-mortar high schools. TECCA has not
sponsored athletic teams because its student body lives throughout
the state. However, TECCA recently applied to become a member of
MIAA.

MIAA publishes a handbook that contains, among other items, rules
that govern student eligibility to participate in MIAA athletic
programs. Rule 51 is the baseline eligibility rule, and enerally
requires that a student must be enrolled at a school in order to be
a member of any of that school's athletic teams. The MIAA handbook
contains further rules detailing procedures by which students not
enrolled at a school may be eligible to join that school's teams.
These procedures include separate approval processes, and, in at
least some instances, require students to seek a waiver of the Rule
51 restriction from MIAA on Form 200, which is MIAA's pre-created
wavier form.

Effective July 1, 2022, MIAA amended Rule 51. Students attending
Virtual Schools do not meet any of the above requirements,
therefore are ineligible to participate in interscholastic
athletics at MIAA Member Schools. Waivers are not permitted for
Rule 51.

Since enrolling at TECCA, Jimmy and Timmy have each participated on
the athletic teams of their local brick-and-mortar public high
school. In the spring of 2022, Jimmy sought to play lacrosse on the
Duxbury High School junior varsity team. The Duxbury High School
athletic and academic administrations applied for a MIAA waiver on
Jimmy's behalf, and MIAA granted that waiver, permitting Jimmy to
compete in the spring 2022 season. In each year since 2019, Timmy
has sought to play soccer with his local public school teams. He
received a MIAA waiver allowing him to play in each season from
2019 through 2021.

The Plaintiffs allege that the amendment to Rule 51 as of July 1,
2022, will prohibit both Jimmy and Timmy from participating any
further on their local public schools' athletic teams.
Specifically, Timmy seeks to play soccer in the fall 2022 season,
while Jimmy seeks to play lacrosse in the spring 2023 season.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs allege there may be up to 35 similarly
situated students who could bring claims involving near-identical
questions of fact and law as those raised by Jimmy and Timmy and
indicate an intent to pursue a class action on such basis.

On Aug. 24, 2022, Sarah Jones, as next friend of Jimmy, filed suit
against MIAA in Norfolk County Superior Court, alleging that the
amendment to Rule 51 violated both Jimmy's Fourteenth Amendment due
process rights and the Massachusetts Administrative Procedure Act.
She simultaneously filed an emergency motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to bar enforcement of the amendment to Rule 51.

On Aug. 31, 2022, the Plaintiffs served their First Amended
Complaint. This complaint added the Smiths, as next friends of
Timmy, as plaintiffs, and further indicated that "approximately 35
other students attending statewide virtual public schools in
Massachusetts may ultimately make up a class of the Plaintiffs with
identical claims.

On Sept. 6, 2022 -- and with Ms. Jones' emergency motion still
pending -- MIAA timely removed the case to federal court. On Sept.
7, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed emergency motion for a
preliminary injunction, along with an accompanying memorandum of
law and affidavit by the counsel. MIAA opposed the Plaintiffs'
motion.

On Sept. 13, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the motion, during
which it directed the parties to confer as to whether a temporary
compromise could be reached for the sake of the students wishing to
play this year. Such a compromise would have permitted the Court to
address the issues of law presented in this case only once -- after
the conclusion of discovery and full briefing on the
merits—rather than in this posture.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs informed the Court at the motion hearing
that TECCA had an application to join MIAA already prepared and
ready to submit effectively giving the case time to either be fully
litigated on the merits, or otherwise rendered moot. However, the
parties were unable to reach any sort of agreement.

Judge Kelley states that a preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. When considering a
preliminary injunction, the Court must evaluate "(1) the
plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the potential
for irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction; (3) whether
issuing an injunction will burden the defendants less than denying
an injunction would burden the plaintiffs; and (4) the effect, if
any, on the public interest." The party seeking the preliminary
injunction "bears the burden of establishing that these four
factors weigh in its favor."

Judge Kelley considers each of the four factors in turn, and
whether the Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing that
they weigh in their favor. She explains that a "preliminary
injunction cannot survive if the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed
on the merits," and, despite the importance of weighing potential
for irreparable harm, "what matters as to each party is not the raw
amount of irreparable harm the party might conceivably suffer, but
rather the risk of such harm in light of the party's chance of
success on the merits. Only where the balance between these risks
cuts in favor of the moving party may a preliminary injunction
properly issue."

Judge Kelley says it is this balancing test between risks that is
ultimately dispositive as to this motion. While Judge Kelley finds
the risk of irreparable harm and the balance of hardships to weigh
in favor of the Plaintiffs, the tenuousness of the merits of their
claims precludes such extraordinary relief as the preliminary
injunction sought. She says the Defendant has provided several
rational, seemingly legitimate state interests underlying its rule
clarifications at issue -- and while the Court does not opine on
the overall merits of the Plaintiffs' claims, which of course
cannot be evaluated in full absent discovery and continued
litigation -- it is certainly far from apparent that the Plaintiffs
are, in fact, sufficiently likely to succeed.

Unfortunately, Judge Kelley holds that this would seem to mean that
adolescents like Jimmy and Timmy will be unable to resume
participation on MIAA member-school sports teams, a fact that seems
rather unfortunate given the Plaintiffs' statements regarding how
important these activities are to the boys' lives and wellness --
as well as the overall seeming insignificance of accommodating
potentially only about 35 such students seeking waivers statewide.
In light of these circumstances, she certainly encourages the
parties to make continued attempts at arriving at a compromise of
sorts for these students -- whether it be through prompt attention
to TECCA's application to join MIAA or some other means of
resolving this.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kelley denies the Plaintiffs'
Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction. The Court will proceed with the establishment of a
scheduling order and timetable for discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/57t9fz92 from Leagle.com.


MCKESSON CORPORATION: Zachary Sues Over Delinquent Wage Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amber Zachary and Lamar Walker, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, Case No.
7:22-cv-08601 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2022), is brought to recover
damages for delinquent wage payments made to workers who qualify as
manual laborers and who were employed at any time by the Defendant
between February 24, and the present (the "Relevant Period") in the
State of New York.

The Defendant has compensated all its employees on a bi-weekly
(every other week) basis, regardless of whether said employees
qualified as manual laborers under the NYLL. The Defendant has at
no time during the Relevant Period been authorized by the New York
State Department of Labor Commissioner to compensate its employees
who qualify as manual laborers on a bi-weekly basis, in
contravention of NYLL which requires that without explicit
authorization from the Commissioner, such workers must be
compensated not less frequently than on a weekly basis, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as material handlers.

MCKESSON CORPORATION is a foreign limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, New York 11514
          Phone: (516) 873-9550


MDL 2913: Carnegie Public Schools Sues Over E-cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carnegie Public Schools, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-05845 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Carnegie Public Schools is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Oklahoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Cinnaminson Township Balks at Youth E-cigarette Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cinnaminson Township School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05848 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Cinnaminson Township School District is a school district organized
and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New Jersey.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Cle Elum-Roslyn Hits E-cigarette Promotion to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cle Elum-Roslyn School District, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-05860 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Cle Elum-Roslyn School District is a unified school district
organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of
Washington.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: E-cigarettes Target Youth Market, Quitman School Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quitman School District, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-05911 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Quitman School District is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Arkansas.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Shoreline School Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shoreline School District, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-05834 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Shoreline School District is a unified school district organized
and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Educational Service Balks at Vape Ads Targeting Youth
---------------------------------------------------------------
Educational Service Center of the Western Reserve, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs,
Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas
Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria
Client Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip
Morris USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05879-WHO (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 7, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance
Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Educational Service Center of the Western Reserve is a regional
education services agency organized and operating pursuant to the
laws of the State of Ohio.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Faces Ohio Valley Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Valley Educational Service Center, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05926 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Ohio Valley Educational Service Center is a unified school district
organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Ohio.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Maryetta Public Schools Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maryetta Public Schools, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-05933 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Maryetta Public Schools is a local school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Oklahoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Mount Morris Central Hits E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mount Morris Central School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05930 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Mount Morris Central School District is a local school district
organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New
York.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Pickaway County Balks at E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pickaway County Educational Service Center, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A
PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker;
Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client
Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris
USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05920 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Pickaway County Educational Service Center is a unified school
district organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the State
of Ohio.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Quinton Public Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quinton Public Schools, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-05928 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Quinton Public Schools is a local school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Oklahoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Raymond School Hits E-cigarette Ads Targeting Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond School District, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-05929 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Raymond School District is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Southwestern Central Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Central School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05915 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Southwestern Central School District is a unified school district
organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New
York.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Tahlequah Public Schools Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tahlequah Public Schools School District, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A
PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker;
Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client
Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris
USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05854 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 7,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Tahlequah Public Schools School District is a unified school
district organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the State
of Oklahoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Timberlake Schools Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timberlake Schools, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs, Inc.; James
Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani;
Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria Group
Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-05931 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Timberlake Schools is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Oklahoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Torrington School Alleges E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
Torrington School District, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-05847 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Torrington School District is a unified school district organized
and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Connecticut.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Tupelo Public Schools Balks at Youth E-cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tupelo Public Schools, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs, Inc.; James
Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani;
Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria Group
Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-05932 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Tupelo Public Schools is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Oklahoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: University Place Balks at E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
University Place School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05836-WHO (N.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

University Place School District is a unified school district
organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of
Washington.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Valliant School Says E-cigarettes Target Youth Market
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valliant School District, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-05921 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Valliant School District is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Oklahoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Wapanucka Public Says E-cigarettes Target Youth Market
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wapanucka Public Schools, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-05934 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Wapanucka Public Schools is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Oklahoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Warner Public Sues Over Youth E-cigarettes Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------
Warner Public Schools School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; AND Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05925 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Warner Public Schools School District is a unified school district
organized and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of
Oklahoma.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MERCEDES-BENZ: Sued Over Deceptive Diesel Engine Emission Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leading Compensation law firm Gerard Malouf and Partners (GMP Law)
have commenced registrations for imminent Class Action claims
against Mercedes-Benz and BMW.

These two separate Class Actions relate to regulatory
investigations by authorities in Germany and Europe for the
installation of "cheat devices" by the respective parent companies
of Mercedes-Benz Australia/Pacific and BMW Australia Ltd.

It is alleged that these "cheat devices" manipulate diesel engine
emission levels of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), and other harmful gases,
in order to pass regulatory testing.

NOx is very toxic and is associated with accelerating climate
change, acid rain, and respiratory conditions. Irreversible
environmental damage is likely to have been caused by these "cheat
devices."

Past or present owners of affected Mercedes and BMW diesel
vehicles, either new or second-hand, manufactured on or after 1
January 2008 are eligible to register. The damages per vehicle
could likely be very significant and include a portion of the
purchase price.

Gerard Malouf, Chairman of GMP Law, states:

"It is reprehensible for car manufacturers to misrepresent critical
aspects of the performance of vehicles sold into the worldwide
market, causing financial loss to consumers, but more importantly
enormous environmental damage through excessive emissions."

The Class Actions will likely seek damages for:

   -- The loss of value of affected vehicles

   -- Excessive Fuel Commission

   -- Punitive Damages for harm done to the World Environment, to
deter other multination corporations from repeating such outrageous
conduct.

It is anticipated that the damages for each of these class actions
may be in the $100's millions.

Affected Mercedes and BMW diesel owners can register for these
Class Actions at the following websites:

- Mercedes-Benz: Mercedesclassaction.com

- BMW: BMWclassaction.com

GMP Law has recently filed a similar Class Action claim in the
Supreme Court of Victoria against Hino.

Media Contacts:
Name: Matthew Lo
Company: GMPLaw, Gerard Malouf and Partners
Email: Matthew.lo@gmp.net.au
Phone: 02 8838 4866

Media Contacts:
Name: Matthew lo
Company: Gerard Malouf & Partners (GMP Law)
Email: matthew.lo@gmp.net.au
Phone: 02 8838 4866 [GN]

MICHIGAN: $20-Mil. Settlement in Unemployment Fraud Suit Reached
----------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Michigan has reached a $20 million settlement
resolving a class action lawsuit alleging that the Unemployment
Insurance Agency used an auto-adjudication system to falsely accuse
recipients of fraud, resulting in the seizure of their property
without due process.

The settlement was announced by Attorney General Dana Nessel and by
Pitt, McGehee, Palmer, Bonanni & Rivers, the Royal Oak-based law
firm representing the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit.

In 2015, the Plaintiffs in the case, titled Bauserman v.
Unemployment Insurance Agency, sued the State of Michigan
Unemployment Insurance Agency for using an automated system known
as MIDAS to falsely accuse thousands of Michiganders of
unemployment fraud, resulting in the wrongful seizure of their
paychecks, income tax refunds, and other assets without due
process.

Over the next seven years, the case resulted in two significant
decisions from the Michigan Supreme Court. In April 2019, the Court
held that the class action was timely filed in accordance with the
Michigan Court of Claims Act but only those claimants that had
money collected from them for the first time on or after March 9,
2015 could be included in the potential class.

In July 2022, the Court held that the Plaintiffs in the case could
seek monetary damages from the State based on the alleged violation
of the State Constitution. Earlier this year, the parties worked
with a neutral mediator to negotiate a resolution of the class
action. According to the attorneys, the mediator had access to
detailed records and information to determine how many people were
affected by the auto-adjudication system, how much of their money
was seized, and how much money had already been refunded by the
State since the fraud auto-adjudication system was discontinued.

Based on the Supreme Court's 2019 decision, the number of claimants
who will be eligible for settlement payments was decreased.
Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's ruling, class counsel
anticipates settlements for eligible claimants will be fair and
equitable.

In the coming months, the parties will submit the settlement to the
Court of Claims for approval.[GN]

MINTED LLC: Esparza Files Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Minted, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Miguel Esparza, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Minted, LLC, Does 1 through 25,
Case No. 3:22-cv-01560-TWR-KSC (S.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.

Minted -- https://www.minted.com/ -- is an online marketplace of
premium design goods created by independent artists and
designers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
          4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Phone: (949) 706-6464
          Fax: (949) 706-6469
          Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS: Younas Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Muhammad Younas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS OF COLORADO, LLC d/b/a MORTGAGE
SOLUTIONS FINANCIAL, Case No. 1:22-cv-02644 (D. Colo., Oct. 7,
2022), to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by
the Defendant.

The Plaintiff and other underwriters for the Defendant regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. the Defendant did not pay
the Plaintiff and the other underwriters overtime when they worked
in excess of 40 hours in a week. Instead, the Defendant improperly
classified the Plaintiff and the other underwriters as exempt
employees and paid them a salary with no overtime compensation.
This action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other
damages owed by the Defendant to these workers, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a mortgage underwriter.

The Defendant operates financial institutions throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Phone: 713 999 5228
          Email: matt@parmet.law

MOSQUITO SQUAD: Class Cert Notice Plan Due Oct. 26
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LENOROWITZ v. MOSQUITO
SQUAD FRANCHISING, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01922 (D. Conn.),
the Hon. Judge Janet Bond Arterton entered an order granting joint
motion for extension of time until October 26, 2022 for the Parties
to submit the proposed class notice and class notice plan order on
motion to certify class.

The nature of suit states restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.[CC]

MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Extension of Class Briefing Deadlines Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA DAVIS, RASHAWD
DUHART, and ROBIN LUNDY, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the state of Oregon; MICHAEL REESE, STEVEN
ALEXANDER, JEFFREY WHEELER, KENDALL CLARK, JOSE PALOMERA, AMY HAY,
AARON VAN HOUTE, BRIAN BEARDSLEY, and JOHN DOES 1-50, acting in
concert and in their individual capacities, Case No.
3:20-cv-02041-SB (D. Or.), the Plaintiffs file an unopposed motion
to extend deadlines for class briefing as follows:

           Event                 Current          New
                                 Deadline         Deadline

-- Plaintiff's Motion for      Oct. 7, 2022     Nov. 18, 2022
   Class Certification

-- Defendant's Opposition      Nov. 18, 2022    Jan. 9, 2023
   to Motion for Class
   Certification:

-- Plaintiff's Reply in        Dec. 16, 2022    Feb. 6, 2023
   support of Motion for
   Class Certification

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CUrnoU at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joe Piucci, Esq.
          PIUCCI LAW LLC
          900 SW 13th Ave., Ste. 200
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 228-7385
          E-mail: joe@piucci.com

               - and -

          David F. Sugerman, Esq.
          Nadia H. Dahab, Esq.
          SUGERMAN DAHAB
          707 SW Washington St., Ste. 600
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 228-6474
          E-mail: david@sugermandahab.com
                  nadia@sugermandahab.com

               - and -

          Gabriel Chase, Esq.
          CHASE LAW, PC
          621 S.W. Alder St., Ste. 600
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 294-1414
          Facsimile: (503) 294-1455
          E-mail: gabriel@chaselawpc.net

               - and -

          David D. Park, Esq.
          ELLIOTT & PARK, P.C.
          0324 S.W. Abernethy Street
          Portland, OR 97239-4356
          Telephone: (503) 227-1690
          Facsimile: (503) 274-8384
          E-mail: dave@elliott-park.com

               - and -

          Michelle R Burrows, Esq.
          MICHELLE R. BURROWS P.C.
          1333 Orenco Station Parkway # 525
          Hillsboro, OR 97124
          Telephone: (503) 241-1955
          E-mail: michelle.r.burrows@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jane L. Moisan, Esq.
          PEOPLE'S LAW PROJECT
          818 S.W. 4th Ave. #221-3789
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (971) 258-1292
          E-mail: peopleslawproject@gmail.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Larsen, Esq.
          PICKETT DUMMIGAN MCCALL LLP
          210 SW Morrison St., 4th Fl.
          Portland, Oregon 97204
          Telephone: (503) 223-7770
          Facsimile: (503) 227-5350
          E-mail: chris@pdm.legal

MY PILLOW: Gaudreau TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETHANY GAUDREAU and
JOSEPH RAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MY PILLOW, INC., FRANK SPEECH, LLC, and MICHAEL JAMES
LINDELL, , Case No. 6:21-cv-01899-CEM-DAB (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying three classes with respect to their claims
      against the Defendants;

   2. designating them as class representatives; and

   3. designating their counsel as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs move to certify the following proposed Classes:

    -- IDNC CLASS

       "All persons within the United States who, within the
       four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, (1) were
       sent one or more text messages, (2) regarding Defendant
       My Pillow's property, goods, or services, (3) to said
       person's residential telephone number, (4) after making a
       request to not receive any more telephonic communications
       by replying “stop” or by making any other similar
       request."

    -- DNC CLASS

       "All persons in the United States who from four years
       prior to the filing of this action (1) received more than
       one text message within any12-month period; (2) to a
       telephone number that had been listed on the National Do
       Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (3) regarding
       Defendant My Pillow's property, goods, and/or services."

    -- FTSA CLASS

       "All persons in Florida who (1) were sent more than one
       text message regarding Defendant My Pillow's goods and/or
       services, (2) utilizing the text Text2Com messaging
       platform.

This putative class action alleges that the Defendants violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act (FTSA) by:

   1. sending text messages to telephone numbers registered on
      the national do-not-call registry (DNCR);

   2. sending text messages to consumers who opted out of
      further communications; and

   3. sending text messages to Florida residents without having
prior express written consent.

My Pillow is an American pillow-manufacturing company based in
Chaska, Minnesota.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 6, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yxKBOD at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 417
          Aventura, FL 333180
          Telephone: (305) 610-5223
          E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Christopher Gold, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          2875 NE 191 st St., Suite 703
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: chris@edelsberglaw.com
                  scott@edelsberglaw.com

ND OTM: Demmons Sues Over Noxious Odors in Private Properties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Demmons and Kirk Ramsay, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. ND OTM LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00305-NT
(D. Me., Oct. 7, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for the
operation of its paper pulp mill located at 24 Portland Street in
Old Town, Maine (the "Facility") that releases noxious odors onto
the private properties of Plaintiff and the Class, causing property
damage through nuisance, trespass, and negligence.

On frequent, recurrent, and intermittent occasions too numerous to
list individually, the Plaintiffs' property, including the
Plaintiffs' neighborhoods, residences, and yards have been, and
continue to be, physically invaded by noxious odors. The noxious
odors which entered Plaintiffs' property originated from
Defendant's paper pulp mill.

The Defendant purchased the Old Town paper pulp mill in 2018 and
resumed paper pulp production after the Facility had been idle
since 2015. The Defendant produces Penobscot Unbleached Softwood
kraft pulp at the Facility, which involves breaking down wood chips
into wood pulp using heat, chemical treatment, and water. The
Defendant's pulp production process involves the use of chemicals
to break down wood fibers, a process that produces malodorous gas
emissions in the form of total reduced sulfur and sulfur dioxide,
which emit a characteristic rotten egg odor. The byproduct of the
Defendant's pulp production is a waste sludge that the Defendant
processes in an aerated lagoon for wastewater treatment.

If the lagoon is not properly maintained, the waste sludge can
produce noxious odor emissions. On numerous separate and distinct
occasions, the Defendant has discharged discrete and offensive
noxious odors into the private residential properties of Plaintiffs
and the Class, causing damages to property. More than 120
neighboring residents have reported to the Plaintiffs' counsel that
they have experienced and are adversely impacted by Defendant's
noxious odor emissions. The invasion of the Plaintiffs' properties
by noxious odors has caused Plaintiffs and the Class substantial
harm.

The Defendant's operation, maintenance, control, and/or use of its
Facility has caused noxious odors to invade the properties of the
Plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, causing property
damage. The Defendant negligently, unreasonably, knowingly,
intentionally, and/or recklessly failed to properly maintain and/or
operate the Facility and caused the invasion of Plaintiffs'
property by noxious odors on intermittent and reoccurring dates too
numerous to individually recount. The Defendant is vicariously
liable for all damages suffered by the Plaintiffs caused by the
Defendant's employees, representatives, and agents, who, during the
course and scope of their employment created, allowed, or failed to
correct the problems which caused noxious odors to physically
invade the Plaintiffs' properties, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of Maine.

The Defendant operates an industrial paper pulp manufacturing mill
which is surrounded by residential properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher R. Causey, Esq.
          Colin B. Reilly, Esq.
          BOURQUE CLEGG CAUSEY & MORIN, LLC
          949 Main Street
          P.O. Box 1068
          Sanford, ME 04073
          Phone: (207) 324-4422
          Email: ccausey@bourqueclegg.com
                 creilly@bourqueclegg.com

               - and -

          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON PC
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Phone: (313) 392-0015
          Email: sliddle@lsccounsel.com
                 ncoulson@lsccounsel.com


NELNET INC: Court Tosses Bid to Certify Class in Johansson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johansson, et al., v.
Nelnet, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-03069 (D. Neb.), the Hon.
Judge John M. Gerrard entered an order denying motion to certify
class:

The nature of suit states breach of contract.

Nelnet is a United States-based conglomerate that deals in the
administration and repayment of student loans and education
financial services.[CC]

NELNET INC: Johansson Class Action Allegations Stricken
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW JOHANSSON, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and the Class of Members, v. NELNET, INC.,
a Nebraska Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-03069-JMG-CRZ (D.
Neb.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gerrard entered an order:

   1. adopting The Magistrate Judge's Findings and
      Recommendation;

   2. overruling the plaintiffs' objection;

   3. granting the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiffs'
      class action allegations and motion for class
      certification.

Nelnet is a United States-based conglomerate that deals in the
administration and repayment of student loans and education
financial services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TjroYO at no extra charge.[CC]

NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Reaches Settlement in Shareholders' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc. ("Neptune" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: NEPT), a diversified and fully integrated health and
wellness company focused on plant-based, sustainable and
purpose-driven lifestyle brands, today announced that it has agreed
to settle and resolve a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
filed against Neptune and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, captioned Gong v. Neptune Wellness
Solutions, Inc. (Case No. 2:21-cv-01386-ENV-ARL) pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(the "Court"). The litigation relates to allegations that, among
other things, the Company had made misrepresentations of material
information.

The settlement provides for a gross payment to the class of between
$4 and $4.25 million, with the exact amount being within the
Company's control and dependent on the type of consideration used.
The settlement is subject to Court approval and certification by
the Court of the class. The settlement will resolve this matter
against all defendants, and the consideration will be used to
satisfy settlement administrator expenses, plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees and costs, and payments to all members of the Class. In
exchange for the settlement consideration, the Company and the
other defendants will be released from all claims by the plaintiffs
and the class. The Company denies all wrongdoing and liability and
the settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing or
liability by the Company or any defendant.

The class is comprised of all persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Neptune securities on the NASDAQ or another
U.S. trading venue between July 24, 2019, and July 15, 2021.

The settlement is contingent upon various conditions, including,
but not limited to, preliminary approval by the Court and final
approval by the Court after notice to the class, certification of
the class and a hearing. There can be no assurance that the
settlement will be approved by the Court nor upheld if challenged
on appeal. In addition, the Company has the right to terminate the
settlement agreement under certain conditions. The Company has
filed a claim for coverage with its insurance carrier, which was
subsequently denied. The Company is contesting the denial of
coverage.

                        About Neptune Wellness

Headquartered in Laval, Québec, Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc. is
a diversified health and wellness company with a mission to
redefine health and wellness. Neptune is focused on building a
portfolio of high quality, affordable consumer products in response
to long-term secular trends and market demand for natural,
plant-based, sustainable and purpose-driven lifestyle brands. The
Company utilizes a highly flexible, cost-efficient manufacturing
and supply chain infrastructure that can be scaled to quickly adapt
to consumer demand and bring new products to market through its
mass retail partners and e-commerce channels. [GN]

NESTLE USA: McMenamy Files Suit in N.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nestle USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Mary McMenamy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case No.
5:22-cv-01053-TJM-ATB (N.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Nestle -- http://www.nestleusa.com/-- is the world's largest food
& beverage company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Chung, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES CHUNG
          43-22 216th Street
          Bayside, NY 11361
          Phone: (718) 461-8808
          Email: jchung_77@msn.com

               - and -

          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


NEWREZ LLC: Yates Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Usury Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRENE YATES On behalf of
herself individually and on behalf of two classes of similarly
situated persons, v. NEWREZ LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE
SERVICING, Case No. 8:21-cv-03044-TDC (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order certifying as Usury Class:

   "Any person in the State of Maryland for whom

    (i) Shellpoint has serviced a loan related to a secured,
        mortgage loan on  behalf of Fannie Mae;

   (ii) where Shellpoint imposed or  charged their mortgage loan
        accounts with property  inspection fees; and

  (iii) the  mortgage loan accounts were  not satisfied on or
        before April 5, 2021."

The proposed class covers persons against whom Shellpoint assessed
and/or imposed property inspection fees onto their mortgage
accounts in the State of Maryland.

The Plaintiff brings this motion focusing upon on property
inspection fees imposed, charged, and/or collected by Newrez which
are ripe for class-wide treatment on her remedial, consumer
protection claims under the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act
(MCDCA),and Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA).

Newrez is a nationwide mortgage lender and servicer.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CYLfqP
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          BORISON FIRM LLC
          1400 S. Charles St.
          Baltimore MD 21230
          Telephone: (301) 620-1016
          E-mail: scott@borisonfirm.com

               - and -

          Phillip R. Robinson, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC
          10125 Colesville Road, Suite 378
          Silver Spring, MD 20901
          Telephone (301) 448-1304
          E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Minton,Esq.
          GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C.
          3600 Clipper Mill Rd., Suite 201
          Baltimore, MD 21211
          Telephone: (410) 783-7575
          Facsimile: (410) 783-1711
          E-mail: tminton@charmcitylegal.com

NISSAN MOTOR: Court Enters Contribution Bar Order in Jackson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACKSON COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. CARLOS GHOSN, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01368 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge William L. Campbell, Jr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
Division, grants the Motion for Entry of Contribution Bar Order
filed by Defendants Nissan, Hiroto Saikawa, and Joseph G. Peter.

The lawsuit is a securities class action brought by Jackson County
Employees' Retirement System and Providence Employees Retirement
System against Nissan, Carlos Ghosn, Greg Kelly, Mr. Saikawa, Mr.
Peter, and Hiroshi Karube. Mr. Karube was dismissed for lack of
personal jurisdiction in December 2020. On Sept. 27, 2021, Nissan
and the Plaintiffs jointly moved to stay all deadlines in
anticipation of forthcoming stipulation of settlement that would
resolve all claims. The Court granted the motion on Sept. 29,
2022.

According to their seven status reports, Nissan and the Plaintiffs
negotiated and worked toward resolution of a stipulation of
settlement over the next seven months. On April 22, 2022, the
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for (i) Preliminary Approval of
Settlement; (ii) Class Certification for Settlement Purposes; and
(iii) Approval of Notice to Class and a Stipulation of Settlement.
None of the Defendants responded to the Plaintiffs' motion.

The Stipulation of Settlement proposed a payment of $36 million to
resolve the securities class action against all the Defendants. It
was entered into by the Plaintiffs (on behalf of themselves and
each Class Member), Nissan, Mr. Saikawa, and Mr. Peter. Pursuant to
the Stipulation of Settlement, the term "Settling Defendant
Parties" does not include Mr. Ghosn or Mr. Kelly. As used in the
Stipulation of Settlement, the terms "Settling Defendant Party" or
"Settling Defendant Parties" "mean Defendants Nissan, Hiroto
Saikawa, and Joseph Peter." By Order entered on May 26, 2022, the
Court preliminarily approved the settlement.

On Aug. 15, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for (1) Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Approval of Plan of
Allocation; and (2) an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.

On the same day, Nissan, Mr. Saikawa, and Mr. Peter filed the
pending motion, requesting that the Court enters an order barring
future claims for contribution arising out of the action by any
person against the three of them because they are the only
"settling covered persons" in the action under 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(f)(7)(A)(i). They further request that the Court's order not
bar them from bringing future claims for contribution arising out
of the action against Mr. Ghosn and Mr. Kelly because their
settlement with the Plaintiffs extinguishes Mr. Ghosn's and Mr.
Kelly's liability under 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(f)(7)(A)(ii).

Mr. Kelly opposes the motion on the basis that he is also a
"settling covered person" entitled to an order barring future
claims for contribution arising out of this action by any person
against him under 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(f)(7)(A)(i).

The only dispute is as to whether Mr. Kelly is a "settling covered
person" in the action such that he is entitled to an order barring
Nissan, Mr. Saikawa, and Mr. Peter from suing him for contribution
towards the $36 million settlement amount.

Mr. Kelly does not dispute that the Plaintiffs, Nissan, Mr.
Saikawa, and Mr. Peter executed a Stipulation of Settlement to
which he is not a party. Nor does Mr. Kelly dispute that his
liability in the present matter will be extinguished by that
Stipulation of Settlement executed by Nissan, Mr. Saikawa, and Mr.
Peter. Mr. Kelly does not claim to have participated in the
Stipulation of Settlement executed by Nissan, Mr. Saikawa, and Mr.
Peter. Nor does Mr. Kelly dispute that he has not executed a
settlement stipulation with the Plaintiffs.

Rather, Mr. Kelly argues that he is a "settling covered person"
under Section 78u-4(f)(7)(A)(i) because Sompo Japan Insurance Inc.
-- the insurer providing coverage under Nissan's directors,
officers, and company liability insurance policy under which Mr.
Kelly, Mr. Saikawa, and Mr. Peter are insureds -- might contribute
money towards the settlement amount that Nissan, Mr. Saikawa, and
Mr. Peter stipulated to.

Judge Campbell finds that Mr. Kelly has not cited any authority
supporting the entry of a bar order for a defendant who will
receive a release and be dismissed from the action but who has no
certainty as to whether an insurance policy will contribute to the
settlement amount on their behalf. While Mr. Kelly contends the
ongoing negotiations between Nissan and Sompo is no basis to
conclude that Sompo has not committed to contributing towards the
settlement amount, Judge Furman is unpersuaded.

An appropriate Order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 7, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8aexu7 from Leagle.com.


NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL: Faces Class Action Over Tracking Code
------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Northwestern
Memorial Hospital and Meta Platforms have been hit with a proposed
class action lawsuit that claims a tracking code embedded in the
hospital's patient portal unlawfully shares consumers' sensitive
medical information with Facebook and Instagram.

According to the 18-page case, the Chicago hospital requires
patients to schedule appointments and manage their accounts through
an online portal. Unbeknownst to patients, however, Northwestern
has allegedly installed in the portal a piece of computer code
known as the Meta Pixel that, according to the suit, is designed to
gather information about users for the benefit of Facebook and
Instagram, subsidiaries of Meta Platforms.

The case alleges that Northwestern and Meta, and thus Facebook and
Instagram, have violated state and federal privacy laws by
"surreptitiously" collecting and sharing patients' highly sensitive
medical information without their knowledge or consent and for the
social media giant's benefit.

Northwestern Memorial patients are required to use the hospital's
portal in order to interact with medical providers, schedule
appointments, access medical records, request prescription refills
and "for other medically sensitive purposes," the filing says. The
lawsuit argues that patients were "unable to avoid" having their
medical information tracked and disclosed by the Meta pixel
embedded in the hospital's portal.

Per the case, Facebook and Instagram utilize patients' information
"for their own profit," including by republishing it to third
parties and using it for targeted advertising.

The plaintiff in the suit is a Northwestern Memorial patient who
says he was required to create a patient account and use the
hospital's patient portal, which was allegedly represented as
"secure and confidential." According to the complaint, Facebook and
Instagram have collected and published the plaintiff's medical
information for their own profit and without the man's knowledge or
consent.

The plaintiff says he found out that Northwestern Memorial had
allowed the Meta Pixel to access its patient portal after reading
an article published by the Markup on June 16, 2022.

The lawsuit looks to cover all patients of Northwestern Memorial
Hospital who used the hospital's patient portal at any time within
the past two years. [GN]

OFFICIAL PEST PREVENTION: Wilkerson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Official Pest
Prevention, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nicholas Wilkerson,
and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Official
Pest Prevention, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2022-00328182-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct.
10, 2022).

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

Official Pest Prevention -- https://www.officialpestprevention.com/
-- is a family-owned, licensed pest control company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          4550 E Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100
          Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824
          Phone: 818-703-8985
          Fax: 818-703-8984
          Email: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com


OPENDOOR TECHNOLOGIES: Alich Sues Over Decline in Securities Value
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Alich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Opendoor Technologies Inc., Eric Wu, Carrie Wheeler,
Chamath Palihapitiya, Steven Trieu, Ian Osborne, Adam Bain, David
Spillane, and Cipora Herman, Case No. 2:22-cv-01717-JFM (D. Ariz.,
Oct. 7, 2022), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired: Opendoor securities between December 21, 2020
and September 16, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period");
and/or Opendoor common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Offering Documents issued in connection with the business
combination between the Company and Opendoor Labs Inc. ("Legacy
Opendoor") completed on or about December 18, 2020 (the "Merger"),
and pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 due to the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions which resulted in the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.

Opendoor was formerly known as Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings
Corp. II ("SCH") and operated as a special purpose acquisition
company ("SPAC"), also called a blank-check company, which is a
development stage company that has no specific business plan or
purpose or has indicated its business plan is to engage in a merger
or acquisition with an unidentified company or companies, other
entity, or person.

On September 15, 2020, the Company, then still operating as SCH,
and Legacy Opendoor, a private company operating as a digital
platform for residential real estate, announced their entry into a
definitive agreement for the Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), which
valued Legacy Opendoor at an enterprise value of $4.8 billion. On
October 5, 2020, the Company filed a registration statement on Form
S-4 with the SEC in connection with the Merger, which, after
several amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on November
27, 2020 (the "Registration Statement"). On November 30, 2020, the
Company filed a proxy statement/prospectus on Form 424B3 with the
SEC in connection with the Merger, which formed part of the
Registration Statement (the "Proxy" and, together with the
Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").

The Offering Documents for the Merger were negligently prepared
and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or
omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made
not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules
and regulations governing their preparation.

Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering
Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: the algorithm used by the Company
to make offers for homes could not accurately adjust to changing
house prices across different market conditions and economic
cycles; as a result, the Company was at an increased risk of
sustaining significant and repeated losses due to residential real
estate pricing fluctuations; accordingly, Defendants overstated the
purported benefits and competitive advantages of the Algorithm; and
as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public
statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.

On September 19, 2022, citing a review of industry data, Bloomberg
reported that the Company appeared to have lost money on 42% of its
transactions in August 2022 (as measured by the prices at which it
bought and sold properties). Bloomberg further reported that the
data was even worse in key markets such as Los Angeles, California,
where Opendoor lost money on 55% of sales, and Phoenix, Arizona,
where it lost money on 76% of sales. Worse, a global real estate
tech strategist interviewed by Bloomberg, Mike DelPrete, predicted
that, based on his analyses, September would likely be even worse
for Opendoor than August. Bloomberg's findings evidenced the
failure of Opendoor's Algorithm to adjust accurately to changing
market conditions.

Following the Bloomberg report, Opendoor's stock price fell $0.50
per share, or 12.32%, over the following two trading sessions, to
close at $3.56 per share on September 20, 2022—an 88.61% decline
from the Company's first post-Merger closing stock price of $31.25
per share on December 21, 2020 (the "Initial Closing Price"). As of
the time this Complaint was filed, Opendoor's common stock was
trading significantly below the Initial Closing Price and continues
to trade below its initial value from the Merger, damaging
investors. 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, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Opendoor securities
during the Class Period.

Opendoor is a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices
located in Tempe, Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary A. Gotto, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          3101 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Phone: (602) 248-0088
          Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
          Email: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq.
          WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
          25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G
          Monsey, NY 10952
          Phone: (845) 290-6818
          Facsimile: (718) 504-3773
          Email: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com


PAPA MURPHY'S: Valenzuela Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Papa Murphy's. The
case is styled as Sonya Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Papa Murphy's International, LLC,
Does 1 through 25, Case No. 5:22-cv-01788 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 11,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Papa Murphy's -- https://www.papamurphys.com/ -- is a take-and-bake
pizza company based in Vancouver, Washington.[BN]


PARKER THATCH: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parker Thatch Inc.
The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Parker Thatch Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08630 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2022).

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

Parker Thatch -- https://parkerthatch.com/ -- creates bags and
accessories defined by the ideas of ease & elegance and timeless
design.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


PINK ENERGY: Faces Class Action Suit Over WARN Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that Pink
Energy faces a proposed class action that claims the solar power
company unlawfully failed to provide advance written notice before
terminating approximately 1,500 employees throughout September
2022.

The 12-page case alleges Pink Energy dismissed 1,500 employees
throughout its facilities in Troy and Chesterfield, Michigan and
Raleigh, North Carolina without notice from September 1-22. The
lawsuit argues that the terminations violated the federal Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, which entitles
employees at companies of a certain size to at least 60 days'
advance written notice before a mass layoff or plant closing.

As mandated by the WARN Act, a company must provide advance written
notice if a mass layoff or plant closure terminates at least 50
full-time employees, constituting 33 percent of the total
workforce, the complaint relays. In general, WARN Act requirements
apply to companies that employ either 100 or more full-time workers
or 100 or more workers who work a minimum of 4,000 hours a week,
the suit states.

According to the complaint, Pink Energy has also failed to provide
the terminated employees with their respective wages, salaries,
commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay,
pension and 401(k) contributions, health insurance benefits, and
other benefits required under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) for 60 days after their termination.

In light of these allegations, the plaintiffs and similarly
situated individuals seek to recover 60 days' of wages and
benefits, pursuant to the WARN Act and ERISA.

In the wake of the mass layoffs, Pink Energy has attracted negative
attention for blaming its closure on a partnership with Generac, a
company that provides solar backup batteries. In a letter in which
it announced the termination of all its employees, Pink Energy
admitted that it was forced to close its doors due to "financial
difficulties" apparently caused by faulty Generac equipment. Pink
Energy claims that Generac's devices have a 40 percent failure
rate, which led to a massive influx of customer complaints and
sales decline.

Pink Energy is suing Generac in federal court for a loss in
revenue, but Generac's Director of Marketing, Tami Kou, suspects an
ulterior motive.

"We believe Pink Energy may be hoping to distract customers from
the many complaints and allegations that reportedly have been
leveled against them regarding poor installation and service, as
well as public accounts of dubious marketing claims and sales
tactics," Kou said.

According to the suit, Pink Energy filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Western District of North Carolina a voluntary
petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on
or about October 7.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who was employed by Pink
Energy at its Troy, Chesterfield, or Raleigh facilities and was
terminated without cause as part of a mass layoff or plant closing
on or about September 1 through September 22, 2022. [GN]

PP&G INC: Easter Sues Over Evading Mandatory Minimum Wage Provision
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Easter, and Janasia Crumpler, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PP&G, INC. dba NORMA JEANS NITE
CLUB, a Maryland Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 8:22-cv-02590-GLS (D. Md., Oct. 11, 2022), is brought
against the Defendants for damages due to Defendants evading the
mandatory minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), illegally absconding with Plaintiffs' tips and demanding
illegal kickbacks including in the form of "House Fees."

The Defendants did not pay entertainers on an hourly basis. The
Defendants exercised significant control over Plaintiffs during
their shifts and would demand that Plaintiffs pay to work a
particular shift. The Defendants set prices for all performances.
Plaintiffs were compensated exclusively through tips from
Defendants' customers. That is, the Defendants did not pay the
Plaintiffs whatsoever for any hours worked at their establishment.
The Defendants also required Plaintiffs to share their tips with
Defendants, and other non-service employees who do not customarily
receive tips, such as the disc jockeys and the bouncers.

The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wages for all
hours worked in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants also charged
Plaintiffs and other dancers to work. Furthermore, the Defendants'
practice of failing to pay tipped employees violating the FLSA's
minimum wage provision. As a result of the Defendants' violations,
the Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Members seek to recover
double damages for failure to pay minimum wage, interest, and
attorneys' fees, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers at the Defendants' adult
entertainment facility.

The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located in Baltimore, Maryland operating under the name "Norma
Jeans Nite Club."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Finnegan, Esq.
          GOLDBERG FINNEGAN CANNON, LLC
          8401 Colesville Road, Suite 630
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Phone: (301) 589-2999
          Email: kfinnegan@goldbergfinnegan.com

               - and -

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          Frank M. Mihalic, Jr., Esq.
          CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
          8827 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 273-1230
          Fax: (310) 858-1063
          Email: kristensen@cz.law
                 fmihalic@cz.law


PREMIER LAWN: Charlton Labor Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTOPHER CHARLTON and RUDY LALGEE, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PREMIER
LAWN & LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 151683/2022,
was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of Richmond, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on Oct. 10, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-06055-BMC to the proceeding.

This action seeks monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief, and
redress for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law by failing to pay Plaintiffs overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for time worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week, for failing
to provide Plaintiffs with wage notices and wage statements, and
for unlawfully withholding wages.

Premier Lawn & Landscape Services, Inc. is a landscaping company
that provides a variety of lawn, property maintenance, holiday
decorating, and snow and ice removal services to clients in New
York City.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ryan S. Carlson, Esq.  
          NUKK-FREEMAN & CERRA, P.C.
          26 Main Street, Suite 202
          Chatham, NJ 07928
          Telephone: (973) 665-9100
          Facsimile: (973) 665-9101
          E-mail: rcarlson@nfclegal.com

PSC COMMUNITY: UJC's Prelim. Injunction Bid in 1199SEIU Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, 1199SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST, Petitioner v.
PSC COMMUNITY SERVICES, ET AL., Respondents, Case No. 20-cv-3611
(JGK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York grants United Jewish Council
of the East Side Home Attendant Service Corp.'s motion for
preliminary injunction.

The injunction seeks to enjoin three former Union members, Epifania
Hichez, Carmen Carrasco, and Seferina Acosta, from prosecuting
putative class claims brought against UJC in Hichez v. United
Jewish Counsel of the East Side Home Attendant Service Corp., No.
653250/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 14, 2017), currently pending
in the New York State Supreme Court.

The action arises out of arbitration proceedings involving
petitioner 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (the "Union")
and the respondents, a group of home care agencies licensed to
provide home care services in New York. The Union filed two
petitions for confirmation of arbitration awards pursuant to the
Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 ("LMRA"), as amended, 29
U.S.C. Section 185, the first seeking to confirm an award
addressing issues of arbitrability and jurisdiction, and the second
seeking to confirm an award resolving the Union's grievance against
the respondents on the merits.

Both awards were rendered according to procedures set forth in
collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") between the Union and the
respondents. The Court confirmed the first award in an opinion
dated Feb. 19, 2021 and the second in an opinion dated June 24,
2022.

One of the respondents, United Jewish Council of the East Side Home
Attendant Service Corp. ("UJC"), now seeks a preliminary and/or
permanent injunction enjoining the Hichez plaintiffs, from
prosecuting putative class claims brought against it in the State
Court Action. UJC requests the injunction pursuant to the All Writs
Act("AWA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1651, and argues that the
relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act ("AIA"), 28
U.S.C. Section 2283, permits the issuance of the injunction.

The Union is a labor union that serves as the sole and exclusive
representative for UJC's home health aide employees, including for
purposes of collective bargaining over the terms and conditions of
their employment. UJC, like the other respondents in this action,
is a licensed home care agency. At all relevant times, the Union
was a party to CBAs with each of the respondents, including UJC.

In late 2015, the Union and the various respondents executed a
memorandum of agreement (the "2015 MOA") that amended the CBAs. Id.
595. The 2015 MOA laid out an alternative dispute resolution
process through which all claims arising under the New York Labor
Law (the "NYLL"), the New York Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law
(the "Parity Law"), and the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA")
(collectively, the "Covered Statutes") must be resolved. As
pertinent here, the 2015 MOA required that "all claims brought by
either the Union or Employees" for violations of the Covered
Statutes must first proceed through a grievance procedure or
mediation and, if not resolved through those mechanisms, must be
submitted to "final and binding arbitration."

The Hichez plaintiffs are former UJC employees who claim to have
ceased their employment with UJC before the Union executed the 2015
MOA. On June 14, 2017, they brought the State Court Action as a
putative "class action," alleging that UJC had systematically
underpaid its home care employees in violation of the NYLL, the
Parity Law, and other wage-and-hours provisions. As indicated in
their amended complaint, the Hichez plaintiffs seek both damages
and injunctive relief "on behalf of a class" of "all home care
aides employed by UJC in New York to provide care services to UJC's
elderly and disabled clients in the clients' homes during the
period beginning from June 14, 2011 until Nov. 30, 2015."

On July 25, 2017, UJC moved in the State Court Action to compel
arbitration pursuant to the 2015 MOA. The state trial court denied
the motion on the ground that "the Hichez plaintiffs, who were no
longer employed by UJC when the 2015 MOA was signed, werenot bound
by" the 2015 MOA's arbitration provision.

UJC appealed from the denial of its motion to compel arbitration
and also moved for reconsideration of that decision in the state
trial court. The trial court thereafter denied the motion for
reconsideration but stayed the State Court Action pending
resolution of UJC's appeal.

On Jan. 2, 2019, while UJC's appeal and motion for reconsideration
in the State Court Action were pending, the Union filed a class
action grievance against UJC and the other respondents for
"violations of the CBAs regarding wage and hour claims arising
under the Covered Statutes." The Union pursued this grievance "on
behalf of all of its home care bargaining members," a group
potentially encompassing over 100,000 current and former home care
employees. Pursuant to the 2015 MOA and the CBAs, certain parties
to the Union's grievance participated in a mediation.

On Dec. 24, 2019, the arbitrator declared that the mediation had
concluded and directed the parties to brief two threshold issues
related to arbitration: (1) whether the claims of former and
current Union members were arbitrable; and (2) whether the
arbitrator had jurisdiction over those claims "irrespective of
whether employees' employment terminated prior to the effective
date" of the 2015 MOA.

In January 2020, shortly after the arbitrator ordered briefing, the
Hichez plaintiffs brought a motion in the State Court Action
seeking to enjoin the arbitration with respect to former UJC
employees whose employment had terminated before the 2015 MOA went
into effect. Later that same month, the Appellate Division, First
Department affirmed the denial of UJC's motion to compel
arbitration for reasons similar to those set forth in the trial
court's initial decision on the subject.

On April 17, 2020, the arbitrator issued an award (the "First
Award") resolving the issues on which it had requested briefing.
The arbitrator determined that (1) the claims of former and current
Union members asserted in the Union's class action grievance were
arbitrable, and (2) the arbitrator had jurisdiction to adjudicate
all of those claims, including claims brought on behalf of former
employees who had ceased their employment before the effective date
of the 2015 MOA.

However, the arbitrator ruled that the arbitration proceeding would
"not be binding upon" any individual home care employees "whose
claims have been held not to be subject to arbitration by state or
federal court(s)." The arbitrator noted that the three Hichez
plaintiffs fell into this category, citing the state appeals
court's decision in the State Court Action. Accordingly, the
arbitrator explicitly carved the three named Hichez plaintiffs out
of the scope of the arbitration.

The Union petitioned this Court to confirm the First Award on May
8, 2020. The Hichez plaintiffs moved to intervene, arguing that
they had an interest in opposing the petition because the
arbitration would impede their pursuit of claims against UJC in the
State Court Action. On Feb. 19, 2021, this Court issued the First
Confirmation Order, which confirmed the First Award in full and
denied all motions objecting to the arbitrator's decision. The
Hichez plaintiffs, along with several other former Union members
who had opposed the Union's petition, filed a notice of appeal as
to the First Confirmation Order on March 19, 2021. That appeal is
currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Around the same time that the Union petitioned this Court for
confirmation of the First Award, the trial court in the State Court
Action issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
Hichez plaintiffs' earlier request for an injunction enjoining the
arbitration as to former UJC home care employees whose employment
had ended before the effective date of the 2015 MOA. In March 2021,
shortly after the issuance of this Court's First Confirmation
Order, the state trial court denied the Hichez plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration of the decision not to extend the injunction
against arbitration to putative class members.

UJC then moved to dismiss several of the Hichez plaintiffs' claims,
and the state trial court partially granted that motion in December
2021. The Hichez plaintiffs noticed an appeal and sought extensions
of their time to perfect it, but they otherwise did not take any
action to further their claims in the state trial court.

Also in December 2021, respondents Home Care of Brooklyn and
Queens, Inc. and Care at Home (the "Home Care Movants") requested
that this Court issues an injunction enjoining two former Union
members from prosecuting a class action against them in New York
state court -- Teshabaeva v. Family Home Care Services of Brooklyn
and Queens, Inc., No. 158949/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed Oct. 6,
2017). They argued in this Court that their desired injunction,
requested pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, was
necessary to protect this Court's First Confirmation Order.

On Feb. 16, 2022, this Court denied the Home Care Movants' request
for an injunction. Several days after this Court denied the Home
Care Movants' request for an injunction, the arbitrator issued
another award (the "Second Award") in the arbitration proceedings
between the Union and the respondents, this time addressing the
merits of the Union's class action grievance. In the Second Award,
the arbitrator determined that all of the respondents had committed
violations of the relevant wage-and-hours laws, "resulting in
underpayment of required wages" to the Union's former and current
members.

To "remedy all categories of violations" addressed in the
arbitration proceeding, the arbitrator ordered the respondents to
contribute to a compensation fund of roughly $30 million, and to
disburse those funds to eligible claimants. With respect to UJC in
particular, the arbitrator specified that this remedy would cover
all of UJC's wage-and-hours violations during a coverage period"
from "June 14, 2011 to Oct. 31, 2021," a time span encompassing the
proposed class period for the putative class in the Hichez
plaintiffs' State Court Action.

In March 2022, the Union petitioned this Court to confirm the
Second Award. The Court accordingly confirmed the Second Award in
full and again denied the motions of various former Union members
who sought to object or intervene. This time, the Hichez plaintiffs
did not move to intervene or otherwise object to the Second Award.
As with the First Confirmation Order, an appeal from the Second
Confirmation Order is currently pending before the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On July 1, 2022, just one week after this Court issued the Second
Confirmation Order "and after many months of inactivity" in the
State Court Action, the Hichez plaintiffs served UJC with written
discovery requests seeking information concerning not just the
three named Hichez plaintiffs, but all members of their putative
class. In a preliminary-conference request filed two weeks later,
the Hichez plaintiffs described the State Court Action as an
ongoing "class action, brought by Plaintiffs individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated employees, to seek redress
for systematic and class-wide" violations.

UJC seeks an injunction against the pursuit of putative class
claims in the State Court Action on the ground that such relief is
necessary to protect this Court's Confirmation Orders and the
underlying Awards. It argues that the confirmation of the Awards
fully and finally resolved the claims of the former UJC employees
who make up the Hichez plaintiffs' proposed class, and that
allowing them to proceed with a class action on behalf of the same
former UJC employees would force UJC to relitigate those claims in
state court.

UJC argues that the AIA's relitigation exception leaves this Court
free to issue the requested injunction pursuant to the AWA. The
Hichez plaintiffs respond that this exception does not apply, and
that as a result, the AIA bars the issuance of UJC's proposed
injunction.

Judge Koeltl opines that although the relitigation exception is
narrow, the requirements for its application are met. He says
because (1) no state court has considered the preclusive effect of
the Court's Confirmation Orders in the State Court Action, and (2)
those Orders are entitled to res judicata effect with respect to
the Hichez plaintiffs' putative class claims, UJC's requested
injunction should issue pursuant to the AWA under the AIA's
relitigation exception. Indeed, an injunction enjoining further
prosecution of the putative class claims in the State Court Action
advances that exception's core purpose.

With the exception of the Hichez plaintiffs themselves, the former
UJC employees comprising the putative class were awarded relief on
their claims against UJC when the arbitrator ordered, and this
Court approved, compensatory payments out of a fund to which UJC
was required to contribute. Now, the Hichez plaintiffs seek to
circumvent the federal judgment confirming the Awards and obtain
relief for the very same former UJC employees on claims arising
from the very same UJC wage-and-hours policies at issue in the
arbitration. Lest there be any doubt on this point, the Hichez
plaintiffs suggest in their opposition papers that if the state
court "finds UJC liable and awards greater damages than the
Arbitrator did," then UJC could simply "offset" that state-court
damages award with "the amount it paid" to its former employees "in
arbitration."

Judge Koeltl opines that issuing UJC's requested injunction now
will obviate the need for UJC to pursue applicable res judicata
defenses in the State Court Action and ensure that this Court's
judgment is accorded the appropriate preclusive effect. In so
doing, he says, the injunction will prevent the relitigation of the
claims against UJC that thie Court's judgment and the underlying
Awards have already resolved and remedied. Thus, the relitigation
exception supports an injunction enjoining Hichez plaintiffs'
pursuit of putative class claims in the State Court Action.

The fact that the AIA's relitigation exception applies to UJC's
requested injunction does not end the analysis under the AWA or the
AIA. Judge Koeltl must also consider "the principles of equity,
comity, and federalism" that bear on any federal court decision to
enjoin state proceedings.

He opines that both the Awards and the Confirmation Orders, which
did not bind the three named Hichez plaintiffs but did resolve the
claims of the putative class members, were wholly consistent with
the rulings in the State Court Action. It follows that an
injunction protecting the effect of the Court's judgment with
respect to the putative class does not contravene any rulings in
the State Court Action. Finally, the injunction does not conflict
with any State Court Action decisions regarding the preclusive
effect of the Confirmation Orders, because no such decisions
exist.

For similar reasons, Judge Koeltl holds that the Hichez plaintiffs'
argument that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine forecloses the Court's
issuance of the injunction is misplaced. The Rooker-Feldman
doctrine is a "narrow" principle that bars federal courts from
adjudicating "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of
injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the
district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court
review and rejection of those judgments." Those circumstances are
not present here.

UJC's requested injunction is directed not toward the claims that
the named Hichez plaintiffs might pursue individually, but toward
the claims that they seek to bring on behalf of the putative class.
And the courts in the State Court Action declined to prevent the
claims of former UJC employees other than the named Hichez
plaintiffs from proceeding to arbitration. Thus, UJC never "lost"
on the question of whether the outcome of the arbitration would
bind the putative class members, and its request for an injunction
limited to the putative class claims does not challenge any
state-court judgment.

In addition, Judge Koeltl finds that the injunction does not limit
the ability of the Hichez plaintiffs to pursue their own claims
individually, nor does it constrain the discovery that the Hichez
plaintiffs may seek in support of those individual claims. Thus,
they remain free to argue in the state proceedings that discovery
concerning other former UJC employees is relevant to their
individual claims, and the state court remains free to decide that
issue for itself. In any event, UJC would likely incur irreparable
injury in the absence of a preliminary injunction, and the specter
of irreparable harm to UJC supports the issuance of a preliminary
injunction.

UJC also had bargained for the right to arbitrate the
wage-and-hours claims of its home care employees, including the
former employees comprising the putative class in the State Court
Action. Without an injunction preventing the Hichez plaintiffs from
further prosecuting the putative class claims, Judge Koeltl finds
that UJC will be forced to relitigate claims already resolved in a
valid arbitration, in turn depriving UJC of its right to have those
claims handled in an arbitral forum. Further, if the Hichez
plaintiffs were allowed to litigate the putative class action to
conclusion, UJC might find itself liable for classwide relief
greater than or different from the arbitrator-crafted remedy to
which the putative class members are already entitled.

Meanwhile, the Hichez plaintiffs will not suffer any harm as a
result of the requested injunction. Judge Koeltl says UJC's
proposed relief would affect only those claims that were already
adjudicated in the arbitration proceedings. Because the Hichez
plaintiffs were expressly excluded from the arbitration, he says
granting the injunction will not affect the ability of the Hichez
plaintiffs to seek relief on their individual claims against UJC.

Considerations of public policy also support UJC's request for
relief, Judge Koeltl opines. The injunction would ensure that the
two Awards and the Court's Orders confirming them are given binding
effect in the Hichez plaintiffs' ongoing state proceeding.

Finally, the courts in the State Court Action here enjoined the
arbitration solely with respect to the three named Hichez
plaintiffs, and UJC's motion does not raise any of the
Rooker-Feldman and comity concerns implicated in the Home Care
Movants' motion. Further still, UJC had no reason to ask the Court
for an injunction until it received the Hichez plaintiffs' July
2022 discovery requests, which made clear that the Hichez
plaintiffs were still pursuing their putative class claims
notwithstanding this Court's judgment resolving them.

In sum, the equities weigh in favor of granting UJC's requested
preliminary injunction, principles of comity and federalism do not
counsel otherwise, and the Hichez plaintiffs' various arguments
that the injunction should not issue are unavailing. The Hichez
plaintiffs are therefore enjoined from prosecuting claims on behalf
of the putative class in the State Court Action, pending a decision
on the request for a permanent injunction.

Judge Koeltl has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To
the extent not discussed, he says the arguments are either moot or
without merit. For the foregoing reasons, he grants UJC's motion
for a preliminary injunction enjoining the named Hichez plaintiffs
from pursuing putative class claims in the State Court Action is
granted.

UJC should submit a proposed preliminary injunction. The Hichez
plaintiffs may submit any objections two days thereafter.

The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 265.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5447jyz5 from Leagle.com.


PUR COMPANY: Davis Sues Over False and Misleading Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marykae Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Pur Company (USA) Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-06430
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2022), seeks damages and an injunction to stop
the Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with
regards to their various flavors of gum under the PUR brand
("Product").

"Natural flavor" is the term used to refer to a concentrated,
compounded and synthesized blend of extractives, oils, and essences
from ingredients that may include some peppermint, mixed with
solvents and additives in a laboratory. The Product's primary or
"characterizing" flavor is peppermint because the label makes this
"direct representations" through the word "peppermint."

By representing the Product as "peppermint" without any qualifying
terms, consumers and Plaintiff expected its taste was from
peppermint ingredients. However, the ingredient list in small print
on the edge of the package does not identify any peppermint
ingredients, and the only ingredient which can provide the
peppermint taste is "natural flavors."

According to flavor expert Bob Holmes, if the Product provided "all
the flavor depth" of peppermint, the ingredients would list
"peppermint extract" or "peppermint oil" instead of "natural
flavors." Because peppermint extract or peppermint oil is not a
separately identified ingredient, it means that any real
peppermint, if present, is at trace or de minimis levels as part of
the natural flavor ingredient. The added natural flavors are less
expensive and more concentrated than real peppermint, so less of it
needs to be used.

The Product contains other representations and omissions which are
false and misleading. The Defendant sold more of the Product and at
higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct,
resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers. As a
result of the false and misleading representations, the Product is
sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $2.59 for nine
pieces, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar products,
represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be
sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product on one or more occasions.

The Pur Company (USA) Inc. manufactures, packages, labels, markets,
and sells various flavors of gum under the PUR brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
          Great Neck NY 11021-3104
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vecchio Seeks Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:

   -- conditionally certifying a Class and Collective; and

   -- preliminary approving the class and collective action
      settlement.

Quest Diagnostics is an American clinical laboratory.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 11, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D0Ah4j at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          400 Broadhollow Rd. #305
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 843-7603
          E-mail: sbadala@napolilaw.com

RADIUS GLOBAL: Rubashkin FCRA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Yissacher G. Rubashkin, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers v. Radius Global Solutions,
LLC, Case No. 22-017464-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Oct. 10, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-23275-KMW to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Radius Global Solutions -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ -- is a
leading provider of accounts receivable, customer relations and
revenue cycle management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ely Robert Levy, Esq.
          LEVY & PARTNERS, PLLC
          3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Email: elevy@lawlp.com

               - and -

          Omar Mauricio Salazar, II, Esq.
          MILITZOK, LEVY, P.A.
          3230 Stirling Road
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (954) 727-8570
          Fax: (954) 241-6857
          Email: omar@lawlp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dayle Marie Van Hoose
          Rachel Megan Fleishman
          SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC
          3350 Buschwood Park Drive, Suite 195
          Tampa, FL 33618
          Phone: (813) 890-2463
          Fax: (866) 466-3140
          Email: dvanhoose@sessions.legal
                 rfleishman@sessions.legal

RCI ELECTRIC: Granados Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RCI Electric, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Jorge Luis Granados, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. RCI Electric, Inc., Does 1-50, Case
No. 34-2022-00328174-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
Oct. 10, 2022).

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

RCI Electric -- https://www.rci-electric.com/ -- is a full service
Electrical Contractor located in Southeast Michigan and offers
commercial & industrial electrical services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
          237 California St.
          El Segundo, CA 90245-4310
          Phone: 424-290-3095
          Fax: 866-264-7880
          Email: heather@protectionlawgroup.com


REEDHEIN & ASSOCIATES: Adolph Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN ADOLPH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; KERRI ADOLPH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
REEDHEIN & ASSOCIATES d/b/a TIMESHARE EXIT TEAM; MAKAYMAX INC.;
HEIN & SONS INDUSTRIES, INC.; BRANDON REED, individually; and
TREVOR HEIN, individually, Case No. 2:21-cv-01378-BJR (W.D. Wash.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following class:

      "All persons who paid fees to Reed Hein for services to
      terminate their timeshare obligations, except those
      persons who received refunds of the fees that they paid;"

   2. appointing Mr. Adolph as class representative;

   3. appointing Gregory Albert as class counsel.

Since its founding in 2012, Reed Hein & Associates has allegedly
defrauded tens of thousands of working-class and middle-class
families out of tens of millions of dollars.

Reed Hein claimed to be a "consumer-advocacy firm" that was capable
of "forcing" timeshare developers to "take back" a customer's
timeshare. Reed Hein claimed to have a "proprietary timeshare-exit
process" that included direct negotiation with timeshare
developers.

Finally, Reed Hein's "one-hundred-percent money-back guarantee"
promised to refund a customer's fee if Reed Hein was unable to
deliver a "timeshare exit." Reed Hein made each claim and omission
in mandatory sales meetings with prospective customers for the
purposes of inducing those customers' reliance on the claims and
omissions.

Mr. and Mrs. Adolph contacted Reed Hein about terminating their
timeshare obligations in March 2020. On March 19, 2020, Reed Hein
set up a sales meeting with a commission-based "client advisor"
whose job was to advise the Adolphs to purchase Reed Hein's
services. Id. During the meeting, Reed Hein told the Adolphs that
it had a variety of "proprietary methods" it used to rid timeshare
owners of timeshare obligations.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 7, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rV2zqu at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory Albert,. Esq.
          ALBERT LAW PLLC
          3131 Western Avenue, Suite 410
          Seattle, WA 98121
          Telephone: (206) 576-8044
          E-mail: greg@albertlawpllc.com

The Attorney for the Defendants Reed Hein and Makaymax Inc., are:

          Daniel Bugbee, Esq.
          155 NE 100th St Ste 205
          Seattle, WA 98125-8015
          Telephone: (206) 489-3802
          E-mail: dbugbee@lawdbs.com

Attorney for Defendant Brandon Reed

          Jack Lovejoy, Esq.
          CORR CRONIN LLP
          1015 Second Avenue, Floor 10
          Seattle, WA 98104-1001
          Telephone: (206) -625-8600
          E-mail: jlovejoy@corrcronin.com

RENAISSANCE TOWER: Faces Class Action Over Structural Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action lawsuit alleges the companies and individuals
responsible for overseeing Myrtle Beach, South Carolina's
Renaissance Tower knew for years about steadily worsening damage to
structural steel components supporting the now-evacuated 21-story
high-rise condominium building yet failed to make any further
inspections or repairs and instead "allowed the damage to worsen."

The 34-page complaint says that like the Champlain Towers South
building that catastrophically collapsed in Surfside, Florida in
June 2021, the Renaissance Tower abuts the beach and the Atlantic
Ocean and is structurally supported by steel and concrete. The suit
says the high-rise's steel has "steadily corroded and weakened" to
the point that the building is no longer structurally sound, which
earlier this month prompted the evacuation of residents who, per
the suit, now face a more than $2 million assessment for repairs
among other yet-unknown costs.

According to the case, the tragic collapse of the Champlain Towers
South building prompted the defendants, the Board of the
Renaissance Tower Horizontal Property Regime and its management, to
have the building's corroded structural steel components evaluated
again for the first time since 2018. The engineer who evaluated the
steel under the building in 2021 found, "as expected," that it was
"substantially more corroded and weakened" than during its last
inspection, and advised the board that it could not continue to
delay repairs to the high-rise's structural steel components, the
lawsuit relays.

The Post and Courier reported that unit owners were sent an email
that said it was "imperative" to get out of the building until its
steel frame could be better secured. The email stated that it was
after removing exterior finishes that the resort's frame was found
to be "in substantially worse condition than previous analysis was
able to show."

The filing alleges, however, that a former building manager for the
Renaissance Tower stated to a resident, one of the plaintiffs, in
or around 2016 that "the steel under the building was in bad shape
and needed to be repaired or replaced."

Instead of repairing the building's structural steel, the
defendants chose "to undertake expensive building improvement
projects" that did not address any safety or structural problems,
according to the suit.

This month, as work finally began to repair the structural steel
under the Renaissance Tower building, contractors observed steel
that was "so corroded and weakened" that an engineer was called in
to further evaluate the conditions, the suit says. That engineer
found that the Renaissance Tower building was "not structurally
sound" given that some of the steel column flanges had "completely
disintegrated," posing a situation dangerous enough to call for the
building to be evacuated, the complaint relays.

According to the case, the defendants were told that the
Renaissance Tower must be shored up before any further repair work
could be performed, and that the scope of the structural repairs
must be expanded to include the removal and replacement of the
bottom portion of the building's columns.

"The damage to the steel structural components is extreme," the
lawsuit says.

To date, the building remains unoccupied until residents are
permitted to return, the suit states. The case says the evacuation
of the Renaissance Tower has left some owners homeless while others
have been left to "purchase and live from tents in a nearby
campground."

Other owners, meanwhile, had their units listed for sale and are
now unable to sell them, or had a contract for the sale of their
unit and had a buyer back out, the lawsuit states.

The complaint says that "[d]espite being left homeless, stuck
paying for temporary housing, or deprived of income from a tenant,"
Renaissance Tower condo owners now face a more than $2 million
assessment for repairs to the building's structural steel, as well
as an unknown additional assessment for temporary shoring to make
the building safe for occupants, and costs for "the expanded scope
of repairs needed to address the extremely damaged condition of the
steel."

According to the case, the defendants have "less than $1.3 million"
in reserves in 2022, which the suit claims is a "grossly
unreasonable" amount for a 21-story, 322-unit condo on the beach in
coastal South Carolina.

"Due to the lack of maintenance and repairs and the grossly
insufficient reserves held by the Regime, the unit owners are being
forced to pay substantial assessments for repairs to the building
and the assessments continue to increase given the temporary
shoring and expanded steel repairs now necessary at the building,"
the suit states.

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons or entities who owned a
residential condo unit in the Renaissance Tower on October 7, 2022.
[GN]

RESPONDUS INC: Court Won't Reconsider Order on Lewis' Dismissal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COURTNIE PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESPONDUS, INC. and LEWIS
UNIVERSITY, Defendants, Case No. 20 C 7692 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denies Lewis University's
motion to reconsider the Court's order granting in part its motion
to dismiss.

In this putative class action, Patterson claims that Respondus and
Lewis violated her rights under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.

BIPA is an Illinois law that regulates how private entities may
collect and handle individuals' biometric data. Section 15 contains
BIPA's substantive regulations, and section 20 creates a private
cause of action for violations. Although BIPA generally imposes its
regulations on any "private entity" that might collect or handle
biometric data, section 25(c) contains an important limitation on
BIPA's scope: "Nothing in this Act will be deemed to apply in any
manner to a financial institution or an affiliate of a financial
institution that is subject to Title V of the federal
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA) and the rules promulgated
thereunder.

Title V of the GLBA, 15 U.S.C. Section 6801 et seq., is a federal
privacy law; it regulates how "financial institutions" handle
certain customer information. Among other things, the GLBA "limits
the instances in which a financial institution may disclose
nonpublic personal information about a consumer to nonaffiliated
third parties and requires financial institutions to provide
certain privacy notices to their consumers and customers."

In its motion to dismiss, Lewis argued that it fits within the BIPA
exemption, 740 ILCS 14/25(c), which would foreclose Patterson's
claims against it. Patterson challenged that defense for two
reasons. First, Patterson argued that the term "financial
institution," as used in BIPA, should be given its plain and
ordinary meaning, which would not encompass a university like
Lewis. Second, Patterson argued that even if BIPA incorporates the
GLBA's specialized definition of "financial institution," which is
broader than the term's plain meaning, Lewis has not established as
a matter of law that it satisfies that broader definition—and
therefore has not shown that it is "subject to" the GLBA and its
rules.

In its earlier opinion, the Court did not address the first issue,
instead simply sustaining Patterson's second objection -- that is,
it concluded that Lewis had not established that it was "subject
to" the GLBA and its rules. Lewis had relied heavily on a Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) notice published in the Federal Register in
2000, when the agency promulgated a final rule under the GLBA.

According to that FTC statement, educational institutions like
Lewis may qualify as "financial institutions" subject to the GLBA
if they are "significantly engaged in lending funds to consumers."
Lewis contended that this language supported its argument, but the
Court noted a concern about its continued force: since the time the
FTC issued that statement, rulemaking authority under the GLBA was
transferred from the FTC to the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (CFPB). Lewis cited no regulations, policy statements, or
other materials from the CFPB. And the FTC rule that Lewis cited
indirectly, by way of the 2000 Federal Register notice, has since
been narrowed to cover only certain entities in the motor-vehicle
industry -- a category that unquestionably does not encompass
universities.

Lewis' failure to comment on these developments undermined the
Court's confidence that the FTC's statements remain relevant or
authoritative. Thus, the Court explained that it was rejecting
Lewis' argument "based on the information it has been shown," but
it hinted at the possible usefulness of "further briefing" about
the GLBA's complicated regulatory scheme.

Lewis now asks the Court to reconsider its ruling on BIPA's
financial-institution exemption or, in the alternative, to certify
the issue for interlocutory appeal.

Judge Pallmeyer's analysis proceeds in two steps. First, she
considers section 25(c) of BIPA and concludes, contrary to
Patterson's plain-meaning construction, that BIPA directly
incorporates the GLBA's definition of the term "financial
institution." Second, she assesses whether Lewis satisfies that
incorporated federal definition. Judge Pallmeyer concludes that
Lewis has failed to establish, at this stage, that it is
"significantly engaged in financial activities" within the meaning
of the GLBA.

First, in its motion to dismiss, Lewis argued that section 25(c)
incorporates its definition of "financial institution" directly
from the GLBA. Patterson responded that the term "financial
institution" in section 25(c) should instead be given its plain and
ordinary meaning, which is narrower than the GLBA's (and would not,
on its face, include a university like Lewis).

The Court declined to weigh in on the proper construction because
Lewis had not satisfied the Court that it was "subject to" the GLBA
and its rules -- a showing that was required under either party's
interpretation of the BIPA exemption. Having been given clearer
information about the GLBA, Judge Pallmeyer now addresses the
definitional issue regarding section 25(c) of BIPA.

Judge Pallmeyer opines that (i) incorporating the GLBA's definition
of "financial institutions" into BIPA's section 25(c) exemption
would ensure that BIPA does not duplicate or conflict with the GLBA
by subjecting any entities to both statutes; (ii) Lewis'
construction of section 25(c) does appear to narrow BIPA's overall
scope, but Patterson has not demonstrated that Lewis' construction
truly creates an exception that swallows the rule; and (iii) an
exemption from BIPA's scope for all GLBA-regulated institutions
would discriminate in favor of larger entities, which are more
likely to qualify as "financial institutions" under the GLBA.

For the reasons discussed, Judge Pallmeyer agrees with Lewis that
section 25(c) of BIPA simply incorporates the GLBA's definition of
"financial institution."

Having determined that section 25(c) incorporates the GLBA's
definition of "financial institution," Judge Pallmeyer turns to the
question whether Lewis satisfies that definition. As noted, Title V
of the GLBA, 15 U.S.C. Sections 6801 et seq., is a federal privacy
law that regulates how "financial institutions" handle certain
customer information.

In its motion for reconsideration, Lewis notes that the CFPB, after
being empowered by the Dodd-Frank Act, restated most of the
existing GLBA regulations as its own regulations. Thus, CFPB's
regulations contain a definition of "financial institutions" that,
as it turns out, is substantially the same as the FTC's definition.
In fact, the CFPB maintains a specific definition of "financial
institutions" that applies to entities, like Lewis, that are
subject to the FTC's still-broad enforcement jurisdiction. Second,
the CFPB's regulations contain a carveout for institutions that
comply with FERPA. Again, that means the CFPB's rule is
substantially the same as the FTC's rule was, at least with respect
to the provisions that Lewis cited in its motion to dismiss.

Judge Pallmeyer turns now to the merits of Lewis' argument that it
is a "financial institution that is subject to" the GLBA and its
rules. According to Patterson, the phrase "the business of which"
means that entities "merely 'engaging in' financial activities
tangential to their core business" cannot be included. Because
Lewis' core business is providing education, not lending money,
Patterson believes that it cannot be considered a "financial
institution" under this rule.

Judge Pallmeyer rejects Patterson's suggestion that a university
cannot possibly qualify as a "financial institution" within the
meaning of the GLBA. But Lewis cannot rely on the FTC's statement
that many colleges and universities "appear to be" financial
institutions; it still must establish that it is, in fact,
"significantly engaged" in financial activities. She is unwilling
to conclude on this sparse record, that Lewis itself is
"significantly engaged" in financial activities within the meaning
of the GLBA. Separately from the facts identifie, the parties have
spent substantial time arguing about various administrative
materials, mainly from the Department of Education.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pallmeyer denies Lewis' motion for
reconsideration and denies its request to certify this issue for
interlocutory appeal without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdcsemfe from
Leagle.com.


RITE AID CORP: Settles Putative Labor Class Actions in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended August 27, 2022 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 5, 2022, that the Company agrees to settle
the putative labor class actions with store associates,
supervisors, managers/assistant managers, drivers and ice cream
plant associates.

In June 2021, the Company agreed to settle two of the California
Cases in which the plaintiffs brought class-based claims alleging
that they and all other similarly situated associates were not paid
for time waiting for their bags to be checked.

One set of cases involving store associates was settled for $9
million and has concluded, while the other involving distribution
center associates was settled for $1.75 million and remains subject
to court approval.

On October 1, 2021, the Company agreed to settle for $12 million
allegations made by a purported class of California store
associates that it required such associates to purchase uniforms,
and the matter has concluded.

In August 2022, the Company agreed to settle (i) a putative class
action regarding reimbursement for cell phone and mileage expenses
for shift supervisors and managers/assistant managers for $1.29
million, and (ii) a putative wage and hour class action brought on
behalf of drivers and other ice cream plant associates for $0.8
million.  

Rite Aid Corp. is an American drugstore chain based in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]



RITE AID: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Rite Aid Corporation ("Rite Aid" or the "Company") (NYSE:
RAD) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, and docketed under 22-cv-04201, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Rite Aid securities between
April 14, 2022 and September 28, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Rite
Aid securities during the Class Period, you have until December 19,
2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Rite Aid, through its subsidiaries, operates a chain of retail
drugstores in the U.S. The Company operates through two segments,
Retail Pharmacy and Pharmacy Services. The Pharmacy Services
segment provides integrated suite of pharmacy benefit management
("PBM") offerings through, inter alia, the Company's Elixir
subsidiary, including technology solutions, mail delivery services,
specialty pharmacy, network and rebate administration, claims
adjudication, and pharmacy discount programs.

In Rite Aid's Q4 2022 earnings call on April 14, 2022, Rite Aid's
President and CEO, Defendant Heyward Rutledge Donigan ("Donigan"),
addressed the growth of Elixir's PBM services business during the
selling season ending January 1, 2023, stating that (i) in the past
few months, Elixir had already "sold 35,000 new members" (as
against a total of 55,000 new members in the prior year), (ii)
Elixir was a finalist for 150,000 additional new members, and
"results have shown that once we get to finalist, we're winning
deals 35% of the time," and (iii) Elixir had "a current pipeline of
nearly 1 million members and growing."

In a letter to shareholders, dated June 10, 2022, appearing in Rite
Aid's 2022 Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Proxy
Statement, Defendant Donigan stated, "[o]ur Elixir account and
sales teams are gaining momentum, and we are executing more
efficiently by consolidating functions. And the market is
noticing—we have added 34,000 individuals covered by Elixir's PBM
services since January 1, 2022, with many more in the pipeline."

In Rite Aid's Q1 2023 earnings call on June 23, 2022, Defendant
Donigan stated concerning the PBM services business that "[o]ur
strong network contracts, new rebate capabilities, innovative
clinical services and expertise in government programs have enabled
us to add 80,000 new lives for January 1, 2023 start date. These
are more new lives than we sold last year. And additionally, the
selling season is still in progress, and we've got close to 1
million lives remaining in the pipeline for January 1, 2023." On
the same call, Elixir's COO, Defendant Chris DuPaul, advised that
"we've had a pretty strong start to our selling season,
particularly on the health plan side," and "we're feeling really
good about where our lives are headed going into [1/1/23] . . ."

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) despite representations to the contrary, the
number of new members (i.e., "lives") that the Elixir PBM services
business was adding during the selling season ending on January 1,
2023 was in material decline; (ii) Rite Aid was likely to recognize
a significant charge for the impairment of goodwill related to
Elixir due to a decrease in "lives" covered by Elixir's PBM
services business; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On September 29, 2022, Rite Aid announced a $252.2 million charge
for the impairment of goodwill related to the Company's Elixir
subsidiary. On an earnings call held later in the day, Rite Aid's
Chief Financial Officer, Matt Schroeder, explained that the large
impairment charge was related to Elixir based on "an update to our
estimate of lives for 2023 based on the latest selling season," and
that Rite Aid "expected[ed] lives to go down."

On this news, Rite Aid's stock price fell $1.97 per share, or
28.02%, to close at $5.06 per share on September 29, 2022.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members. See www.pomlaw.com [GN]

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Gelizon Suit Removed to D. Nevada
------------------------------------------------------
Jay Gelizon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case No.
A-22-857862-C was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court,
Clark County, Nevada, to the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada on Oct. 10, 2022, and assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-01706-APG-DJA.

The Plaintiff served the State Action Complaint ("SAC") on Samsung
on September 14, 2022. The SAC asserts four claims for: negligence;
invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts and
intrusion upon seclusion; breach of contract; and breach of implied
contract. Each of the Plaintiff's claims arises out of a data
security incident that Samsung announced on September 2, 2022 (the
"Security Incident"). On behalf of himself and the putative class,
the Plaintiff seeks, among other things, actual damages, exemplary
damages, statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          John P Desmond, Esq.
          Justin J Bustos, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          100 W. Liberty, Suite 940
          Reno, Nevada 89501
          Phone: 775-343-7505
          Fax: 844-670-6009
          Email: jdesmond@dickinsonwright.com
                 jbustos@dickinsonwright.com

               - and -

          Jason J Kim, Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-532-2114
          Fax: 213-532-2020
          Email: kimj@HuntonAK.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Wenzel Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Steven Wenzel, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics
America, Inc., Case No. 2022-CA-007502, was removed from the
Hillsborough County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on Oct. 10, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02323-KKM-AAS to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.

Samsung Electronics -- http://www.samsung.com/us-- leads the
global market in high-tech electronics manufacturing and digital
media.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N Florida Ave., Ste. 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Phone: (813) 579-2483
          Fax: (813) 229-8712
          Email: aheystek@wfclaw.com
                 bhill@wfclaw.com
                 lcabassa@wfclaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John J. Delionado, Jr., Esq.
          HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          333 S.E. 2 Avenue, Ste. 2400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 536-2752
          Fax: (305) 810-2460
          Email: jdelionado@huntonak.com

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA: Settles Prisoners' Class Action for $2.4M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
mercurynews.com reports that Santa Clara County has set aside $2.4
million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of people
held in jail long after prosecutors decided not to charge them --
sometimes for several days -- during a three-year window that
coincided with the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The monetary agreement was reached at the end of the summer, and
notices have been going out to the settlement class: 244 people who
between April 26, 2018 and April 26, 2021 were kept in custody for
more than 12 hours after the district attorney's office made its
no-charge decision.

"The policy we challenged happened in complete secrecy," lead
plaintiff attorney Dami Animashaun said in an interview. "No class
member knew they were harmed."

County Counsel James Williams said the source of the problem was a
programming issue that was already identified and in the process of
being corrected prior to the lawsuit's filing in April 2021.

"It was fixed independent of the lawsuit," Williams said. "The
settlement will provide a fund for affected individuals to bring
claims and get some compensation."

According to the county, sometime in the second half of 2020,
officials were alerted to the fact that there was no mechanism for
jail staff to be readily notified that a person in custody was not
being charged.

That meant that once prosecutors entered a no-file decision into
the law-enforcement database, neither the system nor jail policy
compelled anyone to check on an in-custody person's charging
status, unless correctional officers decided to manually look it
up.

Because that did not regularly happen, the affected people did not
learn they hadn't been charged until it was time for them to be
transported to court for a prospective arraignment, which must take
place within 48 hours of arrest. But arraignments can be pushed out
one or two days if people are arrested prior to a weekend or
holiday, further delaying the lookup of their status.

The named plaintiff of the class-action lawsuit, Dylan Camarlinghi,
was arrested Feb. 9, 2020 after an alleged home altercation with a
friend. He was booked at the Main Jail in San Jose and was held in
a 40-person barrack, where he says he was denied hygiene supplies
and refused to shower or fully use the bathroom for six days
because of unsanitary conditions.

According to court filings, Camarlinghi, who had no prior criminal
record, spent his time in jail on edge and in fear of being
assaulted and "was not provided any information" about when he
would be released. He was released on Feb. 14, 2020 -- but it
wasn't until a year later that he learned the DA's office declined
to charge him three days earlier, on Feb. 11.

"That actual information, the communication of the
non-prosecutorial decision, is never told to the person at their
release," Animashaun said. "They don't tell you why you're
released, they don't tell you we're releasing you three days after
the DA dropped the case."

Animashaun added that he and his co-counsel found it challenging to
construct the lawsuit because the people affected were either
unaware they had been held in jail longer than they should have
been, or were so grateful to not face charges that they did not
feel compelled to spar with the criminal-justice system further.

He said that reluctance extended to Camarlinghi, who eventually
agreed to be the face of the lawsuit after being convinced of its
power to effect change. Camarlinghi declined an interview through
his attorney.

Animashaun also stressed that the extended detentions occurred
post-arrest but pre-arraignment, so they typically had no access to
legal counsel unless they already had a private attorney.

"It took almost a year to bring this case. We knew this was
happening, and we had to find out to whom," he said. "When you're
released, you just want to put that behind you."

Williams said it is unclear how long the extended detentions were
happening, but emphasized the settlement class represents a small
fraction of the tens of thousands of people booked at the county
jails each year.

The precise settlement amount is $2.375 million, $1.98 million of
which will go to class members after subtracting attorney fees and
administrative costs. Claimants are entitled to $250 for each hour
past 12 hours they were held after they were criminally cleared,
but the rate rises to $295 for every hour past 24 hours, according
to the settlement terms.

Final approval of the settlement, in which the county admitted no
fault, is scheduled for Dec. 8; claims can be filed now through
Sept. 4, 2023.

Animashaun said the events behind the class-action suit should not
be viewed as a one-off but rather as reflective of broader
neglect.

"These things happen everywhere, this is the criminal system at
work," he said. "At a systemic level, they are indifferent to the
rights of people in their custody." [GN]

SANTANDER BANK: Tepper Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL TEPPER and REBECCA
RUFO-TEPPER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. SANTANDER BANK, N.A., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 7:20-cv-00501-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
will ask the Court to enter an order finally certifying the
Settlement Class and approving the proposed class action settlement
on November 14, 2022.

Santander Bank is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Spanish
Santander Group.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 10, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VxwLWo at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by

           Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
           Michael Liskow, Esq.
           CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
           1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
           New York, NY 10036-5803
           Telephone: (212) 899-1761
           Facsimile: (332) 206-2073
           E-mail:L jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com
                    mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com


SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION: Farmer-Paellmann Sues Over Breach of Trust
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Deadria Farmer-Paellmann and Restitution Study Group, Inc., on
behalf of themselves and all others v. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03048 (D.D.C., Oct. 7, 2022), is brought alleging
an anticipatory breach of trust and to seek exclusively equitable
relief that includes, among other things, a preliminary and
permanent injunction to prevent Defendant from effecting its
gifting to the Federal Republic of Nigeria's National Commission
for Museums and Monuments ("NCMM") of 29 of 39 Benin Bronzes, which
have an approximate value in excess of $200 million, that the
Smithsonian Institution owns and possesses as trustee for the
People of the United States.

The Smithsonian Institution is not only a trust instrumentality for
all people of the United States, but it is or should be a common
law trust for the thousands of citizens of the United States who
are descended from West African peoples who lived in what is now
called Nigeria, and whose lives and liberty were destroyed by the
greed of royal Beni1 traffickers, European slave traders, and
European agriculturalists in North America. The Benin Bronzes are
not simply valuable objets d'art: they have a unique and special
historical relationship to descendants of enslaved
African-Americans whom Europeans forcibly brought to North America.
Many, but not all, of these objects were crafted from metal ingots,
melted down from a currency called manillas, that European slave
traders paid to the oba (the Beni term for king) of the Kingdom of
Benin, or to members of the Benin nobility, in exchange for
abducted and enslaved neighboring non-Beni people. During a raid in
early 1897 on Benin City, the British seized over 10,000 of what
became known as the Benin Bronzes. The stolen Benin Bronzes were
dispersed throughout the world and are scattered in 160 museums and
private collections. The Smithsonian holds thirty nine of them.

On June 13, 2022, Defendant Smithsonian Institution's Board of
Regents resolved to deaccession and transfer 29 of its 39 Benin
Bronzes to the control of descendants of Beni royalty, whose
ancestors were never enslaved but who kidnapped, enslaved, and
trafficked other peoples to European slave-traders in exchange for
the bronze and brass from which the Benin Bronzes were made. In
undertaking this purported "ethical" action of returning stolen
property to its "rightful" owners — the descendants of the royal
Beni traffickers — Defendant has expediently bracketed the story
of the Benin Bronzes to have begun in 1897 and to end happily with
transfer to Nigerian Africans on October 11, 2022.

The Defendant knows that its bracketed story of the Benin Bronzes
is an incomplete "undoing" of European colonialists' and slavers'
wrongs against Africans from the area now called Nigeria in the
late 19th century: the Board of Regents knows or should know that
the bigger theft was by European slave traders and royal Beni
traffickers who stole thousands of people's lives and liberty so
that Europeans could enhance agricultural profits without having to
pay for labor and so royal Beni traffickers could obtain
copper-based metal that they would fashion into iconic sculptures.

The Defendant's planned action assumes that Africans have a single
and unified interest, but American Africans who originated in
Western Africa have no interest in returning the payment that Beni
royalty received from European slave-traders for having jointly
trafficked them. The Government of the United States has thwarted
efforts to make any reparations to descendants of African enslaved
people whose lives, liberty, and labor created immense wealth for
certain elites in the United States. Return of the payments made
for the lives, liberty, and labor of these abducted and enslaved
people to the traffickers is the opposite of reparation: it is
effectively a "thank you", says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, J.D., M.A., is a citizen
and resident of the United States, domiciled in the State of New
York, and is of Nigerian descent.

The Smithsonian Institution is a non-profit entity
created in 1846.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adriaen M. Morse Jr., Esq.
          Cory Kirchert, Esq.
          Lionel Andre, Esq.
          SECIL LAW PLLC
          1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Phone: 202.417.8232
          Email: amorse@secillaw.com


SOUTH BROWARD: Kaplan Sues Over Disclosure of Health Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Kaplan and Donald Solomon, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT D/B/A
MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, Case No. CACE-22-015026 (Fla. 17th
Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Oct. 7, 2022), is brought on
behalf of all Florida citizens who had their personal identifiable
information and/or protected health information improperly
disclosed to Facebook as a result of using the Defendant's website,
www.mhs.net.

The Plaintiffs brings this action in response to the Defendant's
practice of knowingly disclosing the Plaintiff sensitive and
private communications to Facebook, including communications
containing and regarding protected health information. The
Defendant also aides, employs, agrees, and conspires with Facebook
to allow Facebook to intercept sensitive and private communications
sent and received by the Plaintiffs, including communications
containing and regarding protected health information. The
Plaintiffs bring this action for legal and equitable remedies to
address and rectify the illegal conduct and actions herein, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs has access www.mhs.net on their computer and/or
smartphone numerous times.

South Broward Hospital District doing business as Memorial
Healthcare System is an independent special tax district with six
hospitals and numerous outpatient and ancillary facilities across
southern Broward County, and which bills itself as "one of the
largest public healthcare systems in this nation."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary Klinger, Esq.
          Alexandra Honeycutt, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 866.252.0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com
                 ahoneycutt@milberg.com

SPERL INC: Preliminary Approval of Settlement Deal Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR NEUBAUER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SPERL INC., d/b/a Subway, and MICHELLE L. SPERL, Case No. (), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement and
      Release as fair, reasonable, and adequate;

   2. certifying this case as a collective action under 29
      U.S.C. section 216(b) for the Collective Class, pursuant
      to the Parties' Stipulated Motion for Collective
      Certification Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);

   3. certifying this case as a class action for settlement
      purposes only under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for
      the Wisconsin Class, pursuant to the Parties' Stipulated
      Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23;

   4. Appointing Taylor Neubauer as Class Representative for the
      Wisconsin Class and Collective Class; and

   5. Appointing Hawks Quindel, S.C., as Class Counsel pursuant
      to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g);

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rZU9hu at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          5150 N. Port Washington Road, Suite 243
          Milwaukee, WI 53217

The Defendant is represented by

          Michelle Sperl, Esq.
          Matthew J. Tobin, Esq.
          Patrick W. Brennan, Esq.
          CRIVELLO CARLSON, S.C.
          710 N. Plankinton Avenue, Suite 500
          Milwaukee, WI 53203


SSM HEALTH: Seeks Extension to Reply to Brashear Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH J. BRASHEAR,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SSM
HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Case No. 4:22-cv-00569-SRC (E.D. Mo.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending its deadline
for responding to the Plaintiff's opposed motion for conditional
certification and notice to putative class members to October 21,
2022.

SSM Health is a Catholic, not-for-profit United States health care
system with 11,000 providers and nearly 39,000 employees in four
states, including Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Illinois, and Missouri.

A copy of the  Defendant's motion dated Oct. 10, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CCfv9R at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by

          Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART PC
          4520 Main Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 471-1301
          Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
          E-mail: patrick.hulla@ogletree.com

               - and -

          James G. Martin, Esq.
          DOWD BENNETT LLP
          7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1900
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 889-7300
          Facsimile: (314) 863-2111
          E-mail: jmartin@dowdbennett.com

STATE FARM: Eves Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------
Donald Eves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated persons v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 220901170 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 11, 2022,
and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-04045-MSG.

The complaint alleges the Plaintiff is eligible to and entitled to
recovery the $15,000.00 coverage limits on an uninsured motorist
("UM"), coverage of his wife's State Farm Policy in connection with
injuries he sustained in a July 27, 2020 collision with an
uninsured driver while he was operating his Honda motorcycle. The
Plaintiff's motorcycle was insured by Progressive, not State Farm,
and the Progressive policy did not include uninsured motorist
coverage. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff claims State Farm breaches
policies and the contract to provide insurance by disclaiming his
claim and failing to pay him any UM benefits.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Haggerty, Esq.
          HAGGERTY GOLDBERG SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH, P.C.
          1801 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 350-6600

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM
          134 Kings Highway E. 2nd Floor
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: (856) 772-7200

               - and -

          Scott Cooper, Esq.
          SCHMIDT KRAMER P.C.
          209 State Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Phone: (717) 232-6600

               - and -

          John P. Goodrich, Esq.
          JACK GOODRICH & ASSOCIATES
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 261-4663

The Defendants are represented by:

          Katherine Cole Douglas, Esq.
          BENNETT, BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG LLC
          1500 Market Street
          Centre Square West Tower, Suite 3200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: (215) 665-3364

               - and -

          Joseph A. Cancila, Jr., Esq.
          RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 2900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 471-8700


STERICYCLE INC: FLSA Class Notice in Daniel Suit Approved in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILLIP DANIEL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STERICYCLE INC. and SHRED-IT USA
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00655-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), Judge
Robert J. Conrad, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, grants in part and
denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a court-authorized
notice.

The notice is to be issued under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as modified by the Joint Status Report on Proposed
Form of Notice, Consent to Join Form, and Notice Process and
Procedures.

On Nov. 24, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the collective and class
action, asserting various employment-related claims against the
Defendants. He brings the following claims: (1) a collective action
claim pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (2) a Rule 23 class action claim
for violation of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA");
(3) violation of the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment
Discrimination Act; and (4) wrongful discharge in violation of
North Carolina public policy.

The Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify
Plaintiff's FLSA collective, and conditionally certifying a
modified collective action limited to current and former employees
at the Raleigh location. It also concluded the FLSA collective will
exclude any employees that Defendants demonstrate are subject to an
enforceable arbitration agreement.

The Court ordered the Defendants to provide the Plaintiff a list
with names of current and former employees at the Defendants'
Raleigh Branch that would otherwise be an opt-in plaintiff for
purposes of the collective action but for which the Defendants
assert have valid arbitration agreements such that they are not
subject to receive notice of the collective action, including a
copy of the relevant arbitration agreements. In addition, it
ordered the parties to conduct an initial attorneys conference, and
to meet and confer on discovery disagreements, the validity of any
arbitration agreements, the notice form, opt-in form, and proposed
processes and procedures for notice.

The parties agreed on aspects of each, but still dispute several
issues related to the arbitration agreements, notice, and the case
management plan. At the parties' request, on Oct. 6, 2022, the
Court held a hearing on the remaining disputed issues.

First, the parties dispute whether the Defendants must provide the
Plaintiff's counsel with the contact information for arbitration
agreement signatories who will not receive notice of the FLSA
collective.

Judge Conrad denies the Plaintiff's counsel's request for this
contact information. He says the Court did not order the Defendants
to provide contact information and contact information is not
necessary at this time. It ordered them to provide arbitration
agreement signatories' names and related arbitration agreements in
order to demonstrate that the individuals are subject to
enforceable arbitration agreements. This is sufficiently
accomplished with a name and arbitration agreement. To the extent
the individuals are fact witnesses or have discoverable
information, Judge Conrad says the Plaintiff's counsel can seek
that information through discovery, without prejudice to any
objections the Defendants might raise.

Next, the parties dispute whether the Defendants must provide the
Plaintiff's counsel the names and contact information for putative
FLSA collective members who will receive notice. The parties each
cite cases to support their position that Defendants must or must
not provide the Plaintiff's counsel with the putative collective
member's names and contact information.

Based on the specific facts before the Court, Judge Conrad holds
that the reasoning in cases cited by the Defendants is more
persuasive -- Bartholomew v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, No.
2:19-cv-695-JLB-MRM, 2021 WL 6052273, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 21,
2021); and Jibowu v. Target Corp., No. 17-CV-3875 (PKC) (CLP), 2020
WL 7385695, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2020). These cases reason that
when a third-party administrator is effecting notice it is
unnecessary for plaintiff's counsel to receive putative collective
members' contact information before they opt-in to the action
unless plaintiff's counsel otherwise demonstrates a need for the
information.

In the present case, Judge Conrad finds that the Plaintiff's
counsel does not provide sufficient need for the names and contact
information of putative collective members at this time. The
parties agreed to effect notice to putative collective members
through use of a third-party administrator such that she does not
need the information for notice purposes. Additionally, the Court
already conditionally certified the FLSA class such that she does
not need the information to demonstrate conditional certification.
Finally, to the extent the individuals are fact witnesses or have
discoverable information, the Plaintiff's counsel can seek that
information through discovery, without prejudice to any objections
Defendants might raise.

The parties agree that there are several different, relevant
arbitration agreements applicable to potentially would-be
collective members. For purpose of notice, the parties disagree on
whether one category of arbitration agreement signatories should
receive notice: signatories of the 2019 Stericycle Agreement when
signed after Nov. 24, 2020, the date the action was filed. The 2019
Stericycle Agreement contains the pending litigation clause.

The Plaintiff argues this clause unambiguously excepts from
arbitration any pending litigation, including the action. The
Defendants argue the clause does not apply to putative collective
members in this action because individuals signed the agreement
pre-employment and are not parties to this action until they choose
to opt-in.

Judge Conrad finds that the plain language of the pending
litigation clause is broad. It does not except collective actions
and does not define "pending litigation" to only include only
pending litigation to which the signatory of the agreement is
specifically a party. Therefore, the 2019 Stericycle Agreement
signatories that signed the agreement after Nov. 24, 2020, will
receive notice of the FLSA collective action.

The parties agree that the period for FLSA notices is three years;
however, they disagree whether the start of those three years, for
notice purposes, should begin from the date of the filing of the
Complaint or from the date the Court granted conditional
certification. The Plaintiff asserts the relevant time period for
notice is three years preceding the filing of the Complaint,
beginning Nov. 24, 2017, through the present. On the other hand,
the Defendants assert the notice period should begin three years
preceding the conditional certification of the FLSA collective.

Judge Conrad finds it appropriate to allow an inclusive notice
period. He says a more inclusive notice period in the case will
allow putative collective members to receive notice and consider
any colorable equitable tolling arguments. The Court will consider
whether any opt-in plaintiffs' claims are time-barred at a later
date. To be clear, this conclusion does not prejudice the
Defendants from later challenging any opt-in plaintiff's claim as
time-barred. Accordingly, the notice period will begin three years
preceding the filing of the Complaint, Nov. 24, 2017.

The parties disagree as to whether to include reference to the
arbitration agreements in the FLSA collective definition in the
notice. The Plaintiff contends including any reference to
arbitration agreements will cause confusion. Similarly, the
Defendants assert not including reference to the arbitration
agreements will cause confusion.

Judge Conrad finds that the notice including reference to the
arbitration agreement more accurately reflects the scope of the
FLSA collective the Court conditionally certified. Additionally,
the reference to arbitration agreements is not overly complicated
or confusing. Therefore, he approves the Defendants' proposed FLSA
collective definition for purposes of the proposed notice.

At the hearing, the Plaintiff's counsel requested the Court to
consider requiring Defendants to post notice of the FLSA collective
at the Defendants' workplace in a break room or other area visible
to all drivers. The Defendants objected to this request for various
reasons including that the parties previously negotiated the
processes and procedures for notice to putative collective members
which did not include posting notice at their location and the
notice processes and procedures are already robust.

Judge Conrad agrees posting notice in the workplace is unnecessary.
He says the putative collective members will receive notice by mail
and text message. Posting notice will only provide notice to
current employees for which the Defendants should already have the
relevant contact information to effect notice. Additionally,
posting notice may cause confusion among the Defendants' current
employees since only the employees that are not subject to a valid
arbitration agreement may opt-in to the FLSA collective. Providing
notice in the manner the parties previously agreed to is sufficient
to effect notice and the Plaintiff's request to post notice at the
workplace is denied.

The parties also have significant disputes about the discovery and
case management plan. Judge Conrad will largely address those
issues in a separate case management order. Additionally, he
concludes given the specific issues in the case, he will allow
written discovery on all of the FLSA collective opt-in plaintiffs
and depositions of 25% of the FLSA collective opt-in plaintiffs.

In view of the foregoing, Judge Conrad grants in part and denies in
part the Plaintiff's motion for a court-authorized notice, as he
described in his Order and as the parties have otherwise agreed. He
ordered the Defendants to provide the third-party administrator
relevant contact information to effect notice to the putative FLSA
collective members within seven days of his Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr3djh5a from Leagle.com.


SYNGENTA CROP: Anderson Sues Over Unlawful Monopolies
-----------------------------------------------------
Charles Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION AG, SYNGENTA CORPORATION,
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, and CORTEVA, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-00858 (M.D.N.C., Oct. 7, 2022), is brought under the
Clayton Act to secure injunctive relief and to recover actual and
compensatory damages, treble damages, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees for the injury caused by the Defendants' wrongful
conduct against the Defendants for violating the Sherman Act by
unlawfully monopolizing pesticides.

Farmers have been grappling with skyrocketing operating expenses
for the last several years. In a 2018 survey, 80% of farmers
reported their costs were increasing and they were unable to pay
their debts estimated to be over $400 billion as of 2019. In the
latest-revealed scheme to take advantage of farmers in the United
States, Defendants have implemented special "loyalty programs" in
connection with key active ingredients that are incorporated into
products that farmers use to protect crops from damage caused by
insects, weeds, and fungi ("pesticides").

Under these loyalty programs, Defendants provide payments to
distributors in exchange for selling certain amounts of Defendants'
pesticides and restricting sales of generic pesticides made by
competing manufacturers. Defendants implement and enforce these
loyalty programs to ensure that manufacturers of generic pesticides
are unable to effectively distribute their products, which
preserves Defendants' control of the market and prevents price
competition. Farmers benefit from reduced prices caused by the
availability of generic pesticides. Nevertheless, Defendants have
designed and implemented "loyalty programs" to limit generic
competition long after regulatory and patent exclusivity periods
expire.

On September 29, 2022, following an investigation, the FTC filed a
complaint against Defendants alleging that Defendants' loyalty
programs foreclose generic competition and result in higher prices
for farmers in violation of federal and state antitrust laws As
revealed by the FTC's investigation, Defendants' loyalty programs
provide that Defendants will make payments in the form of "rebates"
to distributors based on their purchases of Defendant-branded
pesticides—but there is a condition: distributors and retailers
must limit their purchases of generic pesticides to a set
percentage. Defendants both reward participation in their loyalty
programs and punish non-compliance. Indeed, Defendants ensure that
Distributors profit more from accepting Defendants' "rebates"
payments than they would from distributing a higher volume of
lower-priced, generic pesticides.

As a result of Defendants' conduct, Defendants have restrained
competition, maintained unlawful monopolies, and harmed America's
farmers, reducing choices for these farmers and costing them
millions of dollars in overcharges. Plaintiff and the Class bring
this antitrust suit under federal antitrust laws, state antitrust
and consumer protections laws, and for unjust enrichment to redress
that wrongful conduct, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the herbicide Dual Magnum.

Syngenta Crop Protection AG is headquartered in Basel, Switzerland
and is organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gagan Gupta, Esq.
          Stuart M. Paynter, Esq.
          Sara C. Willingham, Esq.
          PAYNTER LAW, PLLC
          106 S. Churton Street, Suite 200
          Hillsborough, NC 27278
          Phone: (919) 729-2149
          Email: ggupta@paynterlaw.com
                 stuart@paynterlaw.com
                 swillingham@paynterlaw.com

               - and -

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Roland R. St. Louis, III, Esq.
          Noelle Feigenbaum, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C.
          44 South Broadway
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
                 clevis@lowey.com
                 rstlouis@lowey.co
                 nfeigenbaum@lowey.com

               - and -

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 641-9750
          Email: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
                 rewing@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Susan R. Schwaiger, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (917) 438-9189
          Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                 schwaiger@nussbaumpc.com


TEAM BLAZE: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Priscilla Garcia, an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TEAM BLAZE, a California Corporation;
GHOLAMREZA MEDALI, an individual; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Case No. 22STCV33008 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 7,
2022), is brought for failure to pay all minimum wages, overtime
wages, and meal and rest period premium wages and for recovery of
unpaid wages and penalties under California Business and
Professions Codes and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order
("Wage Order 5"), in addition to seeking declaratory relief and
restitution.

The Defendants utilized a timekeeping system which resulted in the
Plaintiffs not being compensated for all hours actually worked,
whether by rounding, time-shaving, or making them work during their
breaks or off-the-clock. Further, on occasions when the Plaintiffs
worked over 8.0 hours in a workday and/or 40.0 hours in a workweek,
Defendants' policies/practices deprived them of all overtime wages
earned. Due to Defendants' timekeeping practices that fail to
compensate for all hours worked, the Plaintiffs and other
non-exempt employees were not compensated for all required minimum
and overtime wages. As a result of the Defendants' failure to pay
all minimum wages, overtime wages, and meal and rest period premium
wages, the Defendants also maintained inaccurate payroll records
and issued inaccurate wage statements to the Plaintiffs and failed
to pay all final wages owed to the Plaintiffs and other non-exempt
employees upon their separation of employment, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as non-exempt employee at the Defendants Blaze
Pizza restaurants as a Crew Member, Shift Leader and Manager.

The Defendants did (and continue to do) business by providing
building materials and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Sweeney, Esq.
          THE SWEENEY LAW FIRM, APC
          15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 900
          Sherman Oaks, CA 94103
          Phone: (818) 380-3051
          Fax: (818) 380-3001
          Email: bsweeney@thesweeneylawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jonathan J. Moon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN J. MOON
          18000 Studebaker Road, Suite 700
          Cerritos, CA 90703
          Phone: (213) 867-1908
          Facsimile: (213) 402-6518
          Email: imoon@imoonlaw.com


TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Aphria Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------
Tilray Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1
Report for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2022, that the
Company intends to defend itself vigorously in the Aphria Inc.
securities litigation.

On December 5, 2018, a putative securities class action was
commenced in SDNY against a number of defendants including Aphria
and certain current and former officers and directors. The action
claims that the defendants misrepresented the value of three
cannabis-producing properties Aphria acquired in Jamaica, Colombia,
and Argentina (the "LATAM Assets").  

On December 3, 2018, two notorious short-sellers issued a report
about the acquisitions, claiming the LATAM Assets were
non-functional or non-existent, which allegedly caused Aphria's
stock price to fall.  
On April 15, 2019, Aphria took impairment charges on the LATAM
Assets, which also allegedly caused Aphria's stock price to
decline.  The putative class action claims that Aphria artificially
inflated the price of its publicly-traded stock by making false
statements about the LATAM Assets, and when the purported truth was
revealed by a short-seller report and write-down, the stock price
declined, harming investors.

On September 30, 2020, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint as to Aphria, Vic Neufeld, and Carl Merton, and granted
the motion as to Cole Cacciavillani, John Cervini, Andrew
DeFrancesco, and SOL Global Investments.

On October 1, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the
order dismissing DeFrancesco and SOL or, in the alternative, to
amend their complaint.  

On October 14, 2020, Aphria, Neufeld, and Merton moved for
reconsideration of the order denying their motion to dismiss. Both
motions for reconsideration are still pending.  

On September 29, 2021, the U.S. District Court issued an Order that
(i) permitted the plaintiffs to amend their lawsuit to revive the
claims against Andy DeFrancecso; and (ii) declined to revisit his
decision that claims could proceed against Aphria/Tilray, Vic
Neufeld, and Carl Merton.  Plaintiffs declined to amend their
complaint, however, and so the action is proceeding solely against
Aphria/Tilray, Neufeld, and Merton.

It is too early to determine any potential damages. The Company and
the individual defendants believe the claims are without merit, and
intend to vigorously defend against the claims, but there can be no
assurances as to the outcome.

Tilray Brands, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a global
cannabis-lifestyle and consumer packaged goods company
headquartered in Leamington, Ontario, Canada, with operations in
Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Latin
America.

TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Authentic Brands Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Tilray Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1
Report for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022 filed with th
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2022, that the
Company intends to defend itself vigorously in the Authentic Brands
Group related class action.

On May 4, 2020, Ganesh Kasilingam filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
("SDNY"), against Tilray Brands, Inc., Brendan Kennedy and Mark
Castaneda, on behalf of himself and a putative class, seeking to
recover damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Kasilingam
litigation"). The complaint alleges that Tilray and the individual
defendants overstated the anticipated advantages of the Company's
revenue sharing agreement with Authentic Brands Group ("ABG"),
announced on January 15, 2019, and that the plaintiff suffered
losses when Tilray's stock price dropped after Tilray recognized an
impairment with respect to the ABG deal on March 2, 2020.

On August 6, 2020, SDNY entered an order appointing Saul Kassin as
Lead Plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel.

Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 5, 2020, which
asserts the same Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the same
defendants on largely the same theory, and includes new allegations
that Tilray's reported inventory, cost of sales, and gross margins
in its financial reports during the class period were false and
misleading because Tilray improperly recorded unsellable "trim" as
inventory and understated the cost of sales for its products.

On December 4, 2020, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the parties briefed that motion January and February
2021.

On September 27, 2021, the U.S. District Court entered an Opinion &
Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint without prejudice.

On December 3, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint ("SAC") alleging the same claims against Tilray and
Brendan Kennedy (Mark Castaneda was not named in the SAC), along
with a new Section 20A insider trading claim against Mr. Kennedy.
The SAC includes certain new scienter allegations related to stock
sales and Tilray's merger with Aphria, but the overall case theory
remains largely the same. The defendants believe the claims under
the SAC are also without merit and intend to defend vigorously
against them, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome.

Tilray Brands, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a global
cannabis-lifestyle and consumer packaged goods company
headquartered in Leamington, Ontario, Canada, with operations in
Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Latin
America.

TILRAY BRANDS: Faces Various Class Suits in Canada
--------------------------------------------------
Tilray Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1
Report for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022 filed with th
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2022, that the
Company intends to defend itself vigorously in the LATAM and
Nuuvera Class Actions and Individual Actions in Canada.

On January 29, 2018, Aphria announced the acquisition of Nuuvera
Inc. On July 17, 2018, Aphria announced a planned expansion into
Latin America and the Caribbean with the acquisition of LATAM
Holdings Inc. The following class actions and four individual
proceedings have been commenced in Canada against Aphria and
several current or former officers relating to the Nuuvera and
LATAM transactions:

A proposed class action (the "Vecchio Action") commenced in the
Ontario Superior Court in February 2019, and amended thereafter,
alleging statutory and common law misrepresentations and oppression
relating to the Nuuvera and LATAM transactions. The Vecchio Action
names Aphria, Merton, Neufeld, Cacciavillani, and 5 underwriters as
defendants;
four individual actions (the "Individual Actions") commenced by
Wan, Bergerson, Landry, and Profinsys in the Ontario Superior Court
alleging statutory and common law misrepresentations relating to
the LATAM and Nuuvera transactions. The Individual Actions name
Aphria, Merton, Neufeld, and Cacciavillani as defendants.

In the Vecchio Action a motion for certification and leave was
heard. For Reasons for Decision released August 6, 2021, and with
the consent of Aphria and the individually named Defendants, the
Court granted leave to proceed with the secondary market statutory
cause of action, and certified the Action on behalf of a defined
class of purchasers. Also, on consent, the Court dismissed the
claims of oppression and common law misrepresentation against
Aphria and the individual defendants, as well as all claims against
Carl Merton.

The Court granted certification of the primary market statutory
cause of action against all remaining Defendants but made it
conditional on a successful motion by the Plaintiff to have the
Court appoint a second Plaintiff for that aspect of the Claim.  

The defendant underwriters are appealing one term of that final
aspect of the Court's decision.

The Ccompany plans to vigorously defend against this action.

Tilray Brands, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a global
cannabis-lifestyle and consumer packaged goods company
headquartered in Leamington, Ontario, Canada, with operations in
Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Latin
America.


TILRAY BRANDS: Settlement Reached in Braun, Noorian Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Tilray Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1
Report for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2022 filed with th
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2022, that the
Special Litigation Committee has reached an agreement with
Defendants and certain non-parties, and their respective insurers,
to resolve the claims asserted in the suit filed Deborah Braun and
Nader Noorian by in exchange for an aggregate amount of $26.9
million to be paid to Tilray plus mutual releases.

On February 27, 2020, Tilray stockholders Braun and Noorian filed a
class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery styled Braun v. Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0137-KSJM.

On March 2, 2020, Tilray stockholders Catherine Bouvier, James
Hawkins, and Stephanie Hawkins filed a class action and derivative
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled Bouvier v.
Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0154-KSJM.

On March 4, 2020, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an order
consolidating the two cases and designating the complaint in the
Braun/Noorian action as the operative complaint. The operative
complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
Brendan Kennedy, Christian Groh, Michael Blue, and Privateer
Evolution, LLC (the "Privateer Defendants") for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty in their alleged capacities as Tilray's controlling
stockholders and against Kennedy, Maryscott Greenwood, and Michael
Auerbach for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in their
capacities as directors and/or officers of Tilray in connection
with the prior merger of Privateer Holdings, Inc. with and into a
wholly owned subsidiary (the "Downstream Merger"). The complaint
alleges that the Privateer Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by causing Tilray to enter into the Downstream Merger and
Tilray's Board to approve that Downstream Merger, and that
Defendants Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach breached their
fiduciary duties as directors by approving the Downstream Merger.
Plaintiffs allege that the Downstream Merger gave the Privateer
Defendants hundreds of millions of dollars of tax savings without
providing a corresponding benefit to Tilray and its minority
stockholders and that the Downstream Merger unfairly transferred
and extended Kennedy, Blue, and Groh's control over Tilray.

On July 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting substantially similar claims.

On August 14, 2020, Tilray and the Privateer Defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.

At the February 5, 2021 hearing on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss,
the Plaintiffs agreed that their perpetuation of control claims are
moot and stated that they intend to move for a fee award in
connection with those claims. On June 1, 2021, the Court denied
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.

In August 2021 the Tilray Board of Directors established a Special
Litigation Committee ("SLC") of independent directors to re-assert
director control over the litigation and investigate the derivative
claims in the Tilray, Inc.; In re Reorganization Litigation
(Delaware). The SLC has appointed the law firm Wilson Sonsini and
Katherine Henderson as the lead attorney, to assist the SLC with
investigation of the claims, determination whether continued
prosecution of the claims is in the best interests of the
corporation and, when the SLC determines it is appropriate, moving
to dismiss the litigation or negotiate a settlement with the
defendants.

On May 27, 2022, the SLC informed the Court that it had completed
its investigation; determined not to seek dismissal of the Action;
and confirmed its determination that the Company had suffered
significant damages and that the SLC would pursue claims to recover
appropriate amounts for the Company's benefit.

Thereafter, the SLC, all of the Defendants, and certain non-parties
participated in two mediation sessions before former Chancellor of
the Delaware Court of Chancery Andre G. Bouchard on June 27 and
July 14, 2022.

On July 15, 2022, the SLC reached an agreement in principle with
the Defendants and certain of the non-parties, and their respective
insurers, to resolve the claims asserted in the Action in exchange
for an aggregate amount of $26.9 million to be paid to Tilray plus
mutual releases. The parties' binding term sheet remains subject to
execution of long-form settlement agreements with the respective
parties and approval by the Court of Chancery.

Tilray Brands, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a global
cannabis-lifestyle and consumer packaged goods company
headquartered in Leamington, Ontario, Canada, with operations in
Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and
Latin
America.

TILRAY BRANDS:Court Narrows Claims in ABG Suit
----------------------------------------------
Tilray Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2022, that the U.S. District
Court has granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint in Authentic Brands Group
related class action.

On September 27, 2021, the U.S. District Court entered an Opinion &
Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in
the Kasilingam litigation.

On December 3, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint alleging similar claims against Tilray and Brendan
Kennedy. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on
February 2, 2022.

On September 28, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The
Company still believes the claims are without merit and intend to
defend vigorously against them, but there can be no assurances as
to the outcome.

Tilray Brands, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a global
cannabis-lifestyle and consumer packaged goods company
headquartered in Leamington, Ontario, Canada, with operations in
Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Latin
America.

TODD UECKER: Salcedo Seeks Provisional Class Status
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Salcedo et al v. Uecker et
al., Case No. 0:22-cv-02045-DWF-ECW (D. Minn.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order granting a provisional class
certification, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a),
23(b)(1)(B), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3).

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 7,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CXesme
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Zachary Crosby, Esq.
          FOR YOU LAW PLC
          1528 Huron Street
          St. Paul, MN 55108
          Telephone: (612) 380-0827
          Facsimile: (612) 412-4443
          E-mail: zachary@foryoulaw.us

               - and -

          Lawrence H. Crosby, Esq.
          CROSBY & ASSOCIATES
          2416 Como Avenue
          St. Paul, MN 55108
          Telephone: (651) 635-0818
          E-mail: lhcrosby@uslink.net

TRANSUNION LLC: BANA Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Konig Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Konig v. Transunion, LLC,
et al., Case No. 7:18-cv-07299-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant Bank
of America, N.A. seeks leave to file a sur-reply in further support
of its opposition to Plaintiff's Rule 23 Motion for Class
Certification.

Trans Union operates as global information and insights company.

BANA operates as a bank.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 7, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vrxng6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by

          Angela A. Smedley, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          E-mail: asmedley@winston.com

TRAVEL INSURED: Joint Bid to Modify Class Cert Schedule Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS B. EDLESON, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TRAVEL
INSURED INTERNATIONAL, INC., and UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 21-cv-0323-WQH (AGS) (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order modifying the deadline in the Court's
Scheduling Order for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification and set a schedule for briefing Plaintiff's
forthcoming motion for class certification.

The current deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification is November 14, 2022. The parties are jointly
requesting that the Court extend the deadline by 70 days -- up to
and including January 23, 2023.

Travel Insured offers travel insurance plans.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CB1CZx at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  achang@bottinilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com

The Defendants are represented by

          Michael N. Wolgin, Esq.
          Steven B. Weisburd, Esq.
          Markham R. Leventhal, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS, LLP
          CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
          Suite 400 West
          1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 965-8189
          E-mail: mwolgin@carltonfields.com
                  sweisburd@carltonfields.com
                  mleventhal@carltonfields.com
                  mwolgin@carltonfields.com

TRIUS TRUCKING: Class Settlement in Mondrian Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUGUSTUS MONDRIAN, et al.,
v. TRIUS TRUCKING, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00884-ADA-SKO (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting motions for final
approval of class and collective action settlement and granting
motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive award as
follows:.

   1. certifying the proposed class identified in the settlement
      agreement for settlement purposes;

   2. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of
      class and collective action settlement and the approving
      the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate;

   3. confirming Augustus Mondrian and Rhonda Jones are
      confirmed as class representatives; Plaintiffs' counsel,
      Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik de Blouw LLP, as class
      counsel; and confirming ILYM Group as the settlement
      administrator;

   4. granting Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys'
      fees and costs, incentive awards, and settlement
      administrator costs; and

   5. awarding the following sums:

      a. Class counsel shall receive $248,750.00 in attorneys'
         fees and $14,957.05 in expenses.

      b. The Plaintiffs Mondrian and Jones shall each receive
         $10,000 as an incentive payment;

      c. ILYM Group shall receive $11,990.00 in settlement
         administration costs; and

      d. The parties shall direct payment of 75 percent of the
         settlement allocated to the PAGA payment, or $7,500, to
         the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency
         as required by California law, and the remainder of the
         PAGA payment, or 22 $2,500, shall be included in the
         net settlement fund.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ewMnIS at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Agrees to Settle Immigration Class Action for $1.75M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Kreighbaum at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that the
Department of Homeland Security and IRS will pay $1.175 million to
settle a lawsuit over a 2018 immigration raid at a Tennessee
meatpacking plant.

The class action filed in early 2019 alleged that the raid
illegally targeted Latino workers. Immigration officials' use of
race as a proxy for immigration status violated the workers' Fourth
Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and their
equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment, they argued.

The raid at the Southeastern Provisions LLC facility in Bean
Station, Tenn., was the largest workplace immigration raid in
nearly a decade.[GN]


UNITED STATES: Boyd Sues Over Breaches of Contractual Rights
------------------------------------------------------------
John Boyd, Jr., Kara Boyd, Lester Bonner, and Princess Williams,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:22-cv-01473-EJD (U.S. Fed. Cl.
Ct., Oct. 7, 2022), is brought seek justice for the blatant
breaches of their contractual rights by the Defendant or the "U.S.
Government" arising from the Inflation Reduction Act.

SDFs belong to groups that have traditionally suffered racial or
ethnic prejudice. Such groups include, but are not limited to:
Native Americans or Alaskan Natives; Asians; Blacks or African
Americans; Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders; and
Hispanics or Latinos. The American Rescue Plan Act ("ARPA")
required the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") to
relieve specified types of debt held by SDFs. ARPA provided
compensation for SDFs who previously suffered discrimination at
USDA's hands.

After ARPA's enactment, USDA designed form letters to send to SDFs
eligible for debt relief under the ARPA, such as Mr. Bonner and Ms.
Williams (collectively, the "Relief Plaintiffs"). The letters
included a contractual offer: USDA would pay off the amount of debt
listed in the letter if SDFs accepted USDA's calculation of their
eligible debt and waived their right to appeal it. Relief
Plaintiffs, and other SDFs, accepted USDA's offer. Further, as the
U.S. Government intended, they maintained or expanded their
operations, supporting the U.S. Government's COVID-19 pandemic
response efforts, which sought to strengthen America's food supply
chain during a time of crisis. But the U.S. Government broke its
promise and breached its contractual obligations. Not only did it
fail to pay SDFs' eligible debt, but it also repealed the ARPA via
the IRA, in a blatant attempt to skirt its contractual commitments
to Relief Plaintiffs and other SDFs.

The impact of the U.S. Government's breach has been devastating.
Relief the Plaintiffs and other SDFs, reasonably relying on the
U.S. Government's contractual commitments, invested in new
equipment or land after they entered their ARPA contracts with the
U.S. Government. Now, as a result of the U.S. Government's breach
of its contractual obligations, Relief Plaintiffs and other SDFs
cannot service the debt the U.S. Government contractually committed
to pay and risk losing their farms and their livelihoods as a
result of the U.S. Government's wrongful conduct.

But the U.S. Government's contractual breaches to SDFs did not stop
there. Before ARPA's enactment, victims of USDA discrimination such
as John and Kara Boyd (collectively, the "Discrimination
Plaintiffs"), had litigated discrimination claims for years. They
also lobbied the U.S. Government to provide compensation for the
discrimination they, and other SDFs, had suffered. Through their
lobbying efforts and their direct conversations with powerful
government officials, Discrimination Plaintiffs impliedly offered
the U.S. Government a deal: they would cease their discrimination
litigation if the U.S. Government provided statutory compensation
to SDFs who had suffered discrimination in ARPA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs are socially disadvantaged farmers ("SDFs").

The Defendant is the United States of America, acting through
Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack and USDA, as well as their
employees and agents.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nada Djordjevic, Esq.
          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          John J. Frawley, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: 312-214-7900
          Email: ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com
                 alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                 jfrawley@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Diandra Debrosse Zimmermann, Esq.
          Eli Hare, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLC
          505 20th Street North, 15th Floor
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 205-855-5700
          Email: fu@dicellolevitt.com
                 ehare@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Eviealle Dawkins, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLC
          1101 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Email: edawkins@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Ben Crump, Esq.
          Chris O'Neal, Esq.
          BEN CRUMP LAW PLLC
          122 South Calhoun Street
          Tallahassee, FL 32301
          Email: court@bencrump.com
                 chris@bencrump.com

               - and -

          Nabeha Shaer, Esq.
          Desiree Austin-Holliday, Esq.
          BEN CRUMP LAW PLLC
          633 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Second Floor
          Washington, DC 20004
          Email: nabeha@bencrump.com
                 desiree@bencrump.com


UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: Settles Overtime Wage Class Action for $15-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Cass, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that the
University of Iowa's Board of Regents has agreed to pay $15 million
to settle a class-action lawsuit with current and former Hospitals
& Clinics employees who alleged managers didn't pay overtime,
bonuses or accrued leave as quickly as state and federal laws
require, the Des Moines Register reported Oct. 15.

The board's decision comes after a federal judge ruled in March
that Iowa City-based University of Iowa hospitals owed damages for
the delayed pay. That ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed in August
2019 by two nurses and a physical therapist.

Lawyers for the employees filed a motion Oct. 14 asking the judge
to approve the settlement, according to the report. The lawyers
said their side could have won $64 million, but they believed a
higher court could have overturned a significant portion of the
workers' claim, which would have reduced the amount owed to $11
million.

A University of Iowa spokesperson told the news outlet it is
"pleased to reach a final resolution that is in the best interest
of University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics employees, who are
critical to our ability to deliver excellent patient care for all
Iowans."

Under the proposed settlement, 11,000 workers will receive a share
of $11.6 million, according to the report. Six employees who led
the lawsuit will each receive $10,000, and the lawyers will receive
about $3.4 million. [GN]

VERVENT INC: Turrey, et al., Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER TURREY, et al., v.
VERVENT, INC., etc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00697-DMS-AHG (S.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs Heather Turrey, Oliver Fiaty, Jordan
Hernandez, and Jeffrey Sazon ask the Court to enter an order
certifying the following Class and Subclasses:

    -- Nationwide Class

       "All individuals who, based on Defendants' records, (i)
       were PEAKS loan borrowers and (ii) made a payment during
       the period April 10, 2016 until the present.

    -- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Subclass

       "A nationwide subclass of all individuals to whom
       Activate Financial directed a written communication in an
       attempt to collect on a PEAKS loan.

    -- California Subclass

       "A statewide subclass of all individuals residing in
       California to whom Activate Financial directed a written
       communication in an attempt to collect on a PEAKS loan."

Additionally, pursuant to Rule 23(g), the Plaintiffs move for an
order appointing Timothy G. Blood of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP;
Irv Ackelsberg and John J. Grogan of Langer Grogan & Diver, PC; and
Paul Arons of the Law Office of Paul Arons as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 7, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eBmDev at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  lhurst@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Irv Ackelsberg, Esq.
          John J. Grogan, Esq.
          LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, PC
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-5660
          Facsimile: (215) 320-5703
          E-mail: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com
                  jgrogan@langergrogan.com

               - and -

          Paul Arons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ARONS
          685 Spring Street, Suite 104
          Friday Harbor, WA 98250
          Telephone: (360) 378-6496
          Facsimile: (360) 378-6498
          E-mail: lopa@rockisland.com

VI-JON LLC: Seeks too Strike Addition of Three New Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW MACORMIC, ERIC
HOWARD, CONNOR HENRICHS, and JOYCE FRYER-KAUFFMAN, individually,
and on behalf of others similar similarly situated, v. VI-JON, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-01267-HEA
(E.D. Mo.), the Defendant moves the Court to enter an order to
strike the "alternative relief in Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, which seeks to add three new class representatives
and three new subclasses under the consumer protection and unjust
enrichment laws of New York, Illinois and Florida.

Vi-Jon's motion to strike is made on grounds that the alternative
relief" sought by Plaintiffs is an untimely attempt to amend the
Complaint in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).

Vi-Jon is an American health and beauty care company that produces
both Private Label and brand name products.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 10, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CB9N8a at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anthony G. Hopp, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          227 West Monroe Street, suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 577-1249
          Facsimile: (312) 577-1370
          E-mail: ahopp@steptoe.com

               - and -

          Carol R. Brophy, Esq.
          One Market Plaza, Spear Tower #3900,
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 365-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 365-6699
          E-mail: cbrophy@steptoe.com

               - and -

          Melanie Ayerh 303211, Esq.
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 439-9400
          Facsimile: (213) 439-9599
          E-mail: mayerh@steptoe.com

               - and -

          John W. Moticka, Esq.
          STINSON LLP
          7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105-1821
          Telephone: (314) 259-4562
          Facsimile: (314) 259-4467
          E-mail: john.moticka@stinson.com

               - and -

          Megan McCurdy, Esq.
          1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900
          Kansas City, MO , 64106
          Telephone: (816) 691-2649
          Facsimile: (816) 412-9733
          E-mail: megan.mccurdy@stinson.com

VIRGINIA: May Face Class-Action Over Aides' Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Moomaw at virginiamercury.com reports that a former aide to
Virginia Del. Marie March, R-Floyd, has filed a civil lawsuit
against her onetime boss, claiming March asked her to do private
work in a taxpayer-funded job and raising the prospect of
class-action litigation on overtime pay for hundreds of legislative
staffers.

Tambra Lynn Blankenship, a Giles County resident who briefly worked
for March over the summer, filed the suit in Richmond City Circuit
Court.

She's seeking a judgment of at least $70,000 and court approval to
initiate a class action that could involve 500 to 1,000 legislative
aides whom Blankenship's lawyers argue may have been improperly
denied overtime pay by the General Assembly.

"State law requires that [legislative aides] be provided
compensation for every hour worked," the complaint says.

A woman who answered the phone at March's district office said the
delegate had decided not to comment.

Ironically, the case targeting General Assembly labor practices
appears to center around an overtime bill the General Assembly
passed in 2021. The bill was rolled back this year, and the suit
only applies to legislative staffers who worked more than 40 hours
in that yearlong window.

A state human resources document describing the impact of the 2021
law, an attempt to better align the state with a federal law
requiring employers to pay some workers time and a half if they
exceed 40 hours, said it allowed state agencies to be sued in
class-action lawsuits. However, the idea that aides could be
eligible for overtime came as a surprise to some on Capitol Square,
where staffers have long been considered ineligible for overtime in
unpredictable, salaried jobs.

The House of Delegates clerk's office, which handles some of the
body's administrative functions but leaves individual delegates
largely free to run their own offices, said it was looking into the
matter and could not immediately comment. The office of Attorney
General Jason Miyares also said it was looking into the issue.
Neither the state nor March have filed a formal response in court.

The suit, filed Oct. 13 by attorneys with Roanoke-based Strelka
Employment Law, says legislative aides are expected to be on call
"around the clock" for state lawmakers, which regularly leads them
to work well above 40 hours a week.

In more specific allegations against March, Blankenship claims she
was asked to perform more than 40 hours of work per work, including
tasks that had nothing to do with official General Assembly
business.

"Del. March repeatedly tasked the named Plaintiff with job duties
that benefited either a business enterprise of Del. March or a
personal matter for Del. March or both," the lawsuit says, adding
none of the work fell within the "essential job duties" of a
legislative aide.

The suit also claims March "directed employees to intentionally
falsify time records to illustrate that employees were working less
hours than the total number of hours actually worked."

The 2021 overtime legislation, which generally made it easier for
more workers to claim overtime pay, included a line waiving the
state's "sovereign immunity" protection from overtime claims,
according to Blankenship's complaint.

"The Virginia Overtime Wage Act was later amended to withdraw the
waiver of sovereign immunity," the suit says.

Thomas E. Strelka, an attorney representing Blankenship in the
case, said the class-action status would only apply to people who
worked as legislative aides during the period when the state had
waived its immunity from overtime claims. If the class-action
status is approved, Strelka said affected employees can expect to
get a mailer asking if they want to participate in the suit.

"It would go to current and former [legislative aides] for them to
opt in," Strelka said, insisting no exemption in federal law
applies to legislative aide positions.

The suit doesn't go into detail about what kind of unofficial work
Blankenship was asked to perform for March, and Strelka declined to
elaborate.

March, a first-term legislator, is locked in an acrimonious
election fight with Del. Wren Williams, R-Patrick, after the two
conservative legislators were drawn into the same district. Last
month, March claimed Williams assaulted her at a Republican
fundraiser in Wytheville. Williams said the encounter was an
accidental bump that March is embellishing for political gain.

The two legislators are expected to compete for the GOP nomination
in the Republican-heavy district next year.[GN]

WEMAGINE.AI LLP: Court Dismisses Gutierrez Suit Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICARDO GUTIERREZ AND SHANNON ROSS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v.
WEMAGINE.AI LLP, Defendant, Case No. 21 C 05702 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants Wemagine's second
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Wemagine, a limited liability partnership registered in British
Columbia, Canada, develops and owns a mobile application, Voila AI
Artist. The App uses artificial intelligence to extract a person's
face from a photo and transform it to look like a cartoon.

The Plaintiffs are Illinois citizens who are users of the App. They
allege that Wemagine violates BIPA by collecting, storing, and
disclosing the facial geometry and biometric data of Voila users
without their consent.

After the Court dismissed the original Complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction on Jan. 26, 2022, it granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint. The Amended
Complaint is distinct from the original Complaint in two notable
ways: first, it includes allegations regarding a second named
Plaintiff, Ross, who downloaded Voila in Illinois and paid $29.99
for an annual Voila Pro subscription. Second, the Amended Complaint
alleges the App derives substantial revenue from nearly 5,000
Illinois-based users due to subscription fees and its display of
third-party advertising to "free" users.

Wemagine filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint, arguing again that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
over Wemagine and that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a
claim.

Judge Durkin opines that the Plaintiffs' additions to the Amended
Complaint do not salvage their claims, and the Amended Complaint
must again be dismissed for many of the same reasons this Court
identified in its Opinion granting Wemagine's first motion to
dismiss.

The Plaintiffs first argue that the Court has specific personal
jurisdiction over Wemagine because, in addition to downloading and
using Voila in Illinois, Gutierrez and other Illinois users of the
free version are subject to third-party advertising during their
use of the App. This, the Plaintiffs contend, generates revenue for
Wemagine in Illinois.

However, Judge Durkin finds that "advertisements or solicitation of
business is not enough to sustain personal jurisdiction in
Illinois." There is no evidence that Wemagine purposefully directed
any of its conduct toward Illinois, did any Illinois-specific
shipping, marketing or advertising, or sought out the Illinois
market in any way. The Plaintiffs also do not allege that the
advertisements shown to free users in Illinois were for Illinois
companies or for Wemagine itself.

Further, Judge Durkin finds that the Plaintiffs do not allege that
their injuries arose out of the third-party advertisements. He says
the Plaintiffs' extensive citation of Keiken v. Music Corp, of
America, Inc., 1993 WL 280818 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 1993), is
erroneous because the court there later overruled the holding on
which Plaintiff relies. On reconsideration, the Keiken court found
that the plaintiff's injury at a Florida theme park did not "arise
out of" the defendant's Illinois advertisements because the
plaintiff never saw the advertisements. This holding conformed to
the substantial jurisprudence in Illinois that advertisements
without a causal nexus to the injury cannot provide a basis for
personal jurisdiction.

In this case, too, Wemagine's alleged violation of BIPA did not
arise out of the third-party advertisements in question, which only
appeared to users after the App had already been downloaded, and
were not designed to encourage users to download or use the App.
Instead, the alleged harm was occasioned by Gutierrez's own conduct
of downloading and using the App. As Judge Durkin has discussed,
courts "should be careful in resolving questions about personal
jurisdiction involving online contacts to ensure that a defendant
is not haled into court simply because the defendant owns or
operates an interactive website that is accessible in the forum
state." Therefore, Gutierrez's alleged basis of asserting personal
jurisdiction via third party advertisement revenue fails.

Neither does the allegation that Ross paid for the Pro version of
the App in Illinois establish specific personal jurisdiction. Judge
Durkin says the plaintiff cannot be the sole link between a
defendant and the forum. Again, the alleged injury must arise from
the Defendant's contacts with Illinois. Similarly, though Ross
downloaded and paid for the Pro version of Voila in Illinois, there
is no evidence that Wemagine purposefully directed the subscription
toward Illinois in a way that Wemagine availed itself of the
privilege of doing business in the state. Like an interactive
website, any alleged harm here was occasioned by Ross' own
interaction with Voila -- downloading and accessing the App and
then uploading his photo -- rather than the Defendant's specific
actions in this jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs cite Huston v. Hearst Communications, Inc. to
support their claim that subscriptions purchased in Illinois are
enough to support personal jurisdiction; however, the court in
Huston established that "personal jurisdiction also exists over the
defendant because it conducts substantial business within Illinois
and has significant, continuous, and pervasive contacts in
Illinois," through the sale and shipping of physical products to
Illinois customers. That is not true in the present case, according
to Judge Durkin. He says the Plaintiffs' other authorities are
inapposite for the same reason.

Even as replead, the Amended Complaint still fails to establish the
Court's jurisdiction over Wemagine as to the Plaintiffs' BIPA
claims. The Amended Complaint must be dismissed for lack of
personal jurisdiction. Thus, Judge Durkin need not consider whether
the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Durkin grants Wemagine's motion
to dismiss. The dismissal will be without prejudice as to any forum
where personal jurisdiction actually exists.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 7, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n9bxz7s from
Leagle.com.


WILLIAM DOUGLAS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Unsafe Condominiums
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Elliotte Quinn with The Steinberg Law Firm filed a class
action lawsuit for the owners of the 322 condominiums in the
Renaissance Towers building in Myrtle Beach. On October 7, an
engineer declared the building unsafe and required an evacuation
due to damaged steel supporting the building. The lawsuit, filed in
the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina, alleges the directors of the condominium association and
the management company knew of the problem for years but did
nothing to inspect, maintain, or repair the structural problems.
The suit also alleges the directors were negligent in failing to
have a reserve study for the building and failing to have
reasonable reserve funds.

As of October 18, 2022, owners and tenants have not been allowed
back into the building and have not been given a date when they
will be allowed to return. The lawsuit seeks to recover for the
condo owners and the association the more than $2 million already
assessed for steel repairs, the additional amounts that will be
required for temporary shoring and additional repairs due to the
dangerous condition of the steel, lost rental income from and lost
use of the condos, and other damages.

Attorney Elliotte Quinn said, "The directors and management company
for a condo building have a duty to maintain and repair the
building, and the information we've learned indicates there was a
complete failure to timely address a known problem with this
building. With the Champlain Towers South collapse in Florida only
a little more than a year ago, this is another instance of an
oceanfront condo building with known problems that were not
addressed to the point that people's lives were put at risk. While
the Renaissance Tower did not collapse and was thankfully evacuated
without any injuries, people have been left homeless, owners have
been deprived of income from their investments, and owners are
being asked to pay millions of dollars. When those responsible for
building or maintaining a condo building fail to carry out their
responsibilities, the Steinberg Law Firm steps in to hold them
accountable."

The Steinberg Law Firm has been assisting victims of negligence in
South Carolina since 1927 including personal injury, workers'
compensation, nursing home and construction defect cases. For more
information, please contact the firm at 843-720-2800 or visit our
website at https://www.steinberglawfirm.com/.

The case is Liberty Property Holdings SC, LLC et al. v. Richardson
et al (4:22-cv-03556-RBH.) [GN]

WILLIS TOWERS: Lyons Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled AJ LYONS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIS TOWERS WATSON US LLC, a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 37-2022-00035381-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on Oct. 10,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-01550-JO-WVG to the proceeding.

The complaint is brought over Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code.

Willis Towers Watson US LLC is a multinational insurance advisor
company.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stacey E. James, Esq.
          Brittany L. McCarthy, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3577
          Telephone: (619) 232-0441
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
          E-mail: sjames@littler.com
                  blmccarthy@littler.com

X HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Crispo Shareholder Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUIGI CRISPO, Plaintiff v. ELON R. MUSK, X HOLDINGS I,
INC., AND X HOLDINGS II, INC., Defendants, C.A. No. 2022-0666-KSJM
(Del. Ch.), Judge Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick of the Court of
Chancery of Delaware grants in part and held in abeyance in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Verified
Shareholder Class Action Complaint.

On April 25, 2022, Defendants Elon R. Musk, X Holdings I, Inc., and
X Holdings II, Inc., agreed to acquire Twitter, Inc. pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger. On July 8, 2022, the Defendants
purported to terminate the Merger Agreement. Their termination
notice inspired two lawsuits in this Court.

On center stage, Twitter sued the Defendants for specific
enforcement of the Merger Agreement. Backstage, Plaintiff Crispo, a
Twitter stockholder, sued them on behalf of a class of Twitter
stockholders for specific enforcement of the Merger Agreement and,
alternatively, damages. The Plaintiff also claimed that the
Defendants comprised a control group with concomitant fiduciary
obligations and that they breached those obligations in connection
with the Merger Agreement.

In March 2022, Musk began expressing interest in acquiring or
otherwise influencing Twitter. By April 4, 2022, he had acquired
over 9% of Twitter, and Musk and Twitter agreed that he would join
Twitter's board of directors. Five days later, Musk notified
Twitter that he would not be joining the Board and would instead be
making an offer to take Twitter private.

On April 13, Musk delivered a "best and final" offer to acquire
Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash; he publicly announced this
offer the following day. In response, the Board approved a
stockholders' rights plan, also known as a "poison pill," limiting
Musk's ability to acquire additional Twitter stock. Musk then
improved the terms of his offer, and Twitter and the Defendants
signed the Merger Agreement on April 25, 2022.

The Merger Agreement provides that, at the time that the merger
becomes effective, each Twitter share will convert into the right
to receive $54.20 per share in cash. It and public statements made
by the merger parties emphasize the benefit that Twitter
stockholders will receive upon consummation of the merger. The
Merger Agreement gives Musk the right to request information from
Twitter in connection with the merger. It also includes provisions
that grant the Defendants veto power over certain decisions by
Twitter.

On May 13, 2022, Musk tweeted: "Twitter deal temporarily on hold."
In the days that followed, he publicly expressed concerns about the
number of spam and fake accounts on the Twitter service. Pursuant
to his information rights under the Merger Agreement, Musk sought
information from Twitter regarding spam and fake accounts. On July
8, 2022, his counsel sent a letter to Twitter purporting to
terminate the Merger Agreement.

On July 12, 2022, Twitter sued the Defendants for specific
enforcement of the Merger Agreement. That litigation is currently
pending before this Court.

The Plaintiff owns Twitter stock. He filed this suit on July 29,
2022, asserting two causes of action against the Defendants. In
Count I, he asserts a claim for breach of the Merger Agreement,
seeking specific performance and, alternatively, damages. In Count
II, he asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duties. The
Plaintiff brings both claims directly.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on Aug. 18, 2022. The
parties concluded briefing on September 8, and the court held oral
argument on September 19.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss each of the Plaintiff's
claims. As to the Plaintiff's contract claim, they argue that the
Plaintiff lacks standing because he is neither a party nor a
third-party beneficiary to the Merger Agreement. As to the
Plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duties, the Defendants
argue that he has not adequately alleged that they owe fiduciary
duties as controllers of Twitter.

Initially, the Plaintiff is not a party to the Merger Agreement but
argues that he has standing as a third-party beneficiary. Under
Delaware law, only parties to a contract and intended third-party
beneficiaries have standing to sue for breach of the contract.

Judge McCormick opines that the plain language of Section 9.7
supports a holding that the parties to the Merger Agreement did not
intend to confer third-party beneficiary standing to Twitter's
stockholders. The Plaintiff's precedent-based argument does not
support his claim to third-party beneficiary status.

In addition, when faced with the choice of how to handle
stockholders' losses in the event of a termination, the parties to
the Merger Agreement adopted language that one set of practitioners
and one leading treatise has identified as setting the parties on a
course free of the hazard of direct stockholder claims like those
filed by the Plaintiff.

For these reasons, Judge McCormick holds that the Plaintiff have
not adequately alleged third-party beneficiary standing to
specifically enforce the Merger Agreement. Their claim for specific
performance of the Merger Agreement is, therefore, dismissed. The
remaining aspects of the Defendants' motion to dismiss Count I are
held in abeyance pending supplemental briefing.

Next, the equitable tort for breach of fiduciary duty has only two
formal elements: (i) the existence of a fiduciary duty and (ii) a
breach of the duty." In moving to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for
breach of fiduciary duty, the Defendants contest only the first
element -- the Defendants' fiduciary status.

The Plaintiff advances a transaction-specific theory of control,
contending that the Defendants controlled Twitter leading up to the
execution of the Merger Agreement and at the time of termination
for the purpose of the Merger Agreement. His argument does not
improve when evaluated on the factor-based level.

The Plaintiff argues that four factors give rise to an inference of
transaction-specific control at the time of termination: The
Defendants' (i) direct share ownership and their ability to acquire
shares under the Merger Agreement; (ii) contract rights under the
Merger Agreement; (iii) influence over the Twitter Board;7 and (iv)
unique personal attributes.

Judge McCormick opines that none of the four potential sources of
control identified by the Plaintiff, standing alone, demonstrate
controller status. The allegations are no stronger when considered
together. For a "confluence of multiple sources" to give rise to an
inference of control, the plaintiff must allege facts from which it
can be inferred that those sources combine "in a fact-specific
manner to produce a particular result." The Plaintiff's theory does
not coalesce in any logical fashion. Rather, their arguments for
controller status would require the Court to make multiple logical
leaps, as well as ignore the reality playing out in real time.

Judge McCormick holds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege facts
from which the Court can infer that the Defendants were controllers
of Twitter for the purpose of the Merger Agreement with concomitant
fiduciary obligations to Twitter's stockholders. Because the
Plaintiff has failed to allege fiduciary status, the Complaint
fails to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

For the foregoing reasons, the portion of Count I seeking specific
performance and the entirety of Count II are dismissed. The
remaining aspects of the Defendants' motion to dismiss Count I are
held in abeyance pending supplemental briefing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3fma2puz from Leagle.com.

Michael Hanrahan -- mhanrahan@prickett.com -- Samuel L. Closic --
slclosic@prickett.com -- John G. Day -- jgday@prickett.com --
Robert B. Lackey -- rblackey@prickett.com -- PRICKETT, JONES &
ELLIOTT, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Max Huffman --
mhuffman@scott-scott.com -- Joseph A. Pettigrew --
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP, San
Diego, California; Scott R. Jacobsen -- sjacobsen@scott-scott.com
-- Jing-Li Yu -- jyu@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT
LAW LLP, New York, New York, Counsel for Plaintiff Luigi Crispo.

Edward B. Micheletti -- edward.micheletti@skadden.com -- Lauren N.
Rosenello -- lauren.rosenello@skadden.com -- Ryan M. Lindsay --
ryan.lindsay@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Alex Spiro -- alexspiro@quinnemanuel.com
-- Andrew J. Rossman -- andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com --
Christopher D. Kercher -- christopherkercher@quinnemanuel.com --
Silpa Maruri -- silpamaruri@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, New York, New York, Counsel for
Defendants Elon R. Musk, X Holdings I, Inc., and X Holdings II,
Inc.



                            *********

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 ***