/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221026.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, October 26, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 208

                            Headlines

AMERICAN ARMED: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Podroykin Suit
ANSELL LTD: Slater and Gordon Mulls Suit Over Profit Downgrade
APRIO LLP: Lechter, et al., Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply
AT&T INC: Vianu Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set on October 29
AXOS BANK: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 2

AYTU BIOPHARMA: Faces Aponowics Securities Suit
BABY TREND: Court Extends Time on Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
BALL STATE: Appellate Court's Ruling in COVID-19 Suit Discussed
BARILLA HOLDING : Fails to Avert Deceptive Labeling Class Action
BOWL AMERICA: Wins in Part Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Zucker Suit

BOWMAR NUTRITION: Modified Schedule & Discovery Order Entered
BP EXPLORATION: Milsap's Bid to Reconsider Witness Exclusion Denied
BROCK PIERCE: Rowan Files Bid for Class Certification
CALGARY STAMPEDE: Law Firm Widens Timeline in Sexual Abuse Suit
CRUSADER INSURANCE: Insurance Dispute Ongoing in California Court

DANONE WATERS: Faces Class Action Over "Carbon Neutral" Claims
DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Judge Approves $2.35-MM Data Breach Settlement
EARGO INC: Court Consolidates Three Securities Suits
EISEN & SON: Fails to Pay Chef, Dishwashers' Minimum and OT Wages
EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Ford Alleges

FARMERS GROUP: Seeks Clarification on Class Cert Order
FASTEST MEDIA: Auberry Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
FESMIRE & WILLIAMS: Fuentes Files Suit in D. Arizona
FORD MOTOR: Class Actions Ongoing Amid Supply Chain Woes
FRESH VENTURE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Navas Suit Affirmed

GEICO INDEMNITY: Loses Reconsideration Bid of June 2, 2022 Order
GENESCO INC: Wiretaps Journeys.com Website Visitors, Licea Claims
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Settles Insurance Class Action for $25 Million
GORTON'S INC: Judge Allows Greenwashing Class Action to Proceed
I.C. SYSTEM: Court Dismisses Lahu FDCPA Suit Without Prejudice

IBEX LIMITED: Settlement of Ransomware Incident Suit for Court OK
JACK IN THE BOX: Jumbo Jack Priced $1 More at Checkout, Suit Claims
JO-ANN STORES: Mackey Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action in Iowa Over Defective Vehicles
LLOYD'S LONDON: 11th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of 15 Oz Complaint

LOUIS MILUSNIC: Class Settlement in Garries Gets Final Approval
LUST ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Exotic Dancers' Minimum Wages
MDL 2913: DeRuyter Central School Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Edison Local Says
MDL 2913: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Lenoir City Says

MDL 2913: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Long Beach City Says
MDL 2913: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Pauls Valley Says
MDL 2913: Heavener Public Balks at E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
MDL 2913: Hicksville Exempted Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Kansas Public Schools Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis

MDL 2913: Little Axe Public Hits Vape Ads Targeting Youth Market
MDL 2913: Millwood Public Schools Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Noble Public Schools Alleges Vaping Promotion to Youth
MEDICREDIT INC: Settles Robocall Class Action for $1.95 Million
MERCEDES-BENZ: Betancourt Sues Over Failure to Provide Warranty

MICROSOFT CORP: Federal Judge Tosses BIPA Class Action Lawsuit
MRS. FIELDS: Curry Files Suit in Utah Over FTC Act Breach
NELNET SERVICING: Eichenblatt Suit Transferred to D. Nebraska
NEW YORK TIMES: Court Dismisses Nashel's Amended Class Complaint
NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicles' Transmission Defect

OMNI FINANCIAL: Faces Wood MLA Class Suit Over Predatory Lending
OPTAVIA LLC: Settlement Class in Douglass Suit Initially Certified
PATHWAY HEALTH: Class Settlement in Abel Suit Wins Final Approval
POINT PICK-UP: Duarte Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
RITE AID CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Lidocaine Pain Relief Patches

RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Seeks Ruling on Fully Briefed Class Cert Bid
ROWDY BEVERAGE: Case Management Plan Entered in Abreu Class Suit
STATE FARM: Faces Class Action Over Unearned Insurance Premiums
STATE FARM: Ohio Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Nichols Class Suit
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY: Bid to Certify Class in Covid Refund Suit Nixed

T-MOBILE US: Jan. 23, 2023 Settlement Claims Submission Deadline
TDK CORP: Reseller Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification
TDK CORPORATION: End-User Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action in Victoria Over Defeat Devices
TRAVEL INSURED: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 30, 2023

TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Court Stays All Discovery in Edge Class Suit
UNILEVER USA: Faces Class Action Over Chocolate Chip Ice Cream
WALMART INC: Court Stays Powell Suit Pending OK of Settlement
WEST PALM BEACH: Tipped Employees Get Settlement Class Status
WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Licea Suit Claims

[*] British Columbia to Amend Bill Related to Health-Care Costs

                            *********

AMERICAN ARMED: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Podroykin Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARTUR PODROYKIN, on behalf of himself and all
individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN ARMED FORCES
MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-588
(E.D. Va.), Judge T.S. Ellis, III, of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, grants the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.

At issue in this multi-claim action growing out of a ransomware
attack is whether Podroykin has Article III standing to maintain
the action. American Armed Forces Mutual Aid Association
("AAFMAA")'s threshold Motion to Dismiss argues, inter alia, that
the Plaintiff has not suffered an injury in fact and therefore does
not have standing to sue.

The Plaintiff is a United States Army veteran and a member of the
AAFMAA. AAFMAA, a mutual aid association for veterans and active
duty members of the United States military, sells life insurance
policies to its members and provides other services to them. The
Plaintiff purchased a life insurance policy from defendant in 2010
and, to do so, he provided defendant with PII which the Defendant
kept on its servers.

In January 2021, a ransomware group known as "DarkSide" gained
access to the Defendant's computer systems and executed a
ransomware attack by encrypting troves of highly sensitive files.
DarkSide demanded a ransom in exchange for decryption keys which
the Defendant declined to pay.

The Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that DarkSide, as
it has done before, employed a double extortion scheme whereby
DarkSide not only encrypted the Defendant's data locally on its
computer, but also extracted the data to place on the dark web.
Notably, the Amended Complaint acknowledges that DarkSide no longer
maintains websites that are accessible to the public; DarkSide's
websites were shut down at least 16 months ago in May or June 2021,
just four to five months after the ransomware attack.

The Plaintiff initially filed a Complaint on May 10, 2021. On June
23, 2021, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint
arguing that the Plaintiff (i) lacked standing and (ii) failed to
state viable claims for relief. On July 19, 2021, an Order issued
granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss based on the Plaintiff's
lack of standing. As set forth in the Order, the Plaintiff lacked
standing because (i) he had not identified any illegitimate use of
his PII resulting from the unlawful electronic intrusion into the
Defendant's database and (ii) the attack was a ransomware attack,
aimed at locking the Defendant out of its own systems rather than
at stealing PII. The Order afforded the Plaintiff leave to amend to
add a different named plaintiff with standing or otherwise to cure
the apparent lack of standing in the Complaint.

On Oct. 1, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint which
names only Podroykin as a plaintiff and does not specifically
identify any other plaintiff or member of the putative class. The
Amended Complaint does contain, however, additional factual
allegations relating (i) to ransomware attacks and double extortion
schemes generally and (ii) DarkSide specifically. Thus, the key
inquiry is whether any of these allegations, alone or taken
together with the rest of the Amended Complaint, confer standing
upon the Plaintiff.

Judge Ellis explains that Article III of the Constitution limits
federal court jurisdiction to "Cases" and "Controversies," and this
limitation is implemented, in part, by standing doctrine. The
"irreducible constitutional minimum" of standing consists of three
elements: the plaintiff must have "(1) suffered an injury in fact,
(2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the
defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision." The parties' briefing and oral argument focused
on whether the Plaintiff can demonstrate the first element of
standing: an injury in fact.

In sum, Judge Ellis finds that the Amended Complaint does not
allege any facts sufficient to confer standing on the Plaintiff. He
opines that the Plaintiff's theories of standing all fail because
the Amended Complaint contains no allegations of targeting or of a
substantial risk of misuse, and in any event acknowledges that his
s PII is no longer available on the dark web. Because the Plaintiff
does not have standing, it is unnecessary to consider the
Defendant's argument that the Amended Complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

Accordingly, Judge Ellis holds the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) must be granted and the Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint must be dismissed.

An appropriate Order will be issued.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Opinion to
all counsel of record and to place this matter among the ended
causes.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4jpyeynx from Leagle.com.


ANSELL LTD: Slater and Gordon Mulls Suit Over Profit Downgrade
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Evans, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
law firm Slater and Gordon is drumming up interest for a potential
class action against medical gloves and surgical suits maker Ansell
over a hefty profit downgrade in January which sent the share price
tumbling.

Slater and Gordon is testing the waters with Ansell shareholders
over the profit downgrade of 28 per cent on January 31 which
stripped $600 million in sharemarket value from the group after
demand for single-use medical gloves started to wane and margins
were crunched.

"If you purchased shares in Ansell at any point between 24 August
2021 and 28 January 2022, you may wish to consider registering your
interest in a potential future claim against Ansell," an email from
Slater and Gordon states.

"Slater and Gordon considers that shareholders may have claims
against Ansell in relation to the company's downgrade of earnings
per share guidance for FY22, which was announced to the ASX on 31
January 2022. In response to the downgrade, Ansell's share price
declined by more than 17 per cent."

"On the basis of Slater and Gordon's investigation to date, the
proceeding, if it goes ahead, may allege that Ansell made
misleading and deceptive statements to the ASX and breached its
continuous disclosure obligations between 24 August 2021 and 28
January 2022".

Ansell was a glamour stock during the pandemic; its share price hit
$43.50 in mid-2021 when demand for single-use medical gloves and
surgical suits soared as governments and health authorities
scrambled to find enough supplies. The stock was sitting at $27.26
on Oct 19.

Chief executive Neil Salmon, who only took the helm in September
last year, said on January 31 a combination of factors triggered
the downgrade. Freight costs had ballooned and Ansell had not been
able to implement price rises fast enough to catch up.

Mr Salmon said at the time he had already warned of the looming
margin contraction at the group's November 11 annual meeting, when
he signalled a "correction" in pricing was happening faster than
anticipated.

But the speed of the contraction startled investors, who sold off
the stock aggressively.

Ansell on January 31 also outlined that United States authorities
had put a short-term ban on imports because of concerns over labour
practices at other glove makers in Malaysia from which it sourced
products.

Slater and Gordon said in its email dated October 19 it has "not
yet finalised the terms on which it proposes to act in the proposed
proceeding". It reinforced that irrespective of those terms, "you
will not be exposed to any out-of-pocket costs for Slater and
Gordon to act on your behalf if the proceeding is issued". [GN]

APRIO LLP: Lechter, et al., Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW LECHTER, et al., v.
APRIO, LLP f/k/a HABIF, AROGETI & WYNNE, LLP, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-01325-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order extending the time to and through November 18, 2022 to
file their reply in support of their motion or class certification.


The Defendants filed their response in opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on October 6, 2022. The
Plaintiffs require additional time to respond due to the length and
complexity of the Response. The Response is 40 pages, attaches 47
exhibits that span hundreds of pages, and raises several new
factual assertions and related arguments.

An extension of time will allow them to fully respond to
Defendants' arguments and exhibits, the Plaintiffs contend.

Aprio is a financial consulting and CPA firm.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 11, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s6JPUU at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David R. Deary, Esq.
          W. Ralph Canada, Jr., Esq.
          Jeven Sloan, Esq.
          Wilson E. Wray, Jr., Esq.
          John McKenzie, Esq.
          Donna Lee, Esq.
          Tyler M. Simpson, Esq.
          DEARY RAY LLP
          12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Telephone: (214) 572-1700
          Facsimile: (214) 572-1717
          E-mail: davidd@dearyray.com
                  ralphc@dearyray.com
                  jevens@dearyray.com
                  wilsonw@dearyray.com
                  johnm@dearyray.com
                  tylers@dearyray.com
                  donnal@dearyray.com

               - and -

          Edward J. Rappaport, Esq.
          THE SAYLOR LAW FIRM LLP
          1201 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 3220
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 892-4400
          E-mail: erappaport@saylorlaw.com


AT&T INC: Vianu Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set on October 29
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eray Eliacik, writing for Dataconomy, reports that ATT settlement
claim process explained. Last days for the ATT / Vianu Class Action
Settlement. The corporation is compensating customers to settle
claims of hidden administrative costs, and you might receive a
portion of the money. If you are a customer of AT&T, both present
and past, you may be entitled to a portion of the $14 million
settlement.

How much is the AT&T settlement refund? Does AT&T owe me a refund?
How can I get my AT&T Settlement? Is ATT and Vianu class action
suit real? Why did I get a refund from AT&T? Keep reading; we have
explained everything you should know about the ATT / Vianu Class
Action Settlement.

ATT SETTLEMENT CLAIM DEADLINE IS COMING: ATT / VIANU CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT
By October 29, 2022, ATT settlement claims must be submitted to be
eligible for payment under the settlement. You won't get any money
if you don't submit a claim. You must act quickly to submit a claim
if you were affected by the most recent class-action lawsuit.

Consumers of AT&T, both current and former, may be entitled to a
portion of the $14 million settlement the company reached after a
class action lawsuit claimed the company had been deceiving its
customers for years.

In Vianu v. AT&T Mobility, the plaintiffs contend that the
telecommunications company neglected to inform postpaid wireless
customers that they were being charged a monthly $1.99
administrative fee, which they claim was actually a way to raise
the base rate "without having to advertise the higher prices."
(Postpaid clients are invoiced depending on usage after the fact,
unlike prepaid subscribers.)

IS ATT / VIANU CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT LEGIT?
The AT&T class action settlement indeed exists. Customers with
postpaid wireless plans in California may qualify for a payment. Be
hurry for the ATT Settlement claim.

AT&T customers may be entitled to reimbursement as part of a class
action settlement if they resided in California and were charged an
administrative fee on a postpaid wireless service account between
June 20, 2015, and June 16, 2022.

ATT SETTLEMENT CLAIM PROCESS: HOW TO CLAIM ATT / VIANU CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT?
You can submit a claim either online or by mail. You should have a
Notice ID and Confirmation Code that you can input online if you
get a notice via mail or email. You can still submit a claim on the
website if you didn't get a personalized notice or don't have an ID
or code.

Follow the instructions for the ATT settlement claim:

Click here to submit an online claim.
If you'd rather, you can also print off a paper copy of the claim
form, which is available here, fill it out, and mail it to the
address provided.
You can also complete the claim form that is attached to the
notification you got by mail if you were notified of this
settlement and send it to the address on the form if you did.

ATT / VIANU CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT: ATT SETTLEMENT EMAIL &
ADDRESS
ATT / Vianu Class Action Settlement Administrator email:
info@ATTVianuClassActionSettlement.com
ATT / Vianu Class Action Settlement Administrator address: AT&T
Vianu Class Action Settlement, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210,
Philadelphia, PA 19103

HOW MUCH IS THE AT&T SETTLEMENT REFUND?
Each successful claimant from the class will get an equal portion
of the $14 million settlement. It is anticipated that your
settlement payout will be around $20.00 if you submit a legitimate
claim by the deadline and are qualified for payment. However, the
precise sum may differ.

ATT / Vianu Class Action Settlement: AT&T settlement claims
responded automatically to the current AT&T customers, while former
customers would get a cheque in the mail.
Your claim must be submitted by the deadline to be eligible for
payment.

ATT SETTLEMENT CLAIM DEADLINE
Claims must be filed by October 29, 2022 to qualify for payment
under the settlement. You won't receive compensation if you don't
file a claim.

ATT / VIANU CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AMOUNT
Each successful claimant from the class will get an equal portion
of the $14 million settlement. The amount is now shown at $20 on
the settlement page, but the final sum could be higher or lower
depending on the number of claimants and the cost of attorneys.

ATT / VIANU CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT PAYOUT DATE
Any compensation will be paid following the deal's final approval
hearing, which is slated for November 3. After the deal is approved
and becomes final, valid claimants will receive settlement monies
by cheque or account credit (for current AT&T customers) (for
former AT&T customers).

The corresponding Settlement Class Member will be treated as the
owner of any settlement payment checks that go uncashed or are
deemed undeliverable by the Settlement Administrator, subject to
any applicable state unclaimed property laws (the additional
administrative costs of such unclaimed property process will be
deducted from the unclaimed property amounts on a pro-rata basis).

HOW CAN I GET MY AT&T SETTLEMENT?
Former consumers would receive a check in the mail, while current
AT&T subscribers would have their reimbursement automatically
credited to their accounts.

ATT / VIANU CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT QUALIFICATIONS
To be eligible, you must:

Possess a California address (as determined by the accountholder's
most recent billing address).
Possess an AT&T Consumer or Individual Responsibility User (IRU)
account with a postpaid wireless service plan.
An administration fee was applied to the account between June 20,
2015, and June 16, 2022.

ATT / VIANU CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT SUMMARY
Plaintiffs Ian Vianu, Elizabeth Blum, and Dominic Gutierrez claim
in their lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Northern
District of California, that a monthly administrative fee added to
each wireless line in May 2013 was actually a way for AT&T to raise
its basic rate "without having to advertise the higher prices."

Since then, the cost has consistently increased—it more than
doubled in 2018 to $1.99 a month—even though, according to AT&T
financial documents, the company's administrative expenditures have
reportedly been declining.

For ATT settlement claims, you should possess an AT&T Consumer or
Individual Responsibility User (IRU) account with a postpaid
wireless service plan.
The complaint claims that the fee's disclosure is purposefully
concealed in bill statements "to [make] it probable customers will
not see it."

The lawsuit claims that it is also worded to imply that it is
comparable to a tax or regulatory fee "while in reality, it is just
a ploy for AT&T to advertise and promise cheaper rates than it
actually costs."

The plaintiffs claim AT&T has "unfairly and unlawfully taken
hundreds of millions of dollars in ill-gotten earnings from
California consumers" and refer to the process as a
"bait-and-switch scam."

The carrier is charged in its case with breaking several California
laws about unfair, illegal, and deceptive business activities, as
well as "the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing."

LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS FOR THE ATT SETTLEMENT
File a claim: To be eligible for payment, submit your claim before
October 29, 2022.
Do nothing: Get nothing and relinquish the opportunity to pursue
legal action against AT&T for the problems raised in this
complaint.
Opt-out: You won't receive any money from the settlement and will
still be able to sue AT&T for the problems raised in this case. By
September 29, 2022, you must submit or email a request for
exclusion to opt-out.
Object or comment on the settlement: By September 29, 2022, you can
object to or comment on the settlement. You can still submit a
claim and get paid even if you disagree or make a comment.

HOW TO GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ATT SETTLEMENT?
Click here to find more details. Important case deadlines, links to
case papers, such as the entire Settlement Agreement, the case's
original and modified complaints, AT&T's answers, and other details
about the lawsuit and settlement, are all included on this
website.

Do not contact the court for ATT Settlement claims
You can also reach Settlement Class Counsel at (800) 200-7793 or
(888) 564-8288 for additional information.

You can obtain additional information by visiting the office of the
Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Ave., 16th Floor,
San Francisco, CA 94102, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding court holidays, and paying a fee to
access the court docket in this case through the court's Public
Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at
https://ecf.cand.us Please be aware.

However, due to the COVID-19 epidemic, there may occasionally be
restrictions or prohibitions on physical access to the Clerk of the
Court's office. For updates, please visit the Court's website. [GN]

AXOS BANK: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 2
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH HOAGLAND,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AXOS BANK, et. al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00807-LL-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge entered an order granting joint motion for extension of
class certification briefing deadlines and amended briefing
schedule as follows:

   -- The Plaintiff's Class              November 2, 2022
      Certification Motion:

   -- The Defendants' Class              November 30, 2022
      Certification Response:

   -- The Plaintiff's Class              December 16, 2022
      Certification Reply:

Axos Bank is an American federally chartered savings and loan
association and direct bank headquartered in San Diego,
California.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s2NjYK at no extra charge.[CC]

AYTU BIOPHARMA: Faces Aponowics Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Aytu Biopharma, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 27, 2022, that a putative class
action was filed on February 9, 2022, in the Delaware Chancery
court by Rafal Aponowicz derivatively and on behalf of all Aytu
stockholders, challenging the grant in 2021 of certain stock option
awards to directors and officers.

The stockholder contends those awards were in amounts exceeding the
shares available under the company's 2015 equity incentive plan and
that the directors, therefore, breached their fiduciary duties and
breached a purported contract between them and stockholders. The
complaint seeks rescission of the awards, unspecified damages to
stockholders as a result of the awards, and attorneys' fees.

A second such action was filed by Paul John M. Paguia on March 7,
2022. Mr. Paguia asserts the same claims and seeks the same relief.
The two actions have been assigned to Vice Chancellor McCormick,
who will hear a partial motion to dismiss in December 2022.

Aytu Biopharma, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in
Colorado.


BABY TREND: Court Extends Time on Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA OCEGUERA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BABY TREND, INC., a California corporation, Case No.
5:21-cv-00398-JWH-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order
granting stipulation for extension of time on briefing schedule for
the class motion as follows:

  -- The deadline to conduct precertification    Nov. 28, 2022
     fact discovery is extended:

  -- The deadline for Plaintiff's                Nov. 28, 2022
     Precertification Expert Disclosure
     is extended to:

  -- The deadline for Defendant's                Dec. 26, 2023
     Precertification  epert Discovery
     is extended to:

  -- The deadline to conduct                     Jan. 26, 2023
     precertification expert discovery
     is extended to:

  -- The deadline for Defendant to respond       March 27, 2023
     to Plaintiff's Class Certification
     motion is extended to:

  -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file her      April 27, 2023
     Reply in support of Plaintiff's
     class certification motion is
     extended to:

Baby Trend manufactures and sells infant and toddler baby
products.

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

BALL STATE: Appellate Court's Ruling in COVID-19 Suit Discussed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., Jennifer A. Riley, Esq., and Gregory
Tsonis, Esq., of Duane Morris LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that in Mellowitz v. Ball State University and Board of
Trustees of Ball State University, et al, No. 22A-PL-337 (Ind. Ct.
App. Oct 5, 2022), the Indiana Court of Appeals struck down a 2021
law that sought to protect in-state universities from class action
liability related to the shutdown of university campuses during the
COVID-19 pandemic. While the law stated that individuals "may not"
bring class actions against universities resulting from actions
taken to defend against the spread of COVID-19, the Indiana Court
of Appeals held that the statute was "procedural" and in conflict
with Rule 23 of Indiana's Rules of Trial Procedure, which states
that individuals "may" proceed as a class under certain
circumstances. The Court's ruling is important, as it puts at risk
other statutes passed in Indiana and other states restricting class
actions against businesses for COVID-19-related claims.

Background Of The Case

In 2020, Plaintiff Keller J. Mellowitz, a student at Ball State
University, filed a putative class action asserting claims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment against Ball State as a
result of the university's decision to cancel in-person classes
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. at 3. After the complaint was
filed, the Indiana General Assembly in 2021 enacted Public Law
166-2021, part of which was codified as Indiana Code Section
34-12-5-7 ("Section 7") and barred class actions against
post-secondary educational institutions for claims of breach of
contract and unjust enrichment arising from COVID-19. Ball State
subsequently sought relief from Plaintiff's lawsuit under Section
7, which the trial court granted, and Plaintiff appealed. Id. at
5.

The Appellate Court's Ruling Reversing And Remanding the Trial
Court's Decision

Plaintiff argued on appeal that, as a procedural statute, Section 7
impermissibly conflicts with Indiana Trial Rule 23, which governs
class-action procedures and sets forth the requirements to proceed
as a class action, thus rendering Section 7 a "nullity." The
Indiana Court of Appeals began its analysis recognizing
longstanding precedent establishing that in a conflict between a
procedural statute and the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, "the
trial rules govern," however trial rules "cannot abrogate or modify
substantive law." Id. at 6-7. Whether a law was "substantive," the
Court explained, depended on whether it established "rights and
responsibilities" whereas procedural laws merely prescribed "the
manner in which such rights and responsibilities may be exercised."
Id. at 7.

In analyzing the specific statutes at issue, the Court of Appeals
examined Indiana's analog to Federal Rule 23, which sets forth the
criteria for bringing a class action. The Court of Appeals noted
that Indiana Trial Rule 23 was indisputably a procedural rule that
allows a plaintiff, when the appropriate criteria are met, to
assert his or her claims on behalf of others. Turning to Section 7,
the Court of Appeals explained that the statute did not affect any
plaintiff's substantive right to bring a suit for breach of
contract or unjust enrichment, but simply "frustrates them by
encouraging a multiplicity of lawsuits from similarly situated
plaintiffs." Id. at 14. While Ball State argued that the law
protected Indiana universities from "widespread legal liability"
from actions taken to combat and mitigate the spread of COVID-19,
the Court of Appeals found the argument "unpersuasive," explaining
that since Section 7 did not prevent any individual plaintiff from
asserting the same claims against universities, it therefore "does
not reduce the institutions' potential legal liability in the
slightest." Id. at 14-15. Ball State also argued that adopting
Plaintiff's "extreme position" would endanger two similar laws
passed by the Indiana Legislature, which sought to protect business
owners from class-action tort liability. Id. at 15 n.6. The Court
rejected Ball State's argument. It determined that it had "no
opinion" on those statutes since they were not before it in the
appeal. Id.

With Indiana Trial Rule 23 stating that a plaintiff "may" bring a
class action and Section 7 stating the plaintiff "may not," the
Court of Appeals held that both laws could not apply in a given
situation and, as a result, Section 7 was a "nullity." Id. at 15.
The Court of Appeals therefore reversed the trial court's ruling
and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Implications for Employers

While Ball State will very likely appeal this decision to the
Indiana Supreme Court, the rationale adopted by the Indiana Court
of Appeals could undermine similar statutes meant to protect
Indiana employers from class action liability resulting from
actions taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As many other
states throughout the country similarly passed laws meant to
protect businesses from liability due to COVID-19, the Mellowitz
decision provides a potential avenue for plaintiffs to challenge
laws in other states. Mellowitz demonstrates that employers should
continue to be aware of the potential for class action lawsuits
stemming from response to the COVID-19 pandemic, despite efforts by
Indiana's legislature and other states' legislatures to prevent
such costly, high-risk litigation. [GN]

BARILLA HOLDING : Fails to Avert Deceptive Labeling Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal magistrate judge ruled pasta giant Barilla cannot duck a
class action for false and deceptive advertising, finding consumers
could be misled by the phrase "Italy's #1 brand of pasta" and
believe its products are actually made in Italy.

Matthew Sinatro and Jessica Prost say they purchased multiple boxes
of Barilla spaghetti and angel hair pasta last year because they
thought the products were made in Italy from authentic Italian
ingredients -- a belief reinforced by the replication of the green,
red and white colors of the Italian flag on its signature blue
box.

While the company originated in the 19th century as a bread and
pasta shop in Parma, Italy, Barilla is now headquartered in
Illinois and its pastas are made in Iowa and New York with durum
wheat sourced from countries other than Italy.

In their lawsuit, Sinatro and Prost say Barilla took advantage of
their readiness to pay more for pasta products that look and sound
authentically Italian, and falsely tout their products as such
while "cutting costs and reaping the financial benefits of
manufacturing the products in the United States of America."
Barilla's ad campaign features a website, Barilla Historical
Archive, a Barilla Pasta Museum, and Barilla Academy, which Sinatro
and Prost contend were "all designed to promote the brand and
company's Italian identity."

U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu ruled on Oct. 17 that Sinatro and
Prost have sufficiently shown they suffered an economic injury
because they would not have purchased the pasta had they known it
was not made in Italy.

Their lawsuit bears some similarities to a class action consumers
brought against King's Hawaiian, a Los Angeles-based bakery that
fended off claims that its packaging gives the mistaken impression
its original "Hawaiian" rolls are actually made in Hawaii. Its
label prominently features a three-point crown suggestive of the
crown of a pineapple and includes "Est. 1950," and "Hilo, Hawaii,"
in reference to the company's founding.

In nixing the lawsuit at the pleading stage last year, U.S.
District Judge Phyllis Hamilton wrote, "The mere use of a
geographic reference, including a reference to the company's
historical origin, does not convey a representation about a
product's current origin."

But Ryu rejected Barilla's claim that its packaging likewise
invokes the company's roots in a non-misleading way, ruling that
the labels at issue in the King's Hawaiian case "did not explicitly
connect their origin to the present day. Nor did the labels exist
against the backdrop of a long-standing marketing strategy
expressly connected to a particular geographic location."

Ryu's ruling allows the case to move forward, absent a bid for
injunctive relief because Sinatro and Prost cannot show they would
be harmed in the future by Barilla's alleged misrepresentations
"now that they know where the products are manufactured." [GN]

BOWL AMERICA: Wins in Part Bid to Dismiss 3rd Amended Zucker Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANITA G. ZUCKER, TRUSTEE OF THE ANITA G. ZUCKER TRUST
DATED APRIL 4, 2007, AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED OR RESTATED, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. BOWL AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Case
No. SAG-21-1967 (D. Md.), Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland enters a Memorandum
Opinion:

   a. granting Duff & Phelps Securities LLC's Motion to Dismiss
      the Third Amended Class Action Complaint;

   b. granting in part and denying in part the remaining
      Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; and

   c. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Scheduling Order
      and Discovery.

Following the Court's May 27, 2022 ruling dismissing a number of
the claims asserted in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint
("SAC"), Lead Plaintiffs Anita G. Zucker, Trustee of the Anita G.
Zucker Trust Dated April 4, 2007, as Subsequently Amended or
Restated, and Anita G. Zucker, Trustee of the Article 6 Marital
Trust, Under the First Amended and Restated Jerry Zucker Revocable
Trust Dated April 2, 2007, filed a Third Amended Class Action
Complaint ("TAC") against Defendants Bowl America, Bowlero Corp.,
Duff & Phelps ("D&P"), Cheryl Dragoo, Allan Sher, Merle Fabian,
Gloria Bragg, Nancy Hull, and Ruth Macklin. The TAC is almost
identical to the SAC, with the exception of a single new
jurisdictional allegation in paragraph 31.

The Court granted the Defendants' motion under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Counts I, II, V, and VI without
prejudice. Those dismissed counts included all the claims the
Plaintiffs asserted against the corporate Defendants, Bowl America,
Bowlero, and D&P. The Court granted in part and denied in part the
motion by the remaining individual defendants ("the Director
Defendants") to dismiss Counts III and IV, which asserted claims
for breach of fiduciary duties. The motion to dismiss was denied
only as to the "claim that the Director Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of care and good faith in approving the Company
Termination Fee" as part of a merger transaction.

The TAC reiterates all the allegations and counts from the SAC,
although the Plaintiffs acknowledge that they repeated the contents
of the dismissed claims "solely for the purpose of preserving them
for appeal" and do not expect a different result. They proffer that
the purpose of the TAC was to "amend the allegations related to the
Court's jurisdiction as alleged in paragraph 31 in connection with
the claim the Court ruled was permitted to proceed."

Initially, this Court incorporates by reference and adopts all the
rulings in its May 27, 2022 opinion, as those rulings pertain
equally to the near-identical TAC. As a result of those rulings,
Bowlero, Bowl America, and D&P have no remaining claims against
them and will be terminated as defendants in this case. To the
extent Plaintiffs endeavor to seek any discovery from those
entities, they must be treated as non-parties to this litigation.

With that ruling disposing of the duplicative parts of the TAC,
Judge Gallagher now turns to the remainder of the Defendants'
instant motion. That motion seeks dismissal of the TAC in its
entirety, including the remaining claims against the Director
Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties. While the Plaintiffs
urge the Court to view the Defendants' instant motion as an
untimely motion for reconsideration of its May 27, 2022 ruling,
Judge Gallagher declines to do so, except in part.

The instant motion does ask the Court to reconsider whether the
Plaintiffs have pled a breach of the duties of care and good faith
regarding the Company Termination Fee. Because those issues were
addressed thoroughly in the May 27, 2022 opinion and
reconsideration was not timely requested, Judge Gallagher does not
reconsider those arguments.

The heart of the instant motion to dismiss, however, presents a new
argument: that Bowl America's Charter's exculpation provision bars
Plaintiffs' surviving claims. Consistent with Maryland law, Judge
Gallagher explains that exculpation provision precludes Bowl
America or its stockholders from recovering money damages from the
company's directors, unless the directors received an improper
benefit or acted with deliberate dishonesty.

Initially, the Plaintiffs dispute the Defendants' ability to rely
on the exculpation provision at this stage, arguing such an
argument is precluded by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2)
because the Defendants failed to raise it in their motion to
dismiss the SAC. The Defendants counter that the Plaintiffs'
primary legal theory in support of Counts III and IV was that the
Director Defendants had received an improper benefit -- thereby
taking their conduct outside the exculpation clause -- and it was
only after this Court rejected that theory in its May 27, 2022
ruling that the clause became pertinent.

On balance, Judge Gallagher finds that the Defendants can
appropriately raise the exculpation provision in the instant motion
to dismiss. She says while Rule 12(g)(2) generally precludes a
party from "raising a defense or objection that was available to
the party but omitted from its earlier motion," it does not
prohibit successive Rule 12(b)(6) motions as a categorical matter.
In fact, Rule 12(h)(2) explains that failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted may be raised at various subsequent
stages of the litigation. Courts have therefore permissively
construed Rule 12(g)(2) to allow successive Rule 12(b)(6) motions
when doing so would promote the just and speedy resolution of a
case.

In the present case, Judge Gallagher Court finds that the Court's
May 27, 2022 ruling -- which shifted the focus of the case to a
previously underdeveloped theory of relief -- arguably altered the
landscape of the case to make it unfair to preclude the Defendants
from raising a new argument, even though the Plaintiffs'
substantive allegations did not change.

However, while she may properly consider the Defendants' new Rule
12(b)(6) argument, Judge Gallagher does not deem the argument
meritorious at this stage of the litigation. She agrees with the
Plaintiffs that the exculpation provision is an affirmative
defense. Courts generally do not "'resolve contests surrounding the
facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses'"
through a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. However, "in the relatively rare
circumstances where facts sufficient to rule on an affirmative
defense are alleged in the complaint, the defense may be reached by
a motion to dismiss filed under Rule 12(b)(6)."

In the instant case, the exculpation provision is not referenced in
the Amended Complaint, and Bowl America's Charter is not attached
to the Amended Complaint. Thus, the facts necessary to the
affirmative defense of exculpation do not clearly appear on the
face of the Amended Complaint. Even if they did, Judge Gallagher
points out that the legal standards and analysis underpinning this
Court's dismissal of some of the Plaintiffs' substantive claims do
not align perfectly with the standards of "improper benefit" or
"active and deliberate dishonesty" required to determine the
exculpation provision's applicability. These questions, she says,
which to some degree depend on motive and state of mind, will be
permitted to proceed to discovery. The Defendants can of course
re-raise the exculpation provision as an affirmative defense on a
more fulsome factual record later in the proceeding.

Finally, the Defendants contend that the dismissals without
prejudice in the Court's May 27, 2022 order should convert to
dismissals with prejudice, because Plaintiffs did not seek to amend
those claims in the TAC. Judge Gallagher sees no reason to alter
the Court's previous rulings, which did not mandate amendment,
formally grant the Plaintiffs leave to amend, or prescribe a time
before which amendment must occur. Should the Plaintiffs later seek
leave to amend the dismissed claims, the timeliness and propriety
of their efforts can be appropriately assessed. Judge Gallagher
will not preemptively foreclose such amendment at this stage.

For the reasons set forth, D&P's Motion to Dismiss is granted, as
is the remaining the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, as to
Defendants Bowl America and Bowlero. The claims against those
corporate defendants are dismissed without prejudice and they are
terminated as defendants in the case. Similarly, all counts of the
TAC against the Director Defendants are again dismissed without
prejudice, except the claim that the Director Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties of care and good faith in approving the
Company Termination Fee. A separate Order follows, along with a
scheduling order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/speu3h3z from Leagle.com.


BOWMAR NUTRITION: Modified Schedule & Discovery Order Entered
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bass et al v. Bowmar
Nutrition, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00307-SHL-HCA (D.S. Iowa), the
Hon. Judge Helen C. Adams entered a modified scheduling and
discovery order as follows:

   -- Motions to add parties shall        November 1, 2022
      be filed by:

   -- Motions for leave to amend          December 1, 2022
      pleadings shall be filed by:

   -- The Plaintiff shall designate       February 24, 2023
      class expert witnesses and
      disclose their written reports
      by:

   -- The Defendant shall designate       April 21, 2023
      class expert witnesses and
      disclose their written reports
      by:

   -- The Plaintiff shall designate       May 19, 2023
      rebuttal class expert witnesses
      and disclose their written
      reports by:

   -- Class Discovery shall be            June 2, 2023
      completed by:

   -- Motion for Class Certification      July 14, 2023
      Deadline:

                   Response due:          August 14,

                   Reply due:             September 2, 2023

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D1afOo at no extra charge.[CC]

BP EXPLORATION: Milsap's Bid to Reconsider Witness Exclusion Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENNIS MILSAP v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., SECTION I, Civil Action No. 17-4451 (E.D. La.), Judge Lance M.
Affrick of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana denies the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the
Court's order granting BP's motion in limine to exclude his expert
witness and BP's motion for summary judgment.

Before the Court is a motion by Milsap for reconsideration of the
Court's order granting Defendants BP Exploration & Production,
Inc.; BP America Production Co.; BP p.l.c.; Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc.; Transocean Deepwater, Inc; Transocean Holdings,
LLC; and Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.'s
(collectively, "BP"), motion in limine to exclude the Plaintiff's
expert witness and granting BP's motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiff asserts that, in light of the sanctions recently
ordered against BP by a U.S. Magistrate Judge in this District and
subsequent dismissal without prejudice of the motion in limine and
motion for summary judgment in the same case by another section of
the Court, reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) is warranted. BP opposes the motion.

The lawsuit is a "B3" case arising out of the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. B3 cases involve "claims
for personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil
and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g.,
dispersant)" -- In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in
Gulf of Mexico, on Apr. 20, 2010, No. MDL 2179, 2021 WL 6053613, at
*9 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021) (Barbier, J.).

In the course of the MDL proceedings, Judge Carl Barbier approved
the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement, which included a Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO")
permitting certain class members to sue the defendants for
later-manifested physical conditions. The B3 plaintiffs, by
contrast, either opted out of the class action settlement agreement
or were excluded from its class definition. To prevail on their
claims, the "B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of the
claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals
used during the response."

Mr. Milsap was employed in response to the Deepwater Horizon
("DWH") oil spill. According to his filings, he worked as a member
of the onshore clean-up crew. He claims to have worked for "10-12
hours per day for 5-7 days per week" from May 2010 to December 2011
on the beaches and islands of Mississippi.

The Plaintiff alleges that exposure to crude oil and chemical
dispersants caused him to develop a multitude of adverse medical
conditions, including pharyngitis, sore throat, bronchitis, nasal
congestion, chronic sinusitis, difficulty swallowing, hoarseness,
nosebleeds, chronic rhinitis, facial pain or sinus pain, nasal
discharge, throat irritation, abdominal pain, loss of appetite,
chronic heartburn, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting,
weakness, thrombocytopenia, pleuritic chest pain, shortness of
breath, blurred vision, eye irritation and burning, rash, skin
crusting, dryness/flaking, itching, peeling, scaling, difficulty
walking, headaches, dizziness, depression, and anxiety.

Like other B3 plaintiffs, Milsap sought to support his claims that
exposure to oil and dispersants caused health problems by
introducing medical causation analysis by Dr. Jerald Cook. BP
responded with a motion in limine arguing that Cook's testimony is
scientifically unreliable and therefore inadmissible pursuant to
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
The Court granted that motion and simultaneously granted BP's
motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiff now argues that the Court's orders on BP's motion in
limine and motion for summary judgment should be reconsidered in
light of the Torres-Lugo sanctions, dismissal of BP's motions in
limine and for summary judgment in the same case, and the ongoing
dispute over BP's decision not to collect dermal and biometric data
from cleanup workers. In a single sentence, he characterizes "BP's
failure to collect the data" as possible "anticipatory
spoliation."

Judge Affrick finds that no circumstance is present which justifies
alteration or amendment pursuant to Rule 59(e). He says
reconsideration of the order granting BP's motion in limine and
motion for summary judgment is not "necessary to correct manifest
errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based." Milsap has
presented no new evidence. Reconsideration would not prevent any
"manifest injustice," because the circumstances relied upon by
Milsap are irrelevant to the orders he urges the Court to
reconsider. Finally, Milsap has pointed to no "intervening change
in controlling law."

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3js226x from Leagle.com.


BROCK PIERCE: Rowan Files Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN ROWAN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BROCK PIERCE, an individual, Case No. 3:20-cv-01648-RAM (D.P.R.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting his motion for class certification;

   2. appointing him as representative of the Class;

   3. appoint Kaufman P.A. and Law Offices of Stefan Coleman,
      P.A. as class counsel; and

   4. establishing a deadline for submission of a proposed class
      notice and notice plan.

      Mr. Rowan seeks certification of the following Prerecorded
      No  Consent Class:

      "All persons in the United States who from four years
      prior to the filing of this action through class
      certification (1) Defendant (or an agent acting on behalf
      of the Defendant) called once (2) on their cellular
      telephone number (3) using a pre-recorded voice message
      recorded by the Defendant regarding the 2020 election, and
      (4) whose cellular telephone number appear in records
      purchased by Defendant or on Defendant’s behalf from
      Aristotle, Inc."

In this case, the Plaintiff Rowan asserts one claim for violation
of the TCPA's robocalls provision. Specifically, the TCPA makes it
"unlawful" to "make any call" “using an artificial or prerecorded
voice" to any "telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone
service" without the “prior express consent of the called
party."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 11,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3D3dJ2J
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jairo Mellado-Villarreal, Esq.
          Hector Orejuela-Davila, Esq.
          MELLADO & MELLADO-VILLARREAL
          165 Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 102
          San Juan, PR 00917
          Telephone: (787) 767-2600
          Facsimile: (787) 767-2645
          E-mail: jmellado@mellado.com
                  horejuela@mellado.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28 th FL
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaurmanpa.com

CALGARY STAMPEDE: Law Firm Widens Timeline in Sexual Abuse Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kaufmann, writing for Calgary Herald, reports that the number
of plaintiffs in a class-action suit targeting the Calgary Stampede
and an official with its Young Canadians performance troupe is
growing, said a city law firm.

An increasing number of plaintiffs in the suit, along with new
information emerging on former Young Canadians official Phil
Heerema's sexual abuse of teen boys, has led Jensen Shawa Solomon
Duguid Hawkes LLP to widen the timeline it's seeking for alleged
victims to come forward, said firm associate Cassandra Sutter.

"There's additional information that's come forward in respect to
affected individuals," said Sutter.

"There are additional individuals who came forward as a result of
new information."

As a result, the firm has pushed back its plaintiff eligibility by
three years, to Aug. 1, 1987, through to Jan. 31, 2014.

The firm wouldn't say how many plaintiffs are now involved in the
litigation and Sutter said it's not yet clear what amount of
damages its clients will seek.

Heerema admitted sexually preying on six members of the Young
Canadians who were aged between 15 and 17 years.

He pleaded guilty to eight charges, including sexual assault and
making child pornography, in connection with dealings with teenage
performers under his tutelage, and was sentenced to 10 years in
prison in May 2018.

The class-action suit also includes the Calgary Stampede and
Calgary Stampede Foundation, which it contends "failed to provide a
safe and secure environment free of sexual exploitation and sexual
abuse."

It also alleges the two entities "failed to adequately supervise
Philip Heerema and failed to establish, implement or enforce
adequate policies, practices or procedures to protect class members
against sexual abuse or exploitation."

The law firm also says it's widening the inclusivity of its
litigation by expanding it from males to transgendered individuals
who were male while Heerema was employed with the Young Canadians.

The action continues to include students, contractors, volunteers
or employees who were with the troupe from 1987 to 2014.

Heerema resigned from the Young Canadians in 2014 when police began
investigating sexual-abuse complaints.

Then-Calgary Stampede CEO Warren Connell said in 2018 that Heerema
was escorted from the property within 30 minutes of them learning
of the allegations, adding that the former Young Canadians staffer
tendered his resignation from the Young Canadians two days later.

"From that period on, we've had an ongoing investigation and have
co-operated with the authorities since the beginning," Connell said
in 2018.

Stampede officials have also said they've strengthened protections
for its staff and volunteers.

None of the class action's allegations has been proven in court.
[GN]

CRUSADER INSURANCE: Insurance Dispute Ongoing in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unico American Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 27, 2022, that on March 23,
2021, ten policyholders sued its principal subsidiary Crusader in a
putative class action entitled "Anchors & Whales LLC et al. v.
Crusader Insurance company," Superior court of the State of
California for the County of San Francisco (CGC-21-590999).

The action alleges that Crusader wrongly denied claims for business
interruption coverage made by bars and restaurants related to the
COVID-19 pandemic and related government orders that limited or
halted the operations of bars and restaurants. The action further
alleges that Crusader acted unreasonably in denying the claims, and
it seeks damages the amounts allegedly due as contract benefits
under the insurance policies, attorneys' fees and costs, punitive
damages, and other unspecified damages.

The lawsuit alleges a putative class of all bars and restaurants in
California that were insured by Crusader for loss of business
income, who made such a claim as a result of "one or more
Governmental Orders and the presence of the COVID-19 virus on the
property," and whose claim was denied by Crusader.

On October 1, 2021, Crusader was granted its motions on the
pleadings without leave to amend and the lawsuit was dismissed. On
December 15, 2021, Anchors & Whales LLC filed a notice of appeal
with the California court of Appeals, 1st Appellate District,
Division 2 (A164412). The opening brief of Anchors & Whales LLC was
filed on August 12, 2022.

Unico American Corporation is an insurance holding company based in
California.


DANONE WATERS: Faces Class Action Over "Carbon Neutral" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action alleges the
"carbon neutral" claim on labels of Evian Natural Spring Water is
false given the manufacturing of the product still causes carbon
dioxide (CO2) to be released into the atmosphere.

The 29-page lawsuit says that although defendant Danone Waters of
America may assert that "carbon neutral" means that its investments
in eco-friendly projects "offset" the carbon emissions produced by
manufacturing the bottled water, this explanation is conspicuously
absent from Evian labels and is not how reasonable consumers
understand the term "carbon neutral."

According to the case, the organizations from whom Danone purchases
"carbon credits" do not currently or actually reduce CO2 emissions,
and thus do not "offset" the CO2 emissions created by the company's
production of Evian water "in any manner."

"Defendant's manufacture of the Product still causes CO2 to be
released into the atmosphere, contrary to a reasonable consumer's
understanding of the term 'carbon neutral.' And, even if carbon
neutral is meant to refer to Defendant's offset credits,
Defendant's advertising is still false and misleading under the
FTC's guidelines because the organizations Defendant utilizes also
contribute to pollution and climate change, and any 'offsets' will
not happen for decades."

The suit argues that consumers would not have purchased Evian
water, or would have paid substantially less for it, had they known
Danone's "carbon neutral" claim was untrue.

The technical definition of "carbon neutral" is "having or
resulting in no net addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere,"
the lawsuit explains, noting that "nearly sixty percent" of
consumers do not understand what the "ambiguous and deceptive" term
means. Reasonable consumers often mistake carbon neutral for
"carbon zero" or "carbon free," even though no carbon zero products
exist yet, the suit says.

This widespread misunderstanding exists amid rampant climate
change, the crux of which is the "greenhouse effect," or the
natural warming of Earth that occurs when gases in the atmosphere
trap heat from the sun that would otherwise escape into space. The
suit stresses that greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, from
human activities are by far the most significant driver of climate
change since the mid-20th century.

According to the complaint, Danone Waters of America is among the
companies that have "deviated" from the more technical definition
of "carbon neutral" and have instead adopted the "carbon offset"
definition, claiming to offset their CO2 emissions with
agroforestry projects, such as planting trees, which "theoretically
sequester" the same amount of CO2 that the entity's manufacturing
produces.

Notwithstanding that reasonable consumers simply "do not
understand" that this is what companies mean when they claim to be
"carbon neutral," the "carbon offset" definition is still false
given many of the promised carbon savings are difficult to measure
or never happen, the lawsuit says. Per the case, companies' use of
this term is essentially "greenwashing" meant to capitalize on
consumers' desire, and willingness to pay more, for eco-friendly
products.

"Carbon neutral companies still release CO2 into the atmosphere.
Further, even when companies claim carbon neutrality, the carbon
offsetting market 'is awash with challenges, fuzzy math and
tough-to-prove claims.' For these reasons, many criticize the
carbon offset economy as a form of greenwashing because it allows
corporations to 'buy complacency, political apathy[,] and
self-satisfaction.'"

The filing alleges that regardless of whether the technical or
"carbon offset" definition of "carbon neutral" is used, Danone's
claims that Evian bottled water is a "carbon neutral" product are
still "deceptive and misleading." In truth, the product "does in
fact leave a carbon footprint" since the Evian bottled water's
lifecycle releases CO2 into the atmosphere, meaning the product is
not "carbon neutral" as a reasonable consumer would understand the
term, the lawsuit alleges.

Further, even if the defendant claims its investments in
purportedly eco-friendly projects offset the CO2 produced by the
manufacture of Evian bottled water, transporting the product, and
the minimally recyclable plastic used during manufacture,
nevertheless release relatively large volumes of CO2 into the
atmosphere, the complaint relays.

Rather than actually reduce or eliminate its CO2 pollution, Danone
instead co-founded the Livelihood Carbon Funds (LCF), the suit
says. Per the case, corporations invest in LCF, and the fund in
turn provides "upfront financing" to developers for large-scale
project implementation and maintenance over one or two decades. The
investing corporations, in exchange, receive "result-based
payments" for the risk they bear in the form of carbon credits, the
lawsuit reads.

"In other words, the Product's lifecycle produces CO2 and Defendant
contributes money to LCF, which invests that money in agroforestry
projects," the complaint reads. "Rather than a monetary return on
investment, Defendant receives carbon offset credits that
theoretically neutralize the Product's CO2 emissions."

The lawsuit argues that by representing Evian bottled water as
"carbon neutral," Danone implies that the CO2 produced during
manufacturing has already been offset, or will be offset "in the
near future." However, according to the LFC website, it takes 10 to
20 years for the fund's projects to be implemented, the case
contests.

"Therefore, contrary to Defendant's express representations, the
Product is not carbon neutral," the suit charges.

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons in the United States who
have purchased Evian Natural Spring Water touted on product labels
as "carbon neutral." [GN]

DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Judge Approves $2.35-MM Data Breach Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that class action
mavericks Ted Frank of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and Jay
Edelson of the Edelson firm have long argued that nationwide class
action settlements should reflect variations in state consumer laws
that make some claims more valuable than others.

Sometimes that proposition is obvious, like in biometric privacy
cases that have acknowledged Illinois' groundbreaking data
protection statute or in antitrust class action settlements that
have distinguished between class members from states that allow
consumers to assert claims and those from states that bar claims by
end-use purchasers.

But courts overseeing run-of-the-mill data breach class actions,
for the most part, haven't been impressed with calls for subclasses
to account for variations in state laws. Last year, for instance,
when the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld approval of the
$380.5 million Equifax Inc data breach settlement, the appeals
court explicitly rejected Frank's assertion of an intra-class
conflict based on potential statutory damages claims available to
plaintiffs from Utah and the District of Columbia. The 11th Circuit
held that Frank hadn't show those claims actually had value.

That context is why I was intrigued by an Oct. 14 decision from
U.S. Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford of Dallas. Rutherford
recommended that U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade grant preliminary
approval to a nationwide $2.35 million settlement of data breach
claims against restaurant chain Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants Inc.
Rutherford explicitly endorsed a provision of the deal that allows
a subclass of California plaintiffs to receive twice as much in
cash as other class members.

"Equitable treatment is not synonymous with equal treatment," wrote
Rutherford in weighing whether the carve-out for California class
members accords with the federal rules for class actions.
California's Consumer Privacy Act, the judge said, allows data
breach victims to recover statutory damages of $100 to $750 -- but
class members from other states may only be entitled to nominal or
incidental damages. Therefore, Rutherford concluded, the
settlement's provision allowing California class members to claim
$100 from the Dickey's fund, rather than the $50 available to
everyone else, is justifiable.

In fact, the magistrate said, if the settlement had not accounted
for the relative strength of Californians' claims, "it would likely
not be equitable."

One caveat: Rutherford was authorized only to provide a
recommendation to Kinkeade, not actually to grant preliminary
approval. So there's a chance that the trial judge will disagree
with her analysis of the California subclass. Nevertheless, it's
significant that a judge has found variations in state data
protection laws to be sufficiently material to require different
recoveries for class members.

It's also notable that the California subclass was built into the
proposed settlement by the interim class counsel who negotiated the
agreement with Dickey's. In their brief requesting preliminary
approval, plaintiffs' lawyers from Barnow and Associates, Chimicles
Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith, and Morgan & Morgan (along with
five other firms) argued that the California subclass was intended
to acknowledge that if the case had gone to a jury, California
claimants would have had the strongest claims.

A different group of plaintiffs lawyers objected to bigger
recoveries for the California subclass, among other elements of the
settlement. You need some background the understand the dispute
among plaintiffs firms. After Dickey's disclosed a breach that
allowed hackers to access its computer systems between April 2019
and October 2020, plaintiffs' lawyers filed a half-dozen suits in
courts around the country. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation declined to consolidate the lawsuits but encouraged
plaintiffs lawyers to cooperate on a resolution.

While the case was still in early stages of litigation, Dickey's
counsel from Greenberg Traurig engaged in mediation with some --
but not all -- of the plaintiffs' firms that had filed class
actions. The company reached an agreement with many of those firms.
But after the Barnow, Chimicles and Morgan & Morgan firms moved for
preliminary approval of the deal, some firms that had not been part
of the mediation objected to the settlement. Another set did not
formally object to the proposed agreement but filed a motion to be
appointed class counsel instead of the firms backing the
settlement.

The objecting plaintiffs' firms argued that the settlement did not
justify disparate treatment for the California subclass.
California's consumer data protection statute, the objectors said,
is similar to other states' laws, except for its damages provision,
so it is "fundamentally unfair" to allow Californians to claim
twice as much cash as other class members.

The plaintiffs' firms that negotiated the deal responded that
objectors had breezed past the significance of the California law's
generous statutory damages. "Recognizing the significant value of
claims providing statutory damages in the structure of a data
breach settlement is not new," they asserted, although they cited
only one case in support (and that case, which involved a different
California data privacy statute, did not feature a California
subclass).

I emailed interim class counsel to ask whether Rutherford's
endorsement of the California subclass might lead to more
objections to proposed data breach settlements if those settlements
fail to carve out subclasses. They did not respond to my query.

The plaintiffs firms that formally objected to the Dickey's
settlement -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel and Gray Reed
-- and those that sought appointment as class counsel instead of
the firms that negotiated the deal -- Kendall Law Group, Balon B.
Bradley Law Firm and MoginRubin -- also didn't respond to my
queries.

Frank said by email that he has not formally tracked whether
settlements are increasingly likely to include subclasses based on
variations in state consumer laws, though he said it "feels like
I've seen this a few times now." (Frank noted that such subclasses
are already common in consumer antitrust class actions.)

If Frank's anecdotal sense is right, the data privacy subclass
trend will be a small boost from Rutherford's new ruling in the
Dickey's case -- and a bigger one if Kinkeade adopts the
magistrate's reasoning when he rules on preliminary approval of the
deal. [GN]

EARGO INC: Court Consolidates Three Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------
EARGO, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for the current report
dated October 3, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 3, 2022, that on January 5, 2022, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California consolidated
three purported securities class actions brought against the
company.

While the lead plaintiffs had not yet filed a consolidated amended
complaint, the complaints of the individual lawsuits filed prior to
the consolidation generally alleged that certain of the company's
disclosures about its business, operations and prospects, including
reimbursements from third-party payors, violated federal securities
laws.

EARGO, Inc. is a medical devices company based in California.


EISEN & SON: Fails to Pay Chef, Dishwashers' Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILIO MELCHOR RUIZ, GRACIELA HERNANDEZ LOPEZ, LETICIA LUIS
ANTONIO, and PABLO MORALES, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. EISEN & SON, INC. (D/B/A LASAGNA CHELSEA
RESTAURANT) and VADIM HONIG Case No. 1:22-cv-08644 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
12, 2022) seek to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and cost, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed as chefs, dish washers, and food
preparers at Lasagna Chelsea Restaurant located at 196 8th Ave, New
York.

   -- Mr. Melchor was employed from 2015 to May 6, 2022 and
       was working for 56 hours per week.

   -- Ms. Hernadez was employed from May 1, 2021 to March 26,
      2022 and was working for 91 hours per week.

   -- Ms Luis was employed from September 15, 2021 to May 6,
      2022, and was working for 43 to 47.5 hours per week.

   -- Mr. Morales was employed by from 2005 to May 7, 2022, and
      was working for 58 hours per week.

Eisen & Son is doing business in restaurant industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Ford Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
KAVON FORD, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. EMPRESS AMBULANCE SERVICE LLC D/B/A EMPRESS
EMS, Case No. 7:22-cv-08679 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2022) sues the
Defendant for its failure to safeguard the Plaintiff and 318,558
other individuals' private and confidential information, including
their names, dates of service, Social Security numbers, and
insurance information.

Allegedly, this action arises from a data breach whereby
unauthorized, third party actors gained access to the Defendant's
network on May 26, 2022. The Defendant did not detect this
unauthorized access until July 14, 2022. The hackers "copied a
small subset of files on July 13, 2022" according to the
Defendant's Notice of Data Breach; however, this is a gross
understatement of what actually occurred: the negligent compromise
of nearly 1/3rd of a million people's most sensitive personally
identifiable information, says the suit.

Additionally, according to a data breach reporting website,
databreaches.net, Hive, a notorious ransomware hacking group was
not only responsible for the Data Breach as alleged herein and had
communications with Empress after downloading data contained on
Defendant's server. By no means was this Data Breach merely "a
small subset of files" being compromised -- it was a calculated,
targeted highly sophisticated ransomware attack perpetrated by a
complex, notorious ransomware hacking group which downloaded and
exposed a massive amount of PII, the Plaintiff contends.

Empress Ambulance is an emergency medical services and aftercare
transportation provider in New York state.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake Hunter Yagman
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: byagman@milberg.com

FARMERS GROUP: Seeks Clarification on Class Cert Order
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Taqueria El Primo LLC,
Victor Manuel Delgado Jimenez, Mitchelle Chavez Solis, El Chinelo
Produce, Inc., Virginia Sanchez-Gomez, Benjamin Tarnowski, on
behalf of and others similarly situated, v. Farmers Group, Inc.,
Truck Insurance Exchange, Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.,
Insurance Exchange, Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, and Century
Insurance Company, Case No. 0:19-cv-03071-JRT-DJF (D. Minn.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order clarifying the Court's
Order on class certification and Order approving class notice and a
notice plan, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a).

In the alternative, the Defendants move to amend the Class
Certification Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c), in order to
set an end date for the Damages Class currently defined as
purchasers of no-fault insurance in Minnesota that purchased auto
insurance from Defendants "on or after January 13, 2013."

The Defendants propose the class definition be clarified or amended
as follows:

   "All persons or entities that purchased an insurance policy
    on or after January 17, 2013 through December 28, 2021,
    within the state of Minnesota, from any of the Defendant
    Insurers that provided for medical expense benefits under
    Minnesota's No Fault Act."

Farmers Group operates as an insurance management and holding
company.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 12, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VC6ciR at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by

         Marc A. Al, Esq.
         Emily C. Atmore, Esq.
         John T. Katuska, Esq.
         STOEL RIVES LLP
         33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 373-8801
         Facsimile: (612) 373-8881
         E-mail: marc.al@stoel.com
                 emily.atmore@stoel.com
                 john.katuska@stoel.com

              - and -

         Timothy W. Snider,Esq.
         760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
         Portland, OR 97205
         Telephone: (503) 294-9557
         Facsimile: (503) 220-2480
         E-mail: timothy.snider@stoel.com

FASTEST MEDIA: Auberry Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fastest Media LLC.
The case is styled as Montrez Auberry, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Fastest Media LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-12426-BAF-CI (E.D. Mich., Oct. 11, 2022).

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

Fast Media LLC -- https://www.thefastestmedia.com/ -- is a Media
Buying/Planning agency from Austin, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
          950 W University Dr., Ste. 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Phone: (248) 841-2200
          Email: ssa@millerlawpc.com
                 epm@millerlawpc.com


FESMIRE & WILLIAMS: Fuentes Files Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fesmire & Williams,
Attorneys at Law, et al. The case is styled as Ana Fuentes,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Fesmire & Williams, Attorneys at Law, Does 1 through 100,
Inclusive, Case No. CGC22602302 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., Oct. 11, 2022).

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

Fesmire & Williams -- https://www.fesmirewilliams.com/ -- is a firm
serving Indio, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12th St., Ste. 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607-5009
          Phone: 510-891-9800
          Fax: 510-891-7030
          Email: cab@colevannote.com


FORD MOTOR: Class Actions Ongoing Amid Supply Chain Woes
--------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that over
the past several months, Ford Motor Co. has dealt with class action
lawsuits, a class action settlement, a recall, a price hike, supply
chain woes and a lawsuit of its own.

Ford faced claims earlier this month that it sold certain vehicles
with defective water pumps that could suffer a sudden internal
breakdown, leading to a "catastrophic" engine failure.

The driver behind the class action lawsuit claims thousands of Ford
vehicles manufactured with a Cyclone engine -- which the automaker
allegedly put in its vehicles from 2007 to at least 2020 -- contain
faulty internal water pumps.

Ford is accused of knowing about the water pump defect issue for
more than a decade but, rather than fixing or disclosing the issue,
continued to sell affected vehicles while not having the issue
covered under its warranty.

"Not only does Ford represent that the water pump will not need to
be serviced or maintained, but the internal location of the water
pump in the engine conceals it from view and inspection when other
routine service is being performed on the Class Vehicles," the Ford
class action states.

Ford faced a separate class action lawsuit last month alleging it
knowingly sold its Ford Super Duty pick-up truck with a defective
roof that was prone to collapsing in the event of a rollover crash.


The Ford Super Duty truck rollover class action lawsuit was filed
only weeks after a jury in Georgia ruled Ford must pay $1.7 billion
in punitive damages to the family of a married couple who were
killed after their roof collapsed during an accident involving
their 2002 F-250 Super Duty.

"This catastrophic injury and death risk is the direct result of a
design defect that was known to Ford and is still unremedied by
Ford," the Ford class action states.

Ford recalls certain vehicles over cloudy camera lenses, faces
shortage of badges, nameplates
Ford initiated a recall last month for certain model year 2017-2020
F-Super Duty F-250, F-350, F-450, and 2017-2020 Lincoln Continental
vehicles over concerns their rearview cameras have cloudy lenses.

"Degradation of the camera's anti-reflective lens coating can lead
to a foggy or cloudy rear view camera image," the Ford recall says.


The recalled rearview camera was introduced into production by Ford
in November 2015 and subsequently removed from production in March
2020, according to the Ford recall.

Also last month, Ford revealed it is facing a shortage of blue oval
badges and nameplates the auto manufacturer affixes to almost all
of its vehicles.

The shortage reportedly is on account of a yearslong supply-chain
issue affecting the availability of, among other things, parts such
as semiconductor chips, wire harnesses and other raw materials.

Ford reportedly said that the supply chain issues have forced it to
delay shipment of between 40,000 to 45,000 vehicles to its
dealers.

Ford increases price of F-150 Lighting electric pickup trucks, Ford
Canada agrees to pay $82 to end collusion claims
In August, Ford announced it would be increasing the sale price of
its F-150 Lightning electric pickup trucks by $7,000 — and by
$8,500 for more highly equipped models — due to "significant
material cost increases."

The price bump increases the cost of Ford's basic F-150 Lightning
electric pickup trucks from $40,000 to $47,000.

Customers who had already pre-ordered a Ford F-150 Lightning
electric pickup truck for purchase at the original price of $40,000
will not be affected by the price increase, according to the
automaker.

Also in August, Ford Canada agreed to pay $82 million in order to
resolve claims it colluded with other automakers to block vehicle
exporting.

The class action settlement was made in order to benefit a
California class of consumers who had either purchased or leased
certain makes of vehicles, including Ford, Dodge, Chrysler and
Infiniti, among others.

Ford Canada had been accused of violating California's Cartwright
Act by allegedly working with General Motors, Volvo, Honda, Toyota
and Nissan, among others, to keep new vehicles from being exported
from Canada into the United States.

Ford claims companies sold counterfeit parts, confusing customers
Ford filed a lawsuit of its own in August, meanwhile, against three
American companies and one Chinese company it accused of
manufacturing and selling counterfeit Ford parts.

The automaker claims the companies -- along with several unknown
individuals -- had been manufacturing and selling counterfeit Ford
parts out of warehouses for as long as two years.

Ford argues the alleged sale of the counterfeit parts has confused
its customers and harmed both its business and its goodwill with
consumers. [GN]

FRESH VENTURE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Navas Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN NAVAS, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v.
FRESH VENTURE FOODS, LLC, Defendant and Appellant, 2d Civ. No.
B312888 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
Second District, Division Six, affirms the trial court's order
denying the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.

Fresh Venture Foods (FVF) appeals an order denying its motion to
compel arbitration of a lawsuit filed against it for wages and
damages by Plaintiffs Juan Navas, Martha Herrera Lopez, and
Benjamin Hernandez Ramos.

The Plaintiffs and other FVF employees filed a class action lawsuit
against FVF alleging, among other things, that the company did not
pay minimum wages and overtime wages. They also alleged a Private
Attorney Generals Act (PAGA) cause of action (Lab. Code, Sections
2698, 2699) for civil penalties "for themselves and other current
and former employees" for "labor law violations."

In 2021, FVF filed a motion "to compel arbitration" of the claims
made by Navas, Lopez, and Ramos. It claimed they signed arbitration
agreements and agreed to arbitrate their individual claims against
it and "give up the right to represent others in litigation or to
participate in any class, collective, or representative action in a
court of law."

Navas, Lopez, and Ramos claimed they did not recognize the
purported arbitration agreement or the signatures on them.
Moreover, the agreement presented by FVF contained unconscionable
provisions.

The trial court found FVF did not prove Lopez and Ramos entered
into arbitration agreements. The arbitration agreement signed by
Navas was procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Among
other things, it contained "an acknowledgement that a waiver of
PAGA rights occurred." The court alternatively found that even if
the agreement is valid, it had to be stayed. This is because a
lawsuit Navas and others filed against FVF involved common issues
of law and fact resulting in the possibility of conflicting
adjudications between an arbitration and court action.

In short, the trial court found: 1) FVF did not prove Lopez and
Ramos signed the agreements, and 2) "consent cannot be implied from
the circumstances."

First, FVF contends Ramos and Lopez were evasive, not credible, and
the trial court did not credit the declaration from its witness.
Credibility is decided exclusively by the trial court and we do not
weigh the evidence. On a motion to compel arbitration, the "trial
court sits as a trier of fact." If there are evidentiary conflicts,
those in favor of the prevailing party must be considered
established. The Court of Appeals opines that the evidence is
sufficient.

The trial court found that "Navas testified that he understood that
if he did not initial the arbitration document, he would not have
been hired." It found "the 'take it or leave it' basis renders the
Agreement procedurally unconscionable." Navas testified he did not
"agree to the content of" the agreement, but he was told "it's a
requirement."

The Court of Appeals finds that an agreement "imposed on employees
as a condition of employment" with "no opportunity to negotiate" is
an "adhesive" contract which may be procedurally unconscionable.
"Private arbitration" may "'become an instrument of injustice
imposed on a "take it or leave it" basis.'" As Navas notes, the
facts show "there was an absence of real negotiation or meaningful
choice" for him. FVF used its superior bargaining power to draft an
agreement with provisions favorable for itself and gave it to him
on a "take it or leave it basis."

This supports the finding of procedural unconscionability,
according to the Court of Appeals. But, it holds that procedural
unconscionability alone is not sufficient to find the agreement is
unenforceable. There must also be substantive unconscionability.
With a high degree of procedural unconscionability, "even a
relatively low degree of substantive unconscionability may suffice
to render the agreement unenforceable."

Next, the unconscionability doctrine ensures that contracts that
contain terms that are "overly harsh," "unduly oppressive," or are
"so one-sided as to "shock the conscience"" are not enforced.

Mr. Navas claims the arbitration agreement is unconscionable
because it did not mention discovery rights. But the absence of
such a provision does not make it unconscionable because the right
to discovery is guaranteed by section 1283.05, subdivision (a),
which provides, in relevant part, "The parties to the arbitration
will have the right to take depositions and obtain discovery." An
employer who agrees to arbitrate claims impliedly "consents" to a
procedure that allows for discovery.

Mr. Navas then claims the arbitration agreement was unenforceable
because it "requires employees to renounce their right to bring a
PAGA action," and such a waiver makes the agreement substantively
unconscionable.

Under PAGA, an "aggrieved employee" may file a civil action against
an employer for "a civil penalty" for violations of the Labor Code
"on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former
employees." FVF unilaterally declared a right to forfeit an
employee's individual PAGA claim without first: 1) explaining to
the Spanish-speaking employee what is an individual PAGA claim, and
2) obtaining the employee's consent to waive the right to file an
individual PAGA claim in court.

The Court of Appeals holds that the trial court correctly found the
agreement improperly contains "an acknowledgement" that "the right
to self-representation" in PAGA cases had been waived, and it does
so prematurely, without an employee's consent, and as part of an
automatic forfeiture before the employment relationship is
established. An employee with an individual PAGA claim "is free to
forgo the option of pursuing a PAGA action. But it is against
public policy for an employment agreement to deprive employees of
this option altogether, before any dispute arises."

The trial court also found the provision providing a "Waiver of
Individuals to Self-Representation in Trials" was ambiguous and
invalid. Where an arbitration agreement is "uncertain regarding a
material term," it "cannot be enforced." Navas claimed this
provision meant employees had to hire counsel at arbitrations and
they could not afford it. FVF claims it did not intend that
result.

But this explanation was not included in the agreement, the
provision was conclusory and open ended, and FVF has not shown
error, the Court of Appeals finds. In the case, the written
agreement has been prepared entirely by the employer, any
ambiguities must be construed against the drafting employer."

The arbitration agreement's terms also are primarily one-sided in
favor of FVF. The agreement provides it "will be valid for all
legal claims between FVF and the employee." But it then
specifically describes the type of "Covered Claims" that fall
within arbitration. The agreement also provides that it will not
"excuse the employee from utilizing the internal complaint
procedures of FVF." But because those procedures are not described,
the employee does not know what he or she is agreeing to.

FVF claims the trial court erred by not severing these provisions
and enforcing the remainder of the agreement. But, according to the
Court of Appeals, whether to sever is within the trial court's
discretion. Given the number of challenged provisions, the trial
court could reasonably find severance was not an acceptable option.
But even so, the trial court alternatively found that even if the
agreement is valid, its enforcement would have to be stayed because
of the lawsuit Navas filed against FVF.

Finally, the trial court stayed the enforcement of Navas'
arbitration agreement based on section 1281.2, subdivision (c).
That provision gives the court the authority to decline to order
arbitration in cases where, "a party to the arbitration agreement
is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding
with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series
of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting
rulings on a common issue of law or fact.

The trial court found that Navas, Lopez, and Ramos "are the
plaintiffs, along with three others" and they "each allege wage and
hour violations as well as PAGA claims" against FVF. Their claims
"arise out of the same transaction or series of related
transactions" with the claims of the other plaintiffs who are not
subject to arbitration. All six plaintiffs worked for FVF "within
the last four years of the filing of the complaint, likely at
overlapping times. While damages may vary, liability should not,
and that is where there is a potential of conflicting rulings.

FVF contends the trial court erred by applying section 1281.2,
subdivision (c) because this provision is not authorized by the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). It notes the agreement provides,
"This arbitration Agreement is governed by the FAA." This means the
validity of the agreement's terms is decided under FAA standards.

The Court of Appeals holds that the parties did not agree that the
procedures involving arbitration would be exclusively determined by
federal law. The arbitration agreement refers to California
arbitration law procedures. The parties expressly incorporated
California arbitration law. Moreover, in Cronus Investments, Inc.
v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376, 380, the state Supreme
Court held that the FAA "does not preempt the application of
section 1281.2, subdivision (c)."It does not conflict with the
applicable provisions of the FAA and does not undermine or
frustrate the FAA's substantive policy favoring arbitration."
Hence, FVF has not shown the trial court erred.

Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals concludes, among other
things, that: 1) FVF did not prove a valid and enforceable
arbitration agreement with Lopez and Ramos; 2) the arbitration
agreement with Navas was procedurally and substantively
unconscionable; and 3) the trial court did not err by alternatively
ruling that if the agreement is valid, enforcement of it would be
stayed.

Accordingly, it affirms the judgment. The costs on appeal are
awarded in favor of the Respondents.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p9t97ev from Leagle.com.

Mullen & Henzell, Rafael Gonzalez -- rgonzalez@mullenlaw.com -- and
Brian T. Daly -- bdaly@mullenlaw.com -- for Defendant and Appellant
Fresh Venture Foods.

Mallison & Martinez, Stan S. Mallison -- stanm@themmlawfirm.com --
Hector R. Martinez -- hectorm@themmlawfirm.com -- and Heather M.
Hamilton -- hhamilton@themmlawfirm.com -- for Plaintiffs and
Respondents Juan Navas, Martha Herrera Lopez, and Benjamin
Hernandez Ramos.


GEICO INDEMNITY: Loses Reconsideration Bid of June 2, 2022 Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMARA EWING, et al., v.
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00165-MTT (M.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Marc T. Treadwell entered an order denying the
GEICO's motion for reconsideration of the Court's class
certification order on June 2, 2022.

The Court granted class certification on May 19, 2022. The
Defendants moved for reconsideration of the Court's class
certification order on June 2, 2022. After briefing, the Court held
a hearing on GEICO's motion on August 3, 2022. Following that
hearing, the parties conducted additional discovery, and the Court
held a status co ference on October 7, 2022. Because the issues
raised by GEICO have been resolved, GEICO's motion for
reconsideration is denied.

GEICO Indemnity Company operates as an insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ELtDA8 at no extra charge.[CC]


GENESCO INC: Wiretaps Journeys.com Website Visitors, Licea Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GENESCO, INC., a Tennessee corporation; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-01567-BEN-KSC (S.D. Cal.,
Oct. 12, 2022) alleges that the Defendant secretly wiretaps the
private conversations of everyone who communicates through the chat
feature at www.journeys.com and allows at least one third party to
eavesdrop on such communications in real time and during
transmission to harvest data for financial gain in violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Defendant does not obtain visitors' consent to either the
wiretapping or the eavesdropping. As a result, the Defendant has
violated the CIPA in numerous ways. Specifically, to enable the
wiretapping, the Defendant has covertly embedded code into its chat
feature that automatically records and creates transcripts of all
such conversations. To enable the eavesdropping, the Defendant
allows at least one independent third-party vendor to secretly
intercept, eavesdrop upon, and store transcripts of Defendant's
chat communications with unsuspecting website visitors -- even when
such conversations are private and deeply personal, the Plaintiff
adds.

Genesco is a Tennessee corporation that owns, operates, and/or
controls the www.journeys.com website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Settles Insurance Class Action for $25 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Ress, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that
Genworth Financial is settling a class action lawsuit that asserted
increases of 40% to 140% on the biggest component of one type of
life insurance premium were excessive and unlawful.

The Henrico County-based insurance giant is settling the lawsuit
for $25 million and a promise not to raise the so-called "cost of
insurance" element of its charges for universal life insurance
policies for the next seven years.

The settlement, approved by Judge David J. Novak of the U.S.
District Court in Richmond, could affect more than 13,400
policyholders.

At issue were cost of insurance increases that took effect in
December 2019 on universal life policies Genworth issued, insured
or assumed, as it did, for instance, when it acquired First Colony
Life Insurance.

Premiums for universal life insurance, which combines a death
benefit with an investment account, are flexible, and the biggest
element in determining how much policyholders pay is called the
"cost of insurance rate."

While the cost of insurance charge is supposed to primarily cover
projected future death claims, Genworth's actual experience was
that people were living longer and that claims were not made at the
rate it had expected when selling the policies as long as 20 years
ago, the lawsuit said.

"For such an increase to be justified [Genworth]'s projected
mortality rates would have had to double," said the lawsuit, filed
by a New York trust and an Iowa policyholder.

But at the same time, Genworth was saying a pattern of longer lives
and fewer than expected death claims were the main reason for
premium increases for its long-term care insurance valued at $11.5
billion between 2012 and 2019, the lawsuit said, quoting a company
conference call with Wall Street analysts.

In settling, Genworth denied any wrongdoing.

A company spokeswoman declined comment.

"With this settlement, cash will be returned to the policyholders,
likely before the end of the year," said Seth Ard, one of the
lawyers from the Los Angeles Susman Godfrey law firm that brought
the case. [GN]

GORTON'S INC: Judge Allows Greenwashing Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth A. Cassady, Esq., and Surya Kundu, Esq., of Steptoe &
Johnson, in an article for Mondaq, report that a federal judge in
Massachusetts recently allowed a class action suit alleging
greenwashing claims to proceed over defendant, Gorton's Inc.'s,
motion to dismiss.1 Following the court's ruling, the parties
agreed to settle the lawsuit. But the decision (like other recent
rulings against seafood companies) further underscores the need for
companies to exercise caution in the stormy seas of sustainability
advertising as regulators and consumers continue to raise legal
challenges to companies' climate and sustainability statements.

The lawsuit, Spindel et al. v. Gorton's Inc., was filed in April by
two consumers -- New York resident Jeffrey Alan Spindel and
California resident Kevin McCarthy -- in the seafood company's home
state of Massachusetts.2 In it, the plaintiffs alleged that Gorton
had deceptively marketed certain frozen tilapia products as
"sustainably sourced" despite the fish being farmed, at least in
part, in China using allegedly "environmentally destructive and
inhumane" practices. The 35-page complaint relied, in large part,
on reports about imported tilapia generally -- such as past
incidents of the FDA rejecting Chinese imported tilapia for
containing certain chemicals and statements from the Monterey Bay
Aquarium Seafood Watch airing sustainability concerns over Chinese
tilapia farming. Plaintiffs also pointed to independent lab-testing
allegedly demonstrating that Gorton's tilapia contained ethoxyquin,
a preservative that is banned for use in fish feed in the European
Union but not in the US.

Gorton's moved to dismiss in June, arguing that while some of the
fish did come from Chinese farms, every farm in its supply chain
followed aquaculture best practices.3 Gorton's also argued that the
EU's ban on ethoxyquin was irrelevant, and that not only were the
levels well within what the FDA permitted for use in fish feeds,
the chemical traces detected by the lab-testing could also have
included the spices added to the fish products far later in the
manufacturing process and thereby be irrelevant to the "sustainably
sourced" claim. Gorton's motion was further supported by two amici
-- The New England Aquarium and the Global Seafood Alliance --
attesting to Gorton's use of credible third‑party certification
to evaluate the quality of the Chinese tilapia farms. The amici
also disputed plaintiffs' allegations that farmed fish was
inherently unsustainable.

In her August 24 ruling, Judge Saris acknowledged that while
farm-raised fish could still be sustainably sourced, plaintiffs
nevertheless had asserted a "plausible (albeit hotly disputed)
claim" regarding Gorton's specific farms using unsustainable
practices and that this factual dispute could not be resolved by a
motion to dismiss. On September 19, the parties announced that they
had reached an agreement to settle the claims and resolve the
lawsuit.4

Judge Saris' Spindel ruling follows closely on the heels of the
Northern District of Illinois' May ruling in Rawson et. al v. ALDI,
Inc., refusing to dismiss similar claims regarding farm-raised
salmon products.5 These rulings illustrate the litigation risk
attendant to sustainability statements and the potential for claims
based on generalized evidence to proceed past the motion to dismiss
stage, leaving companies on the hook for hefty legal fees and
burdensome discovery. Even defendants like Gorton's, which had the
support of industry groups, can still find themselves caught in the
net of plaintiffs trawling the murky waters of greenwashing claims.
  

Companies should examine all green marketing carefully to ensure
that all sustainability claims are clearly and accurately explained
in consumer-friendly language and have underlying support.
Companies may also consider proactively integrating evidence from
third parties into their consumer-facing marketing, as additional
support for any claimed environmental or health benefits. Finally,
the ongoing focus on sustainability practices along a manufacturer
and/or retailer's supply chain underscores the importance of
proactively investigating suppliers and vendors.

Footnotes
1 Spindel v. Gortons, Inc., No. CV 22-10599-PBS, 2022 WL 3648823
(D. Mass. Aug. 24, 2022)

2 Complaint filed April 21, 2022, Spindel v. Gortons, Inc., No. CV
22-10599-PBS (D. Mass.)

3 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed June 22,
2022, Spindel v. Gortons, Inc., No. CV 22-10599-PBS (D. Mass.).

4 Settlement Order of Dismissal filed Sept. 14, 2022, Spindel v.
Gortons, Inc., No. CV 22-10599-PBS (D. Mass.).

5 Rawson v. ALDI, Inc., No. 21-CV-2811, 2022 WL 1556395 (N.D. Ill.
May 17, 2022). [GN]

I.C. SYSTEM: Court Dismisses Lahu FDCPA Suit Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALBONA LAHU, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 20-6732 (D.N.J.), Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss Lahu's putative class-action
complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

The matter arises out of a debt owed by the Plaintiff on a medical
account, and subsequent debt collection efforts made by the
Defendant.

The Plaintiff alleges that on May 30, 2019, the Defendant mailed
her a collection letter to recover the debt owed on her medical
account. In the top right corner of the letter, under a header
labeled "Account Summary," the letter states that she owed a debt
in the amount of $50 and a collection charge of $8.50, for total
balance of $58.50. The letter also indicated that, as of its
mailing, the Plaintiff had not satisfied any portion of the debt.

As no portion of the debt had been paid, the Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendant was not entitled to charge a collection fee. She
further contends that this "false statement" -- i.e., the
Defendant's representation that it was entitled to a collection fee
-- "makes the least sophisticated consumer uncertain as to the
amount allegedly owned, how to properly prioritize their expenses
versus their indebtedness and uncertain as to actual amount."

In addition to information regarding how much the Plaintiff
purportedly owed on her debt, the letter also represented that the
Defendant would report the Plaintiff's "account information to the
national credit reporting agencies in her creditor's name."
However, according to the Plaintiff, the Defendant never made any
such report to a credit agency, nor did it ever intend to do so.

Finally, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's name -- I.C.
Systems, Inc. -- was visible to the public through the glassine
window of the envelope in which the debt collection letter was
sent.

On June 1, 2020, the Plaintiff filed this putative class-action
against Defendant and other unnamed defendants, alleging that the
Defendant's collection letter constitutes per se violations of
various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"): 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(2)(A),
1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692f, 1692f(1), 1692f(8), 1692g, and
1692g(a)(1).

The Defendant then filed the instant motion to dismiss on March 17,
2022, arguing that the Plaintiff lacked Article III standing to
bring her claims. The Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 14,
2022, to which the Defendant replied on May 9, 2022.

Judge Cecchi explains that to establish standing, a plaintiff must
satisfy a three-part test, showing: "(1) an 'injury in fact,' i.e.,
an actual or imminently threatened injury that is 'concrete and
particularized' to the plaintiff; (2) causation, i.e., traceability
of the injury to the actions of the defendant; and (3)
redressability of the injury by a favorable decision by the Court."
Of the three components of standing, at issue is whether the
Plaintiff has satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement -- that is,
whether her asserted injuries are "concrete."

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that the
Plaintiff lacks Article III standing, as she has failed to allege
any concrete or particularized injuries sufficient to confer
standing. The Plaintiff opposed the Defendant's motion, arguing
that her Complaint has sufficiently alleged concrete intangible
harms and actionable informational injuries resulting from the
Defendant's misleading letter and text visible through a glassine
window on the letter's envelope.

Judge Cecchi holds that the Plaintiff has not established a
concrete harm and thus lacks standing. She finds that the Plaintiff
has failed to establish that the harms alleged in the Complaint
bear a close enough relationship to common-law fraud for these
harms to confer standing because she does not allege that she
relied in any form on the representations made by the Defendant.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that "false" information in the
collection letter regarding the amount of debt owed and the
Defendant's unrealized "threat" to report the debt to credit
agencies "makes the least sophisticated consumer uncertain as to
the amount allegedly owed, how to properly prioritize their
expenses versus their indebtedness and uncertain as to actual
amount."

Nevertheless, these allegations do not demonstrate that the
Plaintiff experienced any confusion or uncertainty upon receipt of
the letter, nor do they put forth facts that would allow the Court
to infer she did. Instead, they assert that the letter harmed a
hypothetical "least sophisticated consumer." However, even if the
Plaintiff contended she had suffered the purported injury herself,
Judge Cecchi finds that the allegations of confusion or uncertainty
alone are insufficient to confer standing.

And, at any rate, the Plaintiff fails to establish she relied on
the representations in the letter, as the Complaint is devoid of
allegations that she detrimentally took a course of action due to
her confusion or uncertainty that ultimately caused her some harm.
As such, her general allegations that the least sophisticated
consumer would be confused by the letter, without additional facts
regarding actions or inactions taken by her upon receipt of the
letter, cannot establish standing.

Further, Judge Cecchi notes that the Plaintiff also alleges that
the Defendant's name was visible to the public through a glassine
window on the envelope containing the debt collection letter, in
violation of section 1692f(8). Insofar as the Plaintiff argues that
this purported violation caused an injury sufficient to establish
standing, she finds that argument unavailing. Section 1692f(8)
states, in relevant part, the Defendant "may use its business name
if such name does not indicate that it is in the debt collection
business."

The Defendant's name, I.C. System, Inc., while publicly visible
through the envelope, provides no indication that it is in the
business of collecting debts, and thus does not constitute a
statutory violation. Without alleging a violation to this
provision, the Plaintiff has alleged no injury, and has not
established Article III standing.

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Cecchi grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss. She dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint without
prejudice. An appropriate Order accompanies her Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yc2cvf93 from Leagle.com.


IBEX LIMITED: Settlement of Ransomware Incident Suit for Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ibex Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 4, 2022, that in March 2022, a class action
lawsuit was filed against the company in the United States District
court for the District of Columbia alleging the plaintiff's
personal information was exposed as a result of the ransomware
incident.

In July 2022, the parties agreed to a preliminary settlement, which
is subject to court approval.

IBEX Limited is a provider of customer support services based in
Bermuda.


JACK IN THE BOX: Jumbo Jack Priced $1 More at Checkout, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH DICKSON, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated v. JACK IN THE BOX, INC. a Delaware Corporation, Case No.:
30-2022-012ss959-CU-BT-cxc (Cal. Super., Oct. 12, 2022) contends
that the Defendant surreptitiously charges consumers more than the
actual advertised price for food and beverages in violation of the
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California's False
Advertising Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law and unjust
enrichment.

On June 14, 2022, the Plaintiff purchased a "Jumbo Jack" at one of
Defendant's restaurants located at 23812 El 2111 Toro Dr., Lake
Forest. When the Plaintiff pulled up to the restaurant's
drive-through, he inspected Defendant's menu outside the Lake
Forest Franchise, which listed the 2411 Jumbo Jack at the sale
price of $2.99, exclusive of taxes. When the Plaintiff later
examined his receipt from the Defendant, he realized that the
Defendant had charged him $3.99, exclusive of taxes, for the Jumbo
Jack. This was $1.00 more than the price advertised for the Jumbo
Jack on Defendant's menu, says the suit.

Jack in the box is an American fast-food restaurant chain founded
February 21, 1951, by Robert O. Peterson in San Diego, California,
where it is headquartered. The chain has over 2,200 locations,
primarily serving the West Coast of the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gil Melili, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
          APC 245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile(800) 520-5523
          Ema1l: gil@kazlg.com

JO-ANN STORES: Mackey Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Sales Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Mackey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jo-Ann Stores LLC, Case No. 22-004868-CI (Fla. Cir.
Ct., Oct. 12, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes its goods
and services, by engaging in telephonic sales calls to consumers
without having secured prior express written consent as required by
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The Plaintiff says that the Defendant has placed telephonic sales
calls to telephone numbers belonging to hundreds of consumers in
Florida without their prior express written consent.

Accordingly, the telephonic sales calls involved an automated
system for the selection or dialing of telephone numbers or the
playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed.

As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members were aggrieved and are each entitled to recover damages,
costs, and attorney's fees from Defendant. The Plaintiff and the
Class members are also entitled to an injunction against future
calls, says the suit.

Jo-Ann Stores is an American specialty retailer of crafts and
fabrics based in Hudson, Ohio. It operates the retail chains JOANN
Fabrics and Crafts and Jo-Ann Etc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
          KUHN RASLAVICH
          P.A. 2110 West Platt Street
          Tampa, Florida 33606
          Telephone: (813) 422-7782
          Facsimile: (813) 422-7783
          E-mail: ben@theKRfirm.com

KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action in Iowa Over Defective Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Rains, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reports that if you think
you are doing more smash-and-grab fixes lately, especially on
certain vehicle makes, it could be for good reason. A recent class
action lawsuit brought against Kia and Hyundai alleges that certain
vehicles were manufactured without engine immobilizers and are
therefore easier to steal.

Aside from reports that state the obvious -- smashed windows are
being used to gain entry to the vehicles -- there's allegedly more
to the glass side of the story. Plaintiffs Ann Brady and Leah Price
brought the class action complaint against Kia America Inc.,
Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai Kia America in August. The
plaintiffs allege in court documents filed in U.S. District Court,
the Southern District of Iowa, that all Kia and Hyundai models from
2011-2021 contain a "defect."

Plaintiffs allege in court documents that the vehicles do not
conform with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114, which
requires that vehicles have starting systems that prevent certain
actions when the key is removed. Those actions include the
activation of the engine and steering. That makes the vehicles
worth less than they should be, plaintiffs argue.

"The defective vehicles do not comply with this FMVSS in that when
the key is removed from the starting system, neither steering nor
forward self-mobility is prevented," plaintiffs allege in court
documents. "If it were, the vehicles would not be stolen at
alarming rates."

Recently-reported thefts of Kia and Hyundai vehicles are well
documented, as made infamous by a TikTok trend with the hashtag
"Kia Boys." For example, according to Virginia's 10 On Your Side,
38% of Norfolk's reported car thefts in August dealt with Kia and
Hyundai vehicles. In September, that figure rose to 43% and so far
in October, the figure stands at 69%.

10WBNS in Columbus, Ohio, reportedly spoke with a woman who had her
Kia stolen. Months later, after receiving another Kia to drive
while her original was in the shop, she says she arrived to find
the windows smashed out. St. Louis has even considered taking legal
action against the manufacturers based on a reported increase in
vehicle thefts.

Fox News Digital recently received a statement from Hyundai Motor
America spokesperson Ira Gabriel. Gabriel says the vehicles are not
defective and comply with "all applicable safety regulations."

"Notwithstanding this, we have been working cooperatively with the
St. Louis Police Department and the police departments in other
communities to provide our assistance in responding to these
thefts," Gabriel says. "We have provided the St. Louis Police
Department and police departments elsewhere with steering wheel
locks so that they can distribute them to our customers affected by
these criminal acts."

Along with reports of smashed windows, there is another alleged
connection to auto glass. According to court documents filed by the
plaintiffs, "on information and belief," some of the vehicles in
question do not have their windows connected to the security
system. Therefore, plaintiffs say, thieves can break the window
without triggering the alarm.

"Defendants knew their vehicles were defective in this manner but
failed and refused to disclose these defects to customers, despite
having the capability and means to do so," plaintiffs continue.

Plaintiffs bring the class action on claims of unjust enrichment,
negligence, design defect and breach of express or implied
warranty. [GN]

LLOYD'S LONDON: 11th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of 15 Oz Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, 15 OZ FRESH & HEALTHY FOODS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant
v. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON KNOWN AS SYNDICATES AML 2001, WBC
5886, MMX 2010 AND SKD 1897, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-10949
(11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirms the district court's dismissal with prejudice of the
Plaintiff's six-count class-action complaint against the
Defendant.

15 Oz appeals the district court's dismissal with prejudice of its
six-count class-action complaint against the Underwriters,
concerning insurance coverage under Florida law for losses incurred
by businesses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Eleventh Circuit starts with 15 Oz's pending motion to amend
its complaint to include additional allegations of the parties'
citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.  It now decides
whether 15 Oz's amended complaint alleges sufficient information to
establish diversity jurisdiction.

The Eleventh Circuit holds that it does. In pertinent part, 15 Oz's
complaint now alleges that (a) 15 Oz is a limited liability company
organized to do business in Florida and (b) Lloyd's Syndicate AML
2001 -- one of the defendant-syndicates -- is comprised of only one
capital provider, MS Amlin Corporate Member Limited, which is
incorporated under the laws of England and Wales and has its
principal place of business in London, England.

Because 15 Oz brought a class-action complaint, the Eleventh
Circuit analyzes diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). It recognizes that there is a
complicated question at the intersection of CAFA and one of its
precedents, Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613
F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2010), but it does not address that issue now
because it is clear that diversity jurisdiction exists under any
resolution.


In Osting-Schwinn, the Eleventh Circuit held that Lloyd's
syndicates "fall squarely within the class of unincorporated
associations for which the pleading of every member's citizenship
is essential to establishing diversity jurisdiction."
Osting-Schwinn, however, did not consider diversity jurisdiction in
the class action context. CAFA controls class actions, and provides
that "an unincorporated association will be deemed to be a citizen
of the State where it has its principal place of business and the
State under whose laws it is organized."

That is, the plain language of CAFA requires us to consider the
principal place of business and state of incorporation of the
association (syndicate) itself while Osting-Schwinn requires us to
consider the citizenship of "every" underlying capital-contributing
member. Because Lloyd's Syndicate AML 2001 is a single-member
syndicate, however, the Eleventh Circuit need not resolve the
conflict today. It concludes there is diversity jurisdiction under
any resolution of the conflict in authority.

The Eleventh Circuit proceeds to the merits of 15 Oz's appeal. It
affirms the district court's dismissal of 15 Oz's complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It
explains that its precedent in SA Palm Beach LLC v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London squarely rejects 15 Oz's argument
that Florida law extends insurance coverage to business losses and
expenses related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it forecloses
further consideration of this issue.

In SA Palm Beach, the Eleventh Circuit held that losses stemming
from the suspension of business operations and extra costs incurred
because of COVID-19 were insufficient under Florida law to trigger
insurance coverage because they lacked the requisite "tangible
alteration of the insured properties." So too in the present case.

For these reasons, the Eleventh Circuit grants 15 Oz's motion to
amend its complaint, finds that subject matter jurisdiction exists,
and affirms the district court's dismissal of 15 Oz's complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ys3zf4wm from Leagle.com.


LOUIS MILUSNIC: Class Settlement in Garries Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD GARRIES, et al.,
v. LOUIS MILUSNIC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04450-CBM-PVC (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall entered an order:

   1. granting the joint motion for final approval of class
      action settlement; and

   2. granting the Plaintiffs-petitioners' unopposed motion for
      attorneys' fees, and awards class counsel $375,000 in
      attorneys' fees.

Having granted final approval of the class settlement, Respondents'
Motion for Summary Judgment, Respondent's Motion to Dissolve
Preliminary Injunction, and Petitioners' Motion for non-provisional
certification of the class are denied as mootm, the Court says.

This action was brought on behalf of a class of inmates medically
vulnerable to severe illness or death from COVID-19 at FCC Lompoc.
Petitioners challenged the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
and Warden of Lompoc's response during the COVID-pandemic, and
sought an expedited process for reviewing medically-vulnerable
inmates at Lompoc for home confinement and an injunction requiring
Respondents to implement certain measures at FCC Lompoc to protect
against COVID-19 and its continued spread.

The original Complaint asserted two causes of action:

   -- Unconstitutional Conditions of Confinement in Violation of
      the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution pursuant to
      28 U.S.C. sections 2241, 2243; and

   -- Unconstitutional Conditions of Confinement in Violation of
      the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution pursuant to
      U.S. Const, Amend. VIII; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 5 U.S.C.
      section 702, "Injunctive Relief Only."

On July 14, 2020, the Court certified a class of inmates medically
vulnerable 12 COVID-19 based on age (over 50) or due to a specific
underlying condition, granted Petitioners' motion for a preliminary
injunction, and ordered Respondents to make "fully and speedy use
of their authority under the CARES Act and evaluate each class
member's eligibility for home confinement which gives substantial
weight to the inmate's risk factors for severe illness and death
from COVID-19 based on age (over 50) or Underlying Health
Conditions."

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Tqw5jM at no extra charge.[CC]

LUST ENTERTAINMENT: Fails to Pay Exotic Dancers' Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS EASTER, IYONNA GUNBY, and JANASIA CRUMPLER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUST ENTERTAINMENT,
LLC, dba LUST GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, a Maryland Limited Liability
Company; NATHANIEL BROWN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case 1:22-cv-02592-RDB (D. Md., Oct. 11, 2022) seek to
recover damages due to 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."

Plaintiffs Easter, Janasia, and Gunby worked as exotic dancers at
Lust Gentlemen's Club from 2019-2021, from 2020-2022, and from
February 2020 to December 2021, respectively.

Accordingly, the Defendants have never paid Plaintiffs and the FLSA
Collective Members any amount as wages whatsoever, and have instead
unlawfully required Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Members to pay
them for the privilege of working. The only source of monies
received by Plaintiffs and the Collective relative to their
employment with Defendants came in the form of gratuities received
directly from customers, a portion of which Plaintiffs and the
Collective Members were required to pay to the Defendants, the
Plaintiffs claim.

The Defendants allegedly required the Plaintiffs to share their
tips with the Defendants, and other non-service employees who do
not customarily receive tips, such as the disc jockeys and the
bouncers.

Lust Entertainment is a Maryland Limited Liability Company with its
principal place of business located at 408 E Baltimore Street,
Baltimore, Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin Finnegan, Esq.
          GOLDBERG FINNEGAN CANNON, LLC
          8401 Colesville Road, Suite 630
          Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
          Telephone: (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, California 90211
          Telephone: (310) 273-1230
          Facsimile: (310) 858-1063
          Email: kristensen@cz.law
                 fmihalic@cz.law

MDL 2913: DeRuyter Central School Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
DeRuyter 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-05975 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 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 DeRuyter 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.

DeRuyter 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: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Edison Local Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edison Local 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-05952 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 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 Edison Local 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.

Edison Local School District is a local 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: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Lenoir City Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Lenoir City 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-05959 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 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 Lenoir City 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.

Lenoir City Schools is a local school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the State of Tennessee.

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, Long Beach City Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Long Beach City 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-05957 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 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 Long Beach City 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.

Long Beach City 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: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Pauls Valley Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pauls Valley 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-05963 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 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 Pauls Valley 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.

Pauls Valley 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: Heavener Public Balks at E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heavener 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-05950-WHO (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 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 Heavener 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.

Heavener 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: Hicksville Exempted Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hicksville Exempted Village 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-05945-WHO (N.D. Cal., Oct.
11, 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 Hicksville Exempted Village 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.

Hicksville Exempted Village School District is a local 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: Kansas Public Schools Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas 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-05955 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 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 Kansas 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.

Kansas 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: Little Axe Public Hits Vape Ads Targeting Youth Market
----------------------------------------------------------------
Little Axe 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-05961 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 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 Little Axe 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.

Little Axe 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: Millwood Public Schools Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Millwood 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-05958 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 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 Millwood 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.

Millwood 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: Noble Public Schools Alleges Vaping Promotion to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noble 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-05956 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 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 Noble 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.

Noble 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

MEDICREDIT INC: Settles Robocall Class Action for $1.95 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Medicredit agreed to pay $1.95
million as part of a settlement to resolve claims it contacted
consumers with unsolicited robocalls.

The settlement benefits individuals who received a robocall from
Medicredit that used an artificial or prerecorded voice between
Dec. 16, 2017, and July 7, 2022. Calls that qualify for the
settlement contain a "WD" designation and an "MC" and/or "MD"
notation in Medicredit's records. Around 303,600 phone numbers
received eligible calls during the class period.

Medicredit is a medical debt collection company. The company's
conduct has resulted in hundreds of complaints with the Better
Business Bureau, earning it a rating of only one star.

Some consumers challenged Medicredit's business practices in a
class action lawsuit. According to a 2021 amended class action, the
debt collector violated federal law by placing unsolicited
robocalls to consumers.

The plaintiff in the case says he received numerous calls from
Medicredit in 2018, each using artificial or prerecorded voice
messages. The class action lawsuit contends these calls weren't
even meant for the plaintiff and instead sought to contact an
unknown third party named "Amy."

The robocall class action lawsuit argues that these automated phone
calls violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protect Act (TCPA).
The TCPA prohibits businesses from contacting customers for
telemarketing purposes without their consent.

"Medicredit violated [TCPA] by utilizing an artificial or
prerecorded voice in connection with calls it placed to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number, without his consent," the class action
lawsuit says.

Medicredit hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.95
million class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Both
parties believe they would win at a trial, but agreed to resolve
the class action lawsuit but agreed to the settlement to avoid the
costs and risk of continuing litigation.

Under the terms of the Medicredit settlement, class members can
receive an equal share of the net settlement fund after fees and
costs are deducted. Exact payments will vary depending on the
amount deducted in fees and the number of class members who
participate in the settlement.

No payment estimates are available at this time.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Dec. 6, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the Medicredit settlement is
scheduled for Feb. 7, 2023.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Dec. 6, 2022.

Who's Eligible
Individuals who received a robocall from Medicredit that used an
artificial or prerecorded voice between Dec. 16, 2017, and July 7,
2022. Calls that qualify for the settlement contain a "WD"
designation and an "MC" and/or "MD" notation in Medicredit's
records.

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase applicable

Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
12/06/2022

Case Name
Miles v. Medicredit Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-1186-JAR, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

Final Hearing
02/07/2023

Settlement Website
MilesTCPASettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
P.O. Box 5324
New York, NY 10150-5324
833-512-2310

Class Counsel
Michael L. Greenwald
Aaron D. Radbil
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC

Defense Counsel
Maura K. Monaghan
Jacob W. Stahl
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP

Scott J. Dickenson
Megan D. Meadows
SPENCER FANE LLP [GN]

MERCEDES-BENZ: Betancourt Sues Over Failure to Provide Warranty
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Betancourt, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-05898 (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 9, 2022), is brought arising from the Defendant
Mercedes-Benz's unlawful failure to tender a statutorily compliant
California Emissions Warranty for the vehicles that Mercedes-Benz
distributes in the State of California.

In 1990, the California Air Resource Board ("CARB") submitted, and
the Legislature adopted, California Code of Regulation which,
requires all vehicle manufacturers to ensure that any new motor
vehicle sold in California is accompanied by a "statutorily
compliant" general emissions warranty. ("California Emissions
Warranty").

In an effort by Mercedes-Benz to minimize its warranty exposure,
Mercedes-Benz unilaterally and unlawfully limited the parts that
are covered under Mercedes-Benz's application of the California
Emissions Warranty as covered by the high-priced emissions
warranty, and when these parts are defective, instead of covering
the parts and related repairs under the California 7-years
70,000-miles Emissions Warranty, Mercedes-Benz refuses to cover the
parts under said California Emissions Warranty, harming its
customers. Relevant to this case are the engine pistons installed
in vehicles distributed by Mercedes-Benz in California under the
Mercedes-Benz brand name ("Class Vehicles"). The engine pistons in
Class Vehicles are high-priced, emissions related parts which
should have been covered for 7-years or 70,000-miles pursuant to
the California Emissions Warranty requirements.

The California Air Resources Board has already definitively stated
that engine pistons installed in internal combustion engines are
emissions related parts. The total retail cost of the parts and
labor to replace a engine piston installed in the Class Vehicles is
such that the engine pistons are high-priced and thus covered under
the 7 years or 70,000-miles California Emissions Warranty for
high-priced emissions related parts. Not only are the engine
pistons installed in Class Vehicles "warranted parts," but they are
"high-priced" warranted parts because the retail cost of the parts
and labor to replace engine pistons exceed the "high-priced"
threshold. Thus, repair or replacement is covered under the
California Emissions Warranty for 7-years or 70,000-miless.

Yet, in an effort to minimize its warranty costs, Mercedes-Benz has
unilaterally, wrongfully, and unlawfully excluded many parts,
including but not limited to engine pistons, from being covered
under Mercedes-Benz's emissions warranty as "high-priced" warranted
parts. Mercedes-Benz has never treated engine pistons as
"high-priced" warranted parts. As a result, Class Members,
including the Plaintiff, have wrongfully been denied warranty
coverage.

As a result of Mercedes-Benz's systematic refusal to provide the
proper emissions warranty coverage, Mercedes-Benz wrongfully
required Plaintiff, and thousands of other Class Members, to pay
out-of-pocket for repairs which should have been conducted free of
charge under the 7-years or 70,000-miles emissions warranty. By
failing to cover the engine pistons under the California Emissions
Warranty, Mercedes-Benz also failed to provide a fully compliant
California Emissions Warranty for all Class Vehicles at the time of
sale, resulting in Class members overpaying for their vehicles.

The Plaintiff primarily seeks an order declaring that
Mercedes-Benz's current and past practices with respect to the
engine piston and/or other parts as described herein do not comply
with the CCRs and with the California Emissions Warranty and an
injunction to remedy NNA's misconduct directing Mercedes-Benz to,
provide warranty coverage for the repair and replacement of
defective Class Vehicle engine pistons during the first 7-years or
70,000 miles of vehicle service. Ancillary to that relief, the
Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement for, inter alia, all out of
pocket costs paid for repairs that should have been covered
specifically for the engine piston under the 7-year 70,000-mile and
California Emissions Warranty, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased and is the owner of a 2015 Mercedes-Benz
C300

Mercedes-Benz sells Vehicles, including the Class Vehicles, in the
State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
          23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Voice: 818-225-9040
          Facsimile: 818-225-9042
          Email: robert@starrlaw.com

               - and -

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue
          15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 432-8492
          Email: jllurie@pomlaw.com
                 abasser@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Manny Starr, Esq.
          Adam Rose, Esq.
          Frontier Law Center
          23901 Calabasas Road, #2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Phone: (818) 914-3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
          Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com
                 adam@frontierlawcenter.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Federal Judge Tosses BIPA Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hindu Bureau reports that Illinois residents Steven Vance and
Tim Janecyk, whose photos were part of the dataset, claimed the
companies' actions violated the state's Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA).

Two U.S. residents who claimed that Microsoft and Amazon violated
the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by using their photos
to train facial recognition software, saw their putative class
actions dismissed by a Washington federal judge on Oct. 17.

Microsoft and Amazon, which dominate the cloud-computing space,
used IBM's 'Diversity in Faces' dataset to train their own facial
recognition tools.

However, Illinois residents Steven Vance and Tim Janecyk, whose
photos were part of the dataset, claimed the companies' actions
violated the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

The class actions reportedly fell through due to the technicalities
of Microsoft's actions taking place outside Illinois.

Both Microsoft and Amazon have their headquarters in Washington and
Microsoft has data centres in multiple locations. This complicates
the case for Vance and Janecyk, who used their state's BIPA in
their legal claims.

Amazon denied that it enjoyed any profits or benefits by using the
dataset, according to a report from Biometric Update. The
e-commerce company further claimed that the 'Diversity in Faces'
dataset might not even include biometric information.

Vance and Janecyk have also tried to take Google and IBM to court
for BIPA related complaints. [GN]

MRS. FIELDS: Curry Files Suit in Utah Over FTC Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mrs. Fields Gifts.
The case is captioned as Jim Curry, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Mrs. Fields Gifts, Case No.
2:22-cv-00651-DAO (D. Utah, Oct. 11, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Federal Trade
Commission Act.

Mrs. Fields Gifts is an American franchisor in the snack food
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Scofield, Esq.
          PETERS SCOFIELD
          7430 Creek Rd Ste 303
          Salt Lake City, UT 84093-6160
          Telephone: (801) 322-2002
          E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com

NELNET SERVICING: Eichenblatt Suit Transferred to D. Nebraska
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Max Eichenblatt, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Nelnet Servicing, LLC, Case No.
6:22-cv-01794 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska on Oct. 11, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-03227 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Nelnet -- https://nelnetinc.com/ -- is the largest operating
businesses engage in student loan servicing, tuition payment
processing and school information systems, and communications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          NORMAND LAW PLLC
          P.O. Box 140036
          Orlando, FL 32814
          Phone: (407) 603-6031

               - and -

          Joshua Robert Jacobson, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Phone: (407) 488-8291

The Defendant is represented by:

          Francis Morton McDonald, Jr., Esq.
          Sarah Anne Long, Esq.
          MCDONALD TOOLE WIGGINS, PA
          111 N Magnolia Ave., Suite 1200
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Phone: (407) 246-1800
          Fax: (407) 246-1895


NEW YORK TIMES: Court Dismisses Nashel's Amended Class Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN NASHEL and TIM ROBINSON, Plaintiffs v. THE NEW
YORK TIMES COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-10633 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Stephen J. Murphy, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Nashel and Robinson brought the present putative class action
against the Defendant. The Plaintiffs were subscribers to the
Defendant's newspaper, The New York Times. The Defendant allegedly
disclosed the Plaintiffs' private reading information and "other
categories of individualized data and demographic information" to
"list brokers, data aggregators, data cooperatives, data brokers,
and other third-party intermediaries" without the Plaintiffs'
consent. In turn, those intermediary companies disclosed the
Plaintiffs' private reading information to other third parties. As
a result, the Plaintiffs "received a barrage of unwanted junk
mail."

A disclosure of private reading information without a customer's
consent violates Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act
("PPPA"). The Plaintiffs claimed that "documented evidence
confirms" the Defendant violated the PPPA. For instance, one
third-party list broker offered to rent access to a mailing list
called "The New York Times Mailing List." The Plaintiffs attached
as an exhibit a "data card" in which the list broker advertised
access to the private reading information of The New York Times'
readers. Another list broker data card advertised access to "The
New York Times Enhanced Database." The two data cards were
published online in 2007 and 2008, respectively.

Besides the data cards, the Defendant maintained a "Privacy Policy"
in 2015 that stated "If you are a print subscriber, we may exchange
or rent your name and mailing address (but not your email address)
and certain other information, such as when you first subscribed to
The New York Times with other reputable companies that offer
marketing information or products through direct mail."

And in 2020, a case study was published "on the marketing
strategies employed by Virginia Beach, Virginia to boost the city's
tourism." The case study noted that "Virginia Beach marketers have
used list-rental strategies to identify e-mail lists that might
prove to be useful in connecting with prospective tourists." The
study added that the city had "recently run a dedicated Virginia
Beach e-mail campaign with lists from WeatherBug, eTarget Media,
iExplore, Orbitz, Sherman's Travel, Daily Candy, The New York
Times, The Washington Post, The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC),
eBrains, and The Baltimore Sun."

After the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, the Plaintiffs
filed an operative amended complaint. The Defendant then moved to
dismiss the amended complaint. Their motion relied on two theories.
First, the complaint failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). And second, the Plaintiffs' claims are
barred by a three-year limitations period.

In the alternative, the Defendant moved to certify a question to
the Michigan Supreme Court: Whether the three-year limitations
period under Mich. Comp. Laws Section 600.5805(2) governs claims
for damages under the PPPA, Mich. Comp. Laws Sections
445.1711-.1715. Non-party News/Media Alliance moved for leave to
file an amicus brief in support of certifying the question to
Michigan's highest court.

Judge Murphy first explains why the catch-all, six-year limitations
period applies to the PPPA rather than the three-year period.
After, he explains why the Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a
claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Judge Murphy holds that the Defendant's framing of the PPPA as an
invasion-of-privacy tort is too broad. Rather, the PPPA protects
against a particular kind of invasion -- the dissemination of one's
reading materials, name, and address without consent. And before
the PPPA, Michigan courts did not recognize the injury as a
traditional tort. Because the Plaintiffs' "right to recovery arises
from a statute rather than a common-law right," Section 5805 does
not apply. Accordingly, the residual six-year statute of
limitations governing all other personal actions, Section 5813,
applies to the present case.

The Plaintiffs alleged that (1) the Defendant disclosed all its
subscribers' private reading information, (2) to "data aggregators,
data appenders, data cooperatives, and lists brokers," (3)
"throughout the relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period," (4)
without consent. In support, they relied on third-party data cards,
the Defendant's privacy policy, and a case study about Virginia
Beach renting the Defendant's subscriber list.

But, Judge Murphy finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations, even in
light of that evidence, fail to clear the plausibility threshold.
Two reasons support the finding. First, he says the Plaintiffs
relied on evidence that creates only suspicion as to whether the
Defendant violated the PPPA during the pre-July 31, 2016 period.
And "a complaint containing a statement of facts that merely
creates a suspicion of a legally cognizable right of action is
insufficient." Second, and beyond the timing concerns, the content
of the evidence does not create a reasonable inference that the
Defendant violated the PPPA. Put together, the Virginia Beach case
study and the privacy policy add nothing to help the Plaintiffs
establish that the Defendant plausibly violated the PPPA.

In all, Judge Murphy holds that the Plaintiffs' complaint fails to
state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). He, therefore, grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss. Because he dismisses the complaint
for failure to state a claim, Judge Murphy denies as moot the
Defendant's motion to certify the limitations period question to
the Michigan Supreme Court. He also denies as moot non-party
News/Media Alliance's motion for leave to file an amicus brief in
support of certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Omnibus Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8wwdrh from
Leagle.com.


NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicles' Transmission Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges the continuously variable transmission (CVT)
in 2019-2021 model year Nissan Pathfinder and Infiniti QX60
vehicles is defective, rendering the cars "unreliable and
unreasonably dangerous to operate."

The 25-page complaint explains that certain Pathfinder and QX60
drivers have reported experiencing a significant delay in their
vehicle's response while attempting to accelerate from either a
stopped position or while in motion. This delay is often
accompanied by the engine revving while the driver steps on the gas
pedal as the vehicle shows little to no increase in speed, the case
says.

Per the suit, Nissan and Infiniti drivers have also experienced
"stalling, jerking, lurching, juddering, and/or shaking while
operating" their vehicles, as well as premature transmission
failure.

The lawsuit states the Nissan/Infiniti transmission defect can
occur without warning and poses "an extreme and unreasonable safety
hazard to drivers, passengers and pedestrians for obvious reasons."


"These safety hazards include being unable to maintain the proper
speed to integrate seamlessly into the flow of traffic, especially
on highways or freeways, putting drivers at risk of being rear
ended or otherwise causing an accident unless they pull off the
road."

A continuously variable transmission is a type of automatic
transmission that relies on a segmented steel belt between
adjustable pulleys, rather than conventional gears, to achieve the
ratios required during normal driving, the filing relays. The
adjustment of the steel belt between the pulleys is supposed to
occur "smoothly and continuously," the suit says, and like a
standard transmission, a CVT is controlled electronically by a
transmission control module.

Although CVTs have been in many Nissan models in the U.S. market
since 2003, the technology, the case claims, has been "consistently
plagued" by the alleged defect. The lawsuit alleges Nissan became
aware of the transmission problem prior to the CVT hitting the
market yet has "actively concealed the true nature and extent" of
the issue from drivers at the time of purchase or lease or
thereafter.

The automaker has issued "scores" of technical service bulletins
(TSBs) for the Pathfinder and QX60's CVTs, the suit says, claiming
Nissan has dealt with problems with this type of transmission for
more than a decade. The case notes that in December 2013, former
Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn announced that the company would increase
oversight of its transmission maker, Jatco, Ltd., as pervasive
customer service issues had supposedly begun to eat into the
automaker's profits.

Nissan ultimately "abandoned" the CVT altogether in the 2022
Pathfinder and QX60, which come equipped with a nine-speed
automatic transmission, the case states.

To date, Nissan has not recalled affected Pathfinder or QX60
vehicles, and has offered drivers neither a suitable repair free of
charge nor reimbursement for the sometimes "exorbitant" costs
they've incurred to diagnose and repair the CVT defect, the
complaint says.

"The Class Vehicles thus differ materially from the product Nissan
intended to sell," the suit contests. "Nissan intended to produce
vehicles with CVTs that shift smoothly and continuously. Instead,
Nissan produced vehicles that do not accelerate when prompted to
accelerate, and that shake, shudder, jerk and judder."

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons or entities who bought or
leased any 2019-2021 Nissan Pathfinder or Infiniti QX60 vehicle in
the United States. [GN]

OMNI FINANCIAL: Faces Wood MLA Class Suit Over Predatory Lending
----------------------------------------------------------------
ISHAYKA WOOD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OMNI FINANCIAL OF NEVADA, INC., D/B/A OMNI FINANCIAL
and OMNI MILITARY LOANS, Case No. 1:22-cv-01148 (E.D. Va., Oct. 12,
2022) alleges that Omni facilitates predatory lending by using
dishonest tactics on its standard forms and unlawful terms in
violation of the Military Lending Act.

The Plaintiff contends that Omni Financial:

   -- charges interest rates that exceed the federal statutory
      rate cap of 36%;

   -- refinances/rolls over installment loans for covered
      borrowers;

   -- requires mandatory allotment as a condition to a loan; and

   -- requires to give security interest in the borrower's bank
      account.

About 90% of Omni's loans are extended to active-duty members of
the armed forces and their dependents, while the remaining loans
are extended to civilians and non-covered service members (such as
military veterans and retirees) who do not have access to the
allotment system. Omni's unlawful conduct has occurred for many
years, however, the applicable time period for this lawsuit brought
by Plaintiff and the Class is made over the last five years, says
the suit.

In August 2006, the Department of Defense pulled back the curtain
on predatory lending and investigated loans directed at military
families. In its Report, the DOD uncovered a litany of financial
issues plaguing our country's military families that directly
related in a risk to our national security, a finding that active
duty service members had their clearances revoked or denied due to
financial problems, lack of military readiness and morale, among
many other things. Allegedly, a five year study illustrated that
between 2000-2005 financial issues resulted in a 1600 percent
increase in financial hardship among Sailors and Marines military
families. As early as summer 2006, the Report identified serious
issues with creditors and predatory lenders offering consumer
products featuring high fees/interest rates and requiring military
allotments as condition of a loan, says the suit.

The Consumer Credit Research Foundation asked military families
whether the "government should limit the interest rates that
lenders can charge even if it means fewer people will be able to
get credit" and it resulted in a finding that 75 percent of
non-payday borrowers and 74% of payday borrowers agreed to cap
rates.

The Plaintiff is a distinguished soldier and an essential member of
an elite military team. The Plaintiff is an E-6 Staff Sergeant in
the United States Army and works for the White House Communications
Agency providing global information services to the President, Vice
President, Executive Office of the President, and United States
Secret Service.

Omni's installment loans typically range from $500 to $10,000 with
terms between six months and 36 months. Omni has a national
presence with offices located near major military installations
located in Nevada, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas,
Colorado, Washington, California, Virginia, Kansas, and
Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          37523 763 J Clyde Morris Blvd Ste 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com

                -and-

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell,Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A
          0071072 P.O. BOX 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com,
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  kstroly@varnellandwarwick.com

                -and-

          Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
          BROCHU LAW, PLLC
          1013897 841 Prudential Drive Suite 1200
          Jacksonville, FL 32207
          Telephone: (904) 201-1771
          Facsimile: (904) 429-4218
          E-mail: brochu@brochulaw.com
                  j.esquibel@brochulaw.com

OPTAVIA LLC: Settlement Class in Douglass Suit Initially Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS v. OPTAVIA
LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy
Criswell Wiegand entered an order preliminarily certifying pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) for purposes of settlement.

The Settlement Class is defined as:

   "A national class including all Blind or Visually Disabled
   individuals who use screen reader auxiliary aids to navigate
   digital content and who have accessed, attempted to access,
   or been deterred from attempting to access, or who may
   access, attempt to access, or be deterred from attempting to
   access, the Website from the United States."

The Court finds that Plaintiff Blair Douglass will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. As a
result, the Court appoints and designates Mr. Douglass as
representative of the Settlement Class.

The Court finds that attorneys Kevin Tucker and Kevin Abramowicz of
the law firm of East End Trial Group LLC are experienced and
competent counsel who will continue to fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the Settlement Class. As a result, the
Court appoints and designates attorneys Tucker and Abramowicz as
Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

Optavia is a company that designs and develops proprietary products
and programs dedicated to health and well being solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EJV0ux at no extra charge.[CC]

PATHWAY HEALTH: Class Settlement in Abel Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Danielle Abel, individually and behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pathway Health Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Civ. No. 20-1307 (PAM/LIB) (D. Minn.), Judge Paul A.
Magnuson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an Award of Attorney's
Fees, Costs, and Service Payments and the Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motion for Final Settlement Approval and Certification.

The Court previously preliminarily approved the settlement on June
9, 2022. In doing so, it appointed the Class Counsel, directed the
Class Counsel to distribute the Notice of Settlement, and set
deadlines for the Plaintiffs to file their motions for an award of
attorney's fees, costs, and service payments and final approval and
for Settlement Class Members to submit notices of intent to object
or request exclusion from the settlement and to appear at the Final
Approval Hearing. Judge Magnuson held a Final Approval Hearing on
Oct. 6, 2022.

For the reasons stated in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order,
Judge Magnuson makes final, for the purposes of settlement,
certification of the Minnesota ("MN") Rule 23 Settlement Class: The
MN Rule 23 Settlement Class: All individuals who Defendant's
records reflect performed work for Defendant in Minnesota as a
nurse consultant or consultant during the applicable statute of
limitations period who did not timely opt out of the settlement
within the time specified in the Notice of Settlement.

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), for purposes of settlement,
he finally certifies the FLSA Collective: All Opt-in Plaintiffs who
have filed consent to join forms as of April 21, 2022.

Judge Magnuson affirms the Court's findings from the Preliminary
Approval Order that the settlement reached is fair, reasonable, and
adequate. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are incorporated
into the Order.

There are two members of the MN Rule 23 Settlement Class who
excluded themselves from the settlement: Mary Brun and Kathleen
Gerdes. These individuals will have no rights or interests with
respect to the settlement, will not be bound by the release, and
will not be bound by any offers or judgments entered with respect
to the settlement. They are therefore dismissed without prejudice
from the action.

The names of the Settling Plaintiffs (those who did not request
exclusion) are set forth in Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Kayla
M. Kienzle, submitted with the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Final Settlement Approval. Each Settling Plaintiff will be bound by
the respective releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement. They
are therefore dismissed with prejudice from the action.

Judge Magnuson grants the Class Counsel's request (i) for an award
of attorney's fees in the amount of $229,337.89; (ii) for
reimbursement for out-of-pocket litigation costs in the amount of
$16,595.83 and a contingency/settlement administration fund of
$3,000; and (iii) for service payments for Named Plaintiff Abel in
the amount of $8,000 and for Opt-in Plaintiff Schoneck in the
amount of $1,000.

As set forth in the Settlement Agreement, within 35 of the Order,
the Defendant will deliver the settlement checks for Settling
Plaintiffs to the Class Counsel, along with the payment for
attorney's fees, costs, and the service payments.

The Class Counsel will promptly distribute the settlement checks to
the Settling Plaintiffs. The Settling Plaintiffs will have 90 days
from the issuance of the checks to cash them.

Any funds actually recovered from uncashed checks or if for any
other reason there is a residual amount of the settlement fund
remaining after final distribution and the expiration of the
check-cashing period, that amount will be donated to a legal aid
organization of the Plaintiffs' Counsel's choice.

The Court orders compliance with the Settlement Agreement in all
respects. It reserves jurisdiction over all matters arising out of
the settlement or the administration of the settlement.

The case is dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/t8ndm3r6 from Leagle.com.


POINT PICK-UP: Duarte Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled COLLEEN DUARTE, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general, Plaintiff v. POINT
PICK-UP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. SCV-271148, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Sonoma to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, on Oct. 11, 2022.

The Plaintiff's complaint asserts one cause of action against PPUP
that includes civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor
Code.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

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

          Jamielee F. Martinez, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 400
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 579-0404
          Facsimile: (408) 454-0290
          E-mail: Jamie.Martinez@jacksonlewis.com

RITE AID CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Lidocaine Pain Relief Patches
------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Maas, writing for AboutLawsuits.com, reports that Rite-Aid
faces a class action lawsuit over Lidocaine pain relief patches
sold under the pharmacy's private label, which were marketed as
"Maximum Strength", with allegedly false and misleading information
about the dosing strengths that were intended to deceive
customers.

The complaint was filed by Steven Prescott in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on October 6, seeking
damages on behalf of himself and all others who have paid a premium
for Rite Aid Maximum Strength Pain Relief Lidocaine Patch products,
since there were stronger dosed pain relief patches commercially
available.

Lidocaine patches are a popular household pain management option,
to provide relief for individuals with nerve pain. It is estimated
that millions of Americans suffer from multiple types of
neuropathic pain, who frequently seek over-the-counter remedies.

In recent months, a series of Lidocaine patch false advertising
lawsuits have been filed against retailers including Walmart,
Walgreens and now Rite Aid. The lawsuits have all raised fairly
similar allegations, claiming retailers take advantage of consumers
seeking pain relief products by using false claims on the product
packaging that exaggerate strength, duration of effectiveness and
ease of use.

Prescott's complaint states Rite Aid takes advantage of consumers
lack of scientific knowledge on how to determine whether a
Lidocaine pain patch they are purchasing actually contains the
maximum strength. The class action lawsuit claims that Rite Aid
offers pain relief Lidocaine patches that only contain 4%
lidocaine, while other options, including prescription lidocaine
products contain 5% lidocaine.

Despite the lack of maximum dosage in the Rite Aid lidocaine
products, the retailer places "MAXIMUM STRENGTH" in large bold
writing on the front of the lidocaine packaging in bright red and
yellow text, which instantly catches the eye of all reasonable
consumers who rely on the manufacturer and retailers product labels
and packaging claims.

"Had Plaintiff known the true nature of the Products, he would not
have purchased the Products or, alternatively, paid less," the
lawsuit states. "In making his purchases, Plaintiff paid a price
premium due to the false and misleading 'Maximum Strength'
representations and omissions."

The complaint further states that these deceptive marketing
practices have delayed individuals suffering from nerve pain to
seek medical grade prescription lidocaine due to the inaccurate
maximum strength claims.

Prescott's lidocaine lawsuit against Rite Aid brings forth several
claims including false advertising, fraud, unjust enrichment,
violations of competition law and others. The class action lawsuit
against Rite Aid seeks to represent all individuals who have
suffered damages by paying a premium for Rite Aid's false
advertised lidocaine pain relief patches.

The lawsuit further requests the court to order Rite Aid
Corporation to fully and appropriately recall the lidocaine
products and require the retailer to remove the claims of "MAXIMUM
STREGNTH" from its product packaging, website and elsewhere. [GN]

RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Seeks Ruling on Fully Briefed Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL FOX, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE RITZ-CARLTON
HOTEL COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-24284-MGC (S.D. Fla.), the
Defendant asks that the Court decide the fully briefed class
certification motion and permit the parties to submit supplemental
briefs not to exceed five pages to address any additional arguments
necessary in light of the Court's rulings to date.

On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Certify Class, in
which he sought to certify the following three classes:

   No Notice Class:

   "All persons who, from November 28, 2013 through the
   conclusion of this case, (i) dined at any public food service
   establishment in the state of Florida owned and/or operated
   by the Defendant; (ii) were presented with a menu that
   provided no notice that an automatic gratuity or service
   charge would be added to the check; (iii) the check contained
   an automatic gratuity or service charge; and, (iv) the person
   paid the check in full.

   Inadequate Notice Class:

   "All persons who, from November 28, 2013 through the
   conclusion of this case,

      (i) dined at any public food service establishment in the
          state of Florida owned and/or operated  by Defendant;

     (ii) were presented with a menu that provided inadequate
          notice that an automatic gratuity or service charge
          would be added to the check;

    (iii) the check contained an automatic gratuity or service
          charge; and,

     (iv) the person paid the check in full.

   Miami Inadequate Notice Class:

   All persons who, from November 28, 2013 through the
   conclusion of this case,

      (i) dined at any public food service establishment in
          Miami-Dade County owned and/or operated by the
          Defendant;

     (ii) were not presented with conspicuous notice, either on
          a sign or in a statement on the establishment’s menu
          in the same form and manner as the other items on the
          menu, that an automatic gratuity or service charge
          would be added to the check;

   (iii) the check contained an automatic gratuity or service
         charge; and

    (iv) the person paid the check in full.

The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC is an American multinational
company that operates the luxury hotel chain known as The
Ritz-Carlton. The company has 108 luxury hotels and resorts in 30
countries and territories with 29,158 rooms, in addition to 46
hotels with 8,755 rooms planned for the future.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 10, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gaRDTd at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by

          Ryan D. Watstein, Esq.
          KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
          171 17 th Street, NW, Suite 1550
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 400-7300
          Facsimile: (404) 400-7333

ROWDY BEVERAGE: Case Management Plan Entered in Abreu Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luigi Abreu, Individually,
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ROWDY BEVERAGE
INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03606-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie
caproni entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order
as follows:

  -- All fact discovery shall be            Jan. 1, 2023
     completed no later than

  -- All expert discovery, including        Feb. 24, 2023
     reports, production of
     underlying documents, and
     depositions, shall be completed
     no later than:

  -- The next pretrial conference is        Jan. 13,2023
     scheduled for:

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3CWIN4j at no extra charge.[CC]

STATE FARM: Faces Class Action Over Unearned Insurance Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that State Farm
faces a proposed class action lawsuit that claims the insurer has
breached the terms of its personal articles policies by failing to
refund policyholders when the replacement value of an insured
article is found to be less than the amount insured.

The 10-page lawsuit alleges that defendants State Farm General
Insurance Company, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company and State
Farm Florida Insurance Company essentially collect premiums for
insured personal items based on an inflated appraised value. In the
event the insured article is deemed a total loss, State Farm
determines its "replacement value" and pays that amount to the
policyholder, according to the suit.

Per the case, if an item's replacement value is less than the
"amount insured," which is based on the item's appraised value,
State Farm is required under the terms of its policies to refund
the policyholder for its unearned premium—i.e., the difference
between the actual premiums paid and the amount that would have
been paid based on the item's replacement value.

The lawsuit alleges, however, that it is State Farm's "common and
uniform business practice" to refuse to refund this unearned
premium, in breach of its contracts with insureds.

The plaintiff in the case is an Indian River County, Florida
resident who took out a State Farm personal articles policy in
January 2016 for a diamond pendant. Per the suit, the amount
insured, which was based on an appraisal State Farm required the
plaintiff to obtain, was $34,496.

The lawsuit says the plaintiff made a claim for total loss under
the policy after the pendant was stolen in January 2021. According
to the case, State Farm paid the plaintiff $12,741.66, which was
based on the insurer's determination of the item's replacement
value.

The suit says that although State Farm was required under the terms
of its policy to refund the plaintiff for its unearned premium --
i.e., the difference between the premium he paid based on the
amount insured ($34,496) and the amount he would have paid based on
the pendant's replacement value ($12,741.66) -- the insurer never
did so.

According to the suit, State Farm knows that appraisals for insured
personal items are typically inflated and that the amounts insured
under its personal articles policies are often much greater than
the items' replacement costs. Thus, the insurer collects premiums
based on amounts that "far exceed[]" its actual exposure yet
nevertheless refuses to refund these excess amounts after paying
total loss claims, the complaint contends.

The lawsuit looks to cover anyone who, since January 31, 2017, was
paid a claim for total loss pursuant to a State Farm personal
articles policy and was not refunded the unearned premium that the
insurer collected over the life of the policy. [GN]

STATE FARM: Ohio Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Nichols Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLLYNN NICHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-16 (S.D. Ohio),
Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, enters an Opinion and Order:

   a. granting the parties' Motions for Leave to File
      Supplemental Authority; and

   b. denying the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or to Compel
      Appraisal and Stay Proceedings.

While covered under a State Farm auto policy, Nichols was involved
in a car accident and filed a claim for loss. To settle her claim,
State Farm could pay the cost to repair the vehicle, or it could
pay the vehicle's pre-accident actual cash value, less any
applicable deductible. After determining the vehicle was a total
loss, State Farm opted for the latter.

State Farm determined the actual cash value based on the advertised
price of four comparable vehicles less a "typical negotiation"
deduction for a non-itemized sum. The typical negotiation deduction
is a downward adjustment to account for consumer negotiations on
the advertised price. According to Nichols, the State Farm policy
does not mention or authorize this practice for determining the
actual cash value.

Ms. Nichols alleges that State Farm's application of typical
negotiation deductions uproots the actual cash value from market
realities and, as a result, violates the actual and implied terms
of the contract. According to her, the typical negotiation
deduction reduced the payment she was owed under the policy by
$462. She further alleges that the practice of using a typical
negotiation deduction effects members of a class with the same
State Farm auto policy. She has filed this case as a purported
class action bringing claims for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

As a threshold matter, State Farm has filed two motions for leave
to file supplemental authority, instanter. Nichols responded but
did not oppose the request for leave. Judge Morrison grants State
Farm's Motions for Leave.

Ms. Nichols has also filed two notices of supplemental authority
and State Farm responded but did not oppose consideration of
supplemental authority. To the extent Nichols requested leave to
file supplemental authority, Judge Morrison also grants it.

Judge Morrison now turns to the Motion to Dismiss.

First, State Farm argues Nichols has not sufficiently pleaded
non-performance because there are no express or implied terms in
the policy that prevent the use of typical negotiation deductions
when determining actual cash value. Nichols alleges that State Farm
failed to comply with its express obligation to pay actual cash
value for her covered vehicle under the policy. She argues that
actual cash value must be based in market realities, not on
speculation or conjecture.

Taking Nichols' allegations as true and applying her reasonable
interpretation, Judge Morrison opines that the Plaintiff has
alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate State Farm's noncompliance
with the express terms of the policy. Nichols alleges that State
Farm's application of the typical negotiation deduction divorced
the actual cash value from market realities. She supports this by
alleging that the State Farm has provided no factual basis for the
deduction and there is no indication that the adjustments were made
using objective evidence. Instead, she alleges that "State Farm
relied on speculation about the price comparable vehicles might
sell for."

Judge Morrison holds that Nichols has sufficiently pleaded a claim
for breach of contract on Count I.

Second, Nichols alleges that "by accepting payment with [the
typical negotiation] deduction" she and the putative class members
"conferred a benefit upon State Farm." She alleges that "State Farm
was aware of that benefit" and it would be unjust for State Farm to
retain the benefit because she and the putative class members
"could not have known they were conferring such a benefit that was
not itemized and its factual basis (if any) was not disclosed on
the valuation reports." Nichols has sufficiently pleaded an unjust
enrichment claim on Count II.

State Farm argues for a different result. Its primary contention is
that a claim for unjust enrichment is not available to Nichols
because there is no dispute as to the existence of an express
contract between the parties. But, Judge Morrison says that the
Court has previously rejected similar arguments in Highman v.
Gulfport Energy Corp., No. 2:20-cv-1056, 2020 WL 6204344, at *2
(S.D. Ohio Oct. 22, 2020). While it is true that a claim for unjust
enrichment does not exist where there is an express contract,
neither party is bound to their current position that the policy at
issue was valid and enforceable. At this stage, Nichols is allowed
to plead mutually exclusive claims in the alternative.

Third, State Farm first argues that Nichols' participation in an
optional appraisal process was a condition precedent to her suit.
However, where a written request for an appraisal is made after the
suit has commenced, it cannot serve as a condition precedent to
suit. Until such a request is made, parties are presumed to prefer
a resolution by the Court. Here, State Farm did not send a written
request to participate in the appraisal process until after the
suit commenced. Its untimely request for appraisal did not
retroactively impose a condition precedent to Nichols filing suit.

Fourth, State Farm argues that by failing to participate in the
appraisal process, Nichols is precluded from bringing suit under
the doctrine of first breach. This argument has no merit, Judge
Morrison opines. She says even if Nichols' failure to participate
constituted a material breach, such a breach could not have
occurred until after State Farm assessed the actual cash value
using typical negotiation deductions -- which is the alleged breach
at the foundation of Nichols' claim.

Finally, to the extent State Farm argues that the appraisal was
necessary to establish Article III standing, that argument also
fails. Judge Morrison holds that while an appraisal may have
highlighted a weakness in the merits of Nichols' claim, State
Farm's argument conflates the Article III standing requirement of
injury-in-fact with an issue on the merits. Within the meaning of
Article III, Nichols suffered a legal injury when she was denied
the benefit of the bargain due to State Farm's alleged breach,
which she has properly alleged without an appraisal. Hence, State
Farm's final argument on the motion to dismiss fails.

In light of the foregoing, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
denied.

If the Court denies its motion to dismiss, State Farm argues the
Court should stay proceedings and compel Nichols to participate in
an appraisal. It contends that an appraisal is necessary to resolve
preliminary issues in the suit -- namely, whether Nichols was
deprived of the actual cash value of her vehicle.

Judge Morrison denies Defendant's Motion to Compel Appraisal and
Stay Proceedings. She opines that the issue in the case is what the
term "actual cash value" means under the policy. Determining the
meaning of insurance policy terms is a question of law that cannot
be resolved by submitting the dispute to an appraisal. It is clear
from State Farm's original assessment that it believes the term
"actual cash value" properly includes a typical negotiation
deduction. Nichols does not. A separate appraisal of the covered
vehicle will not alter this dispute.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mvt8kpfb from Leagle.com.


SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY: Bid to Certify Class in Covid Refund Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY COVID REFUND LITIGATION,
Civil Action No. 20-10985-WGY (D. Mass.), Judge William G. Young of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denies
the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

The Plaintiffs propose certifying the following class: All students
enrolled in an in-person/on-campus based program or classes at
Suffolk University (Suffolk), and not any separate Suffolk online
programs only, before March 11, 2020, who paid Suffolk any of the
following costs for the Spring 2020 semester: (a) Tuition, and/or
(b) Fees.

The Plaintiffs seek certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) and argue they have met all its requirements.
They also posit that they have satisfied the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).

A district court must conduct a rigorous analysis of the
prerequisites established by Rule 23 before certifying a class, and
ensure that all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and one of the
elements of Rule 23(b) are met. Rule 23(a) requires: (1)
numerosity; (2) commonality; (3) typicality; and (4)
representativeness. Rule 23(b)(3), under which the Plaintiffs seek
certification, requires that the questions of law or fact common to
the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members, and that a class action is superior to
other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
the controversy.

Suffolk, virtually conceding numerosity and commonality, opposes
class certification, citing issues with typicality, adequacy, and
predominance.

The Court has already ordered that the class definition ought be
modified to state: All students and former students of Suffolk
University (Suffolk), enrolled in in-person/on-campus based
programs, who paid tuition, or on whose behalf tuition payment was
made, to Suffolk in connection with its Spring 2020 Semester;
excluding students enrolled in Suffolk online programs only.

It also ordered Mary Anne Foti, Anna Foti's mother, dropped as a
class representative, as she lacks Article III standing to bring
either of the claims at issue.

Judge Young now examines the contested requirements under Rule
23(a).

With respect to typicality, Judge Young finds that Julia Durbeck
and Anna Fotis are adequately typical. She finds that Julia Durbeck
and Anna Fotis are both students of Suffolk University who paid
tuition with the expectation of in-person instruction and access to
facilities and in-person opportunities. Both were denied this
access in the Spring of 2020. For both students, their claims
depend on whether their expectations for in person instruction were
reasonable and based on Suffolk's promises (creating an implied
contract) and on whether Suffolk breached this implied contract.
This is the same as the rest of the class's claims. Suffolk made
identical promises via its advertisements and promotional materials
to all students.

With respect to the representativeness requirement, Judge Young
finds that the Plaintiffs represent that they are adequate because
they have spent time actively communicating and consulting with the
counsel, have no conflicts of interest with the rest of their
class, and are represented by the counsel with extensive experience
in class actions. He finds these representations credible and
therefore, concludes that Julia Durbeck and Anna Fotis are adequate
representatives for the class.

Judge Young also finds that common issues as to liability
predominate over individualized issues. He says individualized
questions about how much each individual student was damaged
(depending on financial aid or scholarships provided by Suffolk)
are best suited to the damages stage and do not defeat
predominance. Furthermore, individualized issues such as what
programs individuals are enrolled in are also of no consequence,
since the general question is whether the contract for in-person
education exists and was breached; that question exists and is the
same for every student regardless of program. Varying costs
depending on program is a damages stage issue. Moreover, what
courses a student was enrolled in is of no consequence because it
is the program and not the course which is of interest. To the
extent Suffolk raises possible problems with predominance or
individualized issues, these do not defeat predominance.

However, Judge Young simply cannot conclude that class action
treatment is either "superior" or more just than the available
alternatives. He finds that the Plaintiffs' likelihood of proving
damages is vanishingly small so long as this Court maintains its
view that evidence material to the issue of program quality
implicates educational malpractice, a claim the Court has
foreclosed. In these circumstances, class adjudication is simply
not superior to individual or aggregate litigation as a practical
matter.

After careful consideration, Judge Young denies the motion for
class certification because the argument that class action
treatment is superior to other alternatives, as required under Rule
23(b)(3), is untenable.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2sptz2jk from Leagle.com.


T-MOBILE US: Jan. 23, 2023 Settlement Claims Submission Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Guthrie, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that T-Mobile,
Subaru, AT&T, Chrysler, DirecTV, GEICO, Coppertone, Avis, and
others may have some money waiting for you as part of class action
lawsuit settlements.

The paycheck may not be as fat as the one the lawyers get -- or it
may be nothing more than a benefit like the free beer that Red
Robin customers will be getting -- but free money is good money, so
it may be worth checking out to see if you were included in the
settlement.

AT&T
We'll go with this one first because there are less than two weeks
left before the claim window closes. CNET reports that AT&T has
agreed to pay $14 million to settle a class action lawsuit claiming
that AT&T Mobility "covertly increase[d] the actual price by
padding all post-paid wireless customers' bills each month with a
bogus so-called 'Administrative Fee' . . . on top of the advertised
price."

The plaintiffs argued that AT&T's "administrative fee" was anything
but. "Rather...simply a means for AT&T to charge more per month for
the service itself without having to advertise the higher prices."

If you are -- or were -- an AT&T customer and interested in taking
part in the settlement, you need to know one thing: the payments
won't be a full reimbursement of what you paid in those
"administrative fees."

To take advantage of the settlement or to find out more, full
details are available here. The claim must be filed by Oct 29,
2022.

T-Mobile
If you are one of the 76 million T-Mobile customers whose personal
data was exposed last year, you're due part of a $350 million
settlement.

While it's doubtful you can reclaim any of your private data lost
in that data breach, eligible class members are eligible to receive
a number of things including reimbursement of up to $25,000 each
for any out-of-pocket losses incurred because of the data breach.

The carrier was very conciliatory about the situation and said it
was "humbling for all of us at T-Mobile" and vowed another incident
like that not happen again.

To resolve the matter, it was reported that members of the class
action can receive reimbursement for up to $25,000 in unreimbursed
out-of-pocket losses.

Those out-of-pocket expenses cover a pretty wide swath, too –
payments for identity fraud or theft, payments for credit
monitoring, and up to 15 hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per
hour, or class members' documented hourly wage if they took time
off work to deal with the situation.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Jan. 23, 2023. Online claim forms and full
details for anyone interested in participating in the settlement
can be found here.

Subaru
Following up on a recent ConsumerAffairs report about Subaru
getting itself in hot water when claims arose that the automaker
sold some vehicles where batteries drained faster than expected,
details have been released on what certain Subaru owners/lessees
will receive as a result of the suit.

The class action settlement benefits both current and former owners
-- as well as lessees -- who have 2015-2020 Forester, Outback,
Legacy, WRX vehicles, and model year 2019-2020 Ascent vehicles, and
live outside of Hawaii or Alaska.

TopClassActions reports that under the terms of the Subaru battery
drain settlement, all class members can receive an extended
warranty for future qualifying battery failures. There are a few
caveats, though:

If this is the first time a battery has been replaced, the extended
warranty will cover 100% of the battery replacement cost for
vehicles up to five years old and 60,000 miles, or 50% of the
battery replacement cost for vehicles over these benchmarks.

For consumers who've had more than one battery replacement, the
extended warranty will cover 100% of replacement costs for five
years or 60,000 miles, 80% of replacement costs for seven years or
84,000 miles, and 60% for eight years or 100,000 miles.

Consumers must submit a valid claim form within 60 days of the
settlement's effective date, with an estimated deadline as early as
March 9, 2023. To file a claim, affected consumers must fill out
this form.

Jeep, Ram, Dodge and Fiat
Staying under the hood, Fiat Chrysler has agreed to resolve
allegations that it sold certain Jeep, Ram, Dodge, and Fiats with
2.4L Tigershark engines that were defective when it comes to oil
consumption.

The model years affected break down like this, TopClassActions,
reports:

2015-2017 Chrysler 200

2013-2016 Dodge Dart

2014-2019 Jeep Cherokee manufactured prior to July 2018

2015-2018 Jeep Renegade

2017-2018 Jeep Compass

2015-2018 Ram Promaster City

2016-2018 Fiat 500x

Class Members who own the vehicles are covered by Customer
Satisfaction Notification W80 – the Fiat 500x, Ram Promaster
City, and Jeep Renegade – and whose engine long blocks are
replaced will automatically receive a $340 payment.

Others will have access to benefits including extended warranty,
payments, and product improvement benefits.

If you own one of those vehicles and want to take part in the
settlement, there is some paperwork you'll need to do, like proof
of expenses for towing. Full details and the claim form is
available here.

DirecTV
ConsumerAffairs reviewers' opinions of DirecTV run hot and cold,
but one particular mistake that put the company in the crosshairs
of a class action lawsuit came about when a band of unhappy
consumers felt like they suffered through calls about owing money
to the company.

The lynchpin in the lawsuit was those calls that went to people who
hadn't been DirecTV customers since Oct. 1, 2004. That's a direct
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To resolve the matter, DirecTV agreed to a $17 million settlement
to resolve those claims. If you haven't been a DirecTV customer
since October of 2004, but received a phone call from DirecTV or a
company working on behalf of DirecTV regarding a debt owed to them,
then you probably qualify for part of the settlement.

Fair warning, though – it might not be much. When ConsumerAffairs
reviewed the settlement agreement, it did not specify a dollar
amount that consumers filing a request would actually receive.

Consumers must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 19 to be eligible
to join the class action settlement. Forms and other information
are available here.

GEICO
TopClassActions reports that GEICO has agreed to a settlement worth
$19.1 million to end allegations that came about when the insurance
company failed to provide sales tax while paying out claims for
total loss vehicles.

Consumers who will benefit from the settlement have to hold
California auto insurance policies through GEICO, though.

Eligibility requirements also mandate that those consumers were not
paid either sales tax or regulatory fees on a claim submitted
between June 27, 2015 (GEICO General), Oct. 23, 2016 (GEICO
Indemnity), or June 30, 2017 (GEICO Casualty or Government
Employees Insurance Company), through Aug. 27, 2020.

Claims can be filed here, and anyone who wants to join the class
action lawsuit must submit a valid claim form by Nov. 11. [GN]

TDK CORP: Reseller Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Hard Disk Drive Suspension
Assemblies Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), the Reseller Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying the following class, pursuant to Rule (b)(3) of the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure:

   "All persons or entities, in the Indirect Purchaser States,
   except OEMs, who, during the period from January 2003 through
   May 2016, purchased a Standalone Storage Device or Computer
   for resale which included as a component part one or more HDD
   suspension assemblies that were manufactured or sold by the
   Defendants, any current or former subsidiary of the
   Defendants, or any co-conspirator of the Defendants or
   indirectly purchased an HDD suspension assembly, for resale,
   that was manufactured or sold by the Defendants, any current
   or former subsidiary of the Defendants, or any co-conspirator
   of the Defendants."

In the alternative, the Reseller Plaintiffs seek certification of
separate classes under the laws of each of the Indirect Purchaser
States, namely a California class, a Michigan class, a Minnesota
class, a New York class, and a North Carolina class.

The Reseller Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Cuneo Gilbert
& LaDuca, LLP and Larson King, LLP as Class Counsel.

The Reseller Plaintiffs include IT Worx, Inc., Now Micro, Inc.,
Business Integrated Technical Systems, Inc. dba Network One,
Michael Medeiros and Stephen Arvay.

The Plaintiffs brought this price-fixing conspiracy case against
the two defendant families:

   TDK Defendans -- TDK Corporation, SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd.,
                    Hutchinson Technology Inc., and Magnecomp
                    Precision Technology Public Ltd.

   NHK Defendants -- NHK Spring Co. Ltd., NHK International
                     Corporation, NHK Spring Co., Ltd., NAT
                     Peripheral Co. (Dong Guan), Ltd., and NAT
                     Peripheral Co. (H.K.), Ltd.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 12,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Tv5iD2
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Victoria Sims, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: vicky@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          LARSON | KING, LLP
          30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6518
          Facsimile: (651) 789-4818
          E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

TDK CORPORATION: End-User Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Hard Disk Drive Suspension
Assemblies Antitrust Litigation, Case No. (), the End-User
Plaintiffs (EUPs) will move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, for an order:

   1. certifying the EUP Classes;

   2. appointing the EUP Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Christopher Micheletti and Zelle LLP, and Will
      Reiss and Robins Kaplan LLP as 8 Class Counsel.

      The EUP Classes comprise the following 29 statewide
      damages classes asserting 9 claims under state antitrust,
      unfair competition, and/or consumer protection laws as
      well as law unjust enrichment:

      "All persons and entities who, during the time period
      January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2016 (Class Period), in
      the Indirect Purchaser States, purchased Standalone
      Storage Devices or Computers, not for resale, which
      included hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assemblies that
      were manufactured or sold by the Defendants."

This is a straightforward price-fixing and market allocation case,
ideally suited for class certification. For more than 12 years, the
Defendants allegedly conspired to artificially inflate SA prices by
agreeing to fix prices and allocate market shares and customers.

The Defendants admitted to 9 participating in a criminal conspiracy
in violation of U.S. antitrust law, and extensive class-wide
evidence obtained in discovery confirms the conspiracy's scope,
duration, and operational details.

The Defendants' own business records and testimony unequivocally
demonstrate that they maintained a long-running conspiracy to
elevate the prices of SAs, resulting in an overcharge to HDD
makers.

EUPs' evidence related to the SA and HDD markets -- which is also
common to all members of the Classes -- further establishes that
overcharge was passed through to end-purchasers. The requirements
of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are met.

The Indirect Purchaser States are Arkansas, Arizona, California,
Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South , Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia,
Wisconsin, and District of Columbia (Class States).

The Defendants are TDK Corporation, Magnecomp Precision Technology
Public Co. Ltd., Magnecomp Corporation, Hutchinson Technology Inc.,
and SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd, and NHK Spring Co., Ltd., NHK
International Corporation, NHK Spring Co., Ltd., NAT Peripheral
(Dong Guan) Co., Ltd., and NAT Peripheral (H.K.) Co., Ltd. The
Defendants and governmental entities are excluded from the
Classes.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Oct. 11,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gg6snu
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1230
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
          E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com

               - and -

          William V. Reiss, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          1325 Avenue of Americas, Suite 2601
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: wreiss@robinskaplan.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action in Victoria Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ged Bulmer, writing for RACQ, reports that a Victorian law firm has
launched a class action in the Supreme Court of Victoria on behalf
of up to half a million owners of diesel-powered Toyota vehicles.

It is alleged that Toyota Australia sold hundreds of thousands of
diesel vehicles to Australian consumers that possess design
features known as 'defeat devices'.

A statement from Maddens Lawyers, the firm leading the class
action, described the class action as "one of the biggest claims in
Australia's legal history".

Maddens Lawyers' Special Counsel Brendan Pendergast said on some
Toyota models the emissions control system is alleged to perform
differently in test conditions compared with on-road conditions.

This results in cars passing regulatory testing but then emitting
unlawfully high levels of nitrogen oxide when on the road.

The class action alleges when obtaining regulatory approval for
diesel cars to be sold on the Australian market, Toyota engaged in
conduct which was misleading and deceptive.

It is also alleged affected vehicles were not of acceptable quality
and did not meet the necessary safety standards under the
Australian Consumer Law.

A statement on Toyota Australia's website said: "Toyota Australia
stands by its reporting, monitoring and evaluation standards in
relation to the carbon emissions for all its vehicles. We will
defend the class action announced on Oct. 18 rigorously. As this
matter is before the courts, we have no further comment."

The class action comes at the same time as a claim against Toyota
relating to a defect with the diesel particulate filter (DPF) in
certain Hilux, Fortuner and Prado diesel vehicles, but is unrelated
to that matter, according to Maddens Lawyers.

"This is a separate claim and does not extend to Toyota's use of
defeat devices," Mr Pendergast said.

"The allegations in the Maddens' class action concerning the use of
defeat devices are a much broader issue and impacts a larger range
of Toyota cars."

The Maddens' Toyota Diesel Defeat Device Class Action relates to
anyone who purchased a range of Toyota diesel vehicles after 7
February 2016, with the company claiming it could impact up to
500,000 vehicle owners.   

Vehicles covered by the class action include:

Toyota Hilux, Landcruiser Prado, Fortuner, Granvia and HiAce
vehicles fitted with a 2.8 litre 1GD-FTV engine.

Toyota Hilux vehicles fitted with a 2.4 litre 2GD-FTV engine.

Toyota LandCruiser vehicles fitted with a 3.3 litre F33A-FTV
engine.

Toyota LandCruiser vehicles fitted with a 4.5 litre 1VD-FTV 195kW
to 200 kW engine.

Toyota RAV-4 vehicles fitted with a 2.2 litre 2AD-FHV or 2AD-FTV
engine.

The claim comes following Hino Motors, a subsidiary of the Toyota
Motor Corporation, suspending the sale of some diesel truck models
in Japan after misreporting engine data relating to fuel efficiency
and emissions.

The Hino truck scandal first came to light in March 2022 and as at
late August had expanded to include additional models totalling
640,000 vehicles. [GN]

TRAVEL INSURED: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 30, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edelson v. Travel Insured
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00323 (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler entered an order
granting the parties' joint motion to extend the date to file a
motion for class certification.

   -- The class certification motion       January 23, 2023
      must be filed by:

   -- The parties may address the issue of an appropriate
      briefing schedule for the motion with the district judge
      at that time.

The nature of suit states contract - diversity action.

Travel Insured offers several travel insurance plans.[CC]

TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Court Stays All Discovery in Edge Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL EDGE, MICHAEL J. DENNEHY and RALPH ESTEP,
Plaintiffs v. TUPPERWARE BRANDS CORPORATION, MIGUEL FERNANDEZ and
CASSANDRA HARRIS, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-1518-RBD-LHP (M.D.
Fla.), Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, grants
the Joint Motion to Stay Case Management Order and for Entry of
Order on Filing of Amended Complaint and Briefing Schedule.

On June 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action
complaint against the Defendants alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, as amended by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). The case
was originally filed in the Southern District of New York, and was
transferred to this Court on Aug. 25, 2022.

On Sept. 16, 2022, the Presiding District Judge appointed Michael
J. Dennehy and Ralph Estep as joint Co-Lead Plaintiffs to represent
the interests of the putative class, and appointed the law firms of
Pomerantz LLP and Levi & Korsinksy, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for the
class.

On Sept. 28, 2022, the parties jointly filed the present motion
requesting that the Court stays the filing of a case management
report and relieves the parties from the requirements of Local Rule
3.02, establishes a schedule for the filing of an amended complaint
and response, and stays discovery pending resolution of any
anticipated motions to dismiss.

The motion has been referred to Judge Price for disposition. Upon
review, she finds the motion well taken. She states that pursuant
to the PSLRA, "all discovery and other proceedings will be stayed
during the pendency of any motion to dismiss, unless the court
finds upon the motion of any party that particularized discovery is
necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice to
that party."

Therefore, all discovery is stayed in this matter until the
resolutions of any motions to dismiss. And because all discovery
will be stayed, Judge Price finds that the parties should be
relieved from the requirements of Local Rule 3.02 at this time, and
in particular are relieved from the requirement of conducting a
case management conference and filing a case management report.
However, because at present there are no pending motions to
dismiss, she will also establish a schedule for the filing of an
amended complaint and responses thereto, in an effort to ensure
that resolution of the case is not unduly delayed.

Accordingly, the Joint Motion to Stay Case Management Order and for
Entry of Order on Filing of Amended Complaint and Briefing Schedule
is granted. The parties are relieved from the obligations found in
Local Rule 3.02 (in particular the conducting of a case management
conference and the filing of a case management report), and all
discovery is stayed until further notice.

In addition, the following schedule is established:

      1. The Lead Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint within
45 days from the date of the Order;

      2. The Defendants will file an answer or otherwise respond to
the amended complaint within 45 days of the filing of the amended
complaint;

      3. If the Defendants move to dismiss, the Lead Plaintiffs
will file their responses in opposition to any such motions within
45 days of the filing of the motions; and

      4. The Defendants may file a reply to any responses in
opposition to any motions to dismiss within 30 days of the filing
of the responses.

      5. The Court will enter a separate order directing the
parties to comply with Local Rule 3.02, if necessary and
appropriate, upon resolution of any and all filed motions to
dismiss and/or if no such motions are filed upon the filing of the
Defendants' answers.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 11, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yxjcc9u2 from Leagle.com.


UNILEVER USA: Faces Class Action Over Chocolate Chip Ice Cream
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action takes issue with the label of Breyers Mint Chocolate
Chip Ice cream since it allegedly fails to disclose that the
product's characterizing flavor does not come entirely from real
mint ingredients.

The 11-page suit says that although the label describes the Breyers
product as "[c]ool mint ice cream with rich chocolately chips," no
qualifying terms, such as "flavored," are included to indicate that
the mint taste comes not from mint extract or mint oil but from
"natural flavor."

The case contends that since neither mint extract nor mint oil is
separately identified in the ice cream's ingredient list, "any real
mint, if present, is at trace or de minimis levels as part of the
natural flavor ingredient."

"To the extent the Product may taste like mint, this is from
'Natural Flavor,' a synthesized blend of compounds, enhancers,
solvents and additives, combined in a laboratory, with little if
any connection to mint ingredients," the suit claims.

Because "flavored" is left off of the ice cream's front label,
consumers are not told that the product's taste does not come from
mint ingredients, the filing argues, contending that the value of
the Breyers Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream is materially less than
represented by defendant Unilever United States.

"Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they
would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it,"
the suit says.

The plaintiff and other buyers read and relied on the word "mint"
and pictures of mint leaves on the product label in believing that
the ice cream's taste was from mint ingredients, the filing states.


The suit looks to cover consumers in Illinois, North Dakota,
Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, and
Wyoming who bought Breyers Mint Chocolate chip ice cream during the
applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]

WALMART INC: Court Stays Powell Suit Pending OK of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEARL POWELL, CHRISTINA
GAST, and ELIJHA GONZALEZ, as individuals and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. WALMART, INC.; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES,
INC.; WAL-MART STORES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 3:20-cv-02412-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Janis L. Sammartino
Judge entered an order:

   1. granting joint motion to vacate all dates and stay case
      pending approval of class action settlement;

   2. denying without prejudice motions for judgment on the
      pleadings and class certification; and

   3. staying matter pending class action settlement
      approval in related action.

The Court said, "In light of the settlement and the Parties'
intention to seek approval thereof in the Mejia action, rather than
vacate the dates and deadlines affiliated with the Pending Motions,
the Court instead denies the Pending Motions without prejudice to
their renewal in the future, as necessary. Further, the Court STAYS
this case pending approval of the Parties' class action settlement
agreement in Mejia. The Parties shall file a joint status report,
not to exceed five pages in length, within 10 days of the date 15
the order granting or denying approval of the class action
settlement in Mejia."

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.

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


WEST PALM BEACH: Tipped Employees Get Settlement Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FITZJOHN MCCANN and
ROBINSON ROMAN, v. West Palm Beach FRIGATE'S WATERFRONT BAR &
GRILL, INC., a Florida profit corporation, Case No.
9:22-cv-80464-WM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William Matthewman
entered an order granting joint motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement and certification of settlement class.

The Court therefore provisionally certifies the following
Settlement Class, which Defendant identifies to contain 101
potential Class Members:

   "All tipped employees who worked for Defendant from April 16,
   2021 through January 7, 2022, for whom Defendant claimed a
   tip credit to meet Defendant’s minimum wage obligations under

   Article X, Section 24, of the Florida Constitution and the
   FLSA, and for whom Defendant subjected to a deduction for
   breakage."

The Court preliminarily finds that the settlement of the Lawsuit,
on the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, is in all
respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interest of the Class Members, especially in light of the benefits
to the Class Members.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the Court appoints FitzJohn McCann
and Robinson Roman as the Class Representatives. The Court also
appoints Cathleen Scott and Gabriel Roberts of Scott Law Team LLC
as Class Counsel.

The Defendant, through its attorney Gary A. Isaacs of Cohen Norris
Wolmer Ray Telepman Berkowitz & Cohen, will administer the
settlement and notification to Class Members. The Defendant will be
responsible for mailing the approved class action notice and
settlement checks to the Class Members. All reasonable costs of
notice and administration will be paid by Defendant separate and
apart from the Settlement Fund.

The Court approves the form and substance of the written notice of
the class action settlement. The proposed form and method
for notifying the Class Members of the settlement and its terms and
conditions meet the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and due
process, constitute the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, and constitute due and sufficient notice to all
persons and entities entitled to the notice.

Any Class Member who desires to receive their portion of the
Settlement funds shall return a signed Claim Form as directed in
the Notice to:

          Gary A. Isaacs, Esq.
          712 US Highway 1, Suite 400
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 844-3600
          E-mail: gai@cohennorris.com

Any Class Member who intends to object to the fairness of this
settlement must file a written objection with the Court no later
than 45 days after the date of the notice.

The Court will conduct an in-court final fairness hearing on
January 31, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. at the United States District Court
for the Southern Ddistrict of Florida, Paul G. Rogers Federal
Building and U.S. Courthouse, 701 Clematis Street, Third Floor,
Courtroom 6, West Palm Beach, Florida.

The Court sets the following schedule:

               Event                              Date

   -- Deadline for Notice to be Sent        October 25, 2022

   -- Deadline to Send Claim Form           December 9, 2022
      or File Objection:

   -- Deadline for Motion for Final         December 29, 2022
      Approval:

   -- Deadline for Opposition to            January 13, 2023
      Motion for Final Approval

   -- Reply in Support of Motion for        January 20, 2023
      Final Approval:

   -- Final Fairness Hearing:               January 31, 2023

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EJW5m5 at no extra charge.[CC]

WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE: Wiretaps Website Visitors, Licea Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, inclusive, Case No. 22CV1564 BAS BLM
(S.D. Cal., Oct. 12, 2022) alleges that the Defendant secretly
wiretaps the private conversations of everyone who communicates
through the chat feature at www.saucony.com in violation of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Defendant allows at least one third party to eavesdrop on such
communications in real time and during transmission to harvest data
for financial gain. The Defendant does not obtain visitors' consent
to either the wiretapping or the eavesdropping, the suit says. As a
result, Defendant has violated the CIPA in numerous ways, the
Plaintiff claims.

Specifically, to enable the wiretapping, the Defendant has covertly
embedded code into its chat feature that automatically records and
creates transcripts of all such conversations, the Plaintiff says.
To enable the eavesdropping, the Defendant allows at least one
independent third-party vendor to secretly intercept, eavesdrop
upon, and store transcripts of Defendant's chat communications with
unsuspecting website visitors – even when such conversations are
private and deeply personal, the Plaintiff adds.

Wolverine owns, operates, and/or control the www.saucony.com
website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

[*] British Columbia to Amend Bill Related to Health-Care Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Coyne, writing for CTV News Vancouver Island, reports that the
B.C. government says it will introduce amendments to legislation
that would allow the federal government to join a B.C.-led
class-action lawsuit seeking to recover health-care costs related
to the sale and marketing of opioid-based pain medication.

The province says the changes to the Opioid Damages and Health Care
Costs Recovery Act would allow Ottawa to join B.C. and other
provinces and territories in the class-action suit that is pursuing
damages from companies that allegedly contributed to the opioid
addiction crisis.

The province said on Oct. 17 the amendments would expand the number
of potential defendants in the case and also ensure that corporate
officers and directors can be held accountable for the actions of
their companies.

"B.C. led the country in holding opioid manufacturers and
distributors accountable, and today B.C. is expanding its opioid
litigation legislation," Sheila Malcolmson, B.C.'s Minister of
Mental Health and Addictions, said in a statement Monday.

"Nothing will ever replace the lives lost in our province, but we
keep using every tool in our toolbox - from prevention to safe
supply to treatment - to turn the tide on this terrible crisis,"
the minister added.

B.C. Health Minister Adrian Dix said the amendments would broaden
the scope of the legal action against more than 40 opioid makers
and distributors.

In June, the province reached a proposed settlement with Purdue
Pharma Canada on behalf of all provinces and territories to recover
health-care costs related to the sale and marketing of
opioid-derived pain medication

The proposed $150-million settlement was reached before any
allegations against Purdue had been proven in court, representing
the largest settlement of its kind in Canadian history.

Purdue is among the 40 manufacturers and distributors named in the
class-action suit in progress.

"Our government is continuing to do everything we can to address
the damage opioids have done to people's lives in B.C.," Dix said.

The class action against the opioid makers and sellers was
initiated in 2018 and is scheduled for a certification hearing in
B.C. Supreme Court in the fall of 2023. [GN]


                            *********

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 ***