/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221101.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, November 1, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 212

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Huizar Suit Removed to in S.D. New York
AE OUTFITTERS: Mackey Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
AIRGAS USA: Chiesa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ALLIED PILOTS: Court Issues Order on Death of Plaintiffs' Counsel
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks to Move Class Cert Hearing Date

AMERICAN HONDA: Chiulli Sues Over Failure to Disclose Facts
AMERICARE INC: Denial of Leave to Amend in Guzman Suit Affirmed
AMPD MYRTLE: Causey FLSA Suit Removed to D.S.C.
ANADARKO E & P: Bid to Disqualify Expert Witness in Box Suit Nixed
BAYER CORPORATION: Robinson Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey

BEAR DOWN: Samples Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
BIG ISLAND CANDIES: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLACK CEO: Ulery Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
BLOOMINGDALES.COM: Jones Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
BLUE CROSS: Allied World Wins Bid to Compel Settlement Production

CALIFORNIA: Magistrate Judge Endorses Denial of TRO in Hearns Suit
CAMBRIDGE REAL: Cruz Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
CAPITAL ONE: Marquez TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. California
CHARLOTTE, NC: Durham's Declaratory & Injunctive Relief Claim Nixed
CIRCLE LOGISTICS: Lucas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

CLOROX COMPANY: Craw Sues Over Misleading Marketing Practices
COMPETITION CLUTCH: Stebbins Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
COUPANG INC: Naya 1740 Sues Over Anti-Competitive Practices
DANONE WATERS: Faces Dorris Suit Over Mislabeled Bottled Water
DETHESDA SOFTWORKS: Can Compel Arbitration in Devine Class Action

DIGNITY CARE: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Sought
DIRECT FUNDING: Case Management Order Entered in Abramson Suit
DON'S APPLIANCES: Rich Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
E.V.P. ENTERPRISES: Teuschler Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Data
ELEVEN60 LLC: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

EMERALD SERVICES: Urgiles Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
EMERSON HOSPITAL: Suit Filed in Mass. Super. Ct.
EMPOWER RETIREMENT: Shaffer Sues Over Massive and Unlawful Profits
EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Saunders Files Suit in S.D. New York
EURO CERAMICA: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

FEDERAL EXPRESS: Weisfeld Stayed Pending Kouri Deal Final Approval
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Lane Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
FFE TRANSPORTATION: Cronon Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
GODFATHER'S PIZZA: Suit Seeks to Certify Delivery Driver Class
HAKUBUNDO INC: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

HOME DEPOT: Conneran Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls
HUMANIGEN INC: Greenbaum Files Suit in D. New Jersey
HYRECAR INC: Talley Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
IQVIA INC: Court Enters Revised Scheduling Order in Lyngass Suit
JJS DINER CORP: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

JMR SERVICES: Ingle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
KEYSTONE HEALTH: Breneman Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
KIA AMERICA: Mohr Files Suit in C.D. California
LADIES PROFESSIONAL: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
LAKE VENTURES: Robinson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data

LENDBUZZ FUNDING: Warmilee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bunce Sues Over Improperly Excluded Claims
LINKSYS USA: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOA LTD: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Licea Files Suit in C.D. California

LYNFRED WINERY: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MASTEC SERVICES: Smart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MDL 2867: Bids for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissed as Moot
MDL 2873: Bowman Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Davila Files PI Suit Over Exposure to Toxic PFAS

MDL 2873: Helt Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Newman Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MEDIACO HOLDING: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MEET MUSE MEDIA: Taylor Files Suit in S.D. California
MERCADO SANTIAGO INC: Acevedo Sues Over Unpaid Regular, OT Wages

MICHAELS STORES: DeLaRosa Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
MIDDLESEX WATER: Class Cert. Bid in Franklin Prisoners Suit Denied
MONA LISA PIZZA: Baber Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MY PILLOW INC: Gaudreau Files Suit in W.D. Tennessee
NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA: Ross Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee

NORTHSTAR HEALTHCARE: Failed to Protect Consumers' Info, Emery Says
NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Nov. 10
NUNZIO & SONS: Hurtado Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
OVERSTOCK.COM: Licea Sues Over Secretly Wiretapped Conversations
PATREON INC: California Court Narrows Claims in Stark Class Suit

PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Licea Files Suit in S.D. California
PETSMART LLC: Scally Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
PICK FIVE IMPORTS: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PRECISION OF NEW HAMPTON: Grainger Suit Removed to N.D. Iowa
PRIDE MEDICAL: Class Cert. in Doe Suit Reversed; Sanctions Upheld

PRIMARY EXPRESS: Porter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PRIORITY DISPATCH: Peter Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification
PUBLIC CONSULTING: Martinez Suit Remanded to San Diego State Court
Q3M INSURANCE: Court Denies as Moot Bid to Dismiss Gaker Class Suit
R & S LIQUOR STORE: Santos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

REALPAGE INC: Bason Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
RESOLUTE CAPITAL: Cruz Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
REXEL USA: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Torres Suit
RITE AID: Page Sues Over Decline in Securities Market Value
ROSHAMBO BABY: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SAFE COSMETICS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Grants Wesley's Bid to Substitute Party
SIRIUS XM: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SMOKE CARTEL: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOVOS COMPLIANCE: Stefano Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.

SPROUT FOODS: Court Dismisses Davidson's First Amended Class Suit
STAR LITE DELI: Paguay Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
STATE FARM: Muhammad Files Suit in D. New Jersey
SUNPOWER CORP: Lead Roles Named in Jaszczyszyn Securities Suit
SWIFT BEEF COMPANY: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Court Reserves Order on Miller Suit Dismissal
TESLA INC: Loses Bid to Exclude Expert Opinions in Securities Suit
TRANSFORCE INC: Turner FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
TRINET HR III: Court Certifies Class in Huang ERISA Suit
TRUSTED MEDIA: Discloses Subscribers' Personal Info, Elliot Claims

UNIFIED SCHOOL: Dismissal of Towne's Breach of Contract Suit Upheld
UNILEVER: Martinez Sues Over Misleading Marketing Practices
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA: Class Certification in Pratt Suit Flipped
VICTOR'S CAFE: Peralta Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
VITALITY HOLDINGS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Mishkin Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
VOLT MANAGEMENT: Broussard Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Kelly Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WALMART INC: Kukorinis Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
WARDEN BERGAMI: Hunt Files Suit in N.D. Illinois

WARNER BROS: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Keebaugh Suit
WILLIAMSBURG MATERIALS: Riera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
WILSON JAVIER LOJAN: Arguello Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
WITH YOU E-COMMERCE: Haviland Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
ZILLOW GROUP: Strelzin Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Huizar Suit Removed to in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ernie Huizar, Ramond Williams, Donald Crook,
James Paulk, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing,
Co); AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Amerex Corporation; Arkema Inc.;
Archroma U.S., Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company; Carrier Global
Corporation; Chemdesign Products Inc.; Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals,
Inc.; Clariant Corporation, individually and as successor in
interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; Corteva, Inc. and as
successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc.; DuPont De Nemours Inc., individually and
as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
Dynax Corporation; E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, individually
and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise; Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., individually as successor in
interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc.; Nation Ford Chemical
Company; The Chemours Company, individually and as successor in
interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; The Chemours
Company FC, LLC, individually and as successor in interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; Tyco Fire Products, LP,
individually and as successor in interest to The Ansul Company; Doe
Defendants 1-20 fictitious names whose present identities are
unknown, Case No. 157472/2022 was removed from the Supreme Court,
County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on Oct. 19, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-08921 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability.

The 3M Company -- https://www.3m.com/ -- is an American
multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of
industry, worker safety, US health care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jordan David Sagalowsky, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP (NY)
          1221 Avenue of the Americas, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10020-1001
          Phone: (212) 506-2500
          Fax: (212) 262-1910
          Email: jsagalowsky@mayerbrown.com


AE OUTFITTERS: Mackey Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled SAMANTHA MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AE OUTFITTERS RETAIL CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 2022-CA-006632, was removed from the Sixth
Judicial Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on Oct. 14,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:22-cv-02375 to the proceeding.

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

AE Outfitters Retail Co. is a specialty retailer of apparel and
accessories.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

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

AIRGAS USA: Chiesa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Airgas USA, et al.
The case is styled as Clarence Eugene Chiesa, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Airgas USA, Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2022-00328603-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct.
19, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited"

Airgas USA -- https://www.airgas.com/ -- is a distributor of
industrial, medical and specialty gases as well as a product line
of safety products, welding equipment, specialty tools, and MRO
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max W. Gavron, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S Figueroa St, Ste 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Phone: 213-488-6555
          Email: mgavron@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito St # 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Phone: 831-531-4214
          Fax: 831-634-0333
          Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com


ALLIED PILOTS: Court Issues Order on Death of Plaintiffs' Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California issued instructions relating to
the death of the Plaintiffs' counsel in the lawsuit titled AMERICAN
AIRLINES FLOW-THRU PILOTS COALITION, et al., Plaintiffs v. ALLIED
PILOTS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01160-RS
(N.D. Cal.).

Having been advised of the passing of the Plaintiffs' counsel
Christopher Katzenbach, Esq., Judge Seeborg states that his name
will be removed as counsel of record for the individual Plaintiffs,
who have expressed an intent to appear in pro se, and who should do
so promptly.

Mr. Katzenbach will remain listed as counsel of record for the
entity Plaintiff, American Airlines Flow-Thru Pilots Coalition, so
that notice continues to be sent to the person or persons charged
with winding down his practice, until such time as his
representative moves to have his name removed from the service list
and/or other counsel appear.

As previously noted, Judge Seeborg says the entity Plaintiff cannot
proceed without active counsel of record, nor may the matter be
maintained as a class action without counsel for the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 13, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8ded4c from Leagle.com.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks to Move Class Cert Hearing Date
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TISHA HILARIO,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05459-WHO
(N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order moving
the class certification hearing to a later date.

Pursuant to the Court's Order granting Plaintiff's motion for
extension of time to file reply brief in support of class, the
class certification hearing is currently schedule for November 9,
2022.

Allstate Corp. is an American insurance company, headquartered in
Northfield Township, Illinois.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TvKdsh at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by

          Sonia R. Martin, Esq.
          Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          One Market Plaza
          Spear Tower, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 267-4000
          Facsimile: (415) 267 4198
          E-mail: sonia.martin@dentons.com
                  mark.hanover@dentons.com

AMERICAN HONDA: Chiulli Sues Over Failure to Disclose Facts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Constance Chiulli, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a
California corporation, and HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., a Japanese
corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-06225 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2022), is
brought on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased
or leased any 2016-2020 Honda Civic vehicles equipped with an
integrated in-vehicle communication and entertainment system
("Infotainment System") designed, manufactured, marketed,
distributed, sold, warranted, and/or serviced by American Honda
Motor Company, Inc. ("AHM") and/or Honda Motor Co., Ltd. ("HMC")
("Class Vehicles" or "Vehicles"), concerning a failure to disclose
material facts and a safety concern to consumers.

The Defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold the
Class Vehicles without disclosing that the Class Vehicles'
Infotainment Systems were defective. Specifically, the Plaintiff is
informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the
Infotainment System is defective in that it malfunctions, freezes,
or crashes, which in turn causes the inoperability of one or more
features (including, inter alia, the navigation; heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning ("HVAC"); music/radio; display
screen; Bluetooth/phone; and backup camera functionalities) (the
"Infotainment System Defect" or "Defect"). Discovery will show that
improperly designed and/or programmed/calibrated software results
in these failures.

Among the most concerning is the failure of the back-up camera
images to accurately depict the conditions behind the vehicle.
Drivers, including the Plaintiff, become accustomed to the driver
assist features in the infotainment system, including in particular
the back-up camera and the right-side blind spot camera. Because
the Infotainment System controls myriad vehicle functions, the
Defect causes a wide array of failures.

The Defendants sold the Class Vehicles with a 3-year/36,000-mile
New Vehicle Limited Warranty ("NVLW") that purports to cover the
Infotainment System. However, owners and lessees often have
complained that their Infotainment Systems fail and require repair
or replacement both within and just outside the warranty period.
This is evidenced through Class Member reports to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), which demonstrate
that Honda's authorized dealerships are replacing and repairing
Infotainment Systems both within, and just outside, the applicable
express warranty periods. The Infotainment System Defect is
inherent in each Class Vehicle and was present at the time of
sale.

Discovery will show that, since 2015, if not earlier, Defendants
have been aware the Class Vehicles' Infotainment Systems would need
frequent repair, prematurely fail, require frequent replacement.
Moreover, Defendants not only refused to disclose the problem to
consumers, they also actively concealed, and continue to conceal,
their knowledge concerning the Infotainment System Defect.
Defendants undertook affirmative measures to conceal Infotainment
System failures and other malfunctions through, among other things,
Technical Service Bulletins ("TSB") issued to authorized repair
facilities only.

The Defendants' failure to disclose the Infotainment System Defect
has caused Plaintiff and putative class members to lose the use of
their Vehicles' Infotainment Systems and/or incur costly repairs
that have conferred an unjust substantial benefit upon Defendants.
Discovery will show that, in an effort to conceal the Infotainment
System Defect, Defendants have instructed dealers to tell consumers
their vehicles are "operating normally" or "operating as intended"
when they are not, or to give excuses for sub-par performance. This
is a common practice in the automotive industry, particularly with
Infotainment System-related issues. By denying the existence of a
defect, manufacturers can play on the consumers' lack of technical
expertise and avoid implementing potentially costly fixes for
years, or at least until the vehicles are out of warranty. When
remedial measures are taken, such as "software updates" or
"reprogramming," they are often through the issuance of service
bulletins provided to dealers only that are narrowly crafted and
underinclusive.

Had the Defendants disclosed the Infotainment System Defect,
Plaintiff and Class Members would not have purchased the Class
Vehicles, would have paid less for them, or would have required
Defendants to replace, or pay for the replacement of, the defective
Infotainment System with a non-defective version before their
warranty periods expired, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a new 2019 Honda Civic from Walnut Creek
Honda, an authorized Honda dealership in Walnut Creek, California.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR was and is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing,
distributing, and/or selling automobiles and motor vehicle
components in California and throughout the United States of
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          Email: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                 Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                 Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com


AMERICARE INC: Denial of Leave to Amend in Guzman Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LAURY VASQUEZ GUZMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff-Respondent v. AMERICARE, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellants, DOES #1-10, Defendants, Index No. 24877/18E,
Appeal No. 16418, Case No. 2022-01314 (N.Y. App. Div.), the
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, unanimously affirmed, without costs, the New York
Supreme Court's order denying leave to amend answer.

The order was entered by the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Leticia
M. Ramirez, J.), on March 7, 2022. The order denied the Defendants'
motion for leave to amend their answer to the first amended class
action complaint to include an affirmative defense asserting
additional constitutional defenses.

The Defendants sought to add an affirmative defense asserting that
the class, as defined, violated their due process rights.

The Appellate Court opines that the proposed defense, however, was
in clear contravention of the Appellate Court's prior determination
that the Plaintiff was entitled to class certification (Guzman v
Americare, Inc., 202 A.D.3d 504, 504 [1st Dept 2022], lv dismissed
38 N.Y.3d 1156 [2022]).

Thus, the Appellate Court holds that the proposed defense is
patently devoid of merit, citing MBIA Ins. Corp. v Greystone & Co.
Inc., 74 A.D.3d 499, 499 [1st Dept 2010]. Moreover, the Plaintiff
would be prejudiced if the Defendants were permitted to challenge
the class certification again at this late stage in the
litigation.

The Appellate Court says it considered the Defendants' remaining
contentions and finds them unavailing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated Oct. 13,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mwa52v56 from
Leagle.com.

Peckar & Abramson, P.C., New York (Kevin J. O'Connor --
koconnor@pecklaw.com -- of counsel), for the Appellants.

Law Office of William Coudert Rand, New York (William C. Rand --
wcrand@wcrand.com -- of counsel), for the Respondent.


AMPD MYRTLE: Causey FLSA Suit Removed to D.S.C.
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled Brittany Causey & Shawn Smith, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMPD
Myrtle LLC, d/b/a Local on the Water, Michael DeSimone,
individually, Adam DeSimone, individually, Patrick DeSimone,
individually, Jason Davis, individually, Amanda Run, individually,
and Debbie Rice, individually, Defendants, Case No.
2022-CP-26-05722, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas for
the State of South Carolina, Horry County, to the U.S. Court for
the District of South Carolina, Florence Division, on Oct. 18,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 4:22-cv-03601-JD to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs' complaint seeks recovery of minimum wages and
overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act including
questions of compensable time and tip credits.

AMPD Myrtle LLC, d/b/a Local on the Water, is a full service bar
and restaurant based in South Carolina.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Katie E. Towery, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          110 E. Court Street, Suite 201
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 775-3190           
          E-mail: ktowery@littler.com

ANADARKO E & P: Bid to Disqualify Expert Witness in Box Suit Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BOX ELDER KIDS, LLC, C C OPEN A, LLC, and GUEST FAMILY
TRUST, by its Trustee CONSTANCE F. GUEST, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. ANADARKO E & P ONSHORE, LLC, ANADARKO LAND CORPORATION, and
KERR-McGEE OIL AND GAS ONSHORE, LP, Defendants, Civil Action No.
20-cv-2352-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denies the
Plaintiffs' Corrected Motion to Disqualify Expert Witness Jaime
Jost and to Exclude Expert Report.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, bring this breach of contract lawsuit
against the Defendants, alleging that the Defendants failed to pay
them the correct monetary amount pursuant to the terms of their
surface owner agreements ("SOAs").

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Corrected Motion to Disqualify.
The Plaintiffs argue that Jost is not qualified to testify as an
expert on matters related to class certification" because she does
not have specialized experience or training on SOAs necessary to
form a reliable opinion, nor does she have any specialized
experience (admittedly no experience) in class actions. They
further argue that even if Jost's opinions are valid and reliable,
they are irrelevant and do not assist the Court in determining
whether the purported class should be certified.

The Defendants filed a response. In their briefing opposing the
Plaintiffs' Corrected Motion for Class Certification and Brief in
Support, the Defendants offer the expert opinions of oil and gas
attorney Jost. Jost also prepared an expert report.

Ms. Jost has been a practicing attorney in the oil and gas industry
for 20 years and is licensed in Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico.
She has represented oil and gas operators in regulatory and
litigation matters before state regulatory agencies in Colorado,
Wyoming, and New Mexico; the federal district courts of those same
states; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit. She has obtained orders and authorizations from state and
federal agencies for over ten thousand wells and two thousand
drilling and spacing units, and she has obtained over one thousand
statutory pooling orders in Colorado and Wyoming. Jost has also
become familiar with the various agreements common in the oil and
gas industry dealing with mineral rights and proceeds payments.

The Defendants retained Jost to review Surface Owner Agreements,
the class definition, and to identify practical consequences, or
considerations of the class definition. Jost's report contains
numerous opinions related to these topics, which she described at a
high level in her deposition as: (1) the class definition set forth
in the First Amended Complaint is unclear and confusing; (2) the
Shaklee and Guest Surface Owner Agreements provide for alternative
methods of payment; and (3) a construction of the SOAs that results
in a payment over two and a half percent as required by the Surface
Owners Agreement would be absurd. The Defendants rely on Jost's
opinions in opposing the Plaintiffs' class certification motion.

Judge Martinez observes that Jost's opinions can be divided, at a
general level, into two categories: (1) opinions concerning
standards and practices common to the oil and gas industry; and (2)
everything else.

Judge Martinez agrees with the Defendants that Jost has the
requisite knowledge and experience to offer expert opinions on
factual issues relevant to class certification -- namely "industry
custom and practice regarding oil and gas allocation, unitization,
production payments, surface ownership, and the applicable
contractual agreements that are all central issues to the putative
class." He finds that Jost's opinions do not usurp the province of
this Court as finder of fact with regard to the issue of class
certification, and that the Plaintiffs' arguments go to the weight
-- and not the admissibility -- of Jost's expert opinions.

For these reasons, Judge Martinez denies the Plaintiffs' Corrected
Motion to Disqualify.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3hfx8ryw from Leagle.com.


BAYER CORPORATION: Robinson Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Darryl Robinson, Anthony Swetala, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayer
Corporation, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-03892, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on Oct. 18, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-06123 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Bayer -- https://www.bayer.com/en/ -- is a German multinational
pharmaceutical and biotechnology company and one of the largest
pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN]


BEAR DOWN: Samples Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Samples, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. BEAR DOWN LOGISTICS XL, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-05750 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 19, 2022), is brought challenging policies and practices of
Defendant that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
pay overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff regularly worked 40 or more hours per workweek. The
Defendant knew that it was required to pay non-exempt employees for
all hours worked and to pay them all of their overtime
compensation. The Defendant had a policy of automatically deducting
30 minutes from the daily work hours of the Plaintiff for a meal
break. The Defendant suffered or permitted the Plaintiff to perform
work that resulted in missed or interrupted meal breaks even though
it still deducted such time from their work hours. As a result of
the Defendant's automatic 30-minute meal break deductions, the
Plaintiff was not paid all of their overtime compensation in
violation of the FLSA. The Defendant was fully aware of the fact
that it was required to comply with applicable wage and overtime
laws. Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay
Representative Plaintiff and those similarly situated for the time
they spent working during the automatically deducted meal break,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from March to August
2022, as an hourly, non-exempt employee, performing local, "last
mile" delivery services for the Defendant.

The Defendant is a carrier specializing in final mile
delivery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Max Barack, Esq.
          THE GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC
          6252 N. Lincoln Ave., Ste. 200
          Chicago, IL 60659
          Phone: 312-736-7991
          Email: max@garfinkelgroup.com


BIG ISLAND CANDIES: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Island Candies,
Inc. The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Big Island Candies, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08872-RA (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2022).

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

Big Island Candies -- https://www.bigislandcandies.com/ -- offers
gourmet Hawaiian chocolates, cookies and candies, including their
world-renowned Macadamia Nut Chocolate Dipped Shortbread
Cookies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLACK CEO: Ulery Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Black CEO, LLC. The
case is styled as David Ulery, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Black CEO, LLC doing business as:
SuccessFest, Case No. 1:22-cv-02709-MDB (D. Colo., Oct. 14, 2022).

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

Black CEO, LLC doing business as SuccessFest --
https://www.successfest23.com/ -- is one the #1 empowerment
conference in the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ PASCUCCI P.A.
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Phone: (954) 889-3359
          Fax: (954) 889-5913
          Email: jeggnatz@justiceearned.com


BLOOMINGDALES.COM: Jones Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bloomingdales.com,
LLC. The case is styled as Ann Jones, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Bloomingdales.com, LLC, Case No.
4:22-cv-01095-SEP (E.D. Mo., Oct. 14, 2022).

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

Bloomingdale's Inc. -- https://www.bloomingdales.com/ -- is an
American luxury department store chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
          CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL
          308 Hutchinson Road
          Ellisville, MO 63011
          Phone: (314) 541-0317
          Fax: (855) 710-7706
          Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com


BLUE CROSS: Allied World Wins Bid to Compel Settlement Production
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuits entitled ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF
KANSAS, INC., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, and ALLIED WORLD SURPLUS
LINES INSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a Darwin Select Insurance Company, and
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, Defendants. ALLIED WORLD
SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, f/k/a Darwin National Assurance
Company, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
OF KANSAS, INC., Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Case No. 18-2371-DDC,
Consolidated Cases Case Nos. 18-2371-DDC, 18-2515-DDC (D. Kan.),
Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas issued a Memorandum and Order:

   (1) granting Allied World Specialty Insurance Company's Motion
       to Compel; and

   (2) denying Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.'s
       ("BCBSKS") Cross-Motion for Protective.

The Memorandum and Order only applies to Case No. 18-2515-DDC.

At the heart of these motions is whether BCBSKS must produce to
Allied World the settlement agreement it entered with Atlantic
Specialty Insurance Company f/d/b/a Bedivere Insurance Company
f/d/b/a OneBeacon Insurance Company ("OneBeacon") in the lead case
of these consolidated actions. For the reasons discussed, the Court
holds the settlement agreement is discoverable and not subject to
protection.

In 2012, several healthcare providers and subscribers filed
class-action antitrust lawsuits against multiple Blue Cross Blue
Shield member plans ("Blues"), including BCBSKS, and the Blue Cross
Blue Shield Association ("BCBSA"). The lawsuits claim that the
Blues and BCBSA conspired to under-compensate healthcare providers
for their services and to increase healthcare costs to subscribers
by coordinating operations and limiting Blues' activities through
restrictions in their trademark licenses (such as giving individual
Blues exclusive service areas to limit competition).

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
lawsuits for discovery and pretrial purposes in the Northern
District of Alabama, thus creating the multidistrict litigation
captioned In Re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation (the
"Antitrust Litigation").

BCBSKS submitted claims arising from the Antitrust Litigation to
its various insurers under five separate policies:

   * Allied World primary Healthcare Organization's Directors and
     Officers (D&O) Liability Policy (Allied World Primary D&O
     Policy);

   * Allied World primary Managed Care Organization Errors and
     Omissions (E&O) Liability Policy (Allied World Primary E&O
     Policy);

   * OneBeacon excess Managed Care Organization E&O Indemnity
     Policy (OneBeacon Excess E&O Policy);

   * Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (Travelers)
     excess D&O policy; and

   * ACE second excess E&O policy.

Allied World accepted BCBSKS's tender under the Allied World
Primary E&O Policy and agreed to reimburse defense expenses
incurred by BCBSKS in the Antitrust Litigation subject to the
policy's terms, conditions, limitations, and exclusions, as well as
Allied World's reservation of rights. However, Allied World denied
coverage under the Allied World Primary D&O Policy. When Allied
World's Primary E&O Policy limit of $10 million was exhausted,
OneBeacon began reimbursing BCBSKS for defense expenses under the
OneBeacon Excess E&O Policy.

In the first of these consolidated cases, OneBeacon filed a
complaint against BCBSKS and Allied World seeking a declaratory
judgment that coverage under the OneBeacon Excess E&O Policy was
not triggered until BCBSKS had exhausted other insurance policies,
including the Allied World Primary D&O Policy.

Specifically, OneBeacon asked the Court to determine the parties'
rights and liabilities under the OneBeacon Excess E&O Policy and
the Allied World Primary D&O Policy, both of which potentially
provide liability insurance to BCBS-KS, as well as OneBeacon's
right to seek subrogation against Allied World for payments made on
its behalf to BCBSKS for litigation defense costs. BCBSKS asserted
counterclaims against OneBeacon for breach of contract and breach
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, alleging it was damaged
by OneBeacon's bad-faith delay in paying defense expenses.

In this second consolidated case, Allied World sued BCBSKS seeking
a declaratory judgment that the Allied World Primary D&O Policy
does not provide BCBSKS with coverage for the Antitrust Litigation.
Among other things, Allied World asserts there is no coverage
because the Antitrust Litigation alleges BCBSKS acted wrongfully in
performing managed care activities, which is covered by the Allied
World Primary E&O Policy but which the Allied World Primary D&O
Policy excludes from coverage. BCBSKS filed counterclaims for
declaratory relief, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of
good faith and fair dealing (ECF 16 in Case No. 18-2515, at 27-29).
BCBSKS asserts that Allied World breached the Primary D&O Policy
and breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing by
unjustifiably refusing to pay BCBSKS's Defense Costs for the
Antitrust Litigation.

On Jan. 19, 2021, the Court granted a joint motion by all parties
in the consolidated cases to stay discovery related to "OneBeacon's
and Allied World's respective alleged duties to indemnify BCBSKS
for a judgment or settlement in the Antitrust Litigation." Thus,
the parties proceeded to actively litigate only claims and defenses
related to BCBSKS's defense expenses for the Antitrust Litigation.

In 2020, BCBSKS entered into confidential settlement agreements
resolving its coverage disputes with nonparties Travelers regarding
excess D&O coverage and ACE regarding excess E&O coverage. During
discovery in the lead case, OneBeacon sought copies of those
settlement agreements. BCBSKS objected to producing the agreements,
arguing they were not relevant and were protected by
confidentiality. OneBeacon then moved to compel production of those
settlement agreements (and other discovery that is not pertinent
here).

On March 5, 2021, U.S. Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara granted the
motion to compel BCBSKS to produce those settlement agreements.
Judge O'Hara overruled BCBSKS's relevance objection, finding the
settlement agreements relevant to both OneBeacon's claims and to
BCBSKS's counterclaims. First, he found the Travelers settlement
agreement bore on OneBeacon's subrogation claim because any payment
by Travelers (which was on the same "excess level" as OneBeacon)
should be used toward BCBSKS's defense expenses.

Second, Judge O'Hara found both settlement agreements relevant to
OneBeacon's claim for a declaratory judgment that coverage under
the OneBeacon Excess E&O Policy was not triggered until BCBSKS
exhausted both of Allied World's primary policies (and to BCBSKS's
counterclaim to the contrary) because those settlement agreements
could reveal the parties' positions about (a) whether the Allied
World Primary D&O Policy (which mirrors the form of the Travelers
D&O policy) was triggered and (b) whether any excess E&O policy
(like the ACE policy) was triggered before exhaustion.

Third, and most pertinent to the instant dispute, Judge O'Hara
found the settlement agreements relevant to BCBSKS's counterclaim
for damages allegedly caused by OneBeacon's bad-faith delay in
paying BCBSKS's defense costs because any payments to BCBSKS under
the agreements could have alleviated such damages. Finally, Judge
O'Hara rejected BCBSKS's confidentiality objection, finding the
Agreed Protective Order in the case provided protection from
disclosure outside the litigation and that the relevance of the
settlement agreements justified disclosure to parties to the
litigation.

Upon objection by BCBSKS, U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree
affirmed Judge O'Hara's Order on Feb. 22, 2022. As to the question
of whether the settlement agreements were relevant, Judge Crabtree
focused on their relevance to BCBSKS's bad-faith counterclaim.
After noting that BCBSKS would be required "to prove causation and
damages," he reasoned that "if BCBSKS received payments from either
the Travelers or ACE settlement that it used to pay the Antitrust
Litigation expenses, then BCBSKS might not have sustained any
damage from alleged delay or refusal by OneBeacon to pay the
Antitrust Litigation expenses."

Judge Crabtree, thus, upheld Judge O'Hara's relevance finding.
Likewise, Judge Crabtree upheld Judge O'Hara's denial of BCBSKS's
request for a protective order based on confidentiality concerns.
Judge Crabtree found that "even if producing the agreements may
impose some harm on BCBSKS, the settlement agreements' relevance to
the issues here outweighs any potential harm to BCBSKS."

On June 28, the parties in the two consolidated actions
participated in mediation. During the mediation, the parties in the
lead case agreed to settle all of their claims. OneBeacon and
BCBSKS subsequently documented their settlement in a written
settlement agreement and release ("the OneBeacon Settlement
Agreement"). On Aug. 25, OneBeacon, BCBSKS, and Allied World filed
a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. The parties in the
second action did not resolve their claims, however, and discovery
is ongoing.

On July 1, Allied World served BCBSKS a document request seeking a
copy of the OneBeacon Settlement Agreement. BCBSKS objected on
relevance grounds, just as it did when it was previously asked to
produce the Travelers and ACE settlement agreements. Allied World
now moves the court to overrule that relevance objection and to
compel BCBSKS to produce a copy of the OneBeacon Settlement
Agreement. In doing so, Allied World relies largely on the court's
prior decisions compelling production of the Travelers and Ace
agreements in the lead case. In response, BCBSKS asks the court to
uphold its relevance objection, but, barring that, to issue a
protective order precluding discovery of the OneBeacon Settlement
Agreement.

                 Allied World's Motion to Compel

The Court begins its analysis by considering whether the OneBeacon
Settlement Agreement is discoverable, absent a protective order
allowing BCBSKS to withhold it. The parties disagree about whether
the OneBeacon Settlement Agreement is "relevant to any party's
claim or defense."

Allied World asserts that the OneBeacon Settlement Agreement is
relevant to BCBSKS's counterclaims against it for breach of
contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing
(i.e., bad faith). Allied World says the present situation is not
materially different than when OneBeacon sought production of
BCBSKS's settlement agreements with Travelers and ACE.

The Court found that if the settlement agreements indicate that
BCBSKS received payments from a settlement that it used to pay the
Antitrust Litigation expenses, then BCBSKS might not have sustained
any damage from alleged delay or refusal by OneBeacon to pay the
Antitrust Litigation expenses.

Under the same logic, the Court finds the OneBeacon Settlement
Agreement relevant to BCBSKS's bad-faith counterclaim against
Allied World. Although the coverage disputes in the two
consolidated cases are different, BCBSKS's bad-faith counterclaims
are essentially the same: BCBSKS alleges it was damaged by the
insurers' bad-faith delay or refusal to pay its defense costs for
the Antitrust Litigation, Judge Mitchell says.

Thus, the Court again finds that BCBSKS's settlement agreement with
one of its insurers is relevant to the determination of whether and
to what extent BCBSKS indeed suffered damages caused by the actions
or inactions of the counterclaim defendants. If OneBeacon agreed to
make payments to BCBSKS that BCBSKS could use towards its defense
costs for the Antitrust Litigation, that could have an impact on
the damages potentially recoverable on BCBSKS's counterclaim
against Allied World.

The Court is not persuaded by BCBSKS's argument that the OneBeacon
Settlement Agreement is not relevant based on counsel's
representation of what it does not say. Rather, this argument would
seem to validate Allied World's position that the contents of the
settlement agreement are relevant to an issue in this case. Allied
World's review of the settlement agreement may lead it to perceive
a way in which OneBeacon's payments indirectly impact coverage for
BCBSKS's defense expenses.

For this same reason, the Court declines BCBSKS's request for the
court to review the settlement agreement in camera. Judge Mitchell
holds that Allied World is in the best position to analyze the
agreement's payment structure to determine whether and how it might
reflect OneBeacon's payment of BCBSKS's defense expenses --
indirectly, conditionally, or otherwise. The Court, therefore,
overrules BCBSKS's relevance objection and finds the OneBeacon
Settlement Agreement discoverable.

              BCBSKS'S Motion for Protective Order

Because the Court finds the OneBeacon Settlement Agreement
generally discoverable, the Court goes on to consider BCBSKS's
request for a protective order permitting it to nonetheless
withhold the document on confidentiality grounds. BCBSKS contends
that forcing BCBSKS to disclose its confidential settlement with
OneBeacon to Allied World will prejudice BCBSKS. Specifically,
BCBSKS argues that if Allied World obtains the settlement
agreement, Allied World would have an unfair advantage in future
settlement negotiations because it would know what concessions
BCBSKS was willing to give other insurers.

The Court rejects BCBSKS generalized request for protection. Judge
Mitchell opines that a settlement agreement's "confidentiality does
not bar discovery," citing Burke v. Regalado, 935 F.3d 960, 1048
(10th Cir. 2019).

Because BCBSKS has not demonstrated a specific potential prejudice,
supported by particular facts, Judge Mitchell finds it has not
demonstrated good cause for the entry of a protective order.
Accordingly, BCBSKS's motion for protective order is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Oct. 13,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/munx3mpx from
Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA: Magistrate Judge Endorses Denial of TRO in Hearns Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California issued findings and
recommendations to deny the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction and temporary restraining order in the lawsuit styled
CLARENCE L. HEARNS, Plaintiff v. CISNERO, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01033-CDB (PC) (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. He filed
his complaint in this action on Aug. 16, 2022. On that same date,
he filed a Motion Requesting Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order.

More specifically, the Plaintiff contends the Substance Abuse
Treatment Facility (SATF) has "implemented a rogue policy to
confiscate the personal property of inmates, i.e. JPay-5 Tablets."
Further, the Plaintiff contends SATF threatened to "cut off JP-5
wifi and kiosk access" as of July 31, 2022, which would render the
tablets inoperable.

The Plaintiff asks that SATF employees, as well as subcontractors
and JPay employees be restrained temporarily from removing the JPay
wifi and kiosk at SATF for the next (14) fourteen days. He asks the
Court to issue a preliminary injunction to turn back on the JPay
kiosk and WiFi until such time as the Court can take in all
relevant evidence.

In support of his motion, the Plaintiff contends inmates have a
right to own personal property during the period of confinement,
including "inmate owned Tablets." Because the tablets must be
"plugged into" an operable JPay kiosk every thirty days, the
inability to do so causes "irreparable harm" and the "total loss of
Content purchased on the Tablet." It further denies access to
content "created on the various student app like OFFICE SUITE,"
causing irreparable harm.

The Plaintiff contends SATF is acting "without any adoption of
official policy" and in the absence of "approval by the OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW." He further supports his motion with the
"Affidavit of Clarence L. Hearns" and an "Affidavit Detailing
Notice Given to Respondent."

Initially, Judge Baker notes a review of the complaint filed Aug.
16, 2022, reveals the Plaintiff named Warden T. Cisneros, Associate
Warden R. Morales, Facility Captain Frasser and K. Allison,
Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation as Defendants. Significantly, no Defendant has been
served in this action, nor has any Defendant filed an appearance.
Thus, the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the named
Defendants and may not act at this time.

Additionally, Judge Baker states that the Plaintiff's motion seeks
to enjoin "subcontractors and JPay employees" in addition to "SATF
employees." Because "JPay subcontractors and employees" are not
named in the Plaintiff's complaint, they are not parties to the
action and the Court may not issue an order enjoining their actions
or conduct.

Second, Judge Baker notes the Plaintiff appears to seek an
injunction on behalf of himself and other inmates, who own or use a
JPay tablet at SATF. However, to the extent the Plaintiff seeks
relief on behalf of other prisoners, Judge Baker points out he has
no standing to do so. The Plaintiff also may not represent a class
of inmates in a putative class action.

Even if the Court had personal jurisdiction over the named
Defendants, Judge Baker finds the Plaintiff has not established
that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to
suffer irreparable harm, that the balance of equities tips in his
favor, or that an injunction is in the public interest.

In deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue, the
likelihood of success on the merits is the most important factor
for the court to consider. Here, the Court is unable to find that
the Plaintiff has carried his burden of demonstrating he is likely
to succeed on the merits of this action because his motion fails to
identify legal authority that would entitle him to the relief he
seeks.

In his complaint, the Plaintiff asserts two claims. First, the
Plaintiff alleges his due process rights were violated by prison
officials when they deprived him of access to digital content on
"Inmate owned Tablets" by "cutting off the JPay Kiosk" and the
related "Wifi for the JPay Tablets." The Plaintiff also asserts
"SATF Administration has begun to announce that the JPay Tablets
will be seen as CONTRABAND and subject to confiscation." In his
second claim, the Plaintiff alleges a violation of his First
Amendment rights for the prison's failure to process his grievances
related to the "inmate owned Tablets."

Judge Baker notes that it appears that the Plaintiff is asserting
an unauthorized or negligent deprivation of property by state
employees. If so, Judge Baker finds he cannot demonstrate a
likelihood of success on the merits where such a deprivation does
not amount to a constitutional violation. In sum, the Plaintiff has
not established he is likely to succeed on the merits. Therefore,
his motion should be denied.

The Plaintiff alleges the actions being taken at SATF concerning
JPay tablet ownership and related access to content maintained on
those tablets is causing irreparable harm to the inmates housed
there.

The allegations in the Plaintiff's complaint and in his motion do
not rule out the possibility that harm may result from a continued
inability to access his JPay tablet and/or its content, Judge Baker
says. However, Judge Baker opines the allegations are speculative,
particularly concerning the likelihood of a substantial and
immediate irreparable injury.

Although he has concerns about the viability of transferring
content maintained on a JPay tablet to the state-owned GTL tablet,
the Plaintiff's concern amounts to only speculation rather than a
demonstration of a likely and substantial irreparable injury, Judge
Baker holds. The Plaintiff does not make a showing of a likely
irreparable injury, only the possibility of one, Judge Baker points
out.

The Plaintiff makes no showing whatsoever that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, nor does he make any showing that the
injunction he seeks is in the public's interest, Judge Baker
holds.

For these reasons, the Court recommends that the Plaintiff's motion
for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction be
denied.

Judge Baker states these Findings and Recommendations will be
submitted to the District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of
the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, the
Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document
should be captioned, "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified
time may result in waiver of rights on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Findings and Recommendations dated
Oct. 13, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/224xpvas from
Leagle.com.


CAMBRIDGE REAL: Cruz Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled JULIO ANDRES CRUZ, an individual, and on behalf of
all employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMBRIDGE REAL
ESTATE SERVICES, INC. DBA CAMBRIDGE RES, INC., and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. C22-01788, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Contra
Costa, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on Oct. 14, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-06075 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff commenced this putative class action against
Defendant on August 25, 2022, alleging seven causes of action: (1)
failure to pay all wages, including minimum wages; (2) failure to
provide rest periods; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4)
failure to timely pay wages at separation; (5) failure to keep
accurate payroll records; (6) failure to reimburse employees for
necessary business expenditures; and (7) unfair business
practices.

Cambridge Real Estate Services, Inc. is a property management
company based in Portland, Oregon.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Derek S. Sachs, Esq.
          Elaine M. McCormick, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700
          Sacramento, CA 95833
          Telephone: (916) 564-5400
          Facsimile: (916) 564-5444
          E-mail: Derek.Sachs@lewisbrisbois.com
                  Elaine.McCormick@lewisbrisbois.com

CAPITAL ONE: Marquez TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Aileen Marquez, on behalf of herself and all
those similarly situated v. Capital One, N.A., Capital One
Financial Corporation, Case No. 37-02021-00029279-CU-MC-CTL was
removed from the Superior Court of California, San Diego, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Oct.
14, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01591-GPC-KSC to
the proceeding.

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

Capital One, N.A. -- http://www.capitalone.com/-- operates as a
bank. The Bank offers financial products and services such as
personal and business checking, savings accounts, investment,
mortgages, issues credit card, business loans, and commercial
banking solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Ahren A. Tiller, Esq.
          BLC LAW CENTER, APC
          1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 894-8831
          Fax: (866) 444-7026
          Email: ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: jason@kazlg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amy I Borlund, Esq.
          Hunter R. Eley, Esq.
          DOLL AMIR & ELEY LLP
          725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3275
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 542-3380
          Fax: (213) 542-3381
          Email: aborlund@dollamir.com
                 heley@dollamir.com


CHARLOTTE, NC: Durham's Declaratory & Injunctive Relief Claim Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled HEATHER NICOLE DURHAM, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00638-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C.), Judge Robert
J. Conrad, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina, Charlotte Division:

   1. adopts the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation
      ("M&R"); and

   2. grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's Motion to
      Dismiss.

Specifically, the Motion is granted as to Durham's claim for
declaratory and injunctive relief. The Motion is otherwise denied.

The Plaintiff claims that the City of Charlotte violated federal
law by making her personal information accessible to third parties,
who used it to mail her advertisements. In her putative class
action, she seeks liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and
injunctive relief under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act
("DPPA"), which generally prohibits state motor vehicle departments
from disclosing the personal information contained in motor vehicle
records.

The City moved to dismiss Durham's Complaint. It argues that her
claims should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because they are
barred by the doctrines of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, and
judicial estoppel. The City also seeks dismissal under Rule
12(b)(1) on the grounds that Durham lacks Article III standing.

The M&R concludes that Durham has standing to pursue liquidated
damages but not injunctive or declaratory relief. It also concludes
that her claims are not barred under the claim-preclusion and
issue-preclusion doctrines. Durham does not object to the M&R, but
the City objects to all the M&R's conclusions except its
determination that Durham lacks standing to pursue injunctive or
declaratory relief.

Thus, four issues are presented for de novo review: whether Durham
has standing to seek liquidated damages under the DPPA and whether
her claim is barred under the claim-preclusion, issue-preclusion,
or judicial-estoppel doctrines.

Judge Conrad finds that Durham has standing to seek liquidated
damages under the DPPA. He opines that by suing for liquidated
damages under the DPPA, Durham has shown that her alleged injury is
redressable.

Claim preclusion does not bar Durham's suit, Judge Conrad holds. In
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008), the Supreme Court
emphasized the foundational rule against nonparty preclusion: one
is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he
is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a
party by service of process. But the Court also discussed six
"discrete exceptions" to that rule that apply in "limited
circumstances."

The City argues that two of those exceptions apply here: the
legal-relationship exception, which is triggered by a variety of
pre-existing substantive legal relationships, and the class-action
exception, which bars the claims of those who were adequately
represented in a properly conducted class action.

Judge Conrad holds that the legal-relationship exception does not
apply because that exception is reserved for a variety of legal,
property-based relationships. Durham and Johnathan Hensley, who
brought a putative DPPA class action in which Durham tried to
intervene as a class representative, share no such "qualifying
substantive legal relationship."

Judge Conrad also holds that the class-action exception does not
apply either. That exception applies only when the nonparty is
afforded the procedural safeguards contained in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 during the earlier litigation. Hensley's
putative class was never certified under Rule 23, so Durham -- as a
potential member of Hensley's putative class -- did not receive
Rule 23's protections during Hensley's litigation. Additionally,
because Hensley's class was never certified, a "properly conducted
class action" never "existed." Therefore, Hensley's representation
of Durham was not "adequate," and the class-action exception does
not apply, Judge Conrad points out.

Nor does issue preclusion apply, Judge Conrad holds. He explains
that that doctrine can be invoked only against a party who "had a
full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the previous
forum," citing Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co., 468 F.3d 213, 217
(4th Cir. 2006). Since Durham's motion to intervene was denied, she
never had a full opportunity to litigate the issues in Hensley's
case.

Finally, Judge Conrad holds that judicial estoppel does not apply.
Three elements must be satisfied to invoke that doctrine, and at
least two of them are not satisfied here. First, Durham has not
adopted a position that is inconsistent with a stance taken in
prior litigation. Second, because Durham's motion to intervene was
denied, her prior position was never accepted by the court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 13, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yckaxze7 from Leagle.com.


CIRCLE LOGISTICS: Lucas Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mattheau Lucas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Circle Logistics, Inc., an Indiana corporation, Eric
Fortmeyer and Jane Doe Fortmeyer a married couple, and Chad
Buchanan and Jane Doe Buchanan, a married couple, Case No.
2:22-cv-01797-MHB (D. Ariz., Oct. 19, 2022), is brought for unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
in violation of the Arizona Minimum Wage Act and the Arizona Wage
Act.

The Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, Plaintiff worked
approximately 60 hours per week for the Defendants. The Plaintiff's
employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff worked 20 hours of
overtime without being compensated at one-and-one-half times his
regular rates of pay for such time worked. The Defendants engaged
in the regular practice of willfully failing to pay the Plaintiff
and the Collective Members one-and-one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all time that they suffered or permitted Plaintiff
and Collective Members to work in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
As a result of Defendants' willful failure to pay Plaintiff and
Collective Members one-and-one-half times their regular rates of
pay for all work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Defendants
paid the Plaintiff and the Collective Members less than the
applicable overtime wage rate for such work that Plaintiff and the
Collective Members performed in excess of 40 hours per workweek,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a full-time employee of the Defendants who worked
as an Account Executive from June 6, 2022 through September 30,
2022.

Circle Logistics is a third-party logistics company headquartered
in Indiana, with offices located in Arizona, that facilitates the
domestic transportation of nationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Phone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                 chris@bendaulaw.com


CLOROX COMPANY: Craw Sues Over Misleading Marketing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Craw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Clorox Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-02225-CSB-EIL
(C.D. Ill., Oct. 19, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an
injunction to stop Unilever's false and misleading marketing
practices with regard to its laundry sanitizer marketed as able to
"kill 99.9% of bacteria on laundry" under the Clorox brand (the
"Product").

No credible and accepted studies of domestic laundry practices has
shown that hot, warm, and even cold water, detergent, and a drying
cycle, are insufficient to prevent the spread of bacteria and cause
any harm. While the Product may be authorized to claim it can
achieve a reduction in 99.9% of bacteria, such a claim is
misleading in light of the absence of any evidence that survival of
bacteria from a standard laundering process poses any risk.
Consumers will wrongly expect the Product can provide a meaningful
benefit beyond the standard laundering process. The Product is sold
for a price premium compared to other similar products, no less
than $6.48 for 42 oz, a higher price than it would be sold for,
absent the misleading representations and omissions.

The Plaintiff relied on the front label representations the Product
would "sanitize" her laundry and that it would kill 99.9% of
bacteria. The Plaintiff bought the Product because she was not
aware her laundry was sufficiently sanitized through the standard
laundering process, and expected the claim to kill 99.9% of
bacteria meant it provided a meaningful benefit in reduction of
bacteria beyond this. The Plaintiff was unaware that no credible
studies on domestic laundry practices show any potential risk of
bacteria survival and transmission from hot, warm or cold water,
detergent, and a drying cycle. The Plaintiff paid more for the
Product than she otherwise would have paid had she known the truth,
as she would have paid less or not bought it. The Defendant sold
more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the
absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the
expense of consumers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff bought the Product on one or more occasions.

The Defendant is a leading seller of home cleaning products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMPETITION CLUTCH: Stebbins Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Stebbins, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COMPETITION CLUTCH, INC. and VAUGHN JEWELL,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04118-JPB (N.D. Ga., Oct. 14, 2022), is brought
arising from the Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and to recover unpaid overtime wages for hours worked
that were excluded from their paid hours pursuant to Defendants'
automatic meal break deduction policy.

The Defendants maintained a common policy of failing to pay hourly
paid employees at time-and-a-half of their regular rate for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA's
overtime provisions. To the extent the Defendants paid hourly-paid
employees for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, such pay
was at the same rate of pay they received for non-overtime hours.
The Defendant deducted 60 minutes of pay for a meal break
regardless of whether the employees received a bona fide meal break
or not. As a result, the Defendants violated their statutory
obligations by failing to pay hourly-paid, non-exempt employees
including Plaintiff for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek at a rate of not less than one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in the position of heavy
machine operator from October 13, 2021 through May 24, 2022.

CCI is a performance clutch company specializing in the
manufacturing of sport compact assemblies from street driven to
full race applications[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger Orlando, Esq.
          THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
          315 West Ponce De Leon Ave., Suite 400
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Phone: (973) 898-0404
          Email: roger@orlandofirm.com

               - and -

          Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Phone: (877) 561-0000
          Fax: (855) 582-5297
          Email: ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com
                 nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com


COUPANG INC: Naya 1740 Sues Over Anti-Competitive Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Naya 1740 Fund LTD., Naya Coldwater Fund, Naya Master Fund LP,
Nayawood LP, and Quantum Partners LP, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. COUPANG, INC., BOM SUK KIM, GAURAV
ANAND, MICHAEL PARKER, MATTHEW CHRISTENSEN, LYDIA JETT, NEIL MEHTA,
BENJAMIN SUN, KEVIN WARSH, HARRY YOU, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC,
ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC., HSBC SECURITIES (USA), INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES
INC., UBS SECURITIES LLC, MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC, and CLSA
LIMITED, Case No. 1:22-cv-08756 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2022), is
brought asserting both strict liability claims under the Securities
Act of 1933 and fraud-based claims under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, arises from Defendants' materially false and
misleading statements and omissions to investors concerning
Coupang's anti-competitive practices and other illicit activities
that helped pad the Company's revenues and profits to the detriment
of Coupang's customers, merchants, suppliers, and employees.

Growing to approximately 68,000 workers, Coupang has established
approximately 100 fulfillment and logistics centers in over 30
cities, encompassing over 40 million square feet. Coupang offers
hundreds of millions of products, sourced from its owned-inventory
and private label branded products, third-party selections, and
over 200,000 merchants for delivery within hours of customers
placing online orders. Coupang also provides a "Rocket WOW"
customer loyalty program which purports to offer additional
benefits to its most engaged and frequent customers, including free
delivery, enhanced delivery options, and discounts.

Since inception, Coupang experienced consistent revenue growth,
securing its place as the largest player in the South Korean e
commerce market. The Company's total revenue tripled from $4
billion to almost $12 billion, in the three-year span from 2018 to
2020. Coupang's revenue continued to grow rapidly as the COVID-19
pandemic (which began in early 2020) increased customers'
preference for the conveniences of online shopping. Capitalizing on
its recent growth, Coupang sought to conduct the IPO in the United
States.

On February 12, 2021, Coupang filed with the SEC a registration
statement for the IPO on Form S-1, which, after two amendments, was
declared effective on March 10, 2021 ("Registration Statement"). On
March 11, 2021, Coupang filed with the SEC a prospectus for the IPO
on Form 424B4, which formed part of the Registration Statement (the
"Prospectus" and together with Registration Statement and attendant
materials filed or published with these forms, the "IPO
Materials"). Pursuant to the Registration Statement, Coupang sold
to the investing public 100 million shares of Coupang Class A
common stock at $35 per share, for total gross proceeds of $3.5
billion Coupang's IPO was the largest by a foreign company on Wall
Street since China's Alibaba Group Holding Limited's IPO in 2014.

The IPO Materials and subsequent Class Period statements were
materially false and misleading because they falsely represented
the Company's relationships with its customers, merchants,
suppliers, and employees in a positive light while failing to
disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that Coupang was engaged
in improper anti-competitive practices with its suppliers and other
third parties in violation of applicable regulations, including
pressuring suppliers to raise prices of products on competing
e-commerce platforms in order to ensure Coupang's prices would be
more competitive and coercing suppliers into purchasing
advertisements that would benefit Coupang financially; (b) that
Coupang had improperly adjusted search algorithms and manipulated
product reviews on its marketplace platform in order to prioritize
its own private-label branded products over those of other sellers
and merchants, to the detriment of consumers, merchants, and
suppliers; (c) that, unbeknownst to its Rocket WOW members, Coupang
was selling products to non-member customers at lower prices than
those offered to its Rocket WOW members; (d)
that Coupang subjected its workforce to extreme, unsafe, and
unhealthy working conditions; (e) that all the above illicit
practices exposed the Company to a heightened, but undisclosed,
risk of reputational and regulatory scrutiny that would harm the
Company's critical relationships with customers, merchants,
suppliers, and the workforce; and (f) that Coupang's lower prices,
historical revenues, competitive advantages, and growing market
share were the result of systemic, improper, unethical, and/or
illegal practices, and, thus, unsustainable.

These illicit practices, heightened regulatory risks, unsustainable
revenues, and other undisclosed issues were later revealed to the
market through a series of public disclosures during 2021 and 2022,
including government investigations, regulatory sanctions, and
unsafe working conditions that caused worker deaths and the loss of
a key fulfillment center. As a result of these disclosures, the
prices of Coupang's securities dropped significantly causing
hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to the Company's
investors.

The Plaintiffs Naya purchased Coupang securities, including common
stock, options, and contracts for difference ("CFDs") in reliance
on Defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions of
material facts and/or the integrity of the market for Coupang
securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period
and suffered economic loss and damages when the truth about Coupang
that was misrepresented and omitted during the Class Period was
partially and/or fully revealed, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Naya consists of pooled investment funds managed by
Naya Capital Management UK Limited.

Coupang is one of the largest e-commerce companies in Asia founded
in 2010.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          David J. Schwartz, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          Email: fmcconville@labaton.com
                 dschwartz@labaton.com


DANONE WATERS: Faces Dorris Suit Over Mislabeled Bottled Water
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE DORRIS individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DANONE WATERS OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case
No. 7:22-cv-08717 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022) asserts claims on
behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated purchasers of the
"Evian Natural Spring Water" bottled water for Defendant's alleged
violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the New
York General Business Law, and for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud.

The Defendant manufactures and sells a number of water bottles
under the "Evian" label. The Defendant holds itself out as an
environmentally friendly brand. On the labels and/or packaging of
all versions of the product, the Defendant represents that the
product is "carbon neutral."

According to the complaint, reasonable consumers reviewing the
product's label and packaging would believe the manufacturing of
the product is sustainable and does not leave a carbon footprint
based on Defendant's representations. However, Defendant's
representation that the product is carbon neutral is false since
Defendant's manufacturing of the product still causes carbon
dioxide to be released into the atmosphere. Accordingly, the carbon
neutral claim is false and misleading because the product's
manufacturing process is not carbon neutral, and consumers would
not have purchased the product, or paid substantially less for it,
had they known the carbon neutral claim was not true, says the
suit.

Danone Waters of America is a North American bottled water importer
and distributor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com

               - and -

          Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: bscott@bursor.com

DETHESDA SOFTWORKS: Can Compel Arbitration in Devine Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACOB DEVINE, Individually and on Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. DETHESDA SOFTWORKS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. PWG 19-cv-2009 (D. Md.), Judge Paul W. Grimm
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern
Division, enters a Memorandum Opinion:

   a. granting the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and
      compelling arbitration, and

   b. deferring ruling on the Plaintiff's Rule 23(d) motion while
      the case remains stayed.

In July 2019, Devine filed this putative class action against
Defendants Bethesda Softworks, Bethesda Softworks, LLC, and ZeniMax
Media, Inc., alleging damages resulting from his purchase of a
"Season Pass" access to downloadable content for the video game
FALLOUT 4.

Devine, a minor at the time, purchased the video game, FALLOUT 4,
at a GameStop store in California a few weeks after the release of
the game in November 2015. FALLOUT 4 was developed by Defendant
Bethesda Softworks, LLC ("Bethesda"), which is owned by ZeniMax, a
video game holding company.  The FALLOUT 4 game was available to
play on Windows personal computers, Microsoft Corp.'s Xbox One
video game console, and Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC's
PlayStation 4.

In addition to developing video games, Bethesda also develops and
publishes downloadable content that can be purchased and added to
their video games. In September 2015, Bethesda announced the
FALLOUT 4 Season Pass, which was available for sale from its
website as well as through games stores, and it was described as
offering access to "all" FALLOUT 4 downloadable content "for one
S.P.E.C.I.A.L. price."

Devine purchased the Season Pass for Xbox One using his Xbox
Console, from the Xbox Games Store/Microsoft Store on April 27,
2019, a few months before he turned 18. He alleges that "contrary
to what he expected, the Season Pass did not give him access" to
all downloadable content.

On July 9, 2019, this was filed to recover damages owed to Devine
and others who purchased a Season Pass and did not receive all
downloadable content for the FALLOUT 4 game. He asserts nine causes
of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Unjust Enrichment; (3)
Promissory Estoppel; (4) Fraud or Deceit; (5) Fraudulent
Concealment; (6) Negligent Misrepresentation; (7) Tort Arising Out
of Breach of Contract; (8) Breach of Express Warranty; and (9)
Violation of Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA").

The Defendants contend that Devine must arbitrate his dispute
because he agreed to the ZeniMax Terms of Service Agreement when he
created his Bethesda.net account on Aug. 29, 2016. Further, they
assert, Devine agreed to the Xbox Live Terms of Use when he created
his Xbox Live account on Nov. 24, 2014, and it also contains an
arbitration clause. And he agreed to the Microsoft Services
Agreement and the Microsoft Store Terms of Service, both of which
include a similar arbitration clause. Microsoft acquired ZeniMax on
March 9, 2021.

In essence, the Defendants seek to enforce four separate Terms of
Service ("TOS") agreements that (individually and collectively)
compel Devine to arbitrate his claims against them. Each agreement
contains within it an arbitration clause, and each arbitration
clause contains within it a delegation provision (delegating to the
arbitrator all issues regarding the scope and enforceability of the
arbitration agreements). The Defendants request a stay of this
litigation pending arbitration of all issues before the
arbitrator.

Mr. Devine opposes Defendants' motion, making multiple arguments to
refute the Defendants' contentions, including that he was a minor
and did not assent to Bethesda's agreement, and contending that the
Defendants cannot rely on Microsoft's agreements because they did
not become Microsoft affiliates until almost two years after the
lawsuit was filed.

The Plaintiff also seeks an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(d), that invalidates a new TOS that was issued
to FALLOUT 4 players by the Defendants on Dec. 13, 2021, which he
argues is an intentional effort by them to sabotage the class
action. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's motion is
premature, requiring first an arbitral review of the validity of
the class action waivers.

Upon review of the arbitration clause's delegation provision, Judge
Grimm concludes there is no genuine dispute that the arbitrability
questions must be determined by the arbitrator. The Plaintiff's
legion challenges to the arbitration clause itself, and to the TOS
agreement overall, do not prevent the Court from compelling him to
submit his challenges to the arbitrator for resolution.

Judge Grimm finds that the arbitrator should decide whether the
parties have to arbitrate the merits of the case. And because he
finds that the Plaintiff must proceed to arbitration on the basis
of the ZeniMax TOS, he does not address the separate Microsoft
agreements and related arguments.

While the case is stayed, Judge Grimm finds it appropriate to
administratively close it, as well as the related case, PWG-21-916,
until the conclusion of arbitration proceedings, subject to being
reopened on the request of the counsel within 30 days of the
conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. The parties are further
directed to file a joint status report every 180 days until the
conclusion of arbitration proceedings.

Finally, Judge Grimm defers ruling on the Plaintiff's motion while
the case remains stayed, inasmuch as his ability to invoke Rule
23(d) turns on whether or not he has waived the right to initiate
or participate in class action litigation against the Defendants,
an issue that remains to be resolved.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Grimm grants the Defendants'
Motion to Compel Arbitration.

The Clerk is directed to administratively close the case and
PWG-21-916.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/32j8y9uy from Leagle.com.


DIGNITY CARE: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANYA AHRAM, et al., v.
DIGNITY CARE, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02990-SKC (D. Colo.),
the Hon. Judge S. Kato Crews entered an order granting the joint
motion to adopt parties' stipulation of conditional certification
of a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action as follows:

   a. Conditional certification of a class of all "caregivers
      and schedulers who worked on or after June 29, 2019,
      through the present who were denied regular and/or
      overtime wages"; and

   b. The Notice and Consent Form is approved, and all
      stipulations and agreements between the parties set forth
      in the Motion regarding the gathering and sharing of
      employee information Plaintiff, sending and purpose of
      sending the Notice and Consent Form, and all deadlines
      associated with the Notice and Consent Form are approved
      and incorporated in this Order as binding on the parties.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TMX6hl at no extra charge.[CC]

DIRECT FUNDING: Case Management Order Entered in Abramson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEWART ABRAMSON v. DIRECT
FUNDING NOW LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01183-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered a case management order as
follows:

  -- The parties shall exchange initial        Oct. 28, 2022
     disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1)
     on or before:

  -- The parties shall file any motion         Dec. 28, 2022
     to add new parties on or before:

  -- The parties shall file any motion         Dec. 28, 2022
     to amend the pleadings on or before:

  -- The parties shall file a completed        Oct. 21, 2022
     ADR stipulation on or before:

  -- The parties shall complete their          March 15, 2023
      ADR session by:

  -- Fact and expert discovery related         May 10, 2023
     to class certification shall be
     completed on or before:

Direct Funding is a business lending facilitator.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3TvKHPg at no extra charge.[CC]

DON'S APPLIANCES: Rich Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Rich, Kevin Murphy, Greye Brooks, and Eric Atwood, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DON'S
APPLIANCES, LTD, Case No. 2:22-cv-01455-RJC (W.D. Pa., Oct. 14,
2022), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to
the Plaintiffs pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968.

As a result of the way the Defendant scheduled the daily routes for
the Plaintiffs, it was usually impossible to take a thirty-minute
meal break at the time of the automatic punch out and, further, it
was impractical to stop for an uninterrupted thirty-minute period
during the day to take a meal break. As a result, the Plaintiffs
either did not take a meal break at all or just took a couple of
minutes to hurriedly eat before resuming work. The Defendant
illegally shifted the burden of "finding" thirty uninterrupted
minutes to take an unpaid meal break on the Plaintiffs and they
were subject to discipline, including warnings and counseling if
they requested compensation for working through the unpaid meal
break. The Defendant habitually deducted thirty minutes of
compensable pay from each shift worked regardless of whether the
Plaintiffs actually received an uninterrupted thirty-minute meal
break, resulting in unpaid wages and unpaid overtime compensation
in violation of the FLSA and PMWA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Delivery and
Installation Technicians.

Don's Appliances, LTD is an entity headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania who sells, installs and services home appliances,
including refrigerators, dish washers, washers, and dryers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Bruzzese, Esq.
          220 Koppers Building
          436 Seventh Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-8676

E.V.P. ENTERPRISES: Teuschler Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Teuschler, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. E.V.P. ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a PET SUPPLIES
PLUS, Case No. 2022LA000903 (Ill., 18th Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage
Cty., Oct. 14, 2022), is brought against the Defendant to stop the
Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of
the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and
personal biometric data.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect and store Illinois
citizens' biometrics. As an employee/worker of Defendant, Plaintiff
was required to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having
her fingerprint scanned by a biometric timeclock which identified
each employee, including the Plaintiff. Notwithstanding the clear
and unequivocal requirements of the law, Defendant disregards
employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully
collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation
of BIPA.

Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate
BIPA because it did not and, upon information and belief, continues
not to: Properly inform the Plaintiff and others similarly situated
in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which
their fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and
used, as required by BIPA; Provide a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiff's
and other similarly-situated individuals' fingerprint(s), as
required by BIPA; Receive a written release from Plaintiff and
others similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or
otherwise use their fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA.

The Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved by Defendant's
failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose
for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within
three years of employees' last interactions with the company, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its location in Illinois.

E.V.P. Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Pet Supplies Plus is an Illinois
corporation with places of business in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          Adam Florek, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Phone: 314-833-4825
          Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                 plesko@peifferwolf.com
                 aflorek@peifferwolf


ELEVEN60 LLC: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eleven60 LLC. The
case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Eleven60 LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08780
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2022).

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

Eleven60 -- https://myeleven60.com/ -- designs apparel for
professional curvy women that are chic, sexy, bold, and
eclectic.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EMERALD SERVICES: Urgiles Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Urgiles, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. EMERALD SERVICES CORP. d/b/a EMERALD BUILDING SERVICES, SEAN M.
ABBOTT, EDMOND DOWLING, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 1:22-cv-08906
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover from the
Defendants: unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated and statutory
damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff
his lawfully earned overtime compensation in direct contravention
of the FLSA and New York Labor Law. The Defendants compensated the
Plaintiff and all manual workers on a bi-weekly basis. Despite
being manual workers, the Defendants failed to properly pay the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated within 7 calendar days
after the end of the week in which these wages were earned. In this
regard, the Defendants have failed to provide timely wages to the
Plaintiff and all other similar manual workers, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a
non-exempt trash hauler.

EMERALD SERVICES CORP., owns and operates a management company
doing business as "Emerald Building Services," which provides
construction management, property management, and landscaping
services to its clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 209-3933
          Fax: (212) 209-7102
          Email: info@jepclaw.com


EMERSON HOSPITAL: Suit Filed in Mass. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Emerson Hospital. The
case is styled as John Doe, in his/her capacity Individually and on
befalf of all others similarly situated v. Emerson Hospital, Case
No. 2277CV01000 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., Oct. 19, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Torts."

Emerson Hospital -- https://www.emersonhospital.org/ -- is a
hospital located in Concord, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Tucker Merrigan, Esq.
          SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW, LLP
          268 Summer St.
          Boston, MA 02210


EMPOWER RETIREMENT: Shaffer Sues Over Massive and Unlawful Profits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Shaffer, individually and on behalf of Bradley Shaffer's
Ira, and Evelyn Birchfield, as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons v. EMPOWER RETIREMENT, LLC, ADVISED
ASSETS GROUP, LLC, GREAT-WEST LIFECO, INC., GREAT-WEST LIFE &
ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, EMPOWER ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, GREAT-WEST FUNDS, INC., PUTNAM INVESTMENTS, LLC, EMPOWER
ADVISORY GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02716-NYW (D. Colo., Oct. 14,
2022), is brought against the Defendants for their scheme of
reaping massive and unlawful profits at the expense of hardworking,
unsophisticated investors and retirees, like the Plaintiffs, who
were lured into the Empower-owned, higher fee Managed Account.

To the public, Empower masquerades as a company that is "customer
obsessed," that "does the right thing" and whose mission is to
"empower financial freedom for all." In truth, Empower profits from
disempowering hard-working, everyday Americans by luring them into
high-cost Managed Accounts comprised primarily, if not exclusively,
of Empower-affiliated Funds.

Over the last seven to eight years, Empower has misrepresented to
clients that its Advisors are salaried, non-commissioned and
"objective" fiduciaries acting in the clients' best interest. This
is a bald-faced lie. The truth is that the compensation Empower's
Advisors receive is directly tied to enrolling participants into
Empower's Managed Account ("Managed Account") product. Empower
further directs its Advisors to only recommend the higher fee
Managed Account (which is operated by AAG, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Empower's parent). Indeed, Advisors act in the best
interest of Empower rather than their clients.

To top it off, Empower fails to disclose and actively conceals to
clients that most of the funds owned by the Managed Accounts are
wholly owned by Empower's parent company. This allows the Empower
consortium to "double dip" on fees--Empower charges a lucrative
management fee based on the assets under management in the Managed
Account and Empower's sister companies charge an exorbitant fund
management fee for assets held in individual funds. The Defendants
concealed the relationship between Empower and the Empower-owned
funds by naming the funds with an obscure name not connected with
Empower such as "Putnam" or "Great-West funds.

As a direct result of this scheme, the Defendants reaped massive
and unlawful profits at the expense of hardworking, unsophisticated
investors and retirees, like Plaintiffs, who were lured into the
Empower-owned, higher fee Managed Account that contained the
Empower affiliated Great West and Putnam funds even though lower
cost investments were more readily available, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were participants in an Empower Managed Account that
invested the GWF and/or Putnam Funds.

Empower Retirement, LLC is a Colorado limited liability company
whose sole member/owner is Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance
Company, a corporation incorporated in Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Forrest James IV, Esq.
          FOB JAMES LAW FIRM, LLC
          2226 1st Ave South, Suite 105
          Birmingham, Alabama 35233
          Phone: (205) 407-6009

               - and -

          James Z. Foster, Esq.
          FOSTER LAW LLC
          1201 West Peachtree St, NW, Suite 2300
          Atlanta, Georgia 30309
          Phone: (404) 800-0050


EMPRESS AMBULANCE: Saunders Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Empress Ambulance
Service LLC. The case is styled as Herman Saunders, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Empress Ambulance
Service LLC d/b/a Empress EMS, Case No. 7:22-cv-08777-UA (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 14, 2022).

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

Empress Ambulance Service LLC doing business as Empress EMS --
https://empressems.com/ -- has been providing ambulance services in
the metro NYC area for over 37 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

EURO CERAMICA: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Euro Ceramica, Inc.
The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Euro Ceramica, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08919 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2022).

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

Euro Ceramica -- https://www.euroceramicainc.com/ -- offers a
collection porcelain dinnerware and serveware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Weisfeld Stayed Pending Kouri Deal Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BEN WEISFELD, RANDY ALEXANDER, LINDA TUCKER, KEVIN
BROWN, RICHARD GUARDINO, and MEMPHIS CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING,
Plaintiffs, individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION and DOES 1-25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-2133-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), Judge Jon
P. McCalla of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Western Division, grants FedEx's Motion to Stay
Proceedings Pending Settlement in Related Action.

The Plaintiffs brought this action against FedEx and Does 1-25
alleging that FedEx's unattended mail drop box design (a model "DE"
drop box) violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1210 et seq., because the boxes are
inaccessible to individuals in wheelchairs. Specifically, they
assert that the drop boxes at issue have a height over the ADA
Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG") reach range standards, and the
force required to operate the drop box doors exceeded the ADAAG's
operable part standards.

Mr. Weisfeld filed his initial complaint on April 3, 2022, and his
First Amended Complaint on April 25, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed
their Second Amended Complaint with leave of the court, joining the
claims of the additional Plaintiffs on June 30, 2022. FedEx filed
its Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Settlement in Related Action
on Sept. 23, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed their Response in
Opposition on Oct. 7, 2022.

FedEx requests that the Court exercises its inherent power to stay
the proceedings pending the resolution of settlement negotiations
in a related case, Janne Kouri v. Federal Express Corporation,
2:21-cv-08066-DMG-JEM (C.D. Cal.) in the Central District of
California. It additionally argues that the first-to-file rule
justifies the Court staying the instant action.

Judge McCalla explains that in deciding whether to apply the
first-to-file rule, courts generally evaluate three factors: (1)
the chronology of events, (2) the similarity of the parties
involved, and (3) the similarity of the issues or claims at stake.
If the three factors support application of the rule, the court
must also determine whether any equitable considerations, such as
evidence of inequitable conduct, bad faith, anticipatory suits, or
forum shopping, merit not applying the first-to-file rule in a
particular case.

Judge McCalla finds that (i) the Kouri Complaint was filed on Oct.
9, 2021, and the Complaint in the instant action was filed on March
4, 2022; (ii) the two proposed class definitions are substantially
similar, even if they are not perfectly identical; and (iii) while
the wording between the Complaints is not identical and the Kouri
action plaintiff asserts additional state law claims and requests
monetary relief, the issues in the instant action substantially
overlap with the issues in Kouri. The issues raised by the
Plaintiffs also do not rise to the level of equitable
considerations that would justify a deviation from the
first-to-file rule.

Because he finds that a stay is justified under the first-to-file
rule, Judge McCalla does not reach a decision as to whether a stay
is justified under the Court's inherent authority.

For the foregoing reasons, FedEx's Motion is granted. The instant
action and all deadlines, including motion and discovery deadlines,
are stayed pending a ruling in Kouri on the final approval of the
proposed settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n7j3end from Leagle.com.


FERGUSON ENTERPRISES: Lane Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MATTHEW LANE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, LLC;
and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV015478, was
removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County
of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on Oct. 14, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:22-cv-06077-KAW to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts eight causes of action under the California
Labor Code for (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay
overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to
permit rest breaks; (5) failure to reimburse business expenses; (6)
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure
to pay wages timely during employment; and (8) failure to pay all
wages due upon separation of employment. The suit further alleges
Defendants' violation of the Business and Professions Code.

Ferguson Enterprises, LLC is a wholesale distributor of plumbing
supplies, pipes, valves, and fittings in the U.S.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Leslie L. Abbott, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
          Telephone: (213) 683-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
          E-mail: leslieabbott@paulhastings.com

               - and -

          Eric D. Distelburger, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          101 California Street, 48th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100   
          E-mail: ericdistelburger@paulhastings.com

FFE TRANSPORTATION: Cronon Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DYLON W. CRONON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FFE TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, INC. dba FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS, a Delaware Corporation and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-6572,
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Joaquin, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on Oct. 19, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-at-01061 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts ten causes of action: (1) failure to pay
wages including overtime; (2) failure to provide meal periods or
compensation in lieu thereof; (3) failure to provide rest periods
or compensation in lieu thereof; (4) failure to timely pay wages;
(5) failure to timely pay wages during employment; (6) failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure to indemnify
necessary business expenses; (8) failure to pay vested vacation pay
at separation; (9) failure to pay reporting time wages; and (10)
violation of Business & Professions Code.

FFE Transportation Services, Inc. is the primary operating
subsidiary of Frozen Food Express Services, Inc. The company is a
Lancaster, Texas based temperature-controlled transportation
company founded in 1943.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          David S. Binder, Esq.
          Zena M. Kalioundji, Esq.
          BINDER AND KALIOUNDJI, LLP
          20944 Sherman Way, Suite 215
          Canoga Park, CA 91303
          Telephone: (818) 479-7679
          Facsimile: (818) 479-7690  
          E-mail: david@binderkal.com
                  zena@binderkal.com

GODFATHER'S PIZZA: Suit Seeks to Certify Delivery Driver Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM FUELBERTH,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
GODFATHER'S PIZZA, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-00195-RFR-SMB (D. Neb.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally
certifying the following collective:

   "All Delivery Drivers since June 2, 2019."

The Plaintiff and the members of the collective are sufficiently
similarly situated that conditional certification of the proposed
collective is appropriate.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of certain former and current employees of
Godfather's Pizza, seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime wages
and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and Nebraska Wage and Hour Act (NWHA).

Godfather's Pizza is an American privately owned restaurant chain
headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, that operates fast casual Italian
franchises and Pizza Express locations.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 14,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SvPBdH
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (800) 615-4946
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

HAKUBUNDO INC: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hakubundo, Inc. The
case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Hakubundo, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08873 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2022).

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

Hakubundo, Inc. -- https://hakubundo.com/ -- shop for Japanese
stationery, magazines, books, Hawai'i exclusives, washi tapes, and
so much more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOME DEPOT: Conneran Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Conneran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. CACE-22-015569 (Fla.
17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Oct. 19, 2022), is brought
against the Defendant for the Defendant's violations of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act by engaging in unsolicited telephonic
sales calls.

To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
telephonic sales calls to consumers without having secured prior
express written consent as required by the FTSA. The Plaintiff and
the Class members have been aggrieved by the Defendant's unlawful
conduct, which adversely affected and infringed upon their legal
rights not to be subjected to the illegal acts at issue. Through
this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of the Plaintiff individually and the Class
members and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual and a "called party."

The Defendant is a consumer goods and services retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
          KUHN RASLAVICH, P.A.
          2110 West Platt Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Phone: (813) 422–7782
          Facsimile: (813) 422–7783
          Email: ben@theKRfirm.com


HUMANIGEN INC: Greenbaum Files Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humanigen, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Scott Greenbaum, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Humanigen, Inc., Timothy
Morris, Cameron Durrant, Dale Chappell, Case No.
2:22-cv-06118-WJM-AME (D.N.J., Oct. 17, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated Securities/Commodities for Securities
Fraud.

Humanigen, Inc. -- https://www.humanigen.com/ -- is a
clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M Apton, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP - NEW YORK, NY
          55 Broadway, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Email: aapton@zlk.com


HYRECAR INC: Talley Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
--------------------------------------------------------
Tavaris Talley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HYRECAR INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-23330-JAL (S.D. Fla.,
Oct. 14, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act as a
result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messaging.

To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in
unsolicited text messaging to those who have not provided Defendant
with their prior express written consent as required by the FTSA.
The Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the requisite
policies and procedures and training required under the TCPA and
its implementing regulations. The Defendant's telephonic sales
calls have caused the Plaintiff and the Class members harm,
including violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages,
annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of their privacy. Through this
action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on
behalf of the Plaintiff and the Class members, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful
actions of the Defendant, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Defendant is a foreign corporation and a "telephone
solicitor."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: 305-610-5223
          Email: rachel@dapeer.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954.400.4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


IQVIA INC: Court Enters Revised Scheduling Order in Lyngass Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S.,
P.L.L.C. v. IQVIA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02370-NIQA (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro entered a revised
scheduling order as follows:


   1. Rebuttal to Defendant's expert reports shall be due by
      November 4, 2022.

   2. All expert depositions shall be completed by December 16,
      2022.

   3. Any motion for class certification shall be filed by
      January 10, 2023, and any response thereto shall be filed
      by February 14, 2023.

   4. Any dispositive motions shall be filed within 60 days of
      the issuance of this Court's ruling on any motion for
      class certification.

   5. Any response to the dispositive motions shall be filed
      within 21 days of the filing of the motion.

IQVIA provides healthcare research services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N24QtU at no extra charge.[CC]

JJS DINER CORP: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Reyes, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JJS DINER CORP., a New York Corporation d/b/a The
Dinerbar, and SPIRO GA TAN AS, an individual, Case No.
1:22-cv-06220 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2022), is brought for unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and for violations of the
"spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff worked a minimum of 60 hours per week, and often as
many as 70 hours or more per week. Throughout his employment with
the Defendants, the Plaintiff was paid primarily by check/direct
deposit through payroll. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
any overtime premium (time and a half) for hours to work over 40 in
each workweek. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he worked 10
hours or more. The Defendants intentionally, willfully, and
repeatedly harmed the Plaintiff by engaging in pattern, practice,
and/or policy of violating the FLSA in the NYLL, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a chef from January 2018
to November 2020.

The Defendant is a restaurant and bar located in Rego Park, New
York doing business as Dinerbar.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nolan Klein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: (954) 745-0588
          Email: klein@nklegal.com
                 amy@nklegal.com
                 melanie@nklegal.com


JMR SERVICES: Ingle Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
James Ingle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. JMR SERVICES, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company and
JUSTIN ROBERTS, individually, Case No. 2:22-cv-14357-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 19, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act that the Plaintiff isentitled to: unpaid wages from
the Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive
overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated damages
pursuant to the FLSA, because the Defendants' violations lacked a
good faith basis.

The Plaintiff worked regular schedules of 5 to 6 ten or more hour
days per week, for a total of at least 60 hours per week each week
of his employment. However, at least two times per month the
Plaintiff would be required to work extra eight- or nine-hour
shifts on Saturdays and/or Sundays; in addition, they were
sometimes required to work beyond the ends of their shifts on
weekdays. As a result, the Plaintiff worked at least 60 hours or
more during his employment with the Defendants.

Because the Plaintiff and other the class members were/are
full-time employees and often worked at least 40 hours per
workweek-most of the uncompensated meal break would constitute
overtime work under the FLSA. By failing to pay the Plaintiff and
other the class members for all overtime hours worked, the
Defendants acted willfully and with reckless disregard of clear
applicable FLSA provisions. Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
any overtime for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in
violation of the FLSA. The Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff
overtime for overtime hours worked was willful and lacked a good
faith basis, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
paid installer technician laborer from October 19, 2020, through
May 30, 2022.

The Defendants owned and operated an appliance installation company
in Lake Placid, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah E. Storch, Esq.
          RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
          10368 West State Road 84, Suite 103
          Davie, FL 33324
          Phone: (866) 344-9243
          Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
          Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


KEYSTONE HEALTH: Breneman Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kylie Breneman and Brandy Arroyo-Ryan, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. KEYSTONE HEALTH, Case No.
1:22-cv-01643-CCC (M.D. Pa., Oct. 19, 2022), is brought against
Keystone for its failure to secure and safeguard personally
identifiable information ("PII") and personal health information
("PHI") (collectively, "Personal Information") for approximately
235,237 patients of or other persons affiliated with Keystone.

On August 19, 2022, Keystone identified an incident that
temporarily disrupted its computer systems. Keystone's
investigation revealed that an unauthorized party had accessed
files within its system between July 28, 2022 and August 19, 2022
(the "Data Breach"). The impacted files contained patient
information, including names, Social Security numbers, and clinical
information. Keystone did not announce the Data Breach publicly
until on or around October 14, 2022, and did not begin sending out
Data Breach notification letters to patients until around that
time. The Data Breach was a direct result of Keystone's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and
protocols necessary to protect patients' Personal Information from
the foreseeable threat of a cyberattack.

By being entrusted with Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Personal
Information for its own pecuniary benefit, Keystone assumed a duty
to Plaintiffs and Class members to implement and maintain
reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and
safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class members' Personal Information
against unauthorized access and disclosure. Keystone also had a
duty to adequately safeguard this Personal Information under
controlling Pennsylvania case law, as well as pursuant to industry
standards and duties imposed by statutes, including HIPAA
regulations and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC
Act"). Keystone breached those duties by, among other things,
failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures
and practices to protect patients' Keystone from unauthorized
access and disclosure.

Despite having been accessed and exfiltrated by unauthorized
criminal actors, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive and
confidential Personal Information still remains in the possession
of Keystone. Absent additional safeguards and independent review
and oversight, the information remains vulnerable to further
cyberattacks and theft. Keystone disregarded the rights of
Plaintiffs and Class Members by, inter alia, failing to take
adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were
protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that
it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security
practices to safeguard patient Personal Information; failing to
take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data
Breach; failing to properly train its staff and employees on proper
security measures; and failing to provide Plaintiffs and Class
Members prompt and adequate notice of the Data Breach.

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and Class Members have
been exposed to a present and imminent risk of fraud and identity
theft. Among other measures, Plaintiffs and Class Members must now
and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts and
medical records to guard against identity theft. Further,
Plaintiffs and Class Members will incur out-of-pocket costs to
purchase credit monitoring and identity theft protection and
insurance services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other
protective measures to deter and detect identity theft, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs provided their PII/PHI to Keystone in connection
with receiving health care services from Keystone.

The Defendant is Pennsylvania-based entity comprised of primary
care providers serving the greater Franklin County Pennsylvania
region.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: (610) 642-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          Email: bfj@chimicles.com
                 seh@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505-4521
          Phone: 310.474.9111
          Facsimile: 310.474.8585
          Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 310.474.9111
          Facsimile: 310.474.8585
          Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com


KIA AMERICA: Mohr Files Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia America, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Victoria Mohr, Gwendolyn Kalimu,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kia
America, Inc., Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Case No.
8:22-cv-01905-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal., Oct. 17, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Contract Default.

Kia America, Inc. -- http://www.kiamedia.com/-- provides a wide
range of cars that meet your lifestyle. Browse our luxury or sports
sedans, hybrids, electric cars, SUVs & hatchbacks.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan L Bleichner, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com


LADIES PROFESSIONAL: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. LADIES PROFESSIONAL GOLF ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-08806 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2022), is brought
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because the Defendant's website,
https://www.lpga.com/, (the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By
failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with
computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

LADIES PROFESSIONAL GOLF ASSOCIATION, INC., operates the LPGA
online retail store and entertainment venue across the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: dana@gottlieb.legal
                 michael@gottlieb.legal
                 jeffrey@gottlieb.legal


LAKE VENTURES: Robinson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Billy Robinson and Daryl Bolton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LAKE VENTURES LLC dba FRESH THYME
MARKET and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2022LA000927
(Ill. Cir, Ct., DuPage Cty., Oct. 19, 2022), against the Defendant
for its violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Defendant operates its distribution centers through the use of
biometrics and, in particular, the use of voiceprints and
voice/speaker recognition technology called "Vocollect" (also known
as the "Talkman"). The Vocollect system is sold and managed by
Respondent in Discovery Honeywell International, Inc. Honeywell
claims its Vocollect system (which it offers as part of its
Honeywell Voice products) is used by more than one million users on
a daily basis. Through use of Honeywell's Vocollect technology, the
Defendant creates workers' voiceprints, voice patterns or
templates, which are then used to enable workers to interact with
the Defendant's warehouse technology to identify a worker.

Specifically, at the beginning of a warehouse worker's training, a
worker is required to provide the Defendant with personal speech
patterns by reading a series of voice template words repeatedly
into the Defendant's voice recognition software until a voiceprint
or template of his voice is created, and the software is trained to
understand his idiosyncratic way of speaking and to specifically
identify and recognize the individual worker and his voice.

The Defendant's collection and storage of biometric identifiers
and/or biometric information in a central voice console, along with
the rest of their workers' operator data files, which could be
hacked or breached, exposed and continues to expose the Plaintiffs
and Class members to serious and irreversible privacy risks.
Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted BIPA, specifically to regulate companies
that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometric identifiers,
including voiceprints such that those at issue here.

Despite this law, the Defendant, knowing full well what the law is
respecting the collection, possession and use of biometric
identifiers, and voiceprints in Illinois, disregards its workers'
statutorily and common law protected privacy rights and unlawfully
collects, captures, possesses, stores, and uses their biometric
identifiers in violation of the BIPA. Specifically, the Defendant
has violated (and continues to violate) BIPA because it did not:
Develop and issue a written policy governing the collection,
maintenance and destruction of its workers' voiceprints or
biometric identifiers, failed to comply with any written policy
governing the destruction of such biometric identifiers, and failed
to timely destroy Plaintiffs' and the Class' biometric identifiers,
specifically their voiceprint or voice templates; Properly inform
the Plaintiffs and the Class members in writing of the specific
purpose and length of time for which their biometric identifiers or
voiceprints were being collected, stored, and used, as required by
the BIPA; Provide a publicly available retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying the Plaintiffs' and the Class
voiceprints, as required by the BIPA; and Receive a written release
from the Plaintiffs or Class members to collect, capture, or
otherwise obtain their biometric identifiers or voiceprints, as
required by the BIPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked at one of the Defendant's distribution
centers in Illinois, through a staffing agency.

Lake Ventures LLC owns and operates supermarkets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Fish, Esq.
          Mara Baltabols, Esq.
          FISH POTTER BOLANOS, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                 mara@fishlawfirm.com


LENDBUZZ FUNDING: Warmilee Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lendbuzz Funding,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Marjan Warmilee, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lendbuzz Funding, LLC, Lendbuzz
Inc., Does 1-20, Case No. 34-2022-00328422-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 14, 2022).

The case type of suit is stated as "Other Employment – Civil
Unlimited."

Lendbuzz -- https://lendbuzz.com/ -- is an AI-based auto finance
platform that helps consumers with a thin or no credit history
obtain financing when purchasing a car.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kent L. Bradbury, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENT BRADBURY
          2999 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 180
          Roseville, CA 95661-4219
          Phone: 916-587-9105
          Email: kb@castleemploymentlaw.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bunce Sues Over Improperly Excluded Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
John Bunce, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
v. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-05702
(N.D. Ill., Oct. 18, 2022), is brought to address Lincoln
National's practice of improperly excluding claims made by
participants (or beneficiaries of participants) under Lincoln
National plans issued from California or otherwise subject to
California law and to remedy Lincoln National's breach of fiduciary
duty and other the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
violations.

Lincoln National Life Insurance Company is in the business of
insuring and/or administering group life and accidental death and
dismemberment ("AD&D") insurance policies (both fully insured and
self-insured), that are employer-sponsored and governed by ERISA.
Lincoln National Plans regularly contain claim exclusions which
fail to conform with California state insurance law, and Lincoln
National consistently and illegally denies otherwise valid benefit
claims under those non-conforming claim exclusions.

Immediately prior to her death, Maggie Bunce was an employee of
Sonder USA, Inc., a short-term rental management company
headquartered in San Francisco, California. As a benefit of her
employment, Maggie Bunce was eligible for and enrolled to receive
AD&D insurance from Lincoln National in the amount of $60,000 of
basic coverage. John Bunce was named 100% beneficiary of Maggie
Bunce's AD&D plan.

Maggie Bunce died on November 14, 2021 at the age of 29 after
accidentally falling from a fourth story window at 2065 South
Cherokee Street in Denver, Colorado. A Colorado State Certificate
of Death dated December 20, 2021 lists Maggie Bunce's cause of
death as due to multiple blunt force injuries. The manner of death
was deemed an accident. An autopsy report of Maggie Brown states
that femoral blood from the decedent was tested and was positive
for ethanol at a concentration of 275 mg/dL. No evidence of
significant natural disease processes were found to be ongoing at
death.

On December 4, 2021, John Bunce completed and submitted to Lincoln
National a Beneficiary Statement claim form seeking payment of AD&D
benefits. On April 5th, 2022, Lincoln National denied John Bunce's
death benefit claim, alleging without evidence that the death was
attributable to alcohol intoxication and was therefore excluded
under the plan. On August 4, 2022, John Bunce, through counsel,
submitted an appeal of Lincoln National's denial of the AD&D
benefit claim. Included with his appeal were citations to the
California insurance code and additional evidence supporting his
claim that Maggie Bunce's intoxication was not efficient proximate
cause of her death. The evidence of record overwhelming establishes
that Maggie Bunce's death resulted directly from an accidental
bodily injury sustained in a fall caused by abrupt opening of the
negligently designed window and the failure of a faulty window
stop; and it was this abrupt and unforeseen opening of the fourth
story window which was the proximate cause of her accidental
death.

Nonetheless, on September 7, 2022, Lincoln National upheld its
denial of benefits. Its claim decision again relied solely on the
fact that she was intoxicated at the time of her death, without
consideration of the statutory language required by California
state law. Lincoln National's claim denial demonstrates its pattern
and practice of willfully ignoring California state law in order to
illegally exclude qualified claims under its group AD&D insurance
policies. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek appropriate
equitable and injunctive relief under ERISA to compel Lincoln
National to change its policies and practices so as to comply with
its fiduciary obligations and to administer its plans in a manner
consistent with California state law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff John Bunce is the father of Maggie Bunce, deceased
and is the duly named beneficiary of an AD&D group insurance policy
issued to Maggie Bunce, deceased.

Lincoln National is a corporation organized under Indiana law and
is responsible for drafting, issuing, and administering group
policies of life and AD&D insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William T. Reynolds, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW
          565 West Adams Street, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Phone: (312) 906-5038
          Email: wreynold@kentlaw.iit.edu


LINKSYS USA: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Linksys USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Linksys USA, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08881-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2022).

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

Linksys -- https://www.linksys.com/ -- is an American brand of data
networking hardware products mainly sold to home users and small
businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


LOA LTD: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loa, Ltd. The case is
styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Loa, Ltd., Case No. 1:22-cv-00775 (W.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 14, 2022).

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

LOA are international freight forwarders and Customs brokers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal

               - and -

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
          122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
          New York, NY 10168
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Licea Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Luxottica of America
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Miguel Licea, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Luxottica of America
Inc., Does 1 through 25, Case No. 5:22-cv-01826 (C.D. Cal., Oct.
16, 2022).

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

Luxottica -- https://www.luxottica.com/en -- is a leader in
premium, luxury and sports eyewear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LYNFRED WINERY: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lynfred Winery, Inc.
The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Lynfred Winery, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08876 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2022).

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

Lynfred Winery -- https://www.lynfredwinery.com/ -- is Illinois'
oldest and largest, continually-operating family winery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASTEC SERVICES: Smart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mastec Services
Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kayla Smart, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mastec Services
Company, Inc., Sefnco Communications, Inc., a Florida Corporation,
Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2022-00328496-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Oct. 17, 2022).

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

MasTec -- https://www.mastec.com/ -- is an infrastructure
construction company that offers engineering, building,
installation, maintenance and upgrade services across North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC
          1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
          Phone: 310-975-1493
          Fax: 310-675-0861
          Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com


MDL 2867: Bids for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissed as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: LOCAL TV ADVERTISING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2867, No. 18 C 6785 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Virginia M. Kendall of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, dismisses as moot the motions for partial
judgment on the pleadings of the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Third
Amended Antitrust Class Action Complaint as deficient on their face
filed by Defendants Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.  and Griffin
Communications, LLC.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated before
the Court antitrust actions pending in multiple jurisdictions
because the cases involve common questions of fact and
centralization will promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. The actions each allege a conspiracy to artificially
inflate the prices of local television spot advertisements
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, the Defendants
secretly orchestrated a unitary scheme to supra-competitively raise
the prices of broadcast television spot advertisements by agreeing
to fix prices and exchange sales data, including pacing data.
Purchasers of broadcast television spot advertising knew nothing of
the data exchange and the data itself. The information the
Defendants exchanged included both local and national broadcast
television spot advertising data and was shared, with the
Broadcaster Defendants' knowledge and at their direction, with
individuals within the Broadcaster Defendants' organizations with
authority over pricing.

The scheme derailed the competitive process and allowed the
Broadcaster Defendants to avoid price competition, harming direct
purchasers of broadcast television spot advertising in Designated
Market Areas ("DMAs") throughout the United States because it
enabled the Broadcaster Defendants to better understand the
availability of their would-be competitors' inventory through the
exchange of pacing data.

Cox Media and Katz, the "Sales Rep Firms," function "as extensions
of a station's sales staff and are familiar with various rate cards
(prices) and program research demographics." The Sales Rep Firms
are industry participants that regularly communicate with each
Broadcaster Defendant to serve the Broadcaster Defendants' demands.
They facilitated the "exchange of real-time pacing information"
between the Defendants.

The Defendants' alleged price-fixing cartel was facilitated in
large part through a reciprocal exchange of competitively sensitive
information, which included: (1) pacing information, (2) average
price data through a third-party called Kantar, available at a
granular level broken down by DMA and inventory type (e.g., early
news, late news, prime time), and (3) other forms of competitively
sensitive sales information (including information exchanged
through ShareBuilders).

Certain Broadcaster Defendants retained ShareBuilders to assist
with inventory management and pricing. ShareBuilders provides yield
management solutions in the broadcast media sales industry
nationwide. Its stated business goal is to increase client
profitability by decreasing their pricing workload and increasing
their revenue.

In March 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Third
Amended Antitrust Class Action Complaint ("TAC"), which added
ShareBuilders as a defendant in this action. ShareBuilders moved to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims in the TAC that ShareBuilders acted
as a conduit of information exchange between and among the
Broadcaster Defendants. After ShareBuilders' Motion to Dismiss was
fully briefed and pending the Court's ruling, the Defendants moved
for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings on the Plaintiffs' claims as
to ShareBuilders's involvement in the alleged Sherman Act
violations. The Court subsequently granted ShareBuilders's Motion
to Dismiss.

To state a claim for a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
the Plaintiffs must allege "(1) a contract, combination, or
conspiracy; (2) a resultant unreasonable restraint of trade in a
relevant market; and (3) an accompanying injury."

Judge Kendall opines that the Court's opinion granting
ShareBuilders's Motion to Dismiss moots Sinclair's and Griffin's
motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. She says the Court
already reached the same conclusion to which Sinclair's and
Griffin's arguments lead, albeit via an alternate analysis. It
determined ShareBuilders did not plausibly facilitate either
Broadcaster Defendants' alleged price-fixing conspiracy or their
alleged exchange of competitively sensitive information.

The Court, however, made "no finding as to whether the Broadcaster
Defendants unilaterally used ShareBuilders's research in a manner
that violated Section 1, or the terms of Consent Decrees entered by
the United States Department of Justice. Judge Kendall cannot say
at this time whether Broadcaster Defendants themselves improperly
exchanged their own stations' custom ShareBuilders reports amongst
competitor stations in the same DMA.

The Plaintiffs have built their case on instances of Defendant
Broadcasters improperly exchanging competitively sensitive
information, including pacing information, amongst competitors in
the same DMAs. If the Defendants in fact exchanged their stations'
custom ShareBuilders reports with direct competitors, the
Plaintiffs may use this as circumstantial evidence tending to prove
their claims against them.

Judge Kendall dismisses as moot Sinclair's and Griffin's Motion for
Partial Judgment on the Pleadings because the Court has already
established ShareBuilders did not facilitate the Plaintiffs'
alleged price-fixing conspiracy or their alleged exchange of
competitively sensitive information in the Court's Opinion and
Order granting ShareBuilders's Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mvn5249f from
Leagle.com.


MDL 2873: Bowman Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY BOWMAN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03562-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 14, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

The Plaintiff was diagnosed with liver cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

MDL 2873: Davila Files PI Suit Over Exposure to Toxic PFAS
----------------------------------------------------------
AGNES DAVILA and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC.;
KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS,
LP; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100,
INCLUSIVE; Case No. 2:22-cv-03544-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 13, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict
liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violations of the
Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.

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

Plaintiff Davila, at all times relevant hereto, was a member of the
U.S. Army, who during her service was stationed at, inter alia,
Fort Irwin, a military installation identified as being
contaminated through use of the toxic chemicals which are the
subject of this action. In 1995, Davila was diagnosed with thyroid
disease and commenced on-going medical treatment. As known by
Defendants, thyroid disease is a disease linked to PFAS
contamination, says the suit.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -


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

MDL 2873: Helt Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN HELT, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03564-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 14, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

MDL 2873: Newman Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOE NEWMAN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03563-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 14, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

The Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

MEDIACO HOLDING: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MediaCo Holding Inc.
The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. MediaCo Holding Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08924 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2022).

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

Mediaco Holding, Inc. is a radio broadcasting media company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal

MEET MUSE MEDIA: Taylor Files Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meet Muse Media, Inc.
The case is styled as Geoffrey Taylor, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Meet Muse Media, Inc., Case No.
3:22-cv-01582-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Meet Muse Media, Inc. doing business as Snack App --
https://www.thesnackapp.com/ -- is a video-first dating application
in iOS that connects people online and focuses on Gen-Z.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (619) 222-7429
          Fax: (866) 431-3292
          Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com

               - and -

          Joshua Brandon Swigart, Esq.
          SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (866) 219-3343
          Fax: (866) 219-8344
          Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com


MERCADO SANTIAGO INC: Acevedo Sues Over Unpaid Regular, OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila M. Acevedo, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Mercado Santiago, Inc. and Enrique Santiago, individually, Case No.
3:22-cv-01120 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 18, 2022), is brought to recover
money damages for regular and overtime unpaid wages under the
United States laws, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but she was
not properly compensated. The Plaintiff was not paid for all her
overtime hours. The Plaintiff clocked in and out, and the
Defendants could track the number of hours worked by the Plaintiff.
Thus, the Defendants should be in possession of time records.
Therefore, the Defendant willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff
overtime at the rate of time and a half her regular rate for every
hour that she worked in excess of 40, in violation of, in violation
of the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a local driver, and through her daily activities,
she regularly handled or otherwise worked on goods and/or materials
that had been moved across State lines at any time in the course of
business.

The Defendant is a transportation company and participates in
interstate commerce through its business activity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICHAELS STORES: DeLaRosa Suit Removed to M.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled JENNIFER DELAROSA, on behalf of herself and all
similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MICHAELS STORES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-CA-007612, was removed from the Circuit
Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough
County, State of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on Oct. 14, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:22-cv-02364 to the proceeding.

The Complaint asserts a single cause of action under the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act, seeking statutory damages, an
injunction, and attorneys' fees.

Michaels Stores, Inc. retails art and craft products.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          April Boyer, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          Southeast Financial Center
          200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Ste 3900
          Miami, FL 33131-2399
          Telephone: (305) 539-3300
          Facsimile: (305) 358-7095       
          E-mail: april.boyer@klgates.com

MIDDLESEX WATER: Class Cert. Bid in Franklin Prisoners Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY FRANKLIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. MIDDLESEX
WATER COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 22-1718 (JMV)
(AME) (D.N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey enters an Opinion:

   a. dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against
      the state Defendants for monetary damages in their official
      capacities, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

   b. dismissing without prejudice the remainder of the
      Plaintiffs' federal claims, for failure to state a claim,
      and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
      their state law claims;

   c. denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class action;

   d. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
      injunction and for a temporary restraining order.

The Plaintiffs, who are state prisoners, are proceeding pro se with
a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The
case arises from the Plaintiffs' incarceration at East Jersey State
Prison ("EJSP") in Rahway, New Jersey. The Plaintiffs name the
following parties as Defendants: (1) the Middlesex Water Company;
(2) Acting Commissioner Victoria L. Kuhn; (3) Administrator Robert
Chetirkin; (4) Associate Administrator Cindy Sweeney; (5)
Superintendent James Russo; (6) John Does 1-10; and (7) Jane Does
1-10.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Middlesex Water Company allowed
Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA") to enter into its water system
which also serves EJSP. People who drink water containing PFOA in
excess of the maximum contaminant level over time could experience
problems with their blood serum cholesterol levels, liver, kidney,
immune system, or, in males, the reproductive system, and may also
increase the risk of testicular and kidney cancer.

The Plaintiffs allege that the State of New Jersey has set the
current maximum contaminant level for PFOA to 14 parts per
trillion, but on Sept. 7, 2021, the Middlesex Water Company
received notice that the Aug. 2, 2021, water sample exceeded the
maximum contaminant level at 36.1 parts per trillion. They have
been consistently drinking the tap water since their incarceration:
Franklin has been incarcerated at EJSP since March of 2014, and
Folkes has been incarcerated since June of 2019.

The Middlesex Water Company failed to notify the inmates that the
PFOA levels in the water system were above the maximum contaminant
level. As a result of drinking the contaminated water, the
Plaintiffs contend that they were diagnosed with H-Pylori, which
appears to be a type of gastrointestinal bacterial infection. Due
to their infections, they each lost forty pounds and required
Amoxicillin, Clarithromycin, and Proton Pump Inhibitors to treat
their infections.

The Complaint contains few factual allegations specific to any of
the individual Defendants. Instead, it generally alleges that the
individual Defendants knew or should have known of the PFOA issue,
and that they failed to warn the inmates or address the issue,
under different standards of culpability.

In March of 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Complaint, but
they did not apply to proceed in forma pauperis until July of 2022.
In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have
violated an unspecified constitutional right and raise various
state law claims regarding the contaminated water at the prison.
They also seek to proceed as a class action. In terms of relief,
they appear to request, among other things, damages in the amount
of $25,000 per day that they were exposed to the contaminated
water, as well as injunctive relief to address the water issue.

Judge Vazquez states that the Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. To succeed on a Section 1983 claim, a
plaintiff must allege a violation of a Constitutional right and
that a "person" acting under color of state law committed the
violation. He finds that the Plaintiffs do not specify which right
under the Constitution is at issue, but he construes the Complaint
as raising conditions of confinement claims under the Eighth
Amendment.

As a preliminary matter, the Plaintiffs assert claims for monetary
relief against the state Defendants, in their official capacities,
as employees of the New Jersey Department of Corrections ("NJDOC").
Judge Vazquez holds that the individual Defendants are agents or
employees of the NJDOC, and the Plaintiffs have sued them in their
official capacities. Consequently, in their official capacities,
the state Defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity from the
Plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages, and he dismisses those
claims with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Judge Vazquez opines that the Complaint fails to allege plausibly
conditions of confinement claim under the Eighth Amendment.
Accordingly, he dismisses without prejudice the remainder of the
Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims. As no federal claims remain in the
case, he declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' state law claims.

Finally, the Plaintiffs have moved to certify class and proceed in
the matter as a class action. Judge Vazquez determines that the
Plaintiffs are pro se prisoners without formal training in the law.
Nor have they shown that they have the wherewithal to maintain such
an action. Finally, these concerns are exacerbated because the
Plaintiffs are incarcerated and have not shown that they can
oversee a class action while confined. Thus, they would not be able
to represent the interests of the class and maintain this suit as a
class action. Accordingly, he denies the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify class action.

If the Plaintiffs believe that they can cure the deficiencies
discussed, they will have 45 days to file an amended complaint. If
they file an amended complaint, the Plaintiffs may renew their
motion for a preliminary injunction and for a temporary restraining
order. An appropriate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mr6jeer4 from Leagle.com.


MONA LISA PIZZA: Baber Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zeeshan Baber, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. MONA LISA PIZZA, LTD and KEVIN SEE, Case No.
4:22-cv-00899 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 18, 2022), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
hours owed to himself and similarly situated delivery drivers
employed by the Defendants at its Domino's stores.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages –
unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages), says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from June 2018 to
October 2020 as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's store
located in Little Elm, Texas.

The Defendants own and operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Serrano, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 210-2100
          Fax: (469) 399-1070
          Email: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com


MY PILLOW INC: Gaudreau Files Suit in W.D. Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Pillow, Inc. The
case is styled as Bethany Gaudreau, Joseph Ram, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. My Pillow, Inc., Case
No. 2:22-cv-02199-CSB-EIL (W.D. Tenn., Oct. 17, 2022).

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

My Pillow, Inc. -- https://www.mypillow.com/ -- is an American
pillow-manufacturing company based in Chaska, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA: Ross Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nissan of North
America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tmothy Ross, Kayla
Klein, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. Nissan of North America, Inc., Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Case No.
3:22-cv-00830 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 14, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability for
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Nissan North America Inc. -- https://www.nissanusa.com/ -- operates
in the automotive industry.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin Donahue, Esq.
          Mark Greenstone, Esq.
          GREENSTONE LAW APC
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (207) 233-5085
          Email: bdonahue@greenstonelaw.com
                 mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Fax: (615) 255-5419
          Email: beng@bsjfirm.com
                 gerards@bsjfirm.com


NORTHSTAR HEALTHCARE: Failed to Protect Consumers' Info, Emery Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DALE EMERY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHSTAR HEALTHCARE CONSULTING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-04094-ELR (N.D. Ga., Oct. 13, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members'
protected health information and personally identifiable
information stored within Defendant's information network.

With this action, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause
Representative Plaintiff and at least 18,354 others similarly
situated consumers in the massive and preventable cyberattack
purportedly discovered by Defendant on April 20, 2022, by which
cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected
network servers and accessed highly sensitive PHI/PII and financial
information belonging to both adults and children, which was being
kept unprotected, says the suit.

The Representative Plaintiff does not bring claims in this action
for direct violations of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996, but charges Defendant with various
legal violations merely predicated upon the duties set forth in
HIPAA.

NorthStar Healthcare Consulting, LLC is a business associate
supporting Optum Rx, which provides pharmacy benefit management
services to the Georgia Department of Community Health, Medical
Assistance Plans Division.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles H. Van Horn, Esq.
          BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C.
          3475 Piedmont Road, Suite 1640
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 261-7711
          E-mail: cvanhorn@bfvlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Cody Bolce, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12th Street, Suite 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          E-mail: sec@colevannote.com
                  cab@colevannote.com  

NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Nov. 10
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Villafan, et al., v.
Northwest Motorsport, LLC et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01616-TSZ (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order granting
the Parties' stipulation and request relief regarding the deadline
for filing motions related to class certification:

              Event                Current         Proposed
                                   Deadline        Deadline

-- Deadline for filing          Oct. 20, 2022    Nov. 10, 2022
   motions related
   to class certification

The Plaintiffs include SETH VILLAFAN, a single man; WOLFGANG OLSON,
a single man; and JOSH GRAVES, a married but separated man.

The Defendants include NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT, LLC, a Washington
limited liability company; HILT VENTURE CAP INC., a Washington
limited liability company; DONALD FLEMING and JANE DOE FLEMING,
residents of Montana, and the marital community composed thereof;
NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT, INC., a Washington corporation; RICHARD FORD
and JANE DOE FORD, residents of Texas, and the marital community
composed thereof; RFJ AUTO PARTNERS NORTHERN HOLDINGS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; JOHN and JANE DOES 1-5 and the marital
communities; and RFJ AUTO GROUP, INC., a foreign corporation.

A copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 13, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eMAEGw at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eugene N. Bolin, Jr.,Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE N. BOLIN, JR., PS
          Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., WSBA #11450
          144 Railroad Ave., Suite #308
          Edmonds, WA 98020
          Telephone: (425) 582-8165
          Facsimile: (888) 527-2710
          E-mail: eugenebolin@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by

          Paul S. Smith, Esq.
          Martin J. Pujolar, Esq.
          901 Fifth Ave., Suite 1400
          Seattle, WA 98164
          Telephone: 206-689-8500
          Facsimile: 206-689-8501
          E-mail: mpujolar@foum.law
                  psmith@foum.law

NUNZIO & SONS: Hurtado Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Silvio Hurtado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NUNZIO & SONS BAKERY CORP. D/B/A NAPOLI BAKERY and
NUNZIO CIRONE, Case No. 1:22-cv-06180 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022), is
brought against the Defendants violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act amd New York Labor Law by engaging in a policy and
pattern or practice including, inter alia, failing to pay overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Plaintiffs regularly worked more than 40 hours per week during
their employment with the Defendants, the Defendants failed to
compensate Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective the Plaintiffs with
the proper overtime wages at a rate of 1.5 times their regular
hourly rate or the statutory minimum wage, whichever is higher, for
every hour worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff was also
a non-exempt employee under the NYLL, and was entitled to New York
State minimum wages, spread of hours pay, and overtime
compensation. Based on the Plaintiff's compensation and hours
worked per week, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the
applicable New York state minimum wage rate throughout the
Plaintiff's employment. Further, although the Plaintiff regularly
worked shifts that spanned more than 10 hours per day, Defendants
failed to compensate the Plaintiff with an additional hour's pay at
the minimum wage rate for every day in which his shift exceeded a
spread of 10 hours, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a bread maker from
January 1, 2002 until April 16, 2022.

NSB is an Italian style bakery that sells sandwiches, bread, and
other food products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eliseo Cabrera, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 460-0047
          Email: edcabrera@katzmelinger.com


OVERSTOCK.COM: Licea Sues Over Secretly Wiretapped Conversations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Licea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OVERSTOCK.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-01594-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal.,
Oct. 16, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for violations of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act as a result of the Defendant
who secretly wiretaps the private conversations on its Website
without warning visitors or obtaining their consent.

The Defendant secretly wiretaps the private conversations of
everyone who communicates through the chat feature at
www.overstock.com (the "Website"); and allows at least one third
party to eavesdrop on such communications in real time to harvest
data for financial gain. 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. The
Defendant's wiretapping and eavesdropping are not incidental to the
act of facilitating e-commerce, nor are they undertaken in the
ordinary course of business. To the contrary, the Defendant's
actions violate both industry norms and the legitimate expectations
of consumers.

To enable the wiretapping, Defendant has covertly embedded code
into its chat feature that automatically records and creates
transcripts of all such conversations. To enable the eavesdropping,
Defendant allows at least one independent third-party to secretly
intercept in real time, eavesdrop upon, and store transcripts of
the Defendant's chat communications with unsuspecting website
visitors--even when such conversations are private and deeply
personal. The Defendant neither informs visitors of this conduct
nor obtains their consent to these intrusions, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of California.

The Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company that owns,
operates, and/or controls the www.overstock.com website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PATREON INC: California Court Narrows Claims in Stark Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies
in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned
BRAYDEN STARK, et al., Plaintiff v. PATREON, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 22-cv-03131-JCS (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Brayden Stark, Judd Oostyen, Kevin Black and Maryann
Owens bring this putative class action against Patreon, Inc.,
asserting claims under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act
("VPPA") and California law based on Patreon's alleged sharing of
user data with Facebook. Patreon moves to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Court finds the
matter suitable for resolution without oral argument and vacates
the hearing previously set for Oct. 14, 2022. The case management
conference previously set for the same time is continued to Nov.
18, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., to occur via Zoom webinar.

Judge Spero holds that Patreon's motion is granted as to the
Plaintiffs' claim under the VPPA, as well as a California claim, to
the extent it is directly derivative of their VPPA claim, which are
dismissed with leave to amend. The motion is otherwise denied. The
Plaintiffs' amended complaint was due on Oct. 27, 2022.

The Court does not reach the parties' constitutional arguments at
this time, and the deadline for the United States to intervene
remains set as Nov. 4, 2022.

Patreon allows its users or members to access a variety of content
on Patreon's website, including music, podcasts, and video content
posted by content creators.

The Plaintiffs assert that Patreon is, therefore, a "video tape
service provider" as that term is defined in the VPPA because it
engaged in the business of delivering audiovisual materials that
are similar to prerecorded video cassette tapes and those sales
affect interstate or foreign commerce.

The Plaintiffs are current Patreon members and Facebook users. They
pay Patreon subscription fees ranging from $5 to $15 per month and
regularly watch video content on Patreon's website. Plaintiff Owens
is a Facebook user and former Patreon member, who paid Patreon
around $35 per month for two months in 2021 and regularly watched
videos on Patreon's website during that time, but will not use
Patreon in the future unless it takes greater steps to protect her
privacy.

When users view video content on Patreon's website, Patreon
transmits the title of the video they are viewing, as well as the
user's Facebook ID ("FID") to Facebook, the ubiquitous social
network, using a tracking tool created by Facebook called the
"Pixel." An FID can be used "to quickly and easily locate, access,
and view the corresponding Facebook profile" of the user.

The Plaintiffs assert that they did not know of or authorize
Patreon sharing their video usage information with Facebook and
other third parties, and that Patreon's "Terms of Use, Privacy
Policy, Data Practices, and Cookie Policy" do not inform users of
Patreon's use of the Facebook Pixel or its practice of sharing
Users' personal information and video content choices with Facebook
and other third parties. In any event, Patreon never obtained a
standalone agreement from users to share that information as
required by the VPPA.

The Plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) violation of the
VPPA; (2) violation of the "unlawful," "unfair," and "fraudulent"
prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"); (3)
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (the
"CLRA").

Patreon requests that the Court take judicial notice of the various
versions of its terms of use, privacy policy, and cookie policy
that were in effect during the period at issue, arguing that the
Plaintiffs' complaint incorporates those documents by reference.

The Plaintiffs oppose the request for judicial notice, arguing that
Patreon cannot offer documents outside the complaint to dispute
their allegations.

Patreon moves to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims. With
respect to the VPPA, Patreon contends that the Plaintiffs have not
offered sufficient factual allegations to show that the videos they
viewed on Patreon's website "were 'similar' to prerecorded video
cassette tapes" as required by the statute," or "that Patreon is
'engaged in the business of renting, selling, or delivering' such
audio visual materials."

The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of those documents
and their contents--as is relevant, for example, to show what
exactly Patreon disclosed in its policies.

Judge Spero notes that it is not self-evident that descriptions of
Patreon's business model in its terms of use and other policies
accurately describe how the business actually functions.
Accordingly, to the extent the terms of use might conflict with the
Plaintiffs' allegations of what Patreon did, rather than what it
disclosed, the Court accepts the Plaintiffs' allegations as true
for the purpose of the present motion.

Patreon argues that it is not a "video tape service provider"
because the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the
videos they watched were prerecorded video cassette tapes or
similar audio visual materials.

The Court says it is aware of no authority to the contrary, and
finds that analysis persuasive. It is also notable that while
broadcast, cable, and satellite television were all well
established at the time of the VPPA's passage, there is nothing in
the statute's language suggesting that providers of such live
broadcasts fall within its scope. The Court, therefore, holds that
a video must be prerecorded to fall within the VPPA's definition of
"similar audio visual materials."

The Plaintiffs' complaint includes numerous references to "videos"
and "video content," but does not specify whether they were
broadcast live or prerecorded and available on demand. Judge Spero
says nothing in the complaint suggests an inference one way or the
other on that question. Accordingly, Judge Spero finds that the
Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that Patreon provided
"similar audio visual materials," and their VPPA claim is dismissed
with leave to amend.

Judge Spero finds that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged
similar audio visual materials, and that the Plaintiffs have also
sufficiently alleged the disclosure of personally identifying
information, and Patreon's knowledge of such disclosure.

The Court does not reach Patreon's constitutional challenge.

The parties have agreed to extend the deadline for the United
States to determine whether to intervene and address the
constitutionality of the VPPA through Nov. 4, 2022. The Court,
therefore, declines at this time to address the parties' arguments
regarding that issue, in order to ensure that any decision on that
question benefits from all briefing that might be offered in the
case.

Moreover, because the Plaintiffs' VPPA claim is subject to
dismissal for failure to allege that the video content at issue was
prerecorded, it is conceivable that the Court may not need to reach
the constitutional question to resolve the case. The approach of
not addressing that issue at this time should not be taken to imply
any view on its merits.

Because the VPPA claim is dismissed, Judge Spero holds that the
Plaintiffs' claim under the "unlawful" prong of the UCL is also
dismissed with leave to amend to the extent it depends on the VPPA
claim. Patreon's motion is denied to the extent this claim is based
on the CLRA claim.

Judge Spero also denies Patreon's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims under the "fraudulent" prong and the "unfair" prong. Because
the Court declines to dismiss the "fraudulent" prong claim,
Patreon's motion is also denied as to the CLRA claim.

Patreon's only arguments for dismissal if the unjust enrichment
claim exists are: (1) there is no injustice when Patreon
sufficiently disclosed its data sharing; and (2) the Plaintiffs
have not plausibly alleged that Patreon was unjustly enriched by
sharing data with Facebook. As discussed, the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged that Patreon did not disclose the particular
data sharing at issue, and that they would not have paid Patreon
the same subscription fees if it had disclosed that practice.
Patreon's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim
is, therefore, denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 13, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/25uxrbkh from Leagle.com.


PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Licea Files Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Payless ShoeSource
Worldwide, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Jose Licea,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Payless ShoeSource Worldwide, LLC, Does 1 through 25, Case No.
3:22-cv-01586-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2022).

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

Payless ShoeSource Worldwide, Inc. -- https://www.payless.com/ --
retails footwear. The Company offers boots, sandals, slippers,
sneakers, socks, and related products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PETSMART LLC: Scally Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------
The case styled BREANN SCALLY, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. PETSMART LLC, Defendant, Case No.
22-CIV-03057, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Oct. 19, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-06210 to the proceeding.

In this class action complaint, the Plaintiff asserts 10 causes of
action against PetSmart: (1) unlawful training repayment agreement;
(2) unlawful grooming tools expenditures; (3) unlawful operation of
a post-secondary institution; (4) abusive practices relating to the
provision of a consumer financial product or service; (5) unlawful
practices relating to the provision of a consumer financial product
or service; (6) violations of the Rosenthal Act; (7) violations of
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (8) false advertising; (9) failure
to provide meal and rest breaks; and (10) unfair competition for
unlawful employment practices, false advertising, and unlawful debt
collection practices.

PetSmart LLC PetSmart is a privately held American chain of pet
superstores, which sell pet products, services, and small
pets.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Theane evangelis, Esq.
          Madeleine F. Mckenna, Esq.
          Emily Sauer, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520  
          E-mail: TEvangelis@gibsondunn.com
                  MMcKenna@gibsondunn.com
                  ESauer@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Megan Cooney, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Telephone: (949) 451-3800
          Facsimile: (949) 451-4220      
          E-mail: MCooney@gibsondunn.com

PICK FIVE IMPORTS: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pick Five Imports,
Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Pick Five Imports, Inc.
doing business as: Maxi-matic, USA, Case No. 1:22-cv-08918-ALC
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2022).

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

Pick Five Imports, Inc. doing business as Maxi-Matic U.S.A,
designs, manufactures, and markets kitchen electrics and household
items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRECISION OF NEW HAMPTON: Grainger Suit Removed to N.D. Iowa
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEVIN GRAINGER, on Behalf of Himself and Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. PRECISION OF NEW HAMPTON, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. LACV004294, was removed from the Iowa District
Court in and for Chickasaw County to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa on Oct. 14, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Iowa assigned Case
No. 6:22-cv-02043 to the proceeding.

This action was commenced by Plaintiff against Defendant in the
Iowa District Court in and for Chickasaw County on February 25,
2022. On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend his petition, attaching a proposed Second Amended Petition
adding a claim against Defendant for alleged retaliation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Precision of New Hampton, Inc. is an auto parts manufacturer in New
Hampton, Iowa.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin J. Visser, Esq.
          Nicholas Petersen, Esq.
          SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER BERGMAN PLC
          115 Third Street SE, Suite 1200
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1266
          Telephone: (319) 366-7641
          Facsimile: (319) 366-1917
          E-mail: kvisser@spmblaw.com
                  npetersen@spmblaw.com

PRIDE MEDICAL: Class Cert. in Doe Suit Reversed; Sanctions Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PRIDE MEDICAL, INC., et al. v. JOHN DOE, et al., Case
No. A22A1140 (Ga. App.), the Court of Appeals of Georgia, First
Division, reverses the trial court's order certifying a class
action but affirms its order sanctioning the Defendants for
violating discovery orders.

In the second appearance of these parties before the Court,
Defendants Pride Medical, Inc., Pride Medical Services, P. C., Lee
Anisman, M. D., David Morris, M. D., Amy Swartz, M. D., and Charles
Dickey, appeal from the trial court's order certifying a class
action brought by John Doe Nos. 1 through 4, as well as an order
sanctioning the Defendants for violating discovery orders.

The Plaintiffs brought the case seeking class action certification
after Lee Anisman, M. D., the CEO of Pride Medical, Inc., e-mailed
a spreadsheet containing the names and HIV status of 379 proposed
class members listed as patients on the spreadsheet to several
people at several publications with whom the Defendants advertised
("Pride Medical I"). They asserted claims for invasion of privacy,
breach of confidential relationship and fiduciary duty, violation
of OCGA Section 24-12-20 (prohibiting disclosure of confidential
HIV/AIDS information), negligence, gross negligence, wrongful
disclosure of confidential information, breach of contract, medical
malpractice, breach of OCGA Section 51-1-6 (right to recover
damages for breach of legal duty), punitive damages, and attorney
fees and costs under OCGA Section 13-6-11.

In Pride Medical I, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's
order certifying the class because its findings of facts and
conclusions of law were not sufficiently specific. Following the
return of the case to the trial court, the trial court entered a
40-page order certifying the following class with regard to all
claims brought by the Plaintiffs other than the invasion of privacy
claim: "All individuals identified in the HIV/AIDS Patient List
whose protected Health Information was disclosed by Defendants
without their authorization to third parties by disclosure of the
HIV/AIDS Patient List."

The Defendants argue that the trial court erred when it concluded
that the class had sufficient commonality, typicality, and adequacy
of representation as required by OCGA Section 9-11-23(a)(2)-(4).
They assert that the trial court erred by concluding that the class
representatives can adequately represent the class.

Having considered the evidence before the trial court with regard
to the damages sought by the Plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals
concludes that it abused its discretion by finding that the
Plaintiffs could fairly and adequately represent the class. Having
concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the adequacy
requirement for certification of a class action, the Court of
Appeals need not address whether they satisfied the commonality and
typicality requirements of OCGA Section 9-11-23(a), and the
remaining enumerations of error on appeal with regard to class
certification are rendered moot.

The Defendants assert seven grounds for reversal of the trial
court's order imposing discovery sanctions. They (i) contend that
the trial court erred in granting sanctions because they "timely
served supplemental interrogatory and RPD responses as ordered";
(ii assert that because they were granted an extension of time to
produce documents in the March 2021 hearing, the contempt motion
was rendered moot; (iii) contend that the majority of the sanctions
order inappropriately refers to events before and after its alleged
failure to produce documents within 30 days of the Dec. 2, 2020
order; (iv) complain that the trial court did not prepare its own
order, adopted the order prepared by the Plaintiffs' counsel
verbatim, and failed to grant a hearing before adopting the
proposed order; (v) contend that sanctions could only be imposed
for violations of the Dec. 2, 2020 order and that the Plaintiffs
failed to prove a violation of the Dec. 2, 2020 order with regard
to Dr. Anisman's e-mail; (vi) assert that the trial court forced
them to produce attorney-client privileged e-mails without due
process; and (vii) assert that they have been sanctioned without
"record proof" and that the discovery order contains "few record
citations."

The Court of Appeals concludes that as these grounds fail to show
that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in imposing the
discovery sanction of attorney fees and expenses, it affirms. It
finds that (i) the first argument presents no grounds to conclude
that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding sanctions;
(ii) it can't find that the trial court's grant of the extension
rendered the motion for sanctions moot; (iii) the trial court's
consideration of events outside the period advocated by the
Defendants was appropriate; (iv) the fourth argument does not
present an independent ground to reverse the trial court's award of
discovery sanctions; (v) the fifth argument is without merit as it
completely ignores that the trial court imposed three subsequent
discovery orders; (vi) the Defendants fail to explain why they did
not assert the attorney-client privilege with regard to documents
within the scope of the order and list them on the privilege log;
and (vi) the discovery requests at issue were served in 2017, and
multiple compliance hearings were required to assist the plaintiffs
in obtaining the requested discovery.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part. Barnes, P. J., and
Hodges, J., concur.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ynmb6ze9 from Leagle.com.


PRIMARY EXPRESS: Porter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primary Express LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Jazmine Porter, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. Primary Express
LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2022-00328580-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 18, 2022).

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

Primary Express -- https://primaryexpressinc.com/ -- provides fast,
reliable, and excellent delivery services to any individual and
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRIORITY DISPATCH: Peter Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Peter, Kevina Mitchell, Angela Sanchez, Clayton Neel, and
Saviour Banda, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. PRIORITY DISPATCH, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00606-MRB
(S.D. Ohio, Oct. 19, 2022), is brought under the Illinois and
Michigan wage laws, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Ohio Constitution challenging the unlawful misclassification of the
Plaintiffs as independent contractors instead of employees.

The Defendant pays the Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers a flat
amount per route, per mile, or per delivery stop. All of these
rates are unilaterally determined by the Defendant. The Defendant
deducts various amounts from the delivery drivers' weekly pay for
purposes such as administrative fees and insurance costs. By
misclassifying delivery drivers as independent contractors, the
Defendant requires the drivers to bear the costs of performing
delivery services, including, but not limited to, gasoline, tolls,
vehicle maintenance and depreciation (as drivers were required to
use their own vehicles), and insurance. The Defendant did not
reimburse Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers for incurring
necessary expenditures or losses within the scope of their
employment for the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers frequently are not paid
for all hours worked at an hourly rate at or in excess of the
minimum wage rates established by the FLSA and the laws of the
various states in which they worked. For most drivers, in many or
all weeks, the drivers' substantial out-of-pocket, work-related
expenses brings their compensation below the statutory minimum
wage. The Defendant's misclassification of its delivery drivers as
independent contractors and the additional violations were willful
and undertaken in bad faith, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs delivered pharmaceutical and medical products.

Priority Dispatch, Inc. conducts its delivery business throughout
the Midwestern United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Phone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
          Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: (617) 994-5800
          Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                 mthomson@llrlaw.com
                 zrubin@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          W. Jeffrey Vollmer, Esq.
          GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP
          300 Summers Street, Suite 1500
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Phone: (304) 346-7000
          Email: wjv@goodwingoodwin.com


PUBLIC CONSULTING: Martinez Suit Remanded to San Diego State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LISA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PUBLIC CONSULTING
GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-00813-WQH-DDL (S.D. Cal.), Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California grants the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Action to State Court.

The case is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego, where it was originally
filed as Case No. 37-2022-00012198-CU-OE-CTL.

On April 1, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint
against Public Consulting Group, Inc. ("PCG") in the Superior
Court. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that PCG violated
California's wage and hour laws with respect to non-exempt
employees at PCG's California business locations.

The Plaintiff alleges that she and Class Members were entitled to
receive wages for all time worked (including minimum wages and
overtime wages) and that they were not receiving all wages earned
for work that was required to be performed. She alleges that they
were not paid all wages for all hours worked at the correct rate
and within the correct time; did not receive all meal or rest
periods and did not receive compensation for those missed meal or
rest periods; and were entitled to, but did not receive,
reimbursement and/or indemnification for all necessary business
expenditures or losses as a direct result of the discharge of their
duties, or of their obedience to the directions of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff also alleges that she and the Class Members were not
provided with accurate itemized wage statements, and that the
Waiting Time Subclass was entitled to timely payment of wages due
upon separation of employment.

Ms. Martinez seeks to represent the following class and subclass:

   * All California citizens currently or formerly employed by
     Defendants as non-exempt employees in the State of
     California any time between October 5, 2017 and the date of
     class certification (Class); and

   * All members of the Class who separated their employment with
     Defendant at any time between October 5, 2018 and the date
     of class certification (Waiting Time Subclass).

The Plaintiff and the Class Members bring the following claims
against the Defendants: (1) failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission ("IWC") Wage Order Section 3-4; (2) failure to pay
overtime wage; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to
permit rest breaks; (5) failure to reimburse business expenses; (6)
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure
to timely pay during employment; and (8) unfair business practices
in violation of California Business and Professions Code sections
17200, et seq. The Plaintiff and the Waiting Time Subclass bring
one claim against the Defendants for failure to pay all wages due
upon separation of employment. They seek recovery of compensatory
damages, unpaid compensation, economic and/or special damages,
liquidated damages, statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On June 2, 2022, PCG removed the action to this Court pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). On June 3, 2022,
PCG filed a Corrected Notice of Removal. In the Notice of Removal,
PCG alleges that there are at least 100 class members, the parties
are minimally diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million. PCG alleges that the amount in controversy is at least
$5,288,293. PCG does not include potential liability for failure to
pay minimum wages or failure to timely pay during employment in
calculating the amount in controversy.

On June 24, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand Action to
State Court. She asserts that PCG based its removal on "wholly
unsupported assumption of violation rates to reach the amount in
controversy."

On June 28, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. In the
Amended Complaint, she alleges the same claims against the
Defendants as the original Complaint. PCG filed a Response in
opposition to the Motion to Remand, and the Plaintiff filed a
Reply.

In this case, Judge Hayes notes the amount in controversy is not
apparent from the face of the Complaint.

The Plaintiff challenges PCG's assertion that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million. She directly challenged the truth
of PCG's allegations that every class member suffered every
violation for all of her claims at all times. Her challenges are
grounded on her assertion that PCG's calculations are based on
assumptions that PCG did not support with allegations in the
Complaint or outside evidence.

PCG responds by providing the same calculations it did in its
Notice of Removal, and adds some case citations to support its
assumptions of "one hour of unpaid overtime per class member per
week," a 40% violation rate for the meal and rest period claims, a
100% violation rate for the waiting time claim, a 100% violation
rate for the wage statement claim, and $10 per week in unreimbursed
business expenses.

However, Judge Hayes finds that PCG fails to provide any evidence
to support these assumptions. The Plaintiff does not allege any
violation rates in the Complaint and PCG fails to provide evidence
or an explanation of factual allegations in the Complaint to prove
its calculations are based on more than speculation.

PCG further assumes 100% of the class members suffered each
violation in the Complaint without providing any evidence to
support its assumption, and it does not sufficiently explain how
this assumption can be reached based on the Plaintiff's allegations
in the Complaint, Judge Hayes holds.

Judge Hayes finds that this assumption is overly broad--the
Plaintiff makes no allegation regarding the number of class members
that suffered each violation. Judge Hayes adds, among other things,
that PCG makes assumptions but provided no basis concerning the
$20.20 hourly rate, the 25,090 total workweeks, number of
non-exempt employees who suffered each violation, and number of
class member employees terminated during the time period.

Given PCG's lack of evidentiary support, the Court finds PCG's
assumptions relating to the overtime, meal and rest periods,
unreimbursed business expenses, wage statements, and waiting time
claims are not reasonably grounded.

PCG includes in its attorneys' fees calculation all claims for
which it calculated potential damages--claims two, three, four,
five, six, and eight--to be included in the amount in controversy.
However, not all of those claims entitle a successful plaintiff to
attorneys' fees, Judge Hayes holds. He finds that PCG's calculation
of attorneys' fees is also speculative because PCG has failed to
show the base amount, to which the 25% has been applied, is founded
on reasonable assumptions. Regardless of whether a percentage is
used to calculate prospective attorneys' fees, the Court cannot
reasonably calculate the attorneys' fees value without a reasonable
basis for the value.

Given that PCG has provided no evidence or factual basis to support
its assumptions, PCG has failed to demonstrate by preponderance of
the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million,
Judge Hayes holds.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 13, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3w6298n from Leagle.com.


Q3M INSURANCE: Court Denies as Moot Bid to Dismiss Gaker Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, denies as
moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned
HEATHER GAKER, Plaintiff v. Q3M INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-CV-00296-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C.).

The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
filed Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiff filed her First Amended
Class-Action Complaint on Oct. 11, 2022.

Judge Cayer notes that the Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint as
of right within 21 days following receipt of the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss. He explains that it is well settled that an amended
pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions
directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot, citing
Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001).

The Court, therefore, orders that:

   1. The Motion to Dismiss is administratively denied as moot
      without prejudice; and

   2. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to
      counsel for the parties and to the Honorable Robert J.
      Conrad, Jr.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 13, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ywhkddzs from Leagle.com.


R & S LIQUOR STORE: Santos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Bladimir De Los Santos, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. R & S Liquor Store Corp., and Carlos Valenzuela, Case
No. 1:22-cv-06240 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2022), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages, untimely paid wages, liquidated and
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York State Labor Law, the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act and
their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.

The Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week,
but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for those hours. The Defendants' conduct
extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated
employees. The Defendants did not state the correct gross wages, as
defined by NYLL, for any employee on any pay statement as required
by NYLL or deductions from the correct gross wages. The Plaintiff
was not required to keep track of his time, nor to his knowledge,
did the Defendants utilize any time tracking device, such as sign
in sheets or punch cards, that accurately reflected his actual
hours worked. The Defendants did not provide the Plaintiff a
statement of wages, as required by NYLL. The Defendants did not pay
the Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times his hourly wage
rate for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a general worker at the Defendants'
liquor store.

The Defendants own, operate and/or control the liquor store located
in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 792-0046
          Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com


REALPAGE INC: Bason Sues Over Artificially Inflated Prices
----------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Bason; Lois Winn; Georges Emmanuel Njong Diboki; Julia Sims;
and Sophia Woodland, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; FPI MANAGEMENT, INC.; MID-
AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC;
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC; THRIVE COMMUNITIES
MANAGEMENT, LLC; and SECURITY PROPERTIES INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-01611-WQH-MDD (S.D. Cal., Oct. 18, 2022), is brought to
challenge a cartel among lessors of multifamily residential real
estate leases ("Lessors") to artificially inflate the prices of
multifamily residential real estate in the United States above
competitive levels.

Beginning in 2016, and potentially earlier, Lessors replaced their
independent pricing and supply decisions with collusion. Lessors
agreed to use a common third party that collected real-time pricing
and supply levels, and then used that data to make unit-specific
pricing and supply recommendations. Lessors also agreed to follow
these recommendations, on the expectation that competing Lessors
would do the same.

That third party is RealPage, Inc. RealPage provides software and
data analytics to Lessors. RealPage also serves as the mechanism by
which Lessors collude and avoid competition, increasing lease
prices to Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed Class.
RealPage openly boasts that its services "balance supply and demand
to maximize Lessors' revenue growth." And that is precisely what
RealPage has done, facilitating an agreement among participating
Lessors not to compete on price, and allowing Lessors to coordinate
both pricing and supply through two mutually reinforcing mechanisms
in furtherance of their agreed aim of suppressing price competition
for multifamily residential real estate leases.

First, Lessors "outsource daily pricing and ongoing revenue
oversight" to RealPage, replacing separate centers of independent
decision-making with one. While Lessors are able reject the
RealPage pricing through an onerous process, RealPage emphasizes
the need for "discipline" among participating Lessors. To encourage
adherence to its common scheme, RealPage explains that for its
services to be most effective in increasing rents, Lessors must
accept the pricing at least eighty percent of the time. These
efforts are successful, with a RealPage employee explaining that as
many as 90 percent (and at least 80 percent) of prices are adopted
by participating Lessors without any deviation.

Second, RealPage allows participating Lessors to coordinate supply
levels to avoid price competition. In a competitive market, there
are periods where supply exceeds demand, and that in turn puts
downward pressure on market prices as firms compete to attract
lessees. To avoid the consequences of lawful competition, RealPage
provides Lessors with information sufficient to "stagger" lease
renewals to avoid oversupply. Lessors thus held vacant rental units
unoccupied for periods of time (rejecting the historical adage to
keep the "heads in the beds") to ensure that, collectively, there
is not one period in which the market faces an oversupply of
residential real estate properties for lease, keeping prices
higher.

By staggering lease renewals to artificially smooth out natural
imbalances of supply and demand, RealPage and participating Lessors
also eliminate any incentive to undercut or cheat on the cartel
(avoiding a race to the bottom, or "prisoner's dilemma"). This is a
central mantra of RealPage, to sacrifice "physical" occupancy
(i.e., to decrease output) in exchange for "economic" occupancy, a
manufactured term RealPage uses to refer to increasing prices and
decreasing occupancy (output) in the market. RealPage's and
participating Lessors' coordinated efforts have been effective at
driving anticompetitive outcomes: higher prices and lower occupancy
(output). The conspiracy Plaintiffs challenge is unlawful under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs bring this action to
recover their damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other
appropriate relief, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs rented a multifamily residential unit in a property
managed by Lessor Defendants.

The Defendants, directly or through their divisions, subsidiaries,
predecessors, agents, or affiliates, may be found in and transact
business in the forum state, including the sale of multifamily
residential real estate leases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RESOLUTE CAPITAL: Cruz Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Cruz, Ariel Kumpinsky, Heather and Bryant Smith, Rohit
Khanolkar, Sharon Gardner, Arlen Leiner, and Lisa Leiner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
RESOLUTE CAPITAL PARTNERS LTD, LLC; HOMEBOUND RESOURCES, LLC;
HOMEBOUND FINANCIAL GROUP, LP; LEGACY ENERGY, LLC; CHOICE ENERGY
HOLDINGS, LCC; PETROROCK MINERAL HOLDINGS, LLC; MERCURY OPERATING,
LLC; MINERVA RESOURCES, LLC; 2X5 ENTERPRISES, LP; THE 2X5, LLC;
CRONUS MINERAL HOLDINGS; WEALTH FORMULA INVESTOR CLUB; PROSPERITY
ECONOMIC PARTNERS; FOUNDATIONS INVESTMENT ADVISORS, LLC; FINANCIAL
GRAVITY WEALTH, INC.; THE HIDDEN WEALTH SOLUTION; THOMAS J. POWELL;
STEFAN T. TOTH; TED ETHEREDGE; MIR JAFER ALI JOFFREY; BROOKE NUNES;
KIM BUTLER; CHRIS MILES; JEFF CRONIN; CHRISTOPHER LYNN MOST; DEVIN
PATEL; and CHARLES OLIVER, Case No. 3:22-cv-02349-E (N.D. Tex.,
Oct. 19, 2022), is brought seeking to recover compensable damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act") and by the Defendants' violations of Texas state
securities laws.

This is a class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased interests
in the "Equity Funds" offered by Defendants, including, Resolute,
Powell, Toth, Etheredge, Most, or any other salesperson acting on
their behalf under Resolute and Homebound, which are the two
entities they respectively controlled, from at least between March
2014 and September 2021 (the "Class Period"). This class action is
also on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities
other than the Defendants who purchased promissory notes, or other
"Debt Funds" offered by Defendants, including, Homebound, Powell,
Toth, Etheredge, PetroRock, or any other salesperson or promoter
acting on their behalf under Resolute and Homebound during the
Class Period.

The Equity and Debt Funds offered by Defendants Resolute,
Homebound, PetroRock, Powell, Toth, Etheredge, Most, or any other
salesperson or promoter acting on their behalf under Resolute and
Homebound during the Class Period are securities within the meaning
of the Exchange Act. Under the Exchange Act the term "security"
includes, but is not limited to, any note, evidence of
indebtedness, or investment contract. A promissory note is
considered a security as evidence of indebtedness. An investment
contract is a security if "the scheme involves an investment of
money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the
efforts of others.

Investors in Resolute's Equity Funds invested substantial amounts
of their retirement into Defendants' investment vehicles, organized
as LLC's, with the expectation they would receive monetary
distributions from oil and gas wells prospected by Homebound. In
addition, Investor's in Homebound and PetroRock's Debt Funds
invested and were sold promissory notes guaranteeing fixed returns
ranging from 8% to 12%.

The Plaintiffs did not know and could not have known that they were
defrauded by the Defendants until September 24, 2021, when the SEC
Cease-and-Desist Order was entered against Defendants Resolute,
Homebound, Powell, and Toth. The SEC's September 24, 2021 Cease-and
Desist Order was the first public notice that investors with
Defendants Resolute, Homebound, Toth, and Powell may have fallen
victim to the parties' fraud. The SEC Cease-and-Desist Order
undertook to put as many investors as possible on notice of the
Defendants' fraudulent activities by requiring the Defendants "post
a clearly referenced link to the Order in a prominent area of the
home page of all RCP and Homebound web sites, and all other
commercial web sites under Defendants' direction or control," says
the complaint.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members collectively invested millions of
dollars in these Equity Funds only to receive dismal returns
despite promises to the contrary.

Resolute Capital Partners LTD., LLC is a private investment company
registered in Nevada that maintains offices in Dallas, Texas, San
Francisco, California, and Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          John C. Sherwood, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          212 W. Spring Valley Road,
          Richardson, TX 75081
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Menzer, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Weiss, Esq.
          MENZER & HILL, P.A.
          7280 W. Palmetto Pk. Rd. Ste 301-N
          Boca Raton, FL 33433
          Phone: (561) 327-7207
          Facsimile: (561) 880-8449
          Email: gmenzer@menzerhill.com
                 jweiss@menzerhill.com


REXEL USA: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Torres Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California recommends dismissal of the
lawsuit entitled GERARDO TORRES and TAWNI VANDAGRIFF, individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. REXEL USA, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01697-ADA-BAM (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a putative class,
filed the instant wage-and-hour action in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Stanislaus on Oct. 29, 2020.
Defendant Rexel USA, Inc., removed the matter to this Court on Dec.
2, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on April
12, 2021, and Rexel answered on May 19, 2021.

The parties participated in private mediation on Oct. 13, 2021,
which was not successful. Following mediation, however, the parties
continued to engage in informal discovery and efforts to resolve
the action.

On July 6, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Status Report informing
the Court that they had participated in a second private mediation
on June 24, 2022, and they had reached a settlement in principle of
all claims in this matter on a class action basis. The parties also
indicated that pursuant to the terms of their agreement, they would
stipulate to remand this matter back to the Superior Court for the
County of Stanislaus for approval of the class action settlement.

Based on the parties' report, on July 7, 2022, the Court ordered
the parties to file appropriate papers to conclude this action in
its entirety no later than July 28, 2022. It vacated all pending
dates and cautioned the parties that failure to comply with the
Court's order could result in the imposition of sanctions. The
parties did not respond to the Court's directive by July 28, 2022.

Accordingly, on Sept. 30, 2022, after approximately two months
without a response from the parties, including any proposed
stipulation to remand the matter, the Court issued an order
directing the parties to show cause within seven days why sanctions
should not be imposed for failing to file appropriate documents to
conclude this action.

The parties were informed that that they could comply with the
order by filing either (1) a status report outlining the status of
the settlement and explaining why the appropriate documents have
not been filed, or (2) appropriate papers to dismiss or conclude
this action. The parties were advised that failure to respond to
the Court's order may result in dismissal of this action. More than
seven days have passed since the Court's order, and the parties
have not responded or otherwise communicated with the Court.

Judge McAuliffe, therefore, recommends dismissal of the action
based on the parties' failure to comply with Court orders.

In determining whether to dismiss an action, the Court must
consider several factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious
resolution of litigation; (2) the Court's need to manage its
docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the Defendants; (4) the public
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the
availability of less drastic sanctions (Henderson v. Duncan, 779
F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440
(9th Cir. 1988)).

Judge McAuliffe notes that the parties have failed to comply with
the Court's orders, including the order to show cause why sanctions
should not be imposed. Their silence is perplexing given the
parties' stated intention to stipulate to remand and to seek
approval of the class action settlement in state court. The Court
cannot efficiently and effectively manage its docket if the parties
cease all communication with the Court, fail to respond to orders
and otherwise appear to have abandoned the proceedings. The Court,
therefore, finds that both the first and second factors weigh in
favor of dismissal.

The third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendant, also weighs
in favor of dismissal, as a presumption of injury arises from the
occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting an action, Judge
McAuliffe explains. The fourth factor usually weighs against
dismissal because public policy favors disposition on the merits.
However, Judge McAuliffe holds that this factor lends little
support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case toward
disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes progress in
that direction, which is the case here.

Finally, the Court's warning that failure to obey its order will
result in dismissal satisfies the "considerations of the
alternatives" requirement. The parties have had repeated warnings
that the failure to comply with the Court's orders could result in
sanctions or dismissal of this action

Additionally, at this stage in the proceedings, Judge McAuliffe
says there is little available to the Court that would constitute a
satisfactory lesser sanction while protecting the Court from
further unnecessary expenditure of its scarce resources. The
parties have ignored or otherwise disregarded the Court's orders,
suggesting that monetary sanctions would be of little use, and the
preclusion of evidence or witnesses is likely to have no effect
given that the parties have ceased prosecuting the matter in
federal court.

For the reasons stated, Judge McAuliffe recommends that this action
be dismissed. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted
to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant
to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(l).

Within 14 days after being served with these Findings and
Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the
Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that
the failure to file objections within the specified time may result
in the waiver of the "right to challenge the magistrate's factual
findings" on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Findings and Recommendations dated
Oct. 13, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdzbb2kx from
Leagle.com.


RITE AID: Page Sues Over Decline in Securities Market Value
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Page, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RITE AID CORPORATION, HEYWARD DONIGAN, MATT SCHROEDER,
and CHRIS DUPAUL, Case No. 2:22-cv-04201 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 19, 2022),
is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Rite Aid securities between April 14, 2022 and September 28, 2022,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials, as a result of the Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities.

In Rite Aid's Q4 2022 earnings call on April 14, 2022, Rite Aid's
President and CEO, Defendant Heyward Rutledge Donigan, addressed
the growth of Elixir's PBM services business during the selling
season ending January 1, 2023, stating that in the past few months,
Elixir had already "sold 35,000 new members" (as against a total of
55,000 new members in the prior year), Elixir was a finalist for
150,000 additional new members, and "results have shown that once
we get to finalist, we're winning deals 35% of the time," and
Elixir had "a current pipeline of nearly 1 million members and
growing." In a letter to shareholders, dated June 10, 2022,
appearing in Rite Aid's 2022 Notice of Annual Meeting of
Stockholders and Proxy Statement, Defendant Donigan stated, "our
Elixir account and sales teams are gaining momentum, and we are
executing more efficiently by consolidating functions. And the
market is noticing--we have added 34,000 individuals covered by
Elixir's PBM services since January 1, 2022, with many more in the
pipeline."

In Rite Aid's Q1 2023 earnings call on June 23, 2022, Defendant
Donigan stated concerning the PBM services business that "[o]ur
strong network contracts, new rebate capabilities, innovative
clinical services and expertise in government programs have enabled
us to add 80,000 new lives for January 1, 2023 start date. These
are more new lives than we sold last year. And additionally, the
selling season is still in progress, and we've got close to 1
million lives remaining in the pipeline for January 1, 2023."

The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: despite representations
to the contrary, the number of new members (i.e., "lives") that the
Elixir PBM services business was adding during the selling season
ending on January 1, 2023 was in material decline; Rite Aid was
likely to recognize a significant charge for the impairment of
goodwill related to Elixir due to a decrease in "lives" covered by
Elixir's PBM services business; and as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On September 29, 2022, Rite Aid announced a $252.2 million charge
for the impairment of goodwill related to the Company's Elixir
subsidiary. On an earnings call held later in the day, Rite Aid's
Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), Matt Schroeder, explained that the
large impairment charge was related to Elixir based on "an update
to our estimate of lives for 2023 based on the latest selling
season," and that Rite Aid "expected lives to go down." On this
news, Rite Aid's stock price fell $1.97 per share, or 28.02%, to
close at $5.06 per share on September 29, 2022. As a result of the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff acquired Rite Aid securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

Rite Aid operates a chain of retail drugstores in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          Gonen Haklay, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          100 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Phone: (215) 600-2817
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          Email: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
                 ghaklay@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

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


ROSHAMBO BABY: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roshambo Baby, Inc.
The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Roshambo Baby, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08868 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2022).

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

Roshambo Eyewear -- https://www.roshambo.com/ -- is a family-owned
business that provides affordable Italian-made polarized
sunglasses, prescription glasses, and screen time glasses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAFE COSMETICS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safe Cosmetics LLC.
The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Safe
Cosmetics LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08879 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2022).

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

Safe Cosmetics -- https://www.safecosmetics.org/ -- is a Campaign
working to eliminate dangerous chemicals linked to adverse health
impacts from cosmetics and personal care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Grants Wesley's Bid to Substitute Party
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Andre M. Espinosa of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
substitute a party in the lawsuit titled KATHY WESLEY, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 20-18629-JMV-AME (D.N.J.).

The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' motion to
substitute a party, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
25(a), due to the death of named Plaintiff Joseph D'Andrea.
Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("SEA") opposes the
motion.

The consumer fraud and unfair trade practices lawsuit was filed as
a putative class action on Dec. 9, 2020, on behalf of a nationwide
class of persons, who purchased certain cooking appliances
manufactured and sold by SEA and allegedly affected by a latent
defect in the temperature sensor component. D'Andrea, domiciled in
New Jersey when he joined the action, was added as a named
Plaintiff on March 3, 2021, upon the filing of the First Amended
Complaint.

The First Amended Complaint asserted the claims of nine named
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the nationwide class and
various subclasses. It alleged, in relevant part, that the
Samsung-brand range D'Andrea purchased in February 2018 failed
within weeks of purchase as result of its inability to maintain the
set temperature. It further alleged SEA refused D'Andrea's requests
to repair the range under the product warranty. In the First
Amended Complaint, D'Andrea sought relief under the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") and
common law claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, and fraud.

Thereafter, SEA filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which was
granted in part and denied in part on Dec. 3, 2021. The District
Court dismissed the various Plaintiffs' claims for common law
fraud, the claims under the MMWA, and the claims under their
respective state consumer protection statutes. The Court also
provided an opportunity to cure deficiencies by granting leave to
file an amended complaint within thirty days.

However, D'Andrea's claims for breach of express and implied
warranty survived the motion to dismiss, as the Court concluded
they stated a plausible claim for relief. Pursuant to the Dec. 3,
2021 Order, and a subsequent extension of the time period set
therein, the Plaintiffs filed the currently operative Second
Amended Complaint on April 5, 2022. The Second Amended Complaint
continues to assert D'Andrea's express and implied warranty
claims.

Mr. D'Andrea died on Jan. 3, 2022. His daughter, Danielle D'Andrea,
was appointed administrator of his estate on March 1, 2022, by the
State of New Jersey, Gloucester County Surrogate Court. On June 28,
2022, the Plaintiffs led a Suggestion of Death, pursuant to Rule
25(a)(1), and served it on SEA. The Suggestion of Death formally
notes D'Andrea's death on the record of this action and advises the
Plaintiffs intend to file a motion to substitute Mr. Joseph
D'Andrea with his estate as a plaintiff in this Action.

On July 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed this motion to substitute
Danielle D'Andrea, as administrator of the estate of Joseph
D'Andrea, as a party plaintiff to continue litigating D'Andrea's
warranty claims against SEA.

Judge Espinosa holds that the three requirements for substitution
are clearly satisfied. The Plaintiffs timely brought this motion on
July 8, 2022, within 90 days of filing and serving the formal
suggestion of D'Andrea's death. Additionally, D'Andrea's breach of
express and implied warranty claims were not extinguished upon his
death. Lastly, the administrator of D'Andrea's estate is a proper
party to substitute him in this action.

Nevertheless, SEA argues this motion to substitute cannot be
granted because, it maintains, D'Andrea has no active claims in
this lawsuit and is, therefore, not a party, who may be
substituted.

SEA's primary opposition is focused on the intervening event
between D'Andrea's January 3 death and this timely motion to
substitute: the April 5, 2022 filing of the Second Amended
Complaint.

The Court finds that SEA's arguments challenging substitution fall
short for several reasons. First, SEA's reliance on Rule 17 to
assert the Second Amended Complaint is a nullity as to D'Andrea is
misplaced. Second, as to D'Andrea, the Second Amended Complaint
merely carried forward the breach of warranty claims he had
initiated in the First Amended Complaint expressly permitted to
proceed in its Dec. 3, 2021 Opinion and Order denying SEA's Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Third, Judge Espinosa finds the harsh consequence of SEA's rigid
and hyper-technical argument would contravene the flexible
treatment to be afforded under Rule 25, which was liberalized to
preserve those claims not extinguished by the death of a party.
Such a harsh consequence is particularly unwarranted here, where
the sequence of events is due, at least in part, to the strict
deadlines set by the Court.

Judge Espinosa points out that the Plaintiffs' expeditious filing
of the Second Amended Complaint in compliance with the Court's
orders of should not defeat a meritorious Rule 25 motion to
substitute the administrator of D'Andrea's estate as a party
Plaintiff.

For these reasons, the Court finds that substitution of Plaintiff
D'Andrea by Danielle D'Andrea, as administrator of D'Andrea's
estate, is warranted and appropriate under Rule 25(a).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25, Danielle D'Andrea,
as Administrator of the Estate of Joseph J. D'Andrea III, is
substituted as a plaintiff in this action in place of Joseph
D'Andrea.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Oct. 13,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mu2sybaj from
Leagle.com.


SIRIUS XM: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sirius XM Holdings
Inc. The case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Sirius XM Holdings Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-08925 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2022).

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

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. -- https://www.siriusxm.com/corporate -- is
an American broadcasting company headquartered in Midtown
Manhattan, New York City that provides satellite radio and online
radio services operating in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal

SMOKE CARTEL: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smoke Cartel, Inc.
The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Smoke Cartel, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-08864 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2022).

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

Smoke Cartel -- https://www.smokecartel.com/ -- is the trusted
online head shop with free shipping, instant returns, and top notch
customer support.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOVOS COMPLIANCE: Stefano Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sovos Compliance LLC.
The case is styled as Gino De Stefano, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Sovos Compliance LLC, Case No.
2281CV03652 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., Oct. 19, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases."

Sovos Compliance, LLC -- https://sovos.com/ -- provides software
solutions. The Company designs and develops tax compliance and
business-to-government reporting software that helps in tax
determination, eInvoicing compliance, and tax reporting.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
          LICHTEN AND LISS-RIORDAN
          729 Boylston St., Ste. 2000
          Boston, MA 02116


SPROUT FOODS: Court Dismisses Davidson's First Amended Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GILLIAN DAVIDSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. SPROUT FOODS
INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-01050-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard
Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First
Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs Gillian and Samuel Davidson bring this putative class
action against Sprout, which sells baby and toddler food products.
The FAC avers violations of California law based on statements made
on various Sprout products that tout the nutrients included in
them, such as "3g of Protein" or "4g of Fiber."

The Plaintiffs argue that these statements constitute "nutrient
content claims" and thus violate Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") regulations that prohibit manufacturers from including such
claims on "food intended specifically for use by infants and
children less than 2 years of age." They further allege that these
statements "deceive and mislead reasonable consumers into believing
that the Products provide physical health benefits for their child
when in fact, the Products are harmful for children under two both
nutritionally and developmentally."

Sprout sells branded baby and toddler food products, including (but
not limited to) pouches of pureed baby food. The Plaintiffs
purchased three types of these pouches for their child: "Pumpkin,
Apple, Red Lentil, and Cinnamon; Strawberry with Banana & Butternut
Squash; and Sweet Potato, White Beans, and Cinnamon."

The Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' original Complaint,
and that motion was granted with respect to the fraud-based claims
and otherwise denied. The Plaintiffs filed the FAC that presents
five claims for relief: (1) violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) violation of the California False
Advertising Act ("FAL"); (3) common law fraud; (4) violation of the
"unlawful" and "fraudulent" prongs of the California Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"); and (5) unjust enrichment.

The Defendant moves under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the FAC in its
entirety.

Judge Seeborg concludes that the Plaintiffs have still not
plausibly claimed that the Defendant's labeling is misleading, and
thus their claims under FAL, CLRA, common law fraud, and the
"fraudulent" prong of UCL must be dismissed, though with leave to
amend. Further, he holds that the Plaintiffs' claim under the
"unlawful" prong of the UCL is preempted by federal law and must be
dismissed. Without any other viable claims, the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claim must also be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Seeborg grants the Defendant's
Motion, and dismisses the FAC in its entirety. The Plaintiffs are
granted leave to amend with respect to their UCL "fraudulent" prong
claim, FAL claim, CLRA claim, and common law fraud claim, as
additional facts could render their claims plausible. Claim 5 is
also dismissed with leave to amend. Claim 4 is dismissed without
leave to amend. Any amended complaint must be filed within 21 days
of the filing of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p964xcs from Leagle.com.


STAR LITE DELI: Paguay Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Paguay, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. STAR LITE DELI NY LLC, and JUNG MIN KIM, Individually,
Case No. 1:22-cv-08766 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2022), is brought
seeking the recovery of unpaid overtime and related damages under
the applicable provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked from 6:00 am through 2:00 pm every day, less a
30-minute meal break; however, he was often forced to work through
the meal break. Following the first 3 months of his employment,
Plaintiff generally worked 6 days per week, and was paid $670.00
per week in cash. The Plaintiff was never paid time and a half for
his hours over 40 per week. The Defendants knew that the nonpayment
of overtime pay to the Plaintiff would economically injure the
Plaintiff and violated state and federal laws. The Defendants also
failed to provide the Plaintiff with a written notice of rate of
pay and failed to keep proper payroll records as required under New
York law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a cook, stock person and delivery
worker from March 2017 until July 1, 2022.

Star Lite Deli is a New York Corporation and is located in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
          THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
          39 Broadway Suite 1530
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: 212-344-9022
          Fax: 212-344-0301


STATE FARM: Muhammad Files Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm Indemnity
Company. The case is styled as Halimah Muhammad, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. State Farm Indemnity
Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-06149-JXN-JRA (D.N.J., Oct. 18, 2022).

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

State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a large
group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States
with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Phone: (973) 994-1700
          Fax: (973) 994-1744
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


SUNPOWER CORP: Lead Roles Named in Jaszczyszyn Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants Steamfitters Local 449
Pension & Retirement Security Funds' motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff and counsel in the lawsuit styled PIOTR JASZCZYSZYN,
Plaintiff v. SUNPOWER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-00956-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

On April 18, 2022, the Court received three competing motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff in this putative securities class
action. The pending motions seek appointment of (1) Deming Song,
represented by The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.; (2) the Pension &
Retirement Funds, represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP;
and (3) James and Karla Fillinger, represented by Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") "instructs
district courts to select as lead plaintiff the one most capable of
adequately representing the interests of class members. The Ninth
Circuit interprets the PSLRA as establishing "a simple three-step
process for identifying the lead plaintiff pursuant to these
criteria."

Step One consists of meeting the PSLRA's notice requirement. Step
Two consists of identifying the presumptive lead plaintiff. At Step
Three, other prospective plaintiffs have an opportunity to rebut
the presumptive lead plaintiff's showing that it meets the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Gilliam finds that Step One's requirements are met because
notice was published in Business Wire on the same day that the
complaint was filed.

Mr. Song claims to have the highest total loss at $105,881.41. In
opposition, the Pension & Retirement Funds argue that Mr. Song
cannot establish a viable securities fraud claim because he is an
"in-and-out" trader, who sold all his shares before the public
disclosure of the alleged fraudulent conduct. Thus, the argument
goes, he cannot establish loss causation and either (1) has no
financial interest whatsoever or (2) cannot meet the Rule 23
requirements.

The Court finds that even if it were to count Mr. Song's losses, he
does not meet the Rule 23 requirements. The proposed lead plaintiff
with the next-largest financial interest is the Pension &
Retirement Funds at $42,016.78.

The Pension & Retirement Funds argue that Mr. Song's status as an
in-and-out trader makes him subject to unique defenses such that he
cannot meet the requirements of typicality and adequacy. The Court
agrees.

In sum, the Court finds that the Pension & Retirement Funds have
successfully rebutted the presumption that Mr. Song is the most
adequate Plaintiff. Mr. Song does not meet the typicality or
adequacy requirements of Rule 23, as he would, at minimum, be
subject to unique defenses regarding loss causation and his
reliance on the Defendants' misrepresentations.

The Court finds that the Pension & Retirement Funds have met their
burden of establishing that they satisfy the Rule 23 typicality and
adequacy requirements at this stage, as no other prospective
plaintiff has rebutted their showing. The Court finds the
appointment of the Pension & Retirement Funds as lead plaintiff is
appropriate.

The Pension & Retirement Funds seek approval of their selection of
Robbins Geller as lead counsel. The Court defers to the Pension &
Retirement Security Funds' choice of lead counsel because their
choice is not so irrational, or so tainted by self-dealing or
conflict of interest, as to cast genuine and serious doubt on his
willingness or ability to perform the functions of lead plaintiff.
Robbins Geller has extensive experience as counsel in securities
class actions. The Court, thus, approves the Pension & Retirement
Funds' selection of counsel.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Pension & Retirement Funds'
motion. All pending unwithdrawn motions are denied. The Pension &
Retirement Funds are appointed as lead plaintiff for the putative
class, and Robbins Geller is approved as lead counsel for the
putative class.

The Court further sets a telephonic initial case management
conference on Nov. 22, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. All counsel will use the
following dial-in information to access the call:

     Dial-In: 888-808-6929; Passcode: 6064255

For call clarity, parties will not use speaker phone or earpieces
for these calls, and where at all possible, parties will use
landlines. The Court directs the parties to meet and confer and
submit a joint case management statement by Nov. 15, 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 13, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/nape5fr3 from Leagle.com.


SWIFT BEEF COMPANY: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gabriel Garcia, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Swift Beef Company, Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. CVRI2203914 was removed from the Riverside
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Oct. 14, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01825-PSG-E to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is Jobs Civil Rights for Employment
Discrimination.

Swift Beef Company processes, prepares, packages and delivers meat
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
          David Yeremian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          2540 Foothill Blvd., Ste. 201
          La Crescenta, CA 91214-4583
          Phone: 818-230-8380
          Fax: 818-230-0308
          Email: roman@yeremianlaw.com
                 david@yeremianlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathon M. Watson, Esq.
          Karina Lo, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP
          1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2000
          Denver, CO 80203
          Phone: (303) 839-3734
          Fax: (303) 839-3838
          Email: jmwatson@spencerfane.com
                 karina.lo@bclplaw.com

               - and –

          Lauren Renee Leibovitch, Esq.
          Tritia M Murata, Esq.
          MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 6000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 892-5200
          Fax: (213) 892-5454
          Email: LLeibovitch@mofo.com
                 tmurata@mofo.com


SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Court Reserves Order on Miller Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York reserves judgment with instructions on the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled TREVOR MILLER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
5:21-CV-1073(LEK/TWD) (N.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
commenced this class action against the Defendant on Sept. 2, 2021,
in the New York Supreme Court, County of Onondaga. On Sept. 9,
2021, the Plaintiff served the Defendant with copies of the Summons
and Complaint via process server.

On Sept. 29, 2021, the Defendant removed this action to federal
court, asserting federal jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), codified in pertinent part at 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d). To date, the Plaintiff has not moved the
Court to remand this action back to state court, and has not
contested federal jurisdiction under the CAFA.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff brings several state-law claims
against the Defendant as a result of its failure to safeguard and
protect the confidential information of the Plaintiff and the other
members of the Class. The Class is defined as: All persons whose
Sensitive Information, provided to Defendant as part of their
application to or enrollment at Syracuse University, was exposed to
unauthorized access by way of the data breach of Defendant's
computer system on or about Sept. 24, 2020.

On Feb. 3, 2022, the Defendant moved the Court to dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. In its opening memorandum of law in support of the
Motion, the Defendant claims it is not challenging the Plaintiff's
Article III standing; it is challenging whether the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged cognizable injury as an element of his causes
of action. But in its Reply, the Defendant appears to suggest that
the Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed for lack of standing.

On Aug. 18, 2022, the Defendant also filed a Notice of Supplemental
Authority "to inform the Court of a recent decision by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Aponte v.
Northeast Radiology, P.C., No. 21-CV-5883, 2022 WL 1556043
(S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2022)." It asserts that the court in Aponte
dismissed the action in its entirety because the plaintiffs did not
allege that they had suffered, or would imminently suffer, an
injury-in-fact.

The Defendant acknowledges the Aponte court dismissed on 12(b)(1)
lack of standing grounds only and did not reach dismissal under
12(b)(6). In conclusion, it argues that because the Plaintiff makes
substantially similar arguments and the Defendant has stated
substantially similar defenses in this case as plaintiffs and
defendants in Aponte, the Court should consider Aponte as
supplemental authority in further support of the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss.

Judge Kahn holds that the Defendant cannot confer subject matter
jurisdiction on this Court simply by refusing to challenge the
Plaintiff's standing. Nor has the Defendant remained faithful to
its initial claim of "not challenging" the Plaintiff's standing.
While the Defendant has avoided the trap of "fraudulent removal" by
declining to challenge the Plaintiff's standing directly with a
Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, the Defendant has certainly cast doubt on the
Plaintiff's standing in its papers, Judge Kahn points out.

There is a dearth of guidance within the Second Circuit on how to
address a removing defendant who casts doubt on a court's
jurisdiction without explicitly challenging it, so the Court says
it must look beyond the Circuit for guidance.

Barnes v. ARYZTA, LLC, 288 F.Supp.3d 834 (N.D. Ill. 2017), is
instructive, Judge Kahn states. In that case, an employee brought a
class action against his employer in state court. A few months
later, a similar situation arose in Zhirovetskiy v. Zayo Group,
LLC, No. 17-CV-5876, 2018 WL 11195494 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2018).
However, unlike in Barnes, the removing defendant in Zhirovetskiy
never filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), but only moved for dismissal for
failure to state a claim under 12(b)(6)--as the Defendant has done
here.

Two months later, the court in Dixon v. Washington & Jane Smith
Cmty.-Beverly, No. 17-CV-8033, 2018 WL 2445292 (N.D. Ill. May 31,
2018), declined to adopt Zhirovetskiy's burden-failure approach in
response to a similar set of facts, and proceeded to address the
merits of the standing issue. The Dixon court proceeded to address
the merits of the standing issue, despite the removing defendant's
burden failure, and ultimately found that the plaintiff had Article
III standing.

Unlike any of the three cases mentioned, Judge Kahn notes the
Plaintiff here has not yet urged the Court to remand the action in
response to the Defendant's papers. In Barnes, Zhirovetskiy, and
Dixon, because the plaintiffs expressly asked for remand after the
removing defendants cast doubt on Article III standing, all parties
had an additional opportunity to address standing directly before
the courts issued opinions on that question, even if the defendants
in those cases ultimately refused to take the opportunity to
affirmatively support standing.

But here, Judge Kahn says because the Plaintiff has not asked for
remand in response to the Defendant casting doubt on the Court's
jurisdiction, neither party has briefed the Court on whether the
Plaintiff has standing to pursue his claims in federal court. They
have simply conceded standing, but that it not enough to establish
it.

While the Court could forge ahead and sua sponte resolve the issue
of standing before reaching the merits of the pending Motion to
Dismiss, without further briefing from the parties, the Court finds
that approach unwise. Judge Kahn opines that the Defendant's papers
have clouded the issue of standing by routinely relying on case law
concerning Article III standing while simultaneously encouraging
dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims under Rule 12(b)(6), and then
criticizing the Plaintiff for allegedly conflating the two issues
himself. Relatedly, neither party has made known its position on
whether partial remand or dismissal is appropriate in the event
that this Court ultimately finds that the Plaintiff lacks standing
to pursue some, but not all, of his claims in federal court.
Accordingly, these issues related to standing and remand are not
ripe for decision until the Court receives further briefing on them
from the parties.

Accordingly, Judge Kahn ordered the Defendant to file a memorandum
of law, not to exceed 15 pages, addressing whether the Plaintiff
has standing for each claim he seeks to press in federal court. The
memorandum was due on Oct. 27, 2022.

In the same memorandum, Judge Kahn says the Defendant must address
whether dismissal or partial remand is warranted if the Court
ultimately finds that the Plaintiff has standing to pursue some of
his claims, but not others, in federal court.

If the Defendant does not wish to take a definitive position on the
Plaintiff's standing in this memorandum, Judge Kahn directs the
Defendant to brief the Court on whether this burden failure, alone,
warrants remand under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).

The Plaintiff may file a response, not to exceed 15 pages, within
14 days of the Defendant's filing of the memorandum. The Defendant
may file a reply, not to exceed seven pages, within seven days of
the Plaintiff's response. The Clerk of the Court will serve a copy
of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance
with the Local Rules.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum-Decision and Order dated
Oct. 13, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6e9t33 from
Leagle.com.


TESLA INC: Loses Bid to Exclude Expert Opinions in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies Tesla's motion to exclude the
opinions of the Lead Plaintiff's expert in the lawsuit entitled IN
RE TESLA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 18-cv-04865-EMC
(N.D. Cal.).

Before the Court is Tesla's Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude the
Opinions of Dr. Michael Hartzmark, Mr. Littleton's loss causation
and damages expert.

Lead Plaintiff Littleton has filed a securities class action
against Defendants Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk (Tesla's CEO and former
Chairman), and Tesla's Board of Directors (collectively, "Tesla")
based on events that took place in August 2018. Mr. Littleton
alleges that Mr. Musk made false representations in multiple tweets
about taking Tesla from a public to a private company.

During the morning and early afternoon of Aug. 7, 2018, Mr. Musk
announced via a series of tweets that he was considering taking
Tesla from a public to a private company. First, at 9:48 a.m., Mr.
Musk tweeted "Am considering taking Tesla private at $420. Funding
secured." The tweet caused an immediate price jump in Tesla's
stock, with Tesla's stock price shooting up to $365.03 per share
(just prior to 9:49 a.m.) from $356.85 per share (just prior to
9:48 a.m.) in the first minute of trading. Shortly after Mr. Musk's
first tweet, an email was sent to employees and posted on Tesla's
website as a blog post regarding "Taking Tesla private." The
email/blog post explained Mr. Musk's rationale for wanting to take
Tesla private and conveyed his vision for a "private Tesla."

At 12:36 p.m., Mr. Musk sent out another tweet: "Investor support
is confirmed. Only reason why this is not certain is that it's
contingent on a shareholder vote." At the bottom of the tweet,
there was a link to the blog post on "Taking Tesla Private."

There was an immediate reaction to Mr. Musk's tweets and the blog
post. Analysts and journalists also began to react to the tweets
and blog post. Tesla's stock closed at $379.57 per share that
evening, which was a statistically significant increase from
$356.85 per share, the price per share just prior to Mr. Musk's
tweets, at the 1% level.

From Aug. 8 to Aug. 12, 2018, hundreds of analyst reports and news
articles commented on the prospective deal. Although Tesla's stock
price during this window fluctuated, there were no daily declines
that were statistically significant at the 5% level.

On Aug. 13, 2018, Mr. Musk posted an update on the Tesla website
(as a blog post): "Update on Taking Tesla Private." Tesla's stock
price continued to experience minor fluctuations (from a close of
$355.49 per share on August 10 to a close of $356.41 per share on
August 13), but there were no statistically significant changes at
the 5% level.

On Aug. 15, 2018, news sources reported that the SEC had issued
subpoenas to Tesla and Mr. Musk regarding the company's
privatization plans and his statements involving funding. Tesla's
stock price, which opened at $341.91, declined slightly and closed
at $338.69. This decline was not statistically significant at the
5% level.

On Aug. 16, 2018, the New York Times published an article on Mr.
Musk and Tesla, titled "Elon Musk Details 'Excruciating Personal
Toll of Tesla Turmoil.'" Following the release of the Times
article, various news sources questioned Mr. Musk's leadership and
expressed concern regarding his "erratic behavior." Tesla's stock
price tumbled from a close of $355.45 per share on August 16 to a
close of $305.50 per share by market close, which was a
statistically significant decrease at the 1% level.

On Aug. 24, 2018, Mr. Musk announced via tweet and blog post on
Tesla's website that Tesla would remain a public company.

On Jan. 16, 2019, Mr. Littleton filed the Consolidated Complaint,
which is the operative pleading in this case (Consolidated Class
Action Complaint). The Consolidated Complaint included allegations
regarding nine alleged misrepresentations.

On Jan. 11, 2022, Mr. Littleton moved for partial summary judgment
as to whether four alleged false statements at issue were false and
made with the requisite scienter, among other things. On April 1,
2022, the Court granted Mr. Littleton's motion in part, finding
that the three Aug. 7, 2018 statements--(1) "Am considering taking
Tesla private at $420. Funding secured."; (2) "Investor support is
confirmed."; and (3) "Only reason why this is not certain is that
it is contingent on a shareholder vote"--were false and that Mr.
Musk recklessly made those representations. The Court will refer to
these three Aug. 7, 2018 statements as the Musk Tweets.

On July 1, 2022, the parties submitted four motions in limine,
including the instant Daubert motion. The Court ruled on three of
these motions during the hearing on July 28, 2022, and took Tesla's
motion to exclude Dr. Hartzmark's opinions under submission.

Dr. Hartzmark is president of Hartzmark Economics Litigation
Practice, LLC. Prior to that role, he served as a Principal and
Director at Navigant Economics and an economics professor at the
University of Chicago and the University of Michigan.

In his report, Dr. Hartzmark examined the economic impact of the
three Musk Tweets, which he defined and analyzed as a unit. Dr.
Hartzmark opined that the misrepresentations in the Musk Tweets
caused a price increase of $66.67 per share over the Class Period
(which ran from August 7 to August 17). To reach this conclusion,
Dr. Hartzmark conducted an event study methodology: he examined
Tesla's stock reaction to an "event"--the Musk Tweets--and
statistically analyzed Tesla's stock price movements to determine
within a specified degree of certainty whether the stock
fluctuations were caused by the Musk Tweets. Dr. Hartzmark also
took steps to disaggregate the general decline in the stock market
that occurred during the Class Period, as well as any
company-specific information unrelated to the alleged misstatements
(i.e. potentially confounding information) that could have impacted
Tesla's stock price.

Dr. Hartzmark found quantitative evidence that Tesla's stock price
artificially increased by $23.27 on Aug. 7, 2018, as a direct
response to the Musk Tweets. Dr. Hartzmark characterized the
initial price jump as artificial inflation due to the "direct
effects" of the Musk Tweets. In addition to inflation from these
"direct effects," Dr. Hartzmark opined that Tesla's stock price
also declined over the course of the Class Period due to
"foreseeable consequential effects" caused by disclosures following
the Musk Tweets that exposed their falsity. These consequential
effects included, for instance, Tesla's increased legal risks amid
scrutiny from the SEC and Tesla's reduced management credibility.
Dr. Hartzmark opined that these consequential effects, which were
"inextricably bound and causally-linked to the Musk Tweets,"
resulted in artificial inflation totaling $43.40 per share as of
the close of trade on Aug. 7, 2018.

Tesla charges that Dr. Hartzmark's methodology is unreliable for
six reasons. First, Tesla takes issue with Dr. Hartzmark's
"unprecedented" leakage model. Second, Tesla contends that Dr.
Hartzmark fails to separate any loss caused by corrective
information from disclosure of other company-specific information.
In particular, Tesla argues that Dr. Hartzmark fails to account for
the impact of Mr. Musk's truthful statements (i.e. that he was
considering taking Tesla private at $420) when considering the loss
caused by the first tweet. Third, Tesla charges that Dr. Hartzmark
does not disaggregate other confounding information. Fourth, Tesla
argues that Dr. Hartzmark selected an inappropriate "corrective
interval" that runs through Aug. 17, 2018. Fifth, Tesla argues that
his model does not satisfy the requirement of demonstrating a
statistically significant decline at the 5% level. Finally, Tesla
argues that "consequential damages" arising from "consequential
effects" such as shareholder lawsuits or negative news coverage are
not recoverable in a securities class action.

Judge Chen finds that any issues connected to Dr. Hartzmark's
disaggregation (or lack thereof) with regard to non-fraud and
company-specific information go to the weight of Dr. Hartzmark's
opinions, not their admissibility.

Tesla asserts that Dr. Hartzmark's report is also unreliable
because it purportedly "fails to address other potential causes of
stock movement." But Tesla does not identify any specific potential
cause of stock movement that it contends that Dr. Hartzmark should
have addressed. Because Tesla has not identified any particular
cause of stock movement that it believes Dr. Hartzmark overlooked,
the Court denies Tesla's motion for exclusion on this ground.

Judge Chen also finds that Dr. Hartzmark's corrective interval is
not inappropriate.

The Court also concludes that, so long as the "consequential
effects" that Dr. Hartzmark observes are proximately caused by the
Musk Tweets, these effects may be asserted as damages. Given the
short span of time in which these incidents occurred, the
relatively clear chain of causation, and the allegedly measurable
scope of these damages, it may well be that the jury will determine
that these consequential effects are a logical and foreseeable
consequence of the Musk Tweets and, thus, properly included as
damages. Of course, Tesla is free to argue to the jury that these
consequential effects are too distant or removed to be proximate
and recoverable. However, Dr. Hartzmark's inclusion of these
consequential damages does not render his report unreliable and
excludable under Rule 702, Judge Chen holds.

For these reasons, the Court denies Tesla's motion to exclude the
opinions of Dr. Hartzmark. Dr. Hartzmark's methodology is
sufficiently reliable to satisfy Rule 702. Tesla's criticisms of
Dr. Hartzmark's conclusions go to his credibility and the weight of
his opinions, not their admissibility.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 451 and 454.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 13, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3pw7z2yb from Leagle.com.


TRANSFORCE INC: Turner FCRA Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled CURTIS TURNER, individually and on behalf of all
others, Plaintiff v. TRANSFORCE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
22CN-CC00050, was removed from the Circuit Court of Clinton County,
Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on Oct. 14, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-06111 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges four causes of action against
Defendant. Counts I, III and IV allege violations of the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act and Count II alleges a breach of contract
claim.

TransForce, Inc. provides staffing solutions.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Justin M. Dean, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4520 Main Street, Suite 400
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 471-1301
          Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
          E-mail: justin.dean@ogletree.com

TRINET HR III: Court Certifies Class in Huang ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHIQIONG HUANG, et al., Plaintiffs v. TRINET HR III,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-2293-VMC-TGW (M.D.
Fla.), Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, grants
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

This Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") case
involves multiple employer plans ("MEPs"). At its most basic level,
a MEP is a retirement plan that is adopted by two or more employers
that are unrelated for income tax purposes. MEPs are typically used
by outsourced human resource providers like TriNet. Specifically,
TriNet is a professional employer organization ("PEO") that
provides human-resources expertise, payroll, and employee benefits
services to small and medium-sized businesses.

The retirement plans at issue are the TriNet 401(k) Plan (the
"TriNet III Plan") and the TriNet Select 401(k) Plan (the "TriNet
IV Plan"). TriNet established the Plans to help the employees of
their client employers save money for retirement. The Plans are
defined-contribution plans. By the end of 2018, the TriNet III Plan
had $2.9 billion in assets under management, and the TriNet IV Plan
had $1.1 billion in assets under management.

The Plaintiffs are all participants in the Plans. Shiqiong Huang,
Chris R. Stokowski, Everett Uhl, and Mark J. Hearon ("TriNet IV
Plaintiffs") participated in the TriNet IV Plan. Mary T. Patterson
participated in the TriNet III Plan. Defendants TriNet HR III, Inc.
and TriNet HR IV, Inc. are the sponsors and fiduciaries of the
Plans. Defendant Investment Committee of TriNet Group, Inc. is
responsible for selecting and monitoring the investments in the
Plans and monitoring the Plans' expenses. The Plaintiffs also name
as Defendants the Boards of Directors of TriNet III and TriNet IV
because the companies acted through the Boards.

The Plaintiffs purport to bring this case as a class action for the
following proposed class: All persons, except the Defendants and
their immediate family members, who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the Plans, at any time between Sept. 29, 2014,
through the date of judgment.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to adequately review the Plans'
investment portfolio to ensure that each investment option was
prudent, maintained certain funds in the Plan despite the
availability of identical or materially similar investment options
with lower costs and/or better performance histories, and failed to
control the Plans' recordkeeping expenses.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs bring the following
causes of action: (1) as against the Committee, breach of the
fiduciary duty of prudence under ERISA; and (2) as against TriNet
and the Board, failure to adequately monitor the Committee, thus
breaching their fiduciary duties under ERISA.

The Plaintiffs initiated this case on Sept. 29, 2020. They filed
the operative Amended Complaint on Aug. 20, 2021.

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on May
23, 2022. The Defendants oppose the Motion on three grounds. First,
they argue that no named Plaintiff has standing as to the TriNet
III Plan. Second, they contend that the Plaintiffs have not
satisfied the typicality requirement under Rule 23 as to the TriNet
III Plan. Finally, they contend that the Plaintiffs' claims are not
typical as to the funds in the TriNet IV Plan in which the
Plaintiffs were not invested.

Judge Covington explains that to certify a class action, the moving
party must satisfy a number of prerequisites. First, the named
plaintiff must demonstrate standing. Second, the putative class
must meet all four requirements enumerated in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequcy.
Third, the putative class must fit into at least one of the three
class types defined by Rule 23(b).

The party moving to certify any class or subclass ultimately bears
the burden of proving that all prerequisites are met.

Judge Covington finds that the TriNet IV Plaintiffs have satisfied
all of Rule 23's requirements with respect to the TriNet IV Plan.
She certifies the class as defined: All persons, except Defendants
and their immediate family members, who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the TriNet IV Plan, at any time between Sept. 29,
2014 through the date of judgment.

Accordingly, she grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification to the extent stated.

Plaintiffs Shiqiong Huang, Chris R. Stokowski, Everett Uhl, and
Mark J. Hearon are appointed as the Lead Plaintiffs and Class
Representatives. Plaintiff Mary Patterson's claims are dismissed
without prejudice.

Capozzi Adler, P.C., is appointed as the class counsel.

Pursuant to the Court's Order granting the Joint Motion for a Stay,
the parties will file -- if they wish -- motions for summary
judgment and Daubert motions within 30 days from the date of the
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8wf22n from Leagle.com.


TRUSTED MEDIA: Discloses Subscribers' Personal Info, Elliot Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE ELLIOT, an individual, AMANDA PAIGE, an individual, and
KATHRYN FRITSCHEL, an individual, for themselves and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRUSTED MEDIA BRANDS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-08740
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2022) alleges Defendant's violation of the
Video Privacy Protection Act by knowingly and illegally
transmitting Plaintiffs' and the putative class' personally
identifiable information to unrelated third parties.

This is a class action suit brought on behalf of all persons with
Facebook accounts who have signed up for one or more of Defendant
Trusted Media Brands, Inc.'s websites or newsletters and who watch
videos on one or more of Defendant's websites, including without
limitation, readersdigest.com, rd.com, thehealthy.com,
familyhandyman.com, and tasteofhome.com.

The Plaintiffs assert that Defendant monetizes its website by
knowingly collecting and disclosing its subscribers' personally
identifiable information -- including a record of every video clip
they view -- to Facebook, without proper disclosure or consent.

Trusted Media Brands, Inc. develops, owns, and operates
tasteofhome.com, a website that hosts and delivers hundreds of
videos featuring products and resources related to cooking and
recipes.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric L. Lewis, Esq.
          David A. Short, Esq.
          LEWIS BAACH KAUFMANN MIDDLEMISS PLLC
          The Chrysler Building, 64th Floor
          405 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 826-7001
          Facsimile: (212) 826-7146   
          E-mail: eric.lewis@lbkmlaw.com
                  david.short@lbkmlaw.com

               - and -

          Kassra P. Nassiri, Esq.
          NASSIRI & JUNG LLP
          1700 Montgomery Street, Suite 207
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 762-3100
          Facsimile: (415) 534-3200    
          E-mail: kass@njfirm.com

UNIFIED SCHOOL: Dismissal of Towne's Breach of Contract Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY TOWNE, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. 259, d/b/a THE WICHITA PUBLIC SCHOOLS and UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 259, d/b/a THE WICHITA PUBLIC SCHOOLS BASE
PLAN, Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Case No. 124,046 (Kan. App.), the
Court of Appeals of Kansas affirms the district court's judgment
dismissing Towne's lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

Mr. Towne is a Unified School District No. 259 (U.S.D. No. 259)
employee, who received medical benefits under the Unified School
District No. 259 d/b/a the Wichita Public Schools Base Plan. He
sued the person who caused his medical expenses and the case
settled. U.S.D. No. 259 requested reimbursement from the settlement
for the medical benefits it paid to Towne. Towne reimbursed the
benefits to U.S.D. No. 259 to avoid his employer from taking legal
action against him.

Mr. Towne then filed this lawsuit alleging that U.S.D. No. 259
breached the contract (the Base Plan) by enforcing its
reimbursement rights. He asserted that K.A.R. 40-1-20 prohibits
health insurers from including subrogation clauses in their
insurance contracts and that U.S.D. No. 259 qualified as a health
insurer.

U.S.D. No. 259 moved to dismiss and argued that (1) the district
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Towne's lawsuit, and
(2) its Base Plan was exempt from regulation under the Kansas
Insurance Code by K.S.A. 40-202(b).

U.S.D. No. 259 cited U.S.D. No. 259 v. Sloan, 19 Kan.App.2d 445,
871 P.2d 861 (1994), to support its claim that K.S.A. 40-202
exempted the Base Plan from regulation. Sloan had almost identical
facts and involved the same reimbursement provision as in Towne's
case. In Sloan, U.S.D. No. 259 paid $32,570 in medical benefits to
its employee under its self-funded plan. The employee died, but his
wife Sharon Sloan received a $427,500 settlement from various
chemical manufacturers. U.S.D. No. 259 asked Sloan to reimburse it
from the settlement for benefits it paid the employee. Sloan
refused, and U.S.D. No. 259 sued for breach of the insurance
contract.

The district court granted summary judgment to U.S.D. No. 259 after
finding that its self-funded plan was not subject to regulation by
the Kansas Insurance Department. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the district court's decision.

The district court rejected the subject matter jurisdiction claim
but granted the motion to dismiss on its merits. As for the merits
of the case, the district court granted the motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on two
alternative grounds: (1) U.S.D. No. 259 is not a health insurer as
defined in K.S.A. 40-4602(d) and thus K.A.R. 40-1-20 does not apply
to the Base Plan, and (2) Sloan is still good law and K.S.A. 40-202
exempts the Base Plan from regulation under the insurance code
including K.A.R. 40-1-20.

Mr. Towne moved the district court to reconsider the dismissal, but
the court denied that motion. Towne appealed. U.S.D. No. 259
cross-appealed on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals agrees that the district court properly found
that it had subject matter jurisdiction over Towne's breach of
contract claim. It also agrees with the district court that there
have been no later developments in Kansas law that overrule the
court's explicit holding in Sloan that U.S.D. No. 259's Base Plan
is exempt from regulation under the insurance code under K.S.A.
40-202(b). Based on this ruling, the Court of Appeals need not
address the district court's alternative finding that U.S.D. No.
259 is not a health insurer as defined in K.S.A. 40-4602(d). Thus,
it concludes the district court did not err in granting U.S.D. No.
259's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mrxksxvj from Leagle.com.

Troy H. Gott, Brennan Gott Law, PA, of Wichita, for the
Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Ryan K. Meyer -- rmeyer@fleeson.com -- William P. Tretbar --
wtretbar@fleeson.com -- and Lyndon W. Vix -- lvix@fleeson.com -- of
Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, L.L.C., of Wichita, for the
Appellees/Cross-Appellants.


UNILEVER: Martinez Sues Over Misleading Marketing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dianna Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-05664
(N.D. Ill., Oct. 15, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an
injunction to stop Unilever's false and misleading marketing
practices with regard to its Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream under
the Breyers brand ("Product").

The front label's green font statement of "Mint Chocolate Chip,"
description as "Cool mint ice cream," absence of qualifying terms
such as "flavored," and two mint leaves tells consumers the Product
will get its mint taste from mint ingredients and contain a
non-negligible amount of mint ingredients. However, the ingredient
list on the side panel does not identify any mint ingredients.

According to flavor expert Bob Holmes, if the Product provided "all
the flavor depth" of mint, the ingredients would list "mint
extract" or "mint oil" instead of "natural flavor." Because mint
extract or mint oil is not a separately identified ingredient, it
means that 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. Natural flavor is less expensive than mint
ingredients, and highly concentrated, so less needs to be used. By
omitting "flavored" from the front label, consumers are not told
that the taste is not from mint ingredients.

The Defendant makes other representations and omissions with
respect to the Product which are false and misleading. Reasonable
consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly and lawfully
market and describe the components, attributes, and features of a
product, relative to itself and other comparable products or
alternatives. The value of the Product that Plaintiff purchased was
materially less than its value as represented by Defendant.

Had the Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they
would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it.
As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$4.99 for 1.5 Quarts, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar
products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it
would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product on one or more occasions.

Unilever United States, Inc. manufactures, labels, markets, and
sells Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream under the Breyers brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA: Class Certification in Pratt Suit Flipped
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ASHLEY PRATT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE, THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEMS, AND
THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM, Case No. 2021 CA 1391 (La.
App.), the Court of Appeal of Louisiana for the First Circuit
reverses the trial court's order certifying the matter as a class
action.

In 2003, the Legislature enacted La. R.S. 17:3351.9, which
pertinently authorizes the Board to assess an "academic excellence
fee" to be paid by students, in addition to any other tuition or
attendance fees or charges established by the Board. A year later,
La. R.S. 17:3351(A)(5)(d) was enacted and authorizes each
postsecondary system management board to assess an "operational
fee" at each institution under its management and supervision.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 17:3351.9(B)(3) places identical
requirements on the Board, which is the governing postsecondary
management board for the University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(ULL).

On July 18, 2011, Ashley Pratt, Rachelle Phillips, Jenae Jean,
Krystiana Guillory, Krista Drew, Candance Carmouche, Dana Davis,
Danica Broussard, Brock Broussard, Robin Leday, and Elizabeth
Brown, students and former students at ULL, filed a class action
petition for damages against the Board, asserting claims
individually and as representatives of other similarly situated
individuals. The Plaintiffs averred that, pursuant to the statutes
cited, the Board failed to "provide a proper means" for Pell Grant
recipients to apply for a waiver of the academic excellence fee
and/or the operational fee. They alleged that the Board violated
these statutes and asserted causes of action for negligence,
conversion, and unjust enrichment.

Finally, the Plaintiffs sought certification of a class consisting
of: individuals who applied for and were granted Pell Grants to
attend U.L.L., and, who were unaware of the availability to request
waivers of the Academic Excellence fee and the Operational fee,
and, if these people knew of the availability to request said
waivers, they would have requested said waivers. Students who were
not adequately notified of the Academic Excellence fee waiver and
the Operational fee waiver.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the case as a class action
in May 2020, asserting that all criteria required to certify the
class are satisfied. Specifically, La. C.C.P. art. 591(A) provides
that one or more members of a class may sue as representative
parties on behalf of all only if: (1) the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable ("numerosity"); (2) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class ("commonality");
(3) the claims of the representative parties are typical of the
claims of the class ("typicality"); (4) the representative parties
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class
("adequacy of representation"); and (5) the class is or may be
defined objectively in terms of ascertainable criteria, such that
the court may determine the constituency of the class for purposes
of the conclusiveness of any judgment that may be rendered in the
case.

Once these five prerequisites have been met, Article 591(B) sets
forth three additional criteria, one of which must also be
satisfied for certification depending on the type of class action
sought. Article 591(B)(3), at issue in the present case, provides
that an action may be maintained as a class if the court finds that
questions of law or fact common to the members of the class
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and a class action is superior to other available methods for the
fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

The Plaintiffs maintain that commonality and typicality are
satisfied because their damages are identical and were caused by
the same conduct by ULL -- assessment of the fees. They asserted
that the members of the class are ascertainable through the
"acquisition of the list of Pell Grant recipients during the
applicable years." Finally, they sought certification pursuant to
Article 591(B)(3) and identified one issue that predominates over
individual considerations -- "the waiver was not available to the
class members before the final decision was made regarding
enrollment" at ULL.

The Board opposed the motion to certify, primarily contending that,
since 2003, it has utilized a six-factor test to determine fee
waiver eligibility based on financial hardship and that this
information was, and still is, publicly available on various
University websites. It maintained that, to be eligible for a
waiver of the fees at ULL, a student must: (1) be a Louisiana
resident, (2) be enrolled as a full-time student (12 hours or
more), (3) be eligible for a Pell Grant, (4) apply for federal
financial aid, (5) accept all financial aid for which the student
qualifies, and (6) have total qualified educational expenses that
exceed the student's total financial aid package. Thus, the Board
asserted that the class cannot be objectively defined, as required,
and does not meet the commonality, typicality, and predominance
requirements.

After taking the matter under advisement and receiving proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law from the parties, the trial
certified the class and appointed Ashley Pratt as the class
representative.

The certification order, dated July 23, 2021, defines the class as:
All individuals who were awarded Pell Grants to attend ULL, who
were charged the Academic Excellence Fee and the Operational Fee by
ULL, and who were not notified of their right to apply for a waiver
of the Academic Excellence Fee and the Operational Fee pursuant to
Louisiana Revised Statutes 17:3351.9 and 17:3351.

The Board filed the instant suspensive appeal, pursuant to La.
C.C.P. art. 592(A)(3)(c), seeking reversal of the trial court's
order certifying the class. It asserts that the trial court
manifestly erred when it found that receipt of a Pell Grant is the
only criteria that was (or could be) used for a waiver of the fees
at ULL.

The Court of Appeal agrees and concludes the Plaintiffs failed to
establish that the criteria set forth in Article 591(A)(1) through
(5) and (B)(3) have been satisfied. The Plaintiffs failed to carry
their burden of proving class certification is proper.

The Court of Appeal finds that the Board established that the
determination of waiver eligibility at ULL requires each putative
class member to demonstrate that she would have satisfied all six
criteria for every semester in which she claims the fees should
have been waived. The facts established at the certification
hearing demonstrate that each Plaintiff's cause of action against
the Board involves many individual variables not capable of
class-wide resolution.

The Court of Appeal also finds the Plaintiffs' proposed class
definition is not comprised of an easily identifiable group of
similarly situated persons. The individual inquiries require
credibility determinations not subject to resolution on a
class-wide basis. Until such an inquiry is made, a court cannot
decide whether the elements of numerosity and commonality are
satisfied.

For foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeal reverses the trial
court's July 23, 2021 order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class. Costs of the appeal are assessed to the
Plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 21, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2ek8ddz9 from Leagle.com.

Jerry L. Lavespere, Jr., Alexandria, LA, and Kevin L. Camel, Lake
Charles, LA, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees, Ashley Pratt,
Rachelle Phillips, Jenae Jean, Krystiana Guillory, Krista Drew,
Candance Carmouche, Dana Davis, Danica Broussard, Brock Broussard,
Robin Leday, and Elizabeth Brown.

Jeff Landry, Attorney General, Cearley W. Fontenot, Daniel J.
Phillips , Special Assistant Attorneys General, Lafayette, LA,
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant, Board of Supervisors for the
University of Louisiana System.


VICTOR'S CAFE: Peralta Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Peralta, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
VICTOR'S CAFE 52ND STREET, INC. d/b/a VICTOR'S CAFE, SONIA
ZALDIVAR, and MONICA ZALDIVAR, Case No. 1:22-cv-08915 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 19, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law, that he is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime, due to a fixed
salary; unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving;
statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Plaintiff was not paid overtime premium for hours worked more
than 40 hours per week. The Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiff the proper overtime premium rate of
time and one half of regular hourly rate for each hour exceeding 40
hours per workweek. The Plaintiff regularly worked days that exceed
10 hours in length, but the Defendants unlawfully failed to pay the
Plaintiff his spread of hours premium for workdays that exceeded 10
hours in length. The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated
their business with a policy of not paying the Plaintiff, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members their proper overtime due
to an improper fixed salary and time shaving. The Defendants
knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of
not paying spread of hours premium to the Plaintiff or Class
Members, in violation of NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as cook at the
Defendants' Restaurant Victor's Cafe.

The Defendants own and operate a Restaurant called Victor's Cafe
located in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Phone: 212-465-1180
          Fax: 212-465-1181


VITALITY HOLDINGS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vitality Holdings,
LLC. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Vitality
Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-08880 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2022).

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

Vitality -- https://www.vitalitygroup.com/ -- provides individuals
with an exciting, personalized wellness journey that rewards daily
engagement and creates long-term behavior change.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Mishkin Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jeffrey Mishkin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00666, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on Oct. 18, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-06127 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. --
https://www.volkswagengroupofamerica.com/ -- is the North American
operational headquarters, and subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group of
automobile companies of Germany.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: (314) 725-7700
          Email: mflannery@careydanis.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Phone: (202) 789-3960
          Fax: (202) 789-1813

VOLT MANAGEMENT: Broussard Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Volt Management
Corp., et al. The case is styled as Clarence Warren Broussard, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Volt
Management Corp., Apple, Inc., Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2022-00328570-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct.
19, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment – Civil Unlimited"

Volt Management Corporation -- https://www.volt.com/ -- provides
recruitment and staffing services. The Company offers consulting,
direct hire, temporary staffing, training, direct placement,
contract employees, and payroll services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christina Marie Lucio, Esq.
          FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
          2235 Encinitas Blvd., Ste. 210
          Encinitas, CA 92024-4357
          Phone: 760-942-9433
          Fax: 760-452-4421
          Email: clucio@farnaeslaw.com


WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Kelly Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wal-Mart Associates,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Stephanie Darlene Kelly, and on
behalf of all other similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Associates,
Inc., Does 1-20, Case No. 34-2022-00328520-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 17, 2022).

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

Walmart -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mac E. Nehoray, Esq.
          SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS, APC
          24007 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 110
          Calabasas, CA 91302-2549
          Phone: 818-222-2227
          Fax: 818-691-0405
          Email: mac@socalatt.com


WALMART INC: Kukorinis Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vassilios Kukorinis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02402-VMC-TGW
(C.D. Fla., Oct. 19, 2022), is brought against Walmart who uses
unfair and deceptive business practices to deceivingly,
misleadingly, and unjustly pilfer, to Walmart's financial benefit,
its customers' hard earned grocery dollars.

Like most grocery stores, Walmart advertises the price of its
groceries using a price tag or sticker that is displayed on or near
the product, often the sticker is affixed to the store shelf where
the product is presented for sale (the "Price Sticker(s)").
Typically, Walmart's Price Stickers provide the Customer with: an
abbreviated description of the product, the product's retail price,
and the unit price (the per ounce or per pound price) of the
product. However, Plaintiff and thousands of other Walmart
customers have been subjected to the following four systemic unfair
and deceptive business practices implemented by Walmart in its
stores in Florida and nationwide, which result in Customers being
charged and paying more than a product's lowest advertised per
pound/ounce price.

Walmart's Point of Sale ("POS") system deceptively, systemically
and artificially increases the weight of the product at checkout,
resulting in the Customer paying an inflated price. This deceptive
conduct is referenced herein as "Falsely Inflating (or Inflated)
Product Weight." Walmart sells Bagged Produce utilizing a Price
Sticker that is false, misleading and deceptive, in that it falsely
represents and advertises a weight of the Bagged Produce that is
materially more than the actual weight of the Bagged Produce being
sold. This wrongdoing is referenced herein as "Mislabeled Bagged
Produce." Customers are deceived and misled into paying more than
the advertised per pound price on the Yellow Sticker. This
wrongdoing is referenced herein as "Overcharging on Sold-by-Weight
Clearance Products." Walmart sells Sold-by-Weight seafood products
utilizing a Price Sticker that is false, misleading and deceptive,
in that it falsely represents and advertises a per pound or ounce
price of the Sold-by-Weight seafood products that is materially
less than the per pound / ounce price charged to the Customers at
check-out. This wrongdoing is referenced herein as "Overcharging on
Sold-by-Weight Seafood Products."

As a result of Walmart's conduct of Falsely Inflating Product
Weight, selling Mislabeled Bagged Produce, Overcharging on
Sold-by-Weight Clearance Products, and Overcharging on
Sold-by-Weight Seafood Products, Plaintiff and Customers were
overcharged by Walmart for Sold-by-Weight Products, Bagged Produce,
and Clearance Products, thereby suffering actual damage. Walmart's
false, misleading, unfair and deceptive conduct of Falsely
Inflating Product Weight, selling Mislabeled Bagged Produce,
Overcharging on Sold-by-Weight Clearance Products, and Overcharging
on Sold-by-Weight Seafood Products, individually and in the
aggregate, violates state consumer protection statutes and state
common law in each state where Sold-by-Weight Products, Bagged
Produce and Clearance Products are offered and sold by Walmart,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased from and at Walmart stores in Florida.

Walmart is engaged in global operations of retail, wholesale and
other units, as well as eCommerce, located throughout the U.S.,
Africa, Canada, Central America, Chile, China, India and
Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
          Kimberly M. Donaldson-Smith, Esq.
          Zachary P. Beatty, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: 610-642-8500
          Fax: 610-649-3633
          Email: nec@chimicles.com
                 kds@chimicles.com


WARDEN BERGAMI: Hunt Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warden Bergami, et
al. The case is styled as Maurice Hunt, and any similarly situated
individual v. Warden Bergami, Warden Gonzales, Warden A. Ciolli,
Capt. J. Leonowicz, Capt. J. Hess, Capt. Avery, Lt. John Doe, Lt.
Sears, Lt. Bowman, Lt. Dugdale, Lt. Olivares, Lt. Smythe, Lt.
Brewer, Lt. Whalden, Lt. Marquez, Lt. Maxey, FNU Bumgard, Register
Nurse, FNU Whittemore, Associate Warden, Numerous John And Jane
Doe's, Correctional Officers, Case No. 3:22-cv-50360 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 18, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.

Warden Bergami is the warden in the Illinois correctional
facility.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


WARNER BROS: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Keebaugh Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California denies without prejudice the
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings in
the lawsuit styled CHARISSA KEEBAUGH, et al., Plaintiffs v. WARNER
BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01272-MEMF
(AGRx) (C.D. Cal.).

Warner Bros. developed a mobile application game based upon the HBO
television series, "Game of Thrones," called Game of Thrones
Conquest ("GOTC"). The game is free to initially download but later
offers players the option to purchase "packs" to help players
advance in the game.

The in-app purchases, or "microtransactions," include "gold,
building material, crafting material, armor, and other valuables,
and the add-ons are necessary to level up one's account." An
"in-app purchase" refers to the financial transaction initiated
from within the mobile application itself. These in-app purchases,
or 'packs,' range in price from $0.99 to $99.99 each in real
currency. Each time a player logs into a game, a pop-up
advertisement for a $99.99 pack fills the entire screen. The player
may purchase the pack or close the advertisement by pressing an "X"
in the corner.

Plaintiffs Charissa Keebaugh, Stephanie Neveu, Heather Mercieri,
Sophia Nicholson, and P.W. all played GOTC and made in-app
purchases. Keebaugh, Neveu, Mercieri and Nicholson began playing
GOTC and purchased several packs. P.W., a minor, used his parents'
credit card to make approximately $6,200 in in-app purchases on
GOTC.

The Plaintiffs allege that Warner Bros. deceived them, and other
consumers like them, by falsely advertising discounts on in-app
purchases.

On Feb. 24, 2022, Plaintiffs Keebaugh, Neveu, and Mercieri filed
this putative class action against Warner Bros. On May 23, 2022,
Plaintiffs Keebaugh, Neveu, Mercieri, Nicholson, and P.W., by and
through his guardian Joie Weiher filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC") against Warner Bros., alleging nine causes of action: (1)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; (2) violation of
California's False Advertising Law; (3) violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (4) fraud; (5) negligent
misrepresentation; (6) declaratory judgment; (7) violation of New
Hampshire's Regulation of Business Practices for Consumer
Protection Act; (8) violation of Washington's Consumer Protection
Act; and (9) violation of N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW Sections 349 & 350.

The Complaint identifies a Global Class of: "all persons, within
the applicable statute of limitations, who purchased False Gold
Strikethrough Packs or False Sale Packs, and/or such subclasses as
the Court may deem appropriate."

P.W. additionally identifies a "Minor subclass" of "all persons,
within the applicable statute of limitations, who, while under the
age of 18, purchased False Gold Strikethrough Packs or False Sale
Packs, and/or such subclasses as the Court may deem appropriate."
The remaining Plaintiffs also identify subclasses of "all persons
within the applicable statute of limitations, who purchased False
Gold Strikethrough Packs or False Sale Packs, and/or such
subclasses as the Court may deem appropriate," in Washington,
Arizona, New Hampshire, and New York.

On June 13, 2022, Warner Bros. filed this Motion to Compel
Arbitration. The Court heard oral argument on the Motion on Oct. 6,
2022. During the hearing, the Court asked Warner Bros. to submit
images relating to the downloading of GOTC and the Opening Screens.
Following the hearing, Warner Bros. submitted these supplemental
exhibits to the Court, which the Court considered in reaching its
decision.

Upon opening the GOTC application, new players, as well as players
who re-download the game will see an Opening Screen, such as those
featured in Exhibits 5-7 ("Opening Screens"). Although the graphic
art has varied over time, the Opening Screen has always included
one of following two statements printed below the blue "Play"
button: (1) "By tapping Play I agree to the Terms of Service;" (2)
"By tapping Play I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge the
Privacy Policy."

Below the "Play" button and the statement relating to GOTC's terms
are two hyperlinks in the bottom left and bottom right corner of
the screen. The bottom left hyperlink, entitled "Privacy Policy,"
takes users to the privacy policy if clicked. The bottom right
hyperlink, entitled "Terms of Service," takes users to the Terms of
Use ("TOU") if clicked. Once the user presses the "Play" button, he
will gain access to the game and immediately start play.

When a user clicks the hyperlink, "Terms of Service," it directs
the user to the TOU. The TOU includes an "Arbitration Agreement."
In addition, the TOU includes a "Class Action Waiver."

Warner Bros. moves to compel arbitration of the entire action under
the TOU on the basis that: (1) the parties formed a valid
arbitration agreement; (2) the arbitration agreement encompasses
the Plaintiffs' claims; and (3) the claims must be arbitrated on an
individual basis. The Plaintiffs respond that the Motion fails
because: (1) the GOTC Opening Screen did not provide inquiry notice
of the TOU; (2) the TOU is unconscionable; (3) the Plaintiffs seek
public injunctive relief; and (4) P.W. has disaffirmed the TOU.

Warner Bros. argues--and the Plaintiffs do not dispute--that
California law applies. The Court finds that California law governs
the issue of contract formation. The Court also finds that the
parties are capable of contracting, arbitration is a lawful object,
and sufficient cause for consideration.

The Court also finds no mutual assent to the Arbitration Agreement.
Hence, Judge Frimpong holds that a valid arbitration agreement does
not exist between the parties.

Judge Frimpong finds that Warner Bros. failed to provide reasonably
conspicuous notice. The Court observes that both Warner Bros. and
the Plaintiffs only address the visual elements of the Opening
Screen to argue the issue of notice. However, pursuant to Sellers
v. JustAnswer LLC, 289 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 15 (Cal. App. 2021) and B.D.
v. Blizzard Ent., Inc., 292 Cal.Rptr.3d 47, 60 (Cal. App.
2022)--the only California precedent concerning "sign-in wrap"
agreements--the Court must also consider whether the Opening Screen
provided notice in the context of the transaction between Warner
Bros. and GOTC players.

The Court finds that the transaction is more akin to the
transaction in Sellers--where the Court declined to compel
arbitration over a one-time trial purchase. As in Sellers, where
the consumer was not asked to sign-up for an account before
starting a trial, a GOTC player is not required to create an
account before playing the game. As such, the Court finds that the
facts here do not present the type of situation in which the
registration process clearly contemplated some sort of continuing
relationship that would require some terms and conditions.

Finally, the Court distinguishes the instant facts from Blizzard,
where the Defendant game company established that video game
players would reasonably contemplate an ongoing relationship with
the Defendant, after creating an account to play.

Here, Judge Frimpong notes, GOTC players did not have to create an
account with Warner Bros. before playing the game. Players could
freely play GOTC by simply pressing the "Play" button. In the
absence of a formal sign-up process--which would convey to users
that they were entering into an ongoing relationship with Warner
Bros.--the Court cannot reasonably expect GOTC users to click the
link to the TOU and be placed on inquiry notice.

For these reasons, the Court finds that Warner Bros. has failed to
meet its burden to establish that it provided reasonably
conspicuous notice of the TOU on its Opening Screen. Because Warner
Bros. has not met the first element of mutual assent, Warner Bros.
has not established the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.
As such, the Court denies Warner Bros. Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 13, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3bud2xp8 from Leagle.com.


WILLIAMSBURG MATERIALS: Riera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Riera, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Williamsburg Materials Corp., and Frank Pannone, Case No.
1:22-cv-06237 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 15, 2022), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages, untimely paid wages, liquidated and
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York State Labor Law, the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act and
their supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.

The Plaintiff was required to work in excess of 40 hours per week,
but never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for those hours. The Defendants' conduct
extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated
employees. The Defendants did not state the correct gross wages, as
defined by NYLL, for any employee on any pay statement as required
by NYLL or deductions from the correct gross wages. The Plaintiff
was not required to keep track of his time, nor to his knowledge,
did the Defendants utilize any time tracking device, such as sign
in sheets or punch cards, that accurately reflected his actual
hours worked. The Defendants did not provide the Plaintiff a
statement of wages, as required by NYLL. The Defendants did not pay
the Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times his hourly wage
rate for hours worked in excess of forty per workweek, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a driver and manual laborer at the
Defendants' freight company.

The Defendants own, operate and/or control the freight company
located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 792-0046
          Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com


WILSON JAVIER LOJAN: Arguello Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Fernando Perez Arguello, behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Wilson Javier Lojan, Case No. 1:22-cv-06236
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid minimum
wages, overtime wages, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor Law, the
NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act and their supporting New York
State Department of Labor regulations.

At the Defendant's construction company, the Plaintiff regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants' historic
policy and practice was to pay Plaintiff a flat salary, regardless
of how many additional hours he worked in a week. The Defendant did
not provide the Plaintiff a statement of wages, as required by
NYLL. Defendant did not give any notice to the Plaintiff, in
English (the Plaintiff's primary language), of his rate of pay,
employer's regular pay day, and such other information as required
by NYLL. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff at the rate of one
and one-half times the Plaintiff's hourly wage rate for hours
worked in excess of forty per workweek, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a manual laborer at the Defendant's
construction company from January 2020 through and including
January 2022.

Wilson Javier Lojan is an individual engaging (or who have engaged)
in business within this judicial district and operates a
construction company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: (212) 792-0046
          Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com


WITH YOU E-COMMERCE: Haviland Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against With You E-Commerce,
Inc. The case is styled as Gwendolyn D. Haviland, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. With You E-Commerce,
Inc. doing business as: JessicaSimpson.com, Case No.
2:22-cv-14356-AMC (S.D. Fla., Oct. 18, 2022).

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

With You E-Commerce, Inc. doing business as JessicaSimpson.com --
https://jessicasimpson.com/ -- offers clothing for women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel Santiago Hiraldo
          HIRALDO PA
          401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
          Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 400-4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel Nicole Edelsberg, Esq.
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 610-5223
          Email: rachel@dapeer.com


ZILLOW GROUP: Strelzin Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JILL STRELZIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2022CH09132, was removed from the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
Oct. 14, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-05644 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff's putative class action complaint alleges three
causes of action against Zillow: (i) a putative class claim for
violation of Illinois' Eavesdropping Act; (ii) a putative class
claim for violation of Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act; and (iii) a putative class claim for the
tort of common law invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion.
All three claims arise from Plaintiff's and putative class members'
use of Zillow's website, says the suit.

Zillow Group, Inc.  is an American tech real-estate marketplace
company.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          David T. Cellitti, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2400
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 222-8180
          E-mail: david.cellitti@bipc.com

               - and -

          Samantha L. Southall, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 665-8700
          Facsimile: (215) 665-8760
          E-mail: samantha.southall@bipc.com


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***