/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221107.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, November 7, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 216

                            Headlines

22ND CENTURY: Stipulated Protective Order Entered in Gayed Suit
321 HENDERSON: 3rd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Dockery Suit
4818 ASTORIA FOOD: Almendares Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
AJR RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Amaya Suit Claims
ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Underpays Mechanics Gueci Suit Claims

BISSELL HOMECARE: Removes Rowland Suit From Com. Pl. to W.D. Pa.
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Angelo, et al., Seek Class Certification
CHARTER FOODS: Class of Assistant GMs Certified in Davis Wage Suit
CLASSY CLOSETS: Case Management Order Entered in Stever Suit
CMS ENERGY: Settlement Class Certification Sought in Two Suits

CORIZON HEALTH: Morrelli, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
D'AMICO INDUSTRIES: Gaitian Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
DIRECTV LLC: 4th Circuit to Hear Appeal in TCPA Class Action
DITECH HOLDING: Court Expunges Walters Claim and Additional Claims
DREAMFIELDS BRANDS: Centeno Sues Over Cannabis' THC Content Labels

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Hise Allowed to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Flores Alleges
GEO SECURE: Mazzei Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
GOLD COAST: Arostica, et al., Seek to Certify Collective Action
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Anticompetitive Class Action Over Incognito Mode

GREEN DOT: Class Settlement in Boardman Suit Wins Final Approval
HG FOODS: Mendivil Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Retail Employees
HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Fails to Pay Welders' Overtime, Grizzle Says
IDAHO: Dreyer Files Bid for Class Certification
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Hancock Suit Claims

KBR WYLE: Faces Christensen Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay OT
KEYSTONE HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Whitehead Alleges
MANDARICH LAW: Moore Seeks to Certify Two Consumer Classes
MASSACHUSETTS INTERSCHOLASTIC: Jones Appeals Denied Injunction Bid
MCGRAW HILL: Flynn Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit

MDL 1720: Visa & Banks' Bids to Dismiss Expert Testimonies Denied
MDL 2645: Bustamante Appeals Judgment in False Ad Suit to 2nd Cir.
MDL 2744: Certification of Consumer Protection Class Sought
MDL 2873: Bush Files PI Suit Over PFAS Exposure
MDL 2873: Hawkins Says PFAS Exposure Caused Cancer

MDL 2873: Martin Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
MDL 2873: Ozuna Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Virgin Files PI Suit Over PFAS Exposure
MDL 2913: Coahoma County Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: Okolona Municipal Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis

MDL 2913: Pass Christian Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MERSEYSIDE CORP: Underpays Laborers' Overtime Pay, Mayorga Claims
MHC HERITAGE: Seeks to Strike Rothbart's Expert Report
MISSION CARE: Newton BIPA Suit Removed From Cir. Court to S.D. Ill.
MJB ALE HOUSE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Quintanilla Alleges

NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Partly Wins Summary Judgment in Kovich Suit
NCAA: House, et al., Seek to Certify Classes of College Athletes
NEW YORK: Flores, et al., Seek to Certify Class
NUESTRO SAGRADO: Appeals Atty. Fees Bid Ruling in Valdepena Suit
OMNI HOTELS: Beaver, et al., Seek to Certify Class of Villa Owners

ONTARIO: Former Inmate Can Opt Out of EMDC Class Action
PEREZ HILTON: Discloses Private Info to Third Party, Roberts Says
REALPAGE INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Anticompetitive Conduct
RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Dozier Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Mason Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D.N.J.

SAN DIEGO, CA: Grant of Summary Judgment in Verdun Suit Affirmed
SONUS NETWORKS: Veleno Petitions for Writ of Mandamus
STERLING BANCORP: Distribution Plan of $12M Oklahoma Suit Deal OK'd
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: S.D.N.Y. Dismisses in Part Amended Rand Suit
TW GARNER: Faces Class Action Suit Over House Sauce False Ads

UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Casa Libre v. DHS, Mayorkas
US RADIOLOGY SPECIALISTS: Tompkins Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
WINCO FOODS: Response to Miller Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 18
[*] Calif. Class Action Lawyers Turn Sights on Website Chatbots

                            *********

22ND CENTURY: Stipulated Protective Order Entered in Gayed Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YOUSSIF GAYED, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. 22ND
CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03828-DSF-JPR (C.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California enters a Stipulated
Protective Order.

The employment class action arises under the California Labor Code,
regarding rest breaks and meal periods, payment of wages, failure
to indemnify, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition.
Discovery in the case may involve production of confidential,
proprietary or private information for which special protection
from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than
prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the
parties stipulate to and petition the Court to enter their
Stipulated Protective Order.

The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected
Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial
judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at
trial.

Once a case proceeds to trial, information that was designated as
confidential or maintained pursuant to the protective order used or
introduced as an exhibit at trial becomes public and will be
presumptively available to all members of the public, including the
press, unless compelling reasons supported by specific factual
findings to proceed otherwise are made to the trial judge in
advance of the trial. Accordingly, the terms of the protective
order do not extend beyond the commencement of the trial.

Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of
confidentiality at any time consistent with the Court's Scheduling
Order.

After the final disposition of the Action, within 60 days of a
written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must
return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy
such material.

Any willful violation of the Order may be punished by appropriate
measures including, without limitation, contempt proceedings and/or
monetary sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Stipulated Protective
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/exznbpv7 from
Leagle.com.

DAVID G. SPIVAK -- david@spivaklaw.com -- CAROLINE TAHMASSIAN --
Caroline@SpivakLaw.com -- MAYA CHEAITANI -- Maya@spivaklaw.com --
THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM, West Hollywood, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff
YOUSSIF GAYED, and all others similarly situated.

W. BRAD ENGLISH -- benglish@maynardcooper.com -- LEE E. BAINS, JR.
-- lbains@maynardcooper.com -- MITCHELL GREGGS --
mgreggs@maynardcooper.com -- FRIEDA A. TAYLOR --
friedat@earthlink.net -- MAYNARD COOPER & GALE, Huntsville, AL,
Attorneys for Defendant 22ND CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


321 HENDERSON: 3rd Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Dockery Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARRY G. DOCKERY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Appellant v. STEPHEN E. HERETICK; 321 HENDERSON
RECEIVABLES LLC; J.G. WENTWORTH ORIGINATIONS LLC; SENECA ONE
FINANCE, INC.; STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PURCHASER JOHN DOE INC. 1-100
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; METLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Nominal
Defendants, Case No. 21-2753 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit affirms the District Court's:

    (i) denial of Dockery's motion to compel discovery and motion
        for class certification; and

   (ii) grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees.

After a workplace accident, Dockery became the beneficiary of a
structured settlement. Dockery received a lump-sum payment, as well
as a structured annuity to be paid out over the next 45 years. He
chose to sell some of those annuity payments to the Appellees in
exchange for cash. Now, Dockery claims that his attorneys suffered
from a conflict of interest, and that the Appellees therefore lied
when they claimed that he received independent professional
advice.

Appellees 321 Henderson, J.G. Wentworth Originations LLC, and
Structured Settlement Purchaser John Doe Inc. 1-100, are companies
that purchase payment streams from annuity recipients.

When Dockery sold part of his annuity to the Appellees, he executed
an affidavit stating that "it is my belief, and my representation
to the Court, that this transfer lies in my best interests,
together with that of my family." His lawyer in the state court
proceedings, Michael Shull, delivered an Estoppel Letter detailing
his involvement in the sale. Attorney Shull's letter stated that he
"acted as independent legal counsel to the Seller and has provided
legal, accounting and tax advice." The Estoppel Letters were filed
with Dockery's purchase agreement in the Portsmouth, Virginia
Circuit Court, which approved the transaction after a hearing, as
required by statute Virginia law.

For each of these transactions, the Appellees made representations
in the Portsmouth court that Dockery has been advised in writing by
the transferee to seek independent professional advice and has
received such advice reflected in the letter of his legal counsel.
Dockery now argues that the Appellees knowingly lied to the
Portsmouth court because they knew that his attorneys were not
"independent," and thus could not give "independent professional
advice." Specifically, he alleged that the Estoppel Lawyers were
paid on a contingent basis, that the Estoppel Letters were crafted
by the Appellees, and that they picked the Estoppel Lawyers by
repeatedly referring clients to them.

Mr. Dockery asserted claims for violations of or conspiracy to
violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. He sought to
certify a class of similarly situated plaintiffs who had been
allegedly defrauded by Appellees through its use of conflicted
Estoppel Lawyers. The District Court denied Dockery's motion to
compel discovery and motion for class certification, and it granted
summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. Dockery timely
appealed.

The Third Circuit reviews the District Court's denial of a
discovery motion for abuse of discretion. It finds that the parties
agreed that discovery would close on April 30, 2021. Nonetheless,
Dockery filed a motion to compel additional discovery on June 18,
2021. Thus, the motion to compel was filed after the discovery
deadline, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in
denying this untimely motion. The Third Circuit affirms the
District Court's denial of Dockery's motion to compel.

Next, the Third Circuit reviews the District Court's class
certification order for abuse of discretion. The District Court
denied class certification because Dockery failed to carry his
class certification burden as to ascertainability, predominance,
superiority, and adequacy. On appeal, Dockery contests the District
Court's holdings as to ascertainability and adequacy.

The Third Circuit opines that the District Court did not abuse its
discretion when it assumed that Dockery would agree to amend the
class definition before analyzing the Rule 23 factors. Nor did it
abuse its discretion when it determined that Dockery was an
inadequate representative. Even if Dockery were correct on
ascertainability and adequacy, he has forfeited any argument as to
predominance and superiority by failing to brief the issue before
this Court. So the District Court's denial of class certification
is affirmed.

Finally, the Third Circuit turns to the District Court's grant of
summary judgment and affirms it. It opines that the relevant
question is not whether the Estoppel Lawyers were independent of
the Appellees but whether Dockery received "the advice of an
attorney, certified public accountant, actuary, or other licensed
professional advisor." He undoubtedly did. And is ultimately the
place of the legislature, not the judiciary, to update Va. Code
Section 59.1-475 to address those machinations.

In sum, the Eleventh affirms the District Court's order denying
Dockery's untimely motion to compel. Because the District Court did
not abuse its discretion in finding that Dockery failed to prove
ascertainability and adequacy, and because Dockery forfeited any
arguments as to superiority and issue predominance, it affirms the
District Court's denial of class certification. Because the
District Court did not err in construing Va. Code Section 59.1-475,
it affirms the District Court's grant of summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2kwutv3v from Leagle.com.


4818 ASTORIA FOOD: Almendares Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELNER ALMENDARES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 4818 ASTORIA FOOD CORP. d/b/a NEW
WAY SUPERMARKET, JORGE CEPIN, NAGI EYDH and ADEL KASSIM, as
individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06465 (E.D.N.Y., October
25, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought by the Plaintiff
against the Defendants alleging the Defendants of violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around
November 2018 until in or around December 2021 as a butcher while
performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours per week throughout his employment with the
Defendants. Specifically, he worked approximately 70 hours each
week from in or around November 2018, approximately 91 hours each
week from in or around January 2019 until in or around December
2019, and approximately 70 hours each week from in or around
January 2020 until in or around December 2021. However, the
Defendants paid him a flat weekly rate only instead of paying him
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his
regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. In addition, the Defendant did not pay him an extra hour
at the legally prescribed minimum wage despite working in excess of
10 or more hours per day approximately 7 days a week, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff also asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place
at the location of their employment;

     -- The Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll records;

     -- The Defendants willfully failed to provide with a written
notice of his applicable regular rate of pay, regular pay day, and
all such information; and

     -- The Defendants willfully failed to provide him with any
wage statements upon each payment of his wages.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime wages and spread-of-hours
compensation, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
costs of this action together with reasonable attorneys' fees, and
other relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

4818 Astoria Food Corp. d/b/a New Way Supermarket operates a
supermarket. The Individual Defendants are co-owners of the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]


The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AJR RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Amaya Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, HEBER AMAYA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AJR RESTAURANT & PIZZERIA CORP.
d/b/a A TOUCH OF ITALY, SEFERINO SALMERON and HILDA SALMERON, as
individuals, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-06470 (E.D.N.Y., October
25, 2022) arises from the Defendants’ alleged egregious
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around
August 2018 until in or around August 2022 as a dishwasher, food
preparer and pizza maker while performing related miscellaneous
duties for the Defendants.

The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he was regularly required to work more than 40 hours
per week. But instead of paying him a wage rate of time and a half
for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, the
Defendants paid him only a flat weekly rate without overtime
compensation. In addition, the Defendants willfully failed to post
notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a
conspicuous place at the location of their employment, and
willfully failed to keep payroll records as required by both the
FLSA and NYLL. Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to provide
him with any wage statements upon each payment of his wages, and
willfully failed to provide him with a written notice of his
applicable regular rate of pay, regular pay day, and all such
information, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to
recover unpaid overtime wages and spread-of-hours compensation, for
himself and all other similarly situated employees, as well as to
recover liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs
of this action together with reasonable attorneys' fees, and other
relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

AJR Restaurant & Pizzeria Corp. d/b/a A Touch of Italy operates a
restaurant co-owned by Seferino Salmeron and Hilda Salmeron. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Underpays Mechanics Gueci Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN GUECI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., TERRY SAWAYA,
MICHAEL SAWAYA, and ASSAD S. SAWAYA, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-06343-KAM-ST (E.D.N.Y., October 20, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including unpaid minimum wage,
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread-of-hours premium,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to issue wage
theft notice, and retaliation.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a clean room mechanic
from September 25, 2017 until July 28, 2022.

Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with a
principal place of business at 311 West Lane, Aquebogue, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Aneeba Rehman, Esq.
         Nadia M. Pervez, Esq.
         PERVEZ & REHMAN, PC
         6268 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 8
         Commack, NY, 11725
         Telephone: (631) 427-0700
         E-mail: arehman@pervezrehman.com

BISSELL HOMECARE: Removes Rowland Suit From Com. Pl. to W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of CARA ROWLAND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BISSELL
HOMECARE, INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Court of Common Pleas of the State of Pennsylvania, County
of Allegheny (Case No. GD-22-011649) to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 25, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01500-DSC to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to Christy Criswell Wiegand.

BISSELL HOMECARE, INC. manufactures household vacuum cleaners and
cleaning products. The Company offers upright vacuums, replacement
bags, filters, carpet deep cleaners, sweepers, steam mops, and bare
floor accessories. Bissell Homecare markets its products worldwide.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joe N. Nguyen, Esq.
          STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP
          2005 Market Street, Suite 2600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 564-8095
          Email: jnguyen@stradley.com

               -and-

          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          Kelly L. Hagy, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN,
          CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
          First Horizon Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0818
          Email: rtom@bakerdonelson.com
                 khagy@bakerdonelson.com

               -and-

          D. Sterling Kidd, Esq.
          BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN,
          CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
          One Eastover Center
          100 Vision Drive Suite 400
          Jackson, MI 39211
          Telephone: (601) 351-2400
          Facsimile: (601) 351-2424
          Email: skidd@bakerdonelson.com

CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Angelo, et al., Seek Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN ANGELO, NICHOLAS
ANGELO, AND CYNTHIA WILSON, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, CELTIC
INSURANCE COMPANY, SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN, INC., and CENTENE COMPANY
OF TEXAS, L.P., Case No. 1:20-cv-00484-RP (W.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule CV-23:

   1. granting bid for class certification of:

      "All persons in the State of Texas who were insured by
      Defendants' Ambetter insurance product which was purchased
      through the ACA HIE from the date on which the Ambetter
      policies were first sold in Texas to December 31, 2021;"

   2. appointing them as class representatives; and

   3. appointing their counsel as class counsel.

This is a class action on behalf of all individuals in the State of
Texas who from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021 were
insured for health care under the Ambetter insurance policy sold
and managed by defendants.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Centene policies were sold to all
class members at inflated prices because the lists of providers
represented to be available to Centene's insureds were materially
inaccurate in that they contained thousands of names of providers
who in fact were not available to provide medical care. As a
result, the premiums paid by class members were artificially
inflated.

Ambetter policyholders were charged for access to providers who
were not in fact available to them. This class action seeks to
recover the overcharges that were paid by class members.

Centene is a Medicaid managed care organization.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DpWOqb
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francisco Guerra, IV, Esq.
          WATTS GUERRA, LLP
          Four Dominion Drive
          Bldg. 3, Suite 100
          San Antonio, TX 78257
          Telephone: (210) 447-0500
          Facsimile: (210) 447-0501
          E-mail: fguerra@wattsguerra.com

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          201 California Street, Suite 1240
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 777-2230
          Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
          E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
                  tbright@cerallp.com

               - and -

          Andres C. Pereira, Esq.
          ANDRES PEREIRA LAW FIRM, P.C.
          14709 Custer Court
          Austin, TX 78734
          Telephone: 512-920-2425
          Facsimile: 512-309-5861
          E-mail: apereira@andrespereirapc.com

               - and -

          Mark Ravis, Esq.
          MARK RAVIS & ASSOCIATES
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 295-4145
          E-mail: mravis99@gmail.com

CHARTER FOODS: Class of Assistant GMs Certified in Davis Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIM DAVIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. CHARTER FOODS, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-159 (E.D. Tenn.), Judge
Charles E. Atchley, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, Greeneville, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Conditional Collective Action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, as well as their Motion for Class Action Certification.

Plaintiffs Davis and Schleufer were employed by the Defendants as
Assistant General Managers ("AGMs") at the Defendants' franchised
fast-food restaurants during 2018 and 2019. They claim that the
Defendants misclassified their AGM positions as exempt under both
federal and state wage and hour laws, and in doing so, failed to
pay such employees proper overtime wages for work exceeding 40
hours per week. Alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act of 1968 ("PMWA"), 43 P.S. Section 333.101, et seq., and
the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("PWPCL"), 43 P.S.
Section 260.1, et seq., the crux of the Complaint states that
despite being allowed or required to perform non-exempt work in
excess of 50 hours per week, the practice of the Defendants is to
not compensate AGMs in any fashion for hours worked in excess of 50
hours per week, and to not pay overtime for hours exceeding 40
hours per week.

As such, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Collective
Action and Class Action Certification with supporting Memorandum on
June 9, 2021, seeking conditional certification for a collective
action class under Section 216(b) of the FLSA, and certification of
a Rule 23 class pursuant to alleged violations of the PMWA and
PWPCL.

After opposing motion practice, the issue was referred to
Magistrate Judge Cynthia R. Wyrick for report and recommendation.
On March 21, 2022, Judge Wyrick filed her Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Class be granted with respect to both conditional collective
certification under the FLSA and Rule 23 class certification for
the PMWA and PWPCL claims, as specified in the Report. Defendants
Charter Central, LLC, Charter Foods, Inc., and Charter Foods North,
LLC (together, "Charter") filed a timely Objection, to which the
Plaintiffs responded.

Judge Atchley finds that the Defendants' first and fourth
objections are merely requests to stay the matter should a final
order on certification be issued. The Defendants attempt to meld
these into a "specific" objection by claiming the Report and
Recommendation "errs in concluding that simultaneously proceeding
with both matters Gallagher would not result in duplication of the
Courts' and the parties' resources." Yet their core objection is
really no objection at all. As no final certification
determinations have taken place, these requests to stay are
premature.

The Defendants' second objection revolves around the potential
putative class members and the statute of limitations. Their claim
is essentially that many who would receive notice using the
Relevant Period as defined in the Report and Recommendation would
be time-barred due to the statute of limitations having run against
them. The objection further admits that this issue was not
addressed in the Report and Recommendation. As such, this is not
the appropriate time to raise the issue.

In the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Action and
Class Action Certification, the Plaintiffs seek in part, a
conditional collective certification under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. Specifically, they define their proposed collective as: "All
individuals who are or have been employed by Defendants as an
Assistant General Manager from three (3) years prior to the filing
date of this Complaint up until this FLSA Collective Action Class
is finally certified by the Court who have worked more than forty
(40) hours per week without being paid at overtime rates."

Judge Wyrick found that the Plaintiffs have done enough to satisfy
the "modest plus" showing of 'similarly situated' and recommended
conditional certification of the collective action to the Court.

Judge Atchley agrees with Judge Wyrick's finding. Accordingly, he
accepts and adopts Judge Wyrick's recommendation that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Action under the FLSA
be granted and will conditionally certify the putative class
described in the Report and Recommendation. Charter's Objection to
this aspect of the Report and Recommendation is overruled.

In addition to conditional collective action certification under
the FLSA, the Plaintiffs seek class action certification under Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for alleged violations
of the PMWA and PWPCL by the Defendants. The Defendants opposed
class certification after the Plaintiffs' Motion and again after
Magistrate Judge Wyrick's Report and Recommendation. The Defendants
claim that Judge Wyrick erred in finding commonality and typicality
under Rule 23(a)(2)-(3) and/or predominance and superiority under
Rule 23(b)(3).

Judge Atchley opines that the Defendants' objections to Judge
Wyrick's findings on commonality, typicality, predominance, and
supremacy are generally restatements of their previously presented
arguments. While he appreciates the Defendants' desire to conduct
their defense ethically, it fails to understand why they could not
depose such AGMs, avoiding ex parte communications entirely. As the
Plaintiffs correctly point out, Judge Wyrick was obligated the
review the record as she found it, not as it might have been.

Judge Atchley finds this claim of 'error' unpersuasive. Such
arguments are not sufficient to trigger de novo review of the
Magistrate Judge's recommendations. Nonetheless, he has reviewed
the Report and Recommendation and arguments of the parties on the
question of Rule 23 class certification.

Accordingly, Judge Atchley accepts and adopts Judge Wyrick's
recommendation that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Action
Certification be granted. Charter's Objection to this aspect of the
Report & Recommendation is overruled.

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Atchley overruled the
Defendants' Objection to Report and Recommendations. He accepts and
adopts Judge Wyrick's recommendation on the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Collective Action under the FLSA as well as their
Motion for Class Action Certification.

The Plaintiffs' Motion is granted as follows:

       Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216, the case is certified as
a collective action as to the following putative class: All
individuals who are or have been employed by Defendants as an
Assistant General Manager at any time from July 21, 2017, through
January 1, 2020, who worked more than 40 hours during one or more
workweeks and who are not participating in Gallagher v. Charter
Foods, Inc., 2021 WL 2581153 (W.D. Pa. June 23, 2021) as a named or
opt-in plaintiff.

       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court
certifies a class consisting of: All individuals who are or have
been employed by Defendants as an Assistant General Manager in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from three (3) years prior to the
filing date of the Complaint [July 21, 2020] up until today,
October 26, 2022, who have worked more than forty (40) hours per
week without being paid at overtime rates.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2239f499 from
Leagle.com.


CLASSY CLOSETS: Case Management Order Entered in Stever Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ivol Stever v. Classy
Closets, Etc. Incorporated, Case No. 2:22-cv-01337-SPL (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered a case management order as
follows:

  -- The deadline for joining parties,     August 11, 2023
     amending pleadings, and filing
     supplemental pleadings is:

  -- All discovery for class               February 24, 2023
     certification, including
     discovery by subpoena,
     shall be completed on or
     before:

  -- Rebuttal expert disclosures,          March 1, 2024
     if any, shall be made no later
     than:

  -- Expert depositions shall be           April 12, 2024
     completed no later than:


  -- Class Certification Briefing:

     Any motion for class                  March 24, 2023
     certification shall be
     filed by:

     Any response shall be filed by:       April 7, 2023.

     Any reply must be filed by:           April 14, 2023

Classy Closets designs and installs cabinetry and shelving
solutions for home organization.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DlOd7N at no extra charge.[CC]

CMS ENERGY: Settlement Class Certification Sought in Two Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the two class action lawsuits against XCEL ENERGY, INC. and CMS
ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, et al., the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. Granting expedited consideration of this motion, including
      scheduling a final fairness hearing at the earliest date
      that is 105 days or more after the date of this filing;

   2. Granting preliminary approval of the Class Action
      Settlement Agreement that the Plaintiffs and Williams have
      signed;

   3. Preliminarily certifying a Williams Settlement Class for
      the Wisconsin Class (Arandell and NewPage);

   4. Appointing Arandell Corporation, Merrick’s, Inc., Sargento
      Foods, Inc., Ladish Co., Inc., Carthage College, Briggs &
      Stratton Corporation, and Verso Minnesota Wisconsin LLC,
      as Wisconsin Class Plaintiffs for the Wisconsin Settlement
      Class;

   5. Appointing Kohner Mann & Kailas, S.C., Perkins Coie LLP,
      and Polsinelli PC as Settlement Counsel;

   6. Approving the manner and form of giving notice of the
      Williams Settlement to class members;

   7. Establishing the timetable outlined above for publishing
      class notice and lodging objections to the terms of the
      Williams Settlement;

   8. Approving the procedures outlined above for Wisconsin
     Class Members to exclude themselves from the Williams
     Settlement Class and object to the Williams Settlement;

   9. Appointing AB Data as the settlement administrator to
      conduct the duties assigned to that position in the
      Williams Settlement;

The respective Complaints define the Class Members as:

   "All industrial and commercial purchasers of natural gas for
    their own use or consumption during the Relevant Time Period
    [from January 1, 2000 until October 31, 2002], and which gas
    was used or consumed by them in Wisconsin. Excluded from the
    Class are:

    (a) entities that purchased natural gas for resale (to the
        extent of such purchase for resale);

    (b) entities that purchased natural gas for generation of
        electricity for the purpose of sale (to the extent of
        such purchase for generation);

    (c) entities that purchased natural gas from entities that
        sold natural gas at rates approved by the Wisconsin
        Public Service Commission (to the extent of such
        purchases at such approved rates);

    (d) defendants and their predecessors, affiliates and
        subsidiaries; and € the federal government and its
        agencies."

After more than a dozen years of civil litigation, and following
prior class settlements approved by the MDL Court with six of the
eleven groups of Defendants in these Wisconsin Actions, an
additional Defendant group (Williams) has entered into a settlement
agreement (the "CMS Settlement") with the Wisconsin Class
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs and Williams respectfully move the Court for an
order preliminarily approving the Williams Settlement as proposed.


The putative class in the Wisconsin Actions (the "Wisconsin Class")
has reached a new settlement of $12 million with Williams. In 2017,
the MDL Court approved class settlements between the Wisconsin
Class and four Defendant groups, for a total gross settlement
amount exceeding $20 million. After the MDL Court approved the same
fee and expense formulas as requested here, the Wisconsin Class
received a net distribution of more than $12 million.

In 2019, the MDL Court approved class settlements between the
Wisconsin Class and two more Defendant groups, for an additional
gross settlement amount exceeding $29 million. After the MDL Court
again approved the same fee and expense formulas requested here,
the Wisconsin Class received a net distribution of more than $17
million.

In 2020, this Court approved a class settlement between the
Wisconsin class and another Defendant (CMS), for an additional
gross settlement amount of $15 million.

The Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants' price manipulation
began no later than January 1, and continued in many respects until
at least October 31, 2002. The Plaintiffs have alleged, and their
experts' work has confirmed, that Defendants' actions resulted in
Wisconsin Class Members paying excessive prices for natural gas.
Defendants' manipulation took advantage of the fact that natural
gas is a homogenous, perfectly fungible product that is sold in a
highly-liquid and interdependent U.S. market, where manipulation
anywhere would have predictable effects everywhere.

The lawsuits are captioned as:

   "ARANDELL CORPORATION, et al., v. XCEL ENERGY, INC., et al.,
   Case No. 3:07-cv-00076-wmc (W.D. Wisc.);" and

   "NEWPAGE WISCONSIN SYSTEM INC., v. CMS ENERGY RESOURCE
    MANAGEMENT COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00240-wmc (W.D.
    Wisc.)."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SUnkO3 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert L. Gegios, Esq.
          Ryan M. Billings, Esq.
          Melinda A. Bialzik, Esq.
          Lance E. Duroni, Esq.
          KOHNER, MANN & KAILAS, S.C.
          Barnabas Business Center
          4650 N. Port Washington Road
          Milwaukee, WI 53212
          Telephone: (414) 962-5110
          Facsimile: (414) 962-8725

                - and -

          John S. Skilton, Esq.
          Christopher G. Hanewicz, Esq.
          Autumn N. Nero, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          33 East Main Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 663-7460
          Facsimile: (608) 663-7499

                - and -

          Russell S. Jones, Jr., Esq.
          Andrew J. Ennis, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          900 W. 48 th Place, Suite 900
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 753-1000
          Facsimile: (816) 753-1536

CORIZON HEALTH: Morrelli, et al., Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE MORRELLI, JOSE
ROJAS, JANICE ANDRES, SANDRA CRUZ-PEREZ, VICTORIA MARTINEZ,
VERONICA VIZCARRA, and LAURA PADILLA, v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
1:18-cv-01395-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying  action as a class action under Federal Rules
      of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a) and (b)(3);

   2. appointikng attorneys Andrew B. Jones and Daniel M.
      Kopfman to serve as counsel to the class;

   3. appointing BRUCE MORRELLI, JOSE ROJAS, JANICE ANDRES,
      SANDRA CRUZ-PEREZ, VICTOzuA MARTINEZ, VERONICA VIZCARRA,
      and LAURA PADILLA as Class Representatives; and

   4. sending notice to the Class of the pending action and its
      members' rights to opt-out proposed classes:

      (1) All persons employed as Licensed Vocational Nurses by
          the Defendant in the T County and Fresno County at any
          time from June 30, 2013, through July 1, 2018;"

      (2) All persons employed as Registered Nurses by the
          Defendant in the Tulare and Fresno County at any time
          from June 30, 2013, through July l, 2018.

Corizon formed by a 2011 merger of Correctional Medical Services,
Inc. and Prison Health Services, Inc., is a privately held prison
healthcare contractor in the United States.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DqdYEa
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew B. Jones, Esq.
          Daniel M. Kopfman, Esq.
          ANDREW B. JONES PC
          1111 East Herndon Avenue, Suite 204
          Fresno, CA 93720
          Telephone: (559) 436-1100
          Facsimile: (559) 375-1400


D'AMICO INDUSTRIES: Gaitian Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICIO CRUZ GAITIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D'AMICO INDUSTRIES LLC and
ANTONINO D'AMICO, as an individual, Defendants, Case
No.1:22-cv-06466 (E.D.N.Y., October 25, 2022) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant to recover damages
for its alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around July
2008 until in or around September 2022 as a demolition worker,
cement and sheet rock worker while performing related miscellaneous
duties for the Defendants.

During the relevant statutory period, the Plaintiff regularly
worked approximately 45 to 50 hours per week for 5 days per week.
However, the Defendant denied him of overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Instead, he was only
paid a flat weekly rate of $680.00 per week for all hours worked
from in or around October 2016 until in or around September 2022.
In addition, the Defendant did not compensate the Plaintiff at all
for his last week of employment, says the suit.

Moreover, the Defendant willfully failed to:

     -- post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage
requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their
employment;

     -- keep payroll records;

     -- provide the Plaintiff with a written notice of his
applicable regular rate of pay, regular pay day, and all such
information; and

     -- provide the Plaintiff with any wage statements upon each
payment of his wages.

Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
workers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages and
liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00, as well as
statutory interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies the Court deems appropriate.

D'Amico Industries LLC is a construction company owned by Antonino
D'Amico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DIRECTV LLC: 4th Circuit to Hear Appeal in TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Briones, Esq., and Esteban Morales, Esq., of Mintz,
disclosed that earlier this year, the Northern District of West
Virginia certified the following class in a TCPA case allegedly
premised on calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call registry:

All persons within the United States (a) whose telephone numbers
were listed on the Do-Not-Call Registry, and (b) who received more
than one telemarketing call within any twelve-month period at any
time from AC1, (c) to promote the sale of DirecTV.

The case is Vance v. DirecTV, No. 17-cv-179, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
140518 (N.D.W. Va.). The court certified the class notwithstanding
DirecTV's arguments on the basis of Established Business
Relationships (EBRs) with the named plaintiffs. The court explained
that it did not have to consider how an EBR would affect the named
plaintiffs' adequacy "because the purported applicability of this
defense will be addressed postcertification."[1] In the context of
a predominance inquiry, the court addressed "several defenses" that
DirecTV offered, explaining that consideration of EBRs with class
members was "better suited for resolution in summary judgment
rather than class certification" and that consideration of
arbitration issues with class members "would be better suited in a
motion to compel arbitration."[2] The court likewise brushed aside
DirecTV's jurisdictional argument on the basis of Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017).

With these eyebrow-raising decision in hand, DirecTV petitioned the
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to hear an appeal,
describing the issues for review as:

1. In deciding a motion to dismiss, the district court correctly
concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction over the claims of named
plaintiffs lacking any connection to West Virginia. But in
certifying a nationwide class, the court decided personal
jurisdiction is irrelevant to absent class members. If a court
lacks jurisdiction to decide the claims of non-residents serving as
named plaintiffs, can it exercise jurisdiction over those same
claims if they belong to absent class members?

2. DIRECTV has a right to defend itself on the grounds that many
class members had business relationships with DIRECTV and its
affiliates; agreed to arbitrate their claims; or received calls for
services unrelated to DIRECTV. Did the district court manifestly
err by declining to assess whether these questions could be
resolved on a classwide basis or made the named plaintiffs
inadequate class representatives?[3]

On October 4, the Fourth Circuit confirmed it would hear the appeal
under docket number 22-2041.

Parties defending TCPA class actions in the Fourth Circuit should
consider motions to stay. In light of the issues before the Fourth
Circuit, a future decision could impact the scope of classes, class
discovery, and district courts' consideration of attacks on a class
based on issues like the existence of EBRs. [GN]

DITECH HOLDING: Court Expunges Walters Claim and Additional Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: Ditech Holding Corporation, et al., Chapter 11,
Debtors, Case No. 19-10412 (JLG), (Jointly Administered) (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y.), Judge James L. Garrity, Jr., of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York sustains the Consumer
Claims Trustee and Plan Administrator's Objection to the Walters
Claim and the Additional Claims, and disallows and expunges those
claims.

On Feb. 11, 2019, Ditech (formerly known as Walter Investment
Management Corp.) and certain of its affiliates filed petitions for
relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code in
this Court. The Debtors remained in possession and control of their
business and assets as debtors and debtors in possession pursuant
to sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code.

On Sept. 26, 2019, the Debtors confirmed their Third Amended Plan,
and on Sept. 30, 2019, that plan became effective. The Plan
Administrator is a fiduciary appointed under the Third Amended Plan
who is charged with the duty of winding down, dissolving and
liquidating the Wind Down Estates.

In accordance with the Third Amended Plan, the Trustee is
responsible for the reconciliation and resolution of Consumer
Creditor Claims and distribution of funds from the trust to holders
of Allowed Consumer Creditor Claims. The Plan Administrator, on
behalf of each of the Wind Down Estates, is authorized to object to
all Administrative Expense Claims, Priority Tax Claims, Priority
Non-Tax Claims, and Intercompany Claims; and the Trustee has the
exclusive authority to object to all Consumer Creditor Claims.

Stella Johnson, Bernadette Martinez, and Monique J. Scranton
(collectively, the "Walters Claimants") jointly filed Proof of
Claim No. 21367 (the "Walters Claim") in these Chapter 11 Cases as
a purported class proof of claim on behalf of themselves and
approximately 800 individuals in Mississippi and Texas (the
"Consumer Creditors") who are listed in Exhibit A to the Rider to
Proof of Claim (the "Creditor List"). In it, each purports to
assert a damage claim against the Debtors for wrongs allegedly
committed by the Debtors' former affiliates, Jim Walter Homes,
Inc., and Walter Mortgage Company, to each of them in connection
with the construction and simultaneous financing of their homes.
Before the Walters Claimants filed the Walters Claim, six
individuals identified (the "Additional Claimants") separately
filed their own claims in these Chapter 11 Cases seeking damages
from the Debtors for wrongs allegedly committed by Jim Walter
Homes, Inc., and Walter Mortgage Company in connection with the
construction and financing of their homes (the "Related Claims").
Each Additional Claimant is among the Consumer Creditors listed in
the Creditor List.

The matters before the Court are the objections to the Walters
Claim and to the Related Claims jointly filed by the Consumer
Claims Trustee ("Trustee"), on behalf of the Consumer Creditor
Recovery Trust established under the Debtors' confirmed Plan, and
the Plan Administrator appointed under the Plan, on behalf of the
Wind Down Estates established under the Plan. During the period of
January through May 2020, the Trustee and Plan Administrator filed
certain Omnibus Claim Objections which together encompassed all of
the Related Claims ("the "Related Claims Objections").

Each Additional Claimant responded to the objection to their
claim(s) (the "Additional Claimants' Responses"): George Waters -
Claim No. 601954; Teresa Darty - Claims Nos. 1797, 25026; Stanley
Harrison - Claim No. 602397; James Miller - Claims Nos. 2552, 2559,
25748; Ive McDonald - Claim No. 26309; and Mose and Betty Arrington
- Claim No. 2162210.

On May 8, 2020, the Trustee and Plan Administrator jointly filed an
objection to the claims of the Walters Claimants, and, in that
objection, replied to the Additional Claimants' Responses to the
Related Claims Objections. The Walters Claimants did not respond to
the Walters Claim Objection, and the Additional Claimants did not
file additional documents in support of their claims. However, the
Consumer Creditors filed a response to the Walters Claim Objection.
The Trustee and Plan Administrator filed a joint reply to the
Response.

The Response does not address the six Related Claims or Ms.
Scranton's damage claim. In the Response, the Consumer Creditors
mislabel the Walters Claim Objection as the "Consumer Claims
Administrator's Objection to the 800 Creditors' Proof of Claim."
They contend that the only issue asserted in the Walters Claim
Objection is that the Consumer Creditors' claims do not qualify as
claims under section 363(o) of the Bankruptcy Code. They say that
the Court should overrule that objection because the Consumer
Creditors' claims are based on consumer credit transactions
squarely within the ambit of section 363(o), not on alleged
construction defects, and because the claims are not barred by
statutes of limitations.

Judge Garrity holds that that Response is wide of the mark. He
finds that the causes of action in the Walters Claim are barred by
applicable statutes of limitations. Moreover, the matters before
the Court are the Trustee's and Plan Administrator's objections to
the Walters Claim and Related Claims. Those objections do not
encompass the "800 Creditors' Proof of Claim" and do not address
section 363(o) of the Bankruptcy Code. Those matters are not before
the Court. In addition to filing the Walters Claim, the Walters
Claimants filed a Motion for Class Certification. That motion is
not presently before the Court, and a class has not been certified
in these cases.

At the request of the Trustee and Plan Administrator, and in
accordance with the Claims Procedures Order, the Court conducted a
non-evidentiary "Sufficiency Hearing" to consider whether the
Related Claims and claims of the Walters Claimants state claims for
relief against the Debtors. The legal standard of review at a
Sufficiency Hearing is equivalent to the standard applied to a
motion to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying that standard, Judge Garrity disallows and expunges each
Related Claim, and the claims of Stella Johnson, Bernadette
Martinez and Monique J. Scranton since accepting all factual
allegations asserted in support of the claims as true, drawing all
reasonable inferences in the respective claimant's favor, and
interpreting the respective claims and the responses to the
objections to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest, the
claims fail to state plausible claims for relief against the
Debtors.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdhtwpfe from
Leagle.com.

JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Richard Levin, Esq. -- rlevin@jenner.com -- New
York, New York, Attorneys for Consumer Claims Trustee.

WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, Ray C. Schrock, P.C., Esq., Sunny Singh,
Esq., New York, New York, Attorneys for Plan Administrator.

WAYNE GREENWALD, P.C., Wayne M. Greenwald, Esq., New York, New
York, Attorneys for 800 Consumer Creditors.

CHRISTOPHER M. FERRARO, P.C., Christopher M. Ferraro, Esq. --
Chris@bnhlegal.com -- Austin, Texas, Attorneys for 800 Consumer
Creditors.


DREAMFIELDS BRANDS: Centeno Sues Over Cannabis' THC Content Labels
------------------------------------------------------------------
JASPER CENTENO and BLAKE WILSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DREAMFIELDS BRANDS INC.
and MED FOR AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 22STCV33980 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 20, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and for breach of express warranty, negligent
misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust
enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of cannabis
products under the Jeeter brand. The Defendants' labels include a
statement of the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content of their
cannabis products that far exceed the true THC content. Moreover,
the excess is far greater than the excess allowable under the
applicable Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) regulations.
Accordingly, the Defendants' labels violate DCC regulations. The
inaccurate labeling of the Defendants' products is highly material
to reasonable consumers. THC is one of the active ingredients in
cannabis products, and the one that causes the vast majority of the
product's psychological and medicinal effects. The Plaintiffs and
the Class therefore sustained an economic injury and paid a price
premium as a result of the Defendants' false and misleading labels,
says the suit.

DreamFields Brands Inc. is a cannabis company, with a principal
place of business in Desert Hot Springs, California.

Med for America Inc. is a cannabis company, with a principal place
of business in Desert Hot Springs, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Christin Cho, Esq.
         Simon Franzini, Esq.
         DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
         201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
         Santa Monica, CA 90401
         Telephone: (310) 656-7066
         Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
         E-mail: christin@dovel.com
                 simon@dovel.com

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Hise Allowed to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hise v. Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00317 (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen P. Mcglynn entered an order granting motion to file motion
for class certification under seal.

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

Enhanced Recovery provides debt collection and asset recovery and
reporting services.[CC]

EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Flores Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO FLORES, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY, LLC
and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2022-00042160-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., October
20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
pay timely earned wages upon separation of employment in violation
of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in
San Diego County, California from October 25, 2021 until April 14,
2022.

Evolution Hospitality, LLC is a provider of hotel and resort
management services doing business in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Thomas D. Rutledge, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D. RUTLEDGE
         16956 Via de Santa Fe, Suite 1847
         Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92091
         Telephone: (619) 886-7224
         E-mail: thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com

GEO SECURE: Mazzei Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRIS MAZZEI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC, THE GEO
GROUP, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. BCV-22-102357, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
October 20, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:22-at-00829 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code.

Geo Secure Services, LLC is a provider of secure management and
community re-entry Services, headquartered in Florida.

The Geo Group, Inc. is a provider of secure management and
community re-entry Services, headquartered in Florida. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jeffrey S. Ranen, Esq.
         Amanda C. Koziol, Esq.
         LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
         633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 250-1800
         Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
         E-mail: Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com
                 Amanda.Koziol@lewisbrisbois.com

GOLD COAST: Arostica, et al., Seek to Certify Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL AROSTICA, YANSEY,
B. CAMELLON, YANDIERT,GRILLO, ROBERTO MENDEZ,LAZARO POZE, LICIER
J.VELAZQUEZ, on behalf of themselves and other similarlysituated
individuals, v. GOLD COAST FEED, LLC, et al, WEP RETAIL HOLDINGS,
LLC, a/k/a Gold Coast Feed & Supply, a/k/a Gold Coast Feed &
Nutrition, Case No. 9:22-cv-81461-WM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order certifying collective action.

The proposed definition for the collective action members is:

   "All those current and former employees who worked for Gold
   Coast Feed LLC, also known as Gold Coast Feed & Supply, Gold
   Coast Feed & Nutrition, at the warehouse where equine
   supplies and fees were stored, as well as the delivery
   drivers, and delivery drivers' helpers who delivered the
   equine supplies and feed, and who were paid a daily rate but
   were not paid overtime wages for the hours worked in excess
   of 40 hours per week, and who were employed from September
   21, 2019 to the present."

The complaint alleges three categories of employees subjected to
the common policy, plan or scheme to avoid payment of overtime
wages to the putative collective action class: Warehouse workers,
delivery drivers, and delivery driver helpers.

The similarly situated warehouse workers, drivers and drivers'
helpers were subjected to the same common, policy, practice, or
scheme to avoid payment of overtime wages. They are all non-exempt
employees, paid a daily wage ranging from $109.00 to $190.00,
worked more than 40 hours per week, and were not paid overtime
wages.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay them, and
similarly situated employees overtime compensation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").


Gold Coast is a retail seller of hay, feed brands, nutritional
supplements, horse grooming products, equipment, and accessories
for the equine market. The Defendant also delivers its products to
customers.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U1gE2g at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ZANDRO PALMA
          9100 s. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

               - and -

          Eddy O. Marban, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
          2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 804
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile (786) 309-9978
          E-mail: em@eddymarbanlaw.com

GOOGLE LLC: Faces Anticompetitive Class Action Over Incognito Mode
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerrit De Vynck, writing for The Washington Post, reports that it
can be hard to keep track of all the lawsuits against Google.

The Department of Justice filed one in 2020 and might have another
one coming soon. Texas has at least two. Arizona recently settled
theirs with the search giant for $85 million. And Washington state
and D.C. have lawsuits, too.

It's not just governments. Video game maker Epic and dating app
owner Match Group are suing Google, alleging anticompetitive
behavior in how it runs its app store. The Republican National
Committee is suing Google for sending politicians' emails straight
to spam folders.

Here's another one to add to the list. Right now, a California
judge is deliberating on whether to allow a class-action lawsuit
representing millions of Google users to go forward. A group of
consumers is alleging the company misled people about what data it
collected when they were using private browsing modes on both
Google's Chrome web browser and browsers built by other companies
such as Apple and Mozilla.

Because essentially all internet users in the United States use a
browser to surf the web, the potential fines should Google be found
liable could be in the billions of dollars.

The lawyers spearheading the lawsuit have already amassed a trove
of internal Google emails they say show how the company's
executives have known for years that what the company calls
"Incognito mode" is anything but incognito. Private browsing modes
usually block tracking cookies -- little bits of code that follow
people around the internet logging their activity.

But Google still logged information on people using private mode
whenever they visited websites that had installed hugely popular
Google software used for serving ads or measuring traffic, the
lawsuit alleges.

The emails released as part of the court process show how Google
employees repeatedly raised concerns about private mode with their
superiors. One 2019 email from Google's Chief Marketing Officer
Lorraine Twohill to CEO Sundar Pichai said Incognito was "not truly
private." An internal presentation said Google users "overestimate
the protections that Incognito provides." Another one proposed
getting rid of the word "private" from the Incognito mode start
screen completely.

Google says the accusations are overblown and that it has always
been clear with its users about the limits of Incognito mode and
private browsing.

"Privacy controls have long been built into our services and we
encourage our teams to constantly discuss or consider ideas to
improve them," Google spokesman José Castañeda said. "Incognito
mode offers users a private browsing experience, and we've been
clear about how it works and what it does, whereas the plaintiffs
in this case have purposely mischaracterized our statements."

If the judge gives the green light, lawyers will continue their
fight to get tens of millions of Google users a payment of between
$100 and $1,000 each. That's a potential payoff in the billions of
dollars.

The Federal Trade Commission's proposed order will follow Drizly
CEO Cory Rellas to his future businesses, forcing him to implement
security programs at any companies he leads that collect data from
at least 25,000 people, Cat Zakrzewski reports.  The punishment
came after alleged security failures under Rellas's watch that
exposed around 2.5 million customers' personal information.

It also comes after Democrats pushed for more aggressive penalties
for individual executives involved in major data breaches. "There
are only a handful of examples of the FTC pursuing such individual
liability in past cases involving online data," Cat writes. "In
2019, the agency reached a settlement with the operator of an
online rewards website, ClixSense, that will follow [the executive]
to future companies. That same year, the agency also named
executives in an order it brought against a dress-up games website,
which allegedly violated a law that protects children under the age
of 13 online."

Under the order, Rellas and Drizly, which is owned by Uber, will
also have to destroy unnecessary data, put new data controls in
place and train their employees about cybersecurity. The FTC will
decide on finalizing the order after getting public comments for 30
days. [GN]

GREEN DOT: Class Settlement in Boardman Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMANDA BOARDMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREEN DOT CORPORATION,
Defendant, Docket No. 3:21-cv-00174-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.), Judge Frank
D. Whitney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, Charlotte Division, grants the Parties' Unopposed
Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Award, and
Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement.

Judge Whitney approves the Settlement is approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and directs the parties to take the
necessary steps to effectuate the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

On July 1, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
Settlement Agreement between Boardman, on behalf of herself and all
members of the Settlement Class, and Green Dot. It also
provisionally certified the Settlement Class for settlement
purposes, approved the procedure for giving Class Notice to the
members of the Settlement Class, and set a Final Approval Hearing
to take place on Oct. 25, 2022, at 1:45 p.m.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Whitney finally certifies the Settlement Class, as identified in
the Settlement Agreement: All persons within the United States, for
the time period beginning April 20, 2017 to the present who sent a
Stop message or otherwise opted out of receiving text messages from
Green Dot; and Defendant sent one or more text messages to that
telephone number.

Judge Whitney finally (i) appoints Manuel S. Hiraldo, of Hiraldo
P.A.; Ignacio J. Hiraldo, of IJH Law; and Michael Eisenband, of
Eisenband Law P.A., as the Class Counsel; and (ii) designates
Boardman as the Class Representative.

The Administrator is directed to provide Claim Settlement Payments
to those Settlement Class Members who submit valid, timely, and
complete Claims.

Judge Whitney approves the Class Counsel's request for attorney
fees, and awards the Class Counsel $840,324 as reasonable
attorneys' fees. He approves an Incentive Award in the amount of
$5,500 to Boardman, payable pursuant to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

The terms of the Settlement Agreement and of the Final Approval
Order will be forever binding on, and will have res judicata and
preclusive effect in, all pending and future lawsuits maintained by
the Plaintiff and all other Settlement Class Members, as well as
their heirs, executors and administrators, successors, and
assigns.

The Releases are expressly incorporated in the Final Approval Order
in all respects and are effective as of its date. Additionally, the
Released Parties are forever released, relinquished, and discharged
by the Releasing Persons from all Released Claims.

Without further order of the Court, the Settling Parties may agree
to reasonably necessary extensions of time to carry out any of the
provisions of the Settlement Agreement.

The Action, including all individual claims and class claims
presented therein, is dismissed on the merits, and with prejudice,
against the Plaintiff and all the other Settlement Class Members,
without fees or costs to any party except as otherwise provided in
the Final Approval Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order & Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ynmp2fzp from Leagle.com.


HG FOODS: Mendivil Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Retail Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAYDA MENDIVIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HG FOODS LLC and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV33990 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., October 20, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages for
all hours worked, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
provide rest periods, failure to furnish accurate wage statements,
failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to comply with
notice requirements, failure to provide paid sick leave, and unfair
business practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from approximately October of 2020 through approximately January of
2022.

HG Foods LLC is a retailer of prepared foods and drinks based in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
         Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
         Alexander D. Wallin, Esq.
         BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, PC
         8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
         Beverly Hills, CA 90211
         Telephone: (310) 438-5555
         Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
         E-mail: david@tomorrawlaw.com
                 jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
                 alex@tomorrowlaw.com

HUNTINGTON INGALLS: Fails to Pay Welders' Overtime, Grizzle Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA GRIZZLE, DAVID LEONARD, and CALEB PIERCY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
HUNTINGTON INGALLS INCORPORATED, d/b/a Newport News Shipbuilding,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00109-RBS-LRL (E.D. Va., October 20,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Virginia
Overtime Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendant as welders in Virginia
since 2021.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, doing business as Newport News
Shipbuilding, is an owner and operator of a shipyard in Newport
News, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         James H. Shoemaker, Jr., Esq.
         PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN & DIAMONSTEIN, LC
         12350 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300
         Newport News, VA 23602
         Telephone: (757) 223-4580
         Facsimile: (757) 249-1627
         E-mail: Jshoemaker@pwhd.com

IDAHO: Dreyer Files Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erika Dreyer, as parent
and natural guardian of B.B.; et. al., v. Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare, an agency of the State of Idaho; et al., Case
No. Case 1:19-cv-00211-DCN (D. Idaho), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 23, certifying the
following proposed class:

   "All individuals who were subjected to abuse, neglect or
    maltreatment, including physical, psychological and sexual
    abuse, neglectful treatment and the failure to employ and
    implement active treatment plans and behavior modification
    or other positive methods invoking options of least
    restriction, while a resident at the Southwest Idaho
    Treatment Center at any time from January 1, 2007 through
    June 20, 2022."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UcVw8F
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charlene K. Quade, Esq.
          Sean R. Beck, Esq.
          C.K. QUADE LAW, PLLC
          600 E. Riverpark Ln., Ste. 215
          Boise, ID 83706
          Telephone: (208) 367-0723
          Facsimile: (208) 639-6400
          E-mail: char@charquadelaw.com
                  sean@charquadelaw.com

                - and -

          Shamus P. O'Meara, Esq.
          Mark R. Azman, Esq.
          O'MEARA, LEER, WAGNER & KOHL, P.A.
          7401 Metro Boulevard, Suite 600
          Minneapolis, MN 55439-3034
          Telephone: (952) 831-6544
          Facsimile: (952) 831-1869
          E-mail: spomeara@olwklaw.com
                  mrazman@olwklaw.com

JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Hancock Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
HANCOCK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP,
INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU
MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06265 (N.D. Cal., October
20, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for public
nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, and the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act.

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

Hancock County School District is a public school district with its
administrative offices located in Kiln, Mississippi.

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

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

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

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

Nu Mark LLC is a tobacco company based in Virginia.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         T. Roe Frazer II, Esq.
         Thomas Roe Frazer III, Esq.
         FRAZER PLC
         30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450
         Nashville, TN 37215
         Telephone: (615) 647-6464
         E-mail: roe@frazer.law
                 trey@frazer.law

KBR WYLE: Faces Christensen Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER CHRISTENSEN, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-03682 (S.D. Tex., October 25, 2022)
brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant
for its alleged illegal pay policies that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from approximately April
2020 to February 2022 on a project with NASA.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required its employees to
clock-in and clock-out and paid them on an hourly rate basis for
those hours worked. The compensation of the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees will either increased or decreased
depending upon the number of hours they have worked. For instance,
the Plaintiff was paid 80 hours at the rate of $67.1755 per hour
during the pay period beginning December 4, 2021 and ending
December 17, 2021, and then she was paid an additional 7 hours at
the same rate because worked 87 hours during that two-week period.
Unfortunately, when the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a
week, the Defendant did pay her at the rate of one and one-half
times her regular rate of pay for all hours over 40. Moreover, when
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees receive
various bonuses, the Defendant illegally excluded them from the
regular rate calculation. As a result, their overtime compensation
was not properly calculated, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover all their unpaid overtime
compensation and liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest applicable
rates, and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate.

KBR Wyle Services, LLC is a provider of information assurance,
enterprise solutions, and technology modernization services to the
Federal government. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Tel: (713) 523-0001
          Fax: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

KEYSTONE HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Whitehead Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB WHITEHEAD, on behalf of minor child M.W., and on behalf of
M.W., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEYSTONE
HEALTH, Defendant, Case 1:22-cv-01678-CCC (M.D. Pa., Oct. 25, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including,
but not limited to the Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, Social
Security numbers, and clinical information (collectively, "Private
Information" or "PII and PHI").

According to the complaint, on or around August 19, 2022, the
Defendant detected that it was the target of a cybersecurity attack
(the "Data Breach"). The Defendant immediately launched an
investigation into the Data Breach and confirmed that an
unauthorized actor accessed Defendant's systems between July 28,
2022 and August 19, 2022 and copied and exfiltrated certain files
containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information,
including, but not limited to, the following: names, Social
Security numbers, and clinical information.

The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless and
negligent manner. In particular, the Private Information was
maintained on Defendant's computer system and network in a
condition vulnerable to cyberattack. The Defendant did not send
notice of the Data Breach (the "Notice of Data Breach Letter")
until on or around October 14, 2022.

As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the
benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the attack and the substantial and imminent risk of identity theft,
says the suit.

Keystone Health provides health care services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randi Kassan, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Email: rkassan@milberg.com

               -and-

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               -and-

          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-7300
          Fax: (612) 336-2940
          Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                 pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

MANDARICH LAW: Moore Seeks to Certify Two Consumer Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAKUUR MOORE, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. MANDARICH LAW GROUP
LLP and PYOD LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-20481-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action against PYOD and MLG as class
      action;

   2. certifying him as the class representative; and

   3. appointing Thomas J. Lyons, Jr. of the Consumer Justice
      Center, PA as class counsel.

MLG, on behalf of PYOD, has routinely and publicly filed consumers'
credit scores, for no purpose whatsoever, in the course of suing
them for delinquencies on consumer credit card balances. Such
conduct is in violation of the very letter and spirit of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA).

The Plaintiff moves for certification of two classes of similarly
situated consumers -- the first putative Class (FCRA Class)
consists of:

   "consumers who have had their rights violated within two
   years of the filing of this lawsuit, within the statute of
   limitations for a cause of action brought under the FCRA;"

and the second putative Class consisting of:

   "consumers who have had their rights violated within one year
   of the filing of this lawsuit, within the statute of
   limitations for a cause of action brought under the FDCPA."

Because this case arises from the Defendants' uniform actions over
an extended period of time affecting a large number of consumers,
and because Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court should grant
Plaintiff's motion.

As a consumer managing his financial affairs, the Plaintiff, and
others similarly situated, sought credit for personal financial
needs from creditors such as non-party Credit One Bank. At some
point, the Plaintiff Moore became unable to repay the balance on
the Account.

The Defendant PYOD sued Plaintiff in state court proceedings
alleging that Plaintiff defaulted on his obligation with Credit
One. PYOD alleged in the state court proceedings that it purchased
the Account and owned all rights relative thereto.

The Plaintiff contends that because he has satisfied all
requirements for class certification under Rule 23, the Court
should grant hid motion for Class Certification, in its entirety.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UclhpB
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. Bavaro, Esq.
          LOAN LAWYERS, LLC
          3201 Griffin Road No. 100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
          Telephone: (954) 523-4357
          Facsimile: (954) 581-2786
          E-mail: matthew@fight13.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
          E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com

MASSACHUSETTS INTERSCHOLASTIC: Jones Appeals Denied Injunction Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH JONES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying
their emergency motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Sarah Jones, et al.,
as next friend of her minor child "Jimmy," on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Massachusetts
Interscholastic Athletic Association ("MIAA"), Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-11426-AK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Oct. 11, 2022, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' emergency motion
for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Judge
Kelley said it is this balancing test between risks that is
ultimately dispositive as to this motion. While Judge Kelley found
the risk of irreparable harm and the balance of hardships to weigh
in favor of the Plaintiffs, the tenuousness of the merits of their
claims precludes such extraordinary relief as the preliminary
injunction sought. She said the Defendant has provided several
rational, seemingly legitimate state interests underlying its rule
clarifications at issue -- and while the Court does not opine on
the overall merits of the Plaintiffs' claims, which of course
cannot be evaluated in full absent discovery and continued
litigation -- it is certainly far from apparent that the Plaintiffs
are, in fact, sufficiently likely to succeed.

The appellate case is captioned Jones, et al. v. Massachusetts
Interscholastic Athletic Association, Case No. 22-1784, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on
October 17, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appearance form, Docketing Statement, and Transcript
Report/Order form were due on October 31, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SARAH JONES, as next friend of her minor
child "Jimmy," et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

            Frank J. Bailey, Esq.
            PIONEERLEGAL, LLC
            185 Devonshire St.
            Boston, MA 02110
            Telephone: (617) 877-9511

                   - and -

            Patrick P. Dinardo, Esq.
            Nicholas M. O'Donnell, Esq.
            Anna Lea Setz, Esq.
            SULLIVAN & WORCESTER LLP
            1 Post Office Sq., 24th Fl.
            Boston, MA 02109
            Telephone: (617) 338-2800

                   - and -

            Ryan Rosenblatt, Esq.
            SULLIVAN & WORCESTER LLP
            1 Post Office Sq., 24th Fl.
            Boston, MA 02109
            Telephone: (617) 338-2913

Defendant-Appellant MASSACHUSETTS INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION is represented by:

            Justin R. Gomes, Esq.
            Kay H. Hodge, Esq.
            John Matthew Simon, Esq.
            STONEHAM, CHANDLER & MILLER LLP
            99 High St.
            Boston, MA 02110
            Telephone: (617) 542-6789

MCGRAW HILL: Flynn Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------
SEAN FLYNN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Sean Flynn, et al., individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. McGraw
Hill LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-0614-LGS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Plaintiffs filed this action against McGraw Hill for breach of
contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
According to the complaint, McGraw Hill breached its contracts with
authors, including the Plaintiffs, by its unilateral action in
reducing the royalties it pays to authors when it sells their
textbooks, works, or parts thereof, in an electronic format. By
artificially redefining the price of authors' works as only a
fraction of the revenues McGraw Hill receives for the sale of those
works, McGraw Hill has reduced the amounts on which royalty
payments are due. In so doing, McGraw Hill has deprived authors of
the benefit of their bargains with the company.

On Jan. 11, 2022, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, set forth in Count 1 of their Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint filed March 22, 2021. On Sept. 23, 2022, the
Plaintiffs, with the Defendants' consent, voluntarily dismissed
with prejudice their claim for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.

On September 27, 2022, Judge Lorna G. Schofield dismissed all
claims against the Defendants.

The appellate case is captioned Flynn et al. v. McGraw Hill LLC, et
al., Case No. 22-2650, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on October 17, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SEAN FLYNN, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
            Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
            GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
            485 Lexington Avenue
            New York, NY 10017
            Telephone: (646) 722-8500
            Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
            E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com
                    cmoyna@gelaw.com

                   - and -

            Chanler A. Langham, Esq.
            SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
            1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
            Houston, TX 77002
            Telephone: (713) 651-9366
            Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
            E-mail: clangham@susmangodfrey.com

                   - and -

            Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
            Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
            Rohit D. Nath, Esq.
            SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
            1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 789-3100
            Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
            E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                    ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
                    rnath@susmangodfrey.com

                   - and -

            Tamar Lusztig, Esq.
            SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
            1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (212) 336-8330
            Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
            E-mail: tlusztig@susmangodfrey.com

                   - and -

            Alexander W. Aiken, Esq.
            1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
            Seattle, WA 98101
            Telephone: (206) 516-3880
            Facsimile: (206) 516-3883
            E-mail: aaiken@susmangodfrey.com

Defendants-Appellees MCGRAW HILL LLC, et al., are represented by:

            Rachel Beth Sherman, Esq.
            PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER LLP
            1133 Avenue of the Americas
            New York, NY 10036
            Telephone: (212) 336-2000
            Facsimile: (212) 336-2222
            E-mail: rsherman@pbwt.com

                   - and -

            Andrew I. Haddad, Esq.
            PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER LLP
            1133 Avenue of the Americas
            New York, NY 10036
            Telephone: (212) 336-2000
            E-mail: ahaddad@pbwt.com

                   - and -

            Rhick Bose, Esq.
            PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
            1133 Avenue of the Americas
            New York, NY 10036
            Telephone: (212) 295-2672
            E-mail: rbose@pbwt.com

                   - and -

            Saul Benjamin Shapiro, Esq.
            Stephanie Ann Teplin, Esq.
            PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER LLP
            1133 Avenue of the Americas
            New York, NY 10036
            Telephone: (212) 336-2000
            Facsimile: (212) 336-2222
            E-mail: sbshapiro@pbwt.com
                    steplin@pbwt.com

MDL 1720: Visa & Banks' Bids to Dismiss Expert Testimonies Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT
DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This document refers to: ALL
ACTIONS, Case No. 5-MD-1720 (MKB) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Margo K. Brodie
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
denies Visa and the Bank Defendants' motions to exclude portions of
Professor Hausman's Section 2 and debit expert testimony and expert
testimony concerning Visa's FANF.

In December 2020, several parties in this multidistrict litigation
filed a combined five motions for summary judgment and partial
summary judgment, and 19 motions to exclude expert testimony.
Because of the volume of motions, the Court decides the motions to
exclude in six separate opinions based primarily on the parties who
filed the motion.

In this Memorandum and Order, Judge Brodie decides the motions to
exclude expert testimony filed by Visa and the Bank Defendants,
which seek to exclude (1) opinions from Professor Jerry Hausman
concerning Section 2 of the Sherman Act and the debit market and
(2) opinions from Professor Stephen Rowe and Mr. Robert Hutchins
concerning Visa's fixed acquirer network fee ("FANF").

Visa and the Bank Defendants move to exclude portions of Professor
Hausman's Section 2 and debit market opinions.

Professor Hausman is the MacDonald Professor of Economics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has a PhD in economics
and has published extensively, served on government advisory
committees, and received honors including the John Bates Clark
Award of the American Economic Association. He has previously
published on antitrust issues and testified in antitrust
proceedings and has been involved in the payments industry for
about 25 years.

Professor Hausman was asked to assess the competitive effects of
certain Visa and Mastercard rules, policies, and practices. These
"rules, policies and practices" include the "Honor All Cards" (HAC)
rules as well as Visa and Mastercard's "practice of establishing
'default' interchange schedules, 'no-bypass' rules and practices,
and various other restrictions on steering by merchants at the
point of sale ('POS')." His report discusses the historical
background of the debit market; Visa's debit strategy prior to the
Durbin Amendment; the impact of the Durbin Amendment; Visa's
strategy after the Durbin Amendment; and damages calculations. He
man also submitted a reply expert report responding to criticisms
of his initial report.

The Defendants argue that (i) Professor Hausman's debit but-for
world rests on an error about Visa's debit HAC rule and assumes
irrational economic behavior on the part of Visa's rivals and
issuers; (ii) his analyses of debit network and interchange fees
fail to reliably account for the issuer/cardholder-side of debit
prices as Amex requires; and (iii) his two potential opinions on
the effects of Visa's alleged conduct on output, neither addresses
output in the debit transaction market alleged by the Plaintiffs.

The Defendants also challenge Professor Hausman's opinions that
Visa foreclosed competition from a substantial share of the debit
market, challenging his application of the Discount Attribution
Test ("DAT") in his reply report; his opinions in his opening
report that did not make use of the DAT; and his reference to
foreclosure caused by "other aspects of Visa's anticompetitive
strategy.

Judge Brodie denies Visa and the Bank Defendants' motion to exclude
portions of Professor Hausman's report containing his Section 2 and
debit opinions.

First, she declines to prevent Professor Hausman from testifying
that the Honor-All-Cards rules are the foundation of Visa's
supposed debit monopolization. He may testify about the
relationship between the HAC rules and Visa's alleged debit
monopolization, and the Defendants may cross-examine him, including
with his deposition testimony.

Second, Judge Brodie does not exclude Professor Hausman's debit
opinions as based on irrational economic behavior. She says it is a
proper subject for a battle between experts, and a Daubert motion
is an improper venue in which to take sides in a 'battle of the
experts' offered by competing parties.

Third, she does not exclude Professor Hausman's opinions about
debit network fees. His assumption that a reduction in
merchant-side network fees would not cause an increase in
issuer-side fees is consistent with data he cites showing that
average merchant-side debit network fees and average issuer-side
debit network fees both decreased between 2011 and 2015 and that
Visa and Mastercard's per-transaction processing costs decreased
significantly between 2004 and 2017.

Fourth, Judge Brodie holds that it is not necessary for
admissibility that Professor Hausman establish that debit issuers
do not respond to a decrease in interchange revenue by increasing
cardholders' checking account fees.

Fifth, Judge Brodie does not exclude Professor Hausman's debit
damages calculations. Visa and the Bank Defendants may challenge
Professor Hausman's conclusions that the cardholder price would not
increase in the but-for world on cross-examination and with their
own experts.

Sixth, Judge Brodie does not exclude Professor Hausman's opinions
about debit transaction output. He is not precluded from testifying
that lower interchange would increase debit output by incentivizing
merchants to accept debit cards, although he of course may not
apply conclusions that are specific to credit card financing or
revenue structures to debit cards.

Seventh, Judge Brodie is not persuaded that she should exclude
Professor Hausman's application of the DAT based on the Defendants'
argument that other companies also offer credit and debit services.
He will be allowed to opine that Mastercard was never positioned to
compete with Visa's bundles.

Eighth, she does not exclude Professor Hausman's DAT as applied to
issuer agreements. Whether issuers could receive the same VPP
discounts regardless of whether they met their PIN commitments
appears to be a disputed issue of fact. Professor Hausman's
merchant agreement DAT is also admissible. To the extent Visa and
the Bank Defendants wish to challenge Professor Hausman's handling
of the DAT with regard to the [REDACTED/], they may do so on
cross-examination. To the extent that Visa and the Bank Defendants
disagree that a substantial portion of the debit market was
foreclosed or that the results of Professor Hausman's DAT support
this conclusion, they may challenge him on cross-examination.

Ninth, Judge Brodie does not exclude Professor Hausman's opinions
that certain deals represent exclusionary bundling even where those
opinions are unsupported by evidence from the DAT. She does not
find that an opinion that a given bundled discount is
anticompetitive is inherently unreliable unless the expert applies
the DAT.

Tenth, she does not exclude Professor Hausman's opinion that to
assess the complete impact of Visa's anticompetitive conduct on the
debit market post-Durbin, the impact of these anticompetitive deals
must be considered along with the other aspects of Visa's
anticompetitive strategy (PAVD, the suppression of competition in
e-commerce, and certain EMV practices), which further foreclosed
rival networks and extended the harmful impact of Visa's strategy.

Eleventh, Judge Brodie does not exclude Professor Hausman's EMV
opinions and his EMV opinions on the basis that he is unqualified
to opine on EMV. He does not need to be an expert on EMV choice
screens to opine about their economic implications.

Finally, Judge Brodie does not exclude Professor Hausman's opinions
about the pre-2004 HAC tying rules. She says Professor his
references to the pre-2004 HAC rules tend to make the existence of
any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action
more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence and are therefore admissible.

Visa and the Bank Defendants move to exclude the Plaintiffs'
experts Professor Rowe and Hutchins' damages calculations related
to the FANF. Specifically, they argue that Professor Rowe and Mr.
Hutchins fail to calculate the true impact of the FANF pricing
structure on the Plaintiffs and that their calculations include
portions of the FANF that are outside the scope of the Plaintiffs'
liability theory.

The FANF is a fixed fee that merchants who accept Visa debit and/or
credit products must pay in order to access Visa's credit and/or
debit markets.

Professor Hausman opines that the FANF is an exercise of Visa's
substantial market power in the credit market that has had
anticompetitive effects in the debit market. Further, it allowed
Visa to reduce certain variable fees secure in the knowledge that
its overall revenue position would increase due to the FANF.

Dr. Stephen Rowe, an expert for the 7-Eleven Plaintiffs, was asked
to calculate the total FANF payments net of any rebates or
concessions the 7-Eleven Plaintiffs received from Visa. He
concluded that from April 2012 through September 2018, the 7-Eleven
Plaintiffs "will have collectively incurred FANF expenses of
approximately [REDACTED/]." Similarly, Mr. Hutchins, an expert for
The Home Depot, was asked to quantify the estimated damages The
Home Depot incurred, including damages to The Home Depot based upon
The Home Depot's payment of Visa's FANF. He concluded that the
total amount of FANF fees paid by The Home Depot through Dec. 31,
2016 is [REDACTED/]."

Judge Brodie denies Visa and the Bank Defendants' move to exclude
the Plaintiffs' experts' testimony concerning Visa's FANF.

Initially, she does not conclude that Professor Rowe's or Mr.
Hutchins' opinions are speculative or conjectural or based on
assumptions that are so unrealistic and contradictory as to suggest
bad. Visa and the Bank Defendants may question Professor Hausman,
Professor Rowe, and Mr. Hutchins at trial about which discounts
should be deducted from FANF damages under Professor Hausman's
theory.

Moreover, Judge Brodie concludes that Professor Rowe's and Mr.
Hutchins' decision to include Table 2 FANF damages is supported by
Professor Hausman's liability theory. Therefore, she does not
exclude their inclusion of Table 2 FANF damages and their opinions
on merchant agreements that Professor Hausman did not specifically
find to be anticompetitive.

Finally, Professor Rowe's and Mr. Hutchins' FANF opinions are not
excluded as one-sided. As is the case with Professor Hausman's
damages calculations and Professor Harris's damages benchmarks,
discussed in the Court's order on the motions to exclude the
opinions of Dr. Kohler, Professor Harris, Professor Hausman, and
Professor Stiglitz, Judge Brodie accepts Professor Rowe's and Mr.
Hutchins' assumptions that the FANF did not cause lower
issuer/cardholder prices.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc46u4f6 from Leagle.com.


MDL 2645: Bustamante Appeals Judgment in False Ad Suit to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARITY BUSTAMANTE, et al. are taking an appeal from a summary
judgment entered the multi-district litigation captioned In re:
Kind LLC "Healthy And All Natural" Litigation, Case No.
1:15-md-02645-NRB, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Charity
Bustamante, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a suit against Kind LLC, Case No.
3:15-cv-00891-JAH-JMA, alleging false labels on its KIND bars and
snack products. The Defendant labeled the products as "All Natural
and Non GMO," when in fact they contain genetically modified and
non-natural, highly processed ingredients including soy lecithin,
soy protein isolate, and canola oil.

On February 8, 2016, the case and other similar lawsuits were
consolidated into a multidistrict litigation and transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No.
1:15-md-02645-NRB.

The Plaintiffs are individuals who purchased KIND products
displaying an "All Natural/Non GMO" label, who allege that the
label was deceptive or misleading. This label was discontinued by
2017. While the Plaintiffs initially challenged numerous claims
that appeared on the labels of KIND products, the only issue
remaining in this litigation is whether certain KIND products are
properly described as "All Natural." The Plaintiffs seek damages on
behalf of themselves and three classes, pursuant to New York's
General Business Law (GBL), California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law
(FAL), and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(FDUTPA).

On January 21, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Naomi Reice Buchwald on September 9, 2022.

The Court also granted the Defendant's motions to disqualify the
opinions of Dr. J. Michael Dennis and Dr. Anton Toutov and its
motion to decertify the classes. The remaining motions are denied
as moot.

The appellate case is captioned In re: Kind LLC "Healthy And All
Natural" Litigation, Case No. 22-2684, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 17, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CHARITY BUSTAMANTE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Todd S. Garber, Esq.
            FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
            One North Broadway
            White Plains, NY 10601
            Telephone: (914) 298-3283

Defendant-Appellee KIND, LLC, is represented by:

            Dale Joseph Giali, Esq.
            KING & SPALDING LLP
            350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
            Los Angeles, CA 90071
            Telephone: (213) 229-9500

MDL 2744: Certification of Consumer Protection Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: FCA US LLC Monostable Electronic
Gearshift Litigation, Case No. 2:16-md-02744-DML-DRG (E. D. Mich.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a
consumer protection Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) or in the
alternative an issues Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) and Rule
23(c)(4).

Throughout the issues trial, the Plaintiffs presented common
evidence detailing the monostable shifter's numerous usability
flaws based in part on FCA's secret "usability" studies.

Recognizing the hazards posed by the monostable shifter, the jury
found that under the laws of the state of Utah, even with the
supposed recall remedy, the monostable shifter has a design defect
that renders the Class Vehicles unsuitable for the ordinary use of
providing safe transportation.

While short of all the relief Plaintiffs sought, this finding
materially advanced this litigation. With the question of design
defect (as defined by products liability law) and concealment of
the design defect now answered as they relate to the Plaintiffs'
breach of implied warranty claims in the nineteen states tried in
the Issues Trial, the parties can now turn to Plaintiffs' consumer
protection claims which have a different legal standard.

Class certification is warranted under Rule 23(b)(3), as common
questions relating to Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims of
Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Washington
continue to predominate and class treatment offers a superior
method of resolution. The common answers to these common questions
will be proven using classwide evidence. Plaintiffs will again use
the testimony of their human factors expert, Dr. Craig Rosenberg,
to prove that all consumers suffered from the monostable shifter's
usability flaws.

Accordingly, the Court should certify the proposed multistate
class. Alternatively, the Court can certify three issues that
remain unanswered and warrant class treatment pursuant to Rule
23(c)(4).

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DPg55T
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  dal@millerlawpc.com
                - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

          Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 N. Lake Ave, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  tgraden@ktmc.com

                - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GULEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com

                - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: rkshelquist@loclaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

                - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Adam E. Edwards, Esq.
          William A. Ladnier, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: gcoleman@milberg.com
                  msilvey@milberg.com
                  aedwards@milberg.com
                  wladnier@milberg.com

MDL 2873: Bush Files PI Suit Over PFAS Exposure
-----------------------------------------------
STEVEN BUSH, 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-03616-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 19, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination,
Plaintiff was diagnosed with lymphoma cancer by exposure to AFFF
containing PFAS, the suit alleges.

The Bush 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: Hawkins Says PFAS Exposure Caused Cancer
--------------------------------------------------
JAMES HAWKINS, 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-03618-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 19, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination,
Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer by exposure to AFFF
containing PFAS, the suit alleges.

The Hawkins 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: Martin Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MARTIN 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-03624-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 19, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict
liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violations of the
Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.

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

The Plaintiff joined the USMC and was subsequently assigned to MCB
Camp Pendleton, California (1989-1990). At all times relevant,
Plaintiff lived/worked on Base at Camp Pendleton using and drinking
the water. On information and belief, Camp Pendleton has a higher
PFAS environmental contamination level. In or about 2017, Martin
was diagnosed with kidney cancer and commenced on-going medical
treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a right
nephrectomy. As known by Defendants, kidney cancer is a disease
linked to PFAS contamination, alleges the suit.

The Martin 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: Ozuna Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID OZUNA, 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-03617-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 19, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

As a result of Defendants' conduct and the resulting contamination,
Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer by exposure to AFFF
containing PFAS, the suit alleges.

The Ozuna 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: Virgin Files PI Suit Over PFAS Exposure
-------------------------------------------------
Marvin Virgin, and Gloria Altemus-Virgin by the Proposed
Administrator and Next-of-Kin, Marvin Virgin, Plaintiffs 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-03615-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 19, 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.

Plaintiff Marvin Virgin is an adult resident of the State of
California. Plaintiff is the proposed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Gloria
Altemu-Virgin. Gloria Altemus-Virgin was, at the time of death, an
adult resident and citizen of Los Angeles, California. The Decedent
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during her working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. Prior to death, Decedent was
diagnosed with breast cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products. Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to
her death, alleges the suit.

The Virgin 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 2913: Coahoma County Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------
COAHOMA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP,
INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU
MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06216 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 19,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for public nuisance,
negligence, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and violation of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' marketing strategy,
advertising, and product design targets minors, especially
school-age minors, and has dramatically increased the use of
e-cigarettes amongst the student body of the Coahoma County School
District. The Defendants' conduct has caused many students to
become addicted to Defendants' e-cigarette products, says the
suit.

Plaintiff Coahoma County School District, and similarly situated
school districts in the State of Mississippi, have redirected
significant resources to combat Defendants' deceptive marketing
scheme, to educate its students on the true dangers of Defendants'
e-cigarette products and to prevent the possession and use of
Defendants' e-cigarette products on Plaintiffs' property.

The Coahoma County School District case has been consolidated in
MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Coahoma County School District is a public school district
organized and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of
Mississippi.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      
         T. Roe Frazer II, Esq.
         T. Roe Frazer III, Esq.
         FRAZER PLC
         30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450
         Nashville, TN 37215
         Telephone: (615) 647-6464
         E-mail: roe@frazer.law
                 trey@frazer.law

MDL 2913: Okolona Municipal Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
OKOLONA MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; NU MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM
BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06212 (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for public
nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' marketing strategy,
advertising, and product design targets minors, especially
school-age minors, and has dramatically increased the use of
e-cigarettes amongst the student body of the Okolona Municipal
Separate School District. The Defendants' conduct has caused many
students to become addicted to Defendants' e-cigarette products,
says the suit.

Plaintiff Okolona Municipal Separate School District, and similarly
situated school districts in the State of Mississippi, have
redirected significant resources to combat Defendants' deceptive
marketing scheme, to educate its students on the true dangers of
Defendants' e-cigarette products and to prevent the possession and
use of Defendants' e-cigarette products on Plaintiffs' property.

The Okolona Municipal Separate School District case has been
consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Okolona Municipal Separate School District is a public school
district organized and existing in accordance with the laws of the
State of Mississippi.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      
         T. Roe Frazer II, Esq.
         T. Roe Frazer III, Esq.
         FRAZER PLC
         30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450
         Nashville, TN 37215
         Telephone: (615) 647-6464
         E-mail: roe@frazer.law
                 trey@frazer.law

MDL 2913: Pass Christian Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------
PASS CHRISTIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; NU MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM
BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06217 (N.D. Cal.,
Oct. 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for public
nuisance, negligence, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' marketing strategy,
advertising, and product design targets minors, especially
school-age minors, and has dramatically increased the use of
e-cigarettes amongst the student body of the Pass Christian Public
School District. The Defendants' conduct has caused many students
to become addicted to Defendants' e-cigarette products, says the
suit.

Plaintiff Pass Christian Public School District, and similarly
situated school districts in the State of Mississippi, have
redirected significant resources to combat Defendants' deceptive
marketing scheme, to educate its students on the true dangers of
Defendants' e-cigarette products and to prevent the possession and
use of Defendants' e-cigarette products on Plaintiffs' property.

The Pass Christian Public School District case has been
consolidated in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Pass Christian Public School District is a public school district
organized and existing in accordance with the laws of the State of
Mississippi.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      
         T. Roe Frazer II, Esq.
         T. Roe Frazer III, Esq.
         FRAZER PLC
         30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450
         Nashville, TN 37215
         Telephone: (615) 647-6464
         E-mail: roe@frazer.law
                 trey@frazer.law

MERSEYSIDE CORP: Underpays Laborers' Overtime Pay, Mayorga Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JULIO ALBERTO ULLOA MAYORGA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERSEYSIDE CORP. and
FRANCISCO LESTON, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-06463 (E.D.N.Y., October 25, 2022) alleges the Defendant of
egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from in or around
February 2022 until in or around July 2022 as a brick layer and
laborer while performing related miscellaneous duties for the
Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was regularly required by
the Defendants to work approximately 47.5 hours or more hours each
week throughout his employment with the Defendants. But instead of
paying him overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of
40 per workweek, the Defendant paid him a flat hourly rate of
approximately $35.00 per hour regardless of the number of hours he
has worked. In addition, the Defendant willfully failed to keep
payroll records, and to post notices of the minimum wage and
overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location
of their employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL.
Moreover, the Defendant willfully failed to provide the Plaintiff
with any wage statements upon each payment of his wages, and with a
written notice of his applicable regular rate of pay, regular pay
day, and all such information, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated
damages for himself and all other similarly situated workers, as
well as pre- and post-judgment interest, costs together with
reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the court deems
necessary and proper.

Merseyside Corp. is a construction company that specializes in
historic preservation, decorative stone, structural support,
Terra-cotta, granite, marble and masonry restoration. Francisco
Leston is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MHC HERITAGE: Seeks to Strike Rothbart's Expert Report
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL NOEL, KATHLEEN
WIKSTEN, and CLAIRE LADOUCEUR on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. MHC HERITAGE PLANTATION LLC, EQUITY
LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC., f/k/a MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITIES,
INC., MHC OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MHC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GP
LLC, and MHC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LP., Case No. 2:21-cv-14492-DMM
(S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
striking the Expert Report of Jeffrey S. Rothbart filed by the
Plaintiffs in support of their Revised Motion for Class
Certification and Incorporated Memorandum of Law:

On October 20, 2022, the Court issued an Order denying Defendants'
Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on the Class Certification Motion
finding a hearing unnecessary because the parties have filed
"expert declarations" and other record evidence. Prior to filing
this motion, the Defendants requested that Plaintiffs notify the
Court that they have removed Mr. Rothbart as an expert witness and
to withdraw his report so that the Court does not consider it in
ruling on the Class Certification Motion. The Plaintiffs refused
that request.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 20, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fj1OoB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by

          J. Allen Bobo, Esq.
          LUTZ, BOBO & TELFAIR, P.A
          2 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 500
          Sarasota, FL 34236-5575
          Telephone: (941) 951-1800
          Facsimile: (941) 366-1603
          E-mail: jabobo@lutzbobo.com
                  ahodgins@lutzbobo.com

               - and -

          Mahlon Barlow, Esq.
          SIVYER BARLOW WATSON
          & HAUGHEY, P.A.
          Truist Place
          401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2225
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 221-4242
          Facsimile: (813) 227-8598
          E-mail: mbarlow@sbwhlegal.com
          mhbassistant@sbwhlegal.com



MISSION CARE: Newton BIPA Suit Removed From Cir. Court to S.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMY NEWTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MISSION CARE OF ILLINOIS, LLC, Case
No. 22-LA-0783, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit, County of St. Clair, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois on October 20, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-02442 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by: (1) failing to
publicly provide a publicly-available retention schedule detailing
the length of time for which the biometrics are stored and/or
guidelines for permanently destroying the biometrics they store;
(2) failing to adhere to a publicly-available retention schedule
detailing the length of time for which the biometrics are stored
and/or guidelines for permanently destroying the biometrics they
store; (3) failing to inform the Plaintiff and the Class in writing
that their biometrics were being collected and stored, prior to
such collection or storage; (4) failing to inform the Plaintiff and
the Class in writing of the specific purpose for which their
biometrics were being captured, collected, stored, and used; (5)
failing to inform the Plaintiff and the Class in writing of the
specific length of time their biometrics were being captured,
collected, stored, and used; and (6) failing to obtain written
releases from the Plaintiff and the Class.

Mission Care of Illinois, LLC is a provider of emergency vehicles
in Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Orly Henry, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
         Chicago, IL 60654
         Telephone: (312) 372-5520
         E-mail: ohenry@littler.com

                 - and -

         Jennifer Chierek Znosko, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
         600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Telephone: (314) 659-2000
         E-mail: jznosko@littler.com

MJB ALE HOUSE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Quintanilla Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARDO ANTONIO QUINTANILLA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MJB ALE HOUSE INC. d/b/a
BOURBON STREET; and MARK BOCCIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06460
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Quintanilla was employed by the Defendants as food
preparer.

MJB ALE HOUSE INC. d/b/a BOURBON STREET operates as a bar and
restaurant, located in Bayside, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Tel: (718) 263-9591
          Fax: (718) 263-9598

NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Partly Wins Summary Judgment in Kovich Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNI KOVICH individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated insureds, Plaintiff v. NATIONWIDE PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and CODY
McCONNELL, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:20-0518 (S.D.W. Va.),
Judge Robert C. Chambers of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division, grants in
part the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the issue of
punitive damages.

Ms. Kovich is a West Virginia resident who had a homeowner's
insurance policy from Nationwide on April 13, 2020, when a
windstorm allegedly damaged her home and property. Immediately
following this incident, she filed a claim with Nationwide. Mr.
McConnell was the claims adjuster employed by Nationwide who was
assigned to Ms. Kovich's claim.

Two days after Ms. Kovich filed her claim, Nationwide hired Paul
Davis Emergency Services to prepare an estimate of the damages,
sending him to inspect the property on April 15, 2020. An
engineering firm was hired to provide an opinion as to the source
of the damage to Ms. Kovich's property, and Ms. Kovich was informed
of this investigation on June 3, 2020. While the report was
inconclusive, Mr. McConnell was directed by his supervisor at
Nationwide to provide coverage for Ms. Kovich's claim.

The prepared estimate included a deduction for depreciation of
property value of $758.75. Additionally, Nationwide and the
Plaintiff dispute whether her policy requires coverage of damages
to her barn door, window screens, emergency roof repairs,1 and
Additional Living Expenses ("ALE") concerning the cost of care for
animals normally housed in her barn while the barn was
uninhabitable. Yet, Nationwide did compensate Ms. Kovich for
$14,393.29 worth of damages to her property and debris removal
costs on July 16, 2020.

The Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit in this Court on July
30, 2020, concerning the alleged improper withholding of
depreciation from homeowners' insurance payments in the state of
West Virginia, in contravention of West Virginia Code Section
33-17-9. The parties were able to resolve this dispute via a
court-approved class settlement. Remaining before the Court are the
Plaintiff's individual claims for insurance benefits, punitive
damages, Count III: Common Law Bad Faith, and Count IV: Unfair
Trade Practices of her Amended Complaint.

On Aug. 19, 2022, the Plaintiff motioned for partial summary
judgment, asking the Court to hold that Nationwide was obligated to
pay for the individual damages she sustained. The Defendant
likewise motioned for summary judgment on all claims. While the
Defendants argue for Summary Judgment as to all of Ms. Kovich's
remaining claims, Judge Chamber's Memorandum Opinion and Order
addresses only the issue of punitive damages. The remainder of the
Defendants' arguments will be considered in a future opinion.

Judge Chambers opines that Ms. Kovich must demonstrate actual
malice in Nationwide's inaction on her remaining claims in order to
avoid summary judgment and the Plaintiff has not met this burden.
While Ms. Kovich testified that the insurance claim proceedings did
not move as quickly as she would have preferred, the evidence
before the Court shows that regular communication occurred between
the parties throughout the approximately three months in which
payment was pending. The record demonstrates that the majority of
all potential coverage for Ms. Kovich was paid out to her in a
reasonable time frame, following a reasonable course of
communication between the parties, in spite of pandemic-related
restrictions and ambiguous expert conclusions.

Additionally, the Plaintiff argues that Nationwide's failure to
advise her of potential ALE coverage was malicious in nature.
However, the record shows she did not formally file a claim for ALE
regarding housing for her animals with Mr. McConnell or any other
representative of Nationwide. As no claim was made for these
expenses, Judge Chambers cannot find that compensation for them was
"willfully, maliciously and intentionally denied." The most the
Plaintiff has been able to demonstrate with regards to the
Defendants' failure to inform her of potential coverage for ALE
when presented with information concerning her animals is
"incompetence or bureaucratic confusion," which the Supreme Court
of Appeals of West Virginia has held to be insufficient to sustain
punitive damages.

Accordingly, Judge Chambers grants in part the Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment as to the issue of punitive damages. He
directs the Clerk to send a copy of his Order to the counsel of
record and any unrepresented parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2m3cy4jt from
Leagle.com.


NCAA: House, et al., Seek to Certify Classes of College Athletes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as House, et al., v. National
Collegiate Athletic Association, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW
(N.D.Cal.), the Class Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to Rules
23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an
order certifying the following Injunctive Relief Class:

   "All college athletes who compete on, competed on, or will
    compete on a Division I athletic team at any time between
    June 15, 2020 the date of judgment in this matter. This
    Class excludes the officers, directors, and employees of
    Defendants. This Class also excludes all judicial officers
    presiding over this action and their immediate family
    members and staff, and any juror assigned to this action."

The Class Plaintiffs further move the Court pursuant to Rules 23(a)
and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order
certifying the following damages classes:

     -- Football and Men's Basketball Class:

        "All current and former college athletes who have
        received full Grant-in-Aid (GIA) scholarships and
        compete on, or competed on, a Division I men's
        basketball team or an FBS football team, at a college or
        university that is a member of one of the Power Five
        Conferences (including Notre Dame), at any time between
        June 15, 2016 and the date of the class certification
        order in this matter;"

        This Class excludes the officers, directors, and
        employees of Defendants. This Class also excludes all
        judicial officers presiding over this action and their
        immediate family members and staff, and any juror
        assigned to this action.

     -- Women's Basketball Class:

        "All current and former college athletes who have
        received full GIA scholarships and compete on, or
        competed on, a Division I women's basketball team, at a
        college or university that is a member of one of
        the Power Five Conferences (including Notre Dame), at
        any time between June 15, 2016 and the date of the class
        certification order in this matter;"

        This Class excludes the officers, directors, and
        employees of Defendants. This Class also excludes all
        judicial officers presiding over this action and their
        immediate family members and staff, and any juror
        assigned to this action.

     -- Additional Sports Class:

        "Excluding members of the Football and Men's Basketball
        Class and members of the Women's Basketball Class, all
        current or former college athletes who competed on a
        Division I athletic team prior to July 1, 2021 and who
        received compensation while a Division I college athlete
        for use of their name, image, or likeness between July
        1, 2021 and the date of the class certification order in
        this matter and who competed in the same Division sport
        prior to July 1, 2021. This Class excludes the officers,
        directors, and employees of Defendants."

        This Class also excludes all judicial officers presiding
        over this action and their immediate family members and
        staff, and any juror assigned to this action.

The Plaintiffs will also move the Court for the appointment of
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Winston & Strawn LLP as Co-Lead
Class Counsel for the Classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(g).

The Plaintiffs challenge Defendants' horizontal labor market
restrictions on class members' ability to earn money from their
names, images, and likeness ("NIL").

Before July 1, 2021, the Defendants completely banned competition
to recruit or retain athletes by offering them NIL compensation or
NIL opportunities. Even after July 1, 2021, when Defendants began
permitting third parties to pay many forms of NIL compensation,
Defendants have continued to collusively agree to forbid themselves
from directly paying class members for their NILs.

So, for example, Defendants have collectively agreed to not share
revenues with college athletes to compensate them for using their
NILs to obtain immensely lucrative broadcast deals, the lawsuit
says.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FyidjD
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Emilee N. Sisco, Esq.
          Stephanie Verdoia, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  emilees@hbsslaw.com
                  stephaniev@hbsslaw.com

                 - and

          Benjamin J. Siegel, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: bens@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

          Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
          David G. Feher, Esq.
          David L. Greenspan, Esq.
          Adam I. Dale, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166-4193
          Telephone: (212) 294-4698
          Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
          E-mail: jkessler@winston.com
                  dfeher@winston.com
                  dgreenspan@winston.com
                  aidale@winston.com

                - and -

          Jeanifer E. Parsigian, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          101 California Street, 34 th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
          E-mail: jparsigian@winston.com

NEW YORK: Flores, et al., Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLORES, et al., v.
STANFORD, et al., Case No. 7:18-cv-02468-VB-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting their motion to certify the following
      class:

      "All persons eligible for release to parole supervision
      who were convicted of crimes committed when they were
      children under the age of 18 and sentenced to
      indeterminate life sentences with the possibility of
      parole in the custody of the New York State Department of
      Corrections and Community Supervision;" and

   2. granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
      just and proper.

The Plaintiffs include CARLOS FLORES, LAWRENCE BARTLEY, DEMETRIUS
BENNETT, ANTONIO ROMAN, TERRANCE ANDERSON and VINTARRA MARTIN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.

The Defendants include TINA M. STANFORD, as Chairwoman of the New
York State Board of Parole; WALTER W. SMITH, as Commissioner of the
New York State Board of Parole; JOSEPH P. CRANGLE, as Commissioner
of the New York State Board of Parole; MARC COPPOLA, as
Commissioner of the New York State Board of Parole; TANA AGOSTINI,
as Commissioner of the New York State Board of Parole; CHARLES
DAVIS, as Commissioner of the New York State Board of Parole; ERIK
BERLINER, as Commissioner of the New York State Board of Parole;
OTIS CRUSE, as Commissioner of the New York State Board of Parole;
TYECE DRAKE, as Commissioner of the New York State Board of Parole,
CARYNE DEMOSTHENES, as Commissioner of the New York State Board of
Parole; MICHAEL CORLEY, as Commissioner of the New York State Board
of Parole; CHANWOO LEE, as Commissioner of the New York State Board
of Parole; SHEILA SAMUELS, as Commissioner of the New York State
Board of Parole; ELSIE SEGARRA, as Commissioner of the New York
State Board of Parole; and CARLTON MITCHELL, as Commissioner of the
New York State Board of Parole.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SZ6EVz
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Issa Kohler-Hausmann, Esq.
          YALE LAW SCHOOL
          127 Wall Street
          New Haven, CT 06511
          Telephone: (347) 856-6376
          E-mail: issa.kohler-hausmann@yale.edu

               - and -

          Avery Gilbert, Esq.
          Avery Gilbert LAW
          15 Shatzell Avenue, Suite 232
          Rhinecliff, NY 12574
          Telephone: (845) 380-6265
          E-mail: avery@agilbertlaw.com

               - and -

          Damaris Hernandez, Esq.
          Antony L. Ryan, Esq.
          Damaris Hernandez, Esq.
          CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
          Worldwide Plaza
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 474-1000
          E-mail: aryan@cravath.com
                  dhernandez@cravath.com

NUESTRO SAGRADO: Appeals Atty. Fees Bid Ruling in Valdepena Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
NUESTRO SAGRADO CORAZON PRIMARY HOME CARE, INC. is taking an appeal
from a court order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees in the lawsuit entitled
Gloria Valdepena, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nuestro Sagrado Corazon Primary Home Care,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00094, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brought this suit against the Defendants for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a
home care provider in Webb County, Texas. The Plaintiff and Group
Members performed home care service work for the Defendants in and
around counties throughout Texas. The Plaintiff and Group Members
regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek. However, the
Defendants did not pay overtime rates equal to one and one-half
times Plaintiff's and Group Members' regular hourly rates of pay in
the majority of workweeks in which Plaintiff and Group Members
worked more than 40 hours, asserts the complaint.

On July 28, 2022, a motion was filed for Colleen Mulholland to
withdraw as attorney.  

On August 1, 2022, the Court granted the Motion of Colleen
Mulholland to Withdraw as counsel of record, and was deemed
terminated as of August 1.

On September 15, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees.

The appellate case is captioned Valdepena v. Nuestro Sagrado, Case
No. 22-40690, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on October 18, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees GLORIA VALDEPENA, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Lakshmi Ramakrishnan, Esq.
            TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INCORPORATED
            300 S. Texas Boulevard
            Weslaco, TX 78596
            Telephone: (956) 447-4850

Defendant-Appellant NUESTRO SAGRADO CORAZON PRIMARY HOME CARE,
INCORPORATED, is represented by:

            Ashlee Cassman Grant, Esq.
            BAKER & HOSTETLER, L.L.P.
            811 Main Street
            Houston, TX 77002
            Telephone: (713) 646-1316

OMNI HOTELS: Beaver, et al., Seek to Certify Class of Villa Owners
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEAN BEAVER, et al., v.
OMNI HOTELS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-00191-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff Dean and Laurie
Beaver will move to certify a damages class under F.R.C.P. 23(b)(3)
for their causes of action for breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,
violations of Bus. & Pro. Code sections17200, under the "unfair"
prong, RICO, RICO conspiracy and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class:

   "All villa owners who entered an RMA with LC Brokerage
    beginning four years before the date this action was filed
    to the present, excluding the defendants/counterclaimants in
    LC Investment 2010, LLC v. LaCosta Investments, LLC, San
    Diego Superior Case No. 37-2016-3113, as well as any
    officers, affiliates, directors, employees and immediate
    family members of any of the Defendants."

The Plaintiffs bring this motion to certify a class of all villa
owners at the Omni La Costa Resort & Spa who participated in a
rental management program run by the Defendants. Ostensibly this
program was run by Defendant LC Brokerage, a licensed California
brokerage company, under the terms of a form Rental Management
Agreement (RMA) signed by all class members.

This case concerns the rental management of villas the "Resort."
The Resort is composed of two classes of rooms: hotel rooms, owned
by the Resort's owner Defendant LC Investment 2010 (an affiliate of
Omni), and villas, owned by third parties. Villa owners are
prohibited from occupying their villas for more than 120 days a
year. Thus, Villa owners must either rent their villas for the time
they are not owner-occupied, or leave them empty. Villa owners may
place their villas into a rental program run by Omni.

The Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint on January 29, 2020,
and a First Amended Complaint on April 8, 2021. After motions to
dismiss and orders from this Court, the Plaintiffs have eight
remaining claims:

  -- Breach of Contract under the RMA against LC Brokerage and
     Omni;

  -- Breach of fiduciary duty against LC Brokerage, Omni, Ims
     and Combs;

  -- aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Omni,
     Ims and Combs;

  -- violations of Bus. & Pro. Code section 17200 under the
     "unfair" prong against all Defendants;

  -- RICO violations against LC Brokerage, Omni, Ims and Combs;

  -- conspiracy to violate RICO against LC Brokerage, Omni, Ims
     and Combs;

  -- Declaratory Relief against Omni and LC Investment 2010; and

  -- Unjust Enrichment against all Defendants.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Oct. 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3flvH7E
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tyler Meade, Esq.
          THE MEADE FIRM P.C.
          Funston Ave., Suite A
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: (415) 724-9600

               - and -

          Michael J. Reiser, Esq.
          Matthew Reiser, Esq.
          Isabella Martinez, Esq.
          REISER LAW, P.C.
          1475 N. Broadway, Suite 300
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 256-0400

               - and -

          Sam Ferguson, Esq.
          FERGUSON LAW PC
          1816 5th Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 548-9005

ONTARIO: Former Inmate Can Opt Out of EMDC Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jane Sims, writing for The London Free Press, reports that it's
hard to opt out of something you didn't know you were in.

That's what Donald Parker, a former Elgin-Middlesex Detention
Centre (EMDC) inmate, found out when he wanted to sue the jail and
others, only to learn that while he was serving time, he'd missed
the deadline to opt out of a class-action lawsuit that's still
churning through the courts.

In a decision released on Oct. 24, Ontario's highest court agreed,
overturning a lower court ruling and giving him 30 days to bow out
of the class action.

Parker's initial request for an extension, in a civil motion in
Superior Court in London, was rejected in April 2021.

The Ontario Court of Appeal was then asked to settle a question
about what the test should be if someone wants out of a class
action, but missed the deadline.

The Appeal Court's answer: the class member must "show that their
neglect in complying with the court-imposed deadline is excusable
and that the extension will not result in prejudice to the class,
the defendant and the administration of justice."

And, it said, Parker had a good excuse: he never got the deadline
notice.

Two class actions against the London jail, one filed in 2013, the
other in 2016, were consolidated with a new statement of claim in
January 2018.  The civil suit seeks damages for alleged negligence
and charter violations at the beleaguered jail between Jan. 1,
2010, and May 28, 2017. Anyone jailed at EMDC between those dates
was considered part of the class.

The Appeal Court noted the 2017 certification order allowed those
who didn't want to be part of it to opt out in writing once a
court-approved notice was sent out.

The notice was approved March 22, 2018. A short version was
published in two London newspapers and the long form was posted on
the class's lawyer's website and sent to the last known address of
each class member. Opt-out forms were available through the class's
lawyer.

Parker was an inmate at the London jail from July 2016 to August
2017 before his transfer to the Joyceville Assessment Unit, at the
Joyceville prison near Kingston, where he remained until 2019.

His long-form was sent to his last address on file, his father's
home in St. Thomas. Parker said he didn't recall discussing the
mail during phone calls with his father. He never saw any notices
about the class proceeding before the opt-out deadline, he said.

The Appeal Court noted only 24 people sent back forms requesting
not to be part of the class. Parker wasn't one of them.

Parker said he didn't know anything about the class action until he
got a letter from the province's lawyer in June 2020 after
launching his own suit against the jail in April 2020. He wants to
sue the province, the London jail, the federal attorney general and
the Joyceville prison for failing to give him proper medical
attention.

Parker said in his statement of claim that in December 2016, he
suffered "a pressure necrosis injury to his left arm" while housed
at the London jail.  He complained of pain and swelling, but didn't
get treatment until three days after the injury. By then, muscle
tissue in the arm had died, he had renal failure and suffered a
chronic kidney injury.

He had three emergency operations and was told he needed
physiotherapy and a specialist to get some arm mobility. He said he
received none of the followup treatment at the London jail or the
federal prison.

That alleged failure to provide medical care matched a complaint in
the consolidated class action and, because he hadn't opted out by
the deadline, the province asked Parker to stop his individual
suit.

A judge can grant an extension to a class-action deadline, but it
doesn't happen often. Parker's lawyers argued in a civil motion the
province should have known he was in custody and shouldn't have
sent the notice to his father's residence.

The motion judge rejected that claim, saying the notice should have
come to Parker's attention once it was mailed to St. Thomas. And
had he known about it, based on Parker's testimony, he wouldn't
have opted out and would not have filed his own suit.

The evidence just didn't support Parker's claim, the judge
concluded.

The Appeal Court disagreed, saying Parker had demonstrated
"excusable neglect" because he was in custody when the notice was
sent to his father's address. It noted Parker wasn't "trying to
escape the binding effect of something that happened in the class
proceeding," but was trying to get out of the class action before
it was settled.

His request for an extension to opt out was consistent with him
just learning of the class action after filing his own lawsuit, the
court said.

Allowing Parker an extension to opt out didn't prejudice the class
action, the court added.

There was no evidence, the court added, of "any flouting of, a
cavalier attitude toward, or a strategic wait-and-see approach to
the court-ordered deadline such as granting him an extension would
cause prejudice to the integrity of the process or the
administration of justice." [GN]

PEREZ HILTON: Discloses Private Info to Third Party, Roberts Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEREZ HILTON MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a
PEREZHILTON.COM, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-07767-RSWL-PVC (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 25, 2022) alleges violation of the Video Privacy
Protection Act ("VPPA").

According to the complaint, the Defendant develops, owns, and
operates PerezHilton.com, which is one of the leading go to sites
for celebrity news.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's knowingly disclosed
personally identifiable information, including a record of every
video clip the Plaintiff view, to Facebook without consent. The
Defendant violated the VPPA by knowingly transmitting the
Plaintiff's and the putative Class's personally identifiable
information to unrelated third parties, says the Plaintiff.

PEREZ HILTON MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a PEREZHILTON.COM develops, owns,
and operates PerezHilton.com, a website for celebrity news. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1920 Century Park E #170
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

               -and-

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               -and-

          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Las Olas, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com

REALPAGE INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Anticompetitive Conduct
---------------------------------------------------------------
WFAA reports that a Richardson, Texas-based company is being
accused of helping multiple leasing companies raise their rent
prices, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court.

RealPage is now listed in a Class Action Complaint, along with some
of the businesses they've allegedly helped, according to documents
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.

In a copy of the complaint obtained by WFAA, the plaintiffs say
RealPage has provided software and data analytics to leasing
companies, or lessors, since around 2016 to help them avoid
competition and raise prices. The complaint says the company
"openly boasts" about how they help "'balance supply and demand to
maximize [Lessors'] revenue growth.'"

The complaint says lessors would "outsource daily pricing and
ongoing revenue oversight" to RealPage. The company allegedly took
that data, created a standard based on the properties' "class" or
characteristics, and used a common formula to set the prices. In
short, RealPage created an instant monopoly on price setting,
allowing rents to be pushed artificially higher.

The plaintiffs say RealPage bragged about setting the lessors'
prices "as though we own them ourselves." The lawsuit also says
that the company helped apartments across a market stagger leases
so there would never be a downturn.

The lawsuit comes after a ProPublica report stated the company was
using YieldStar to help set apartment prices across the country. A
RealPage representative sent a statement to WFAA denying the
allegations, saying the article "contains inaccuracies and is
misleading."

"Rent prices are determined by various factors including supply and
demand as well as each property owner's unique circumstances," the
statement read. "The ProPublica article repeatedly takes
information out of context and ignores key facts to craft a
distorted picture of how revenue management software works."

Attorney and Texas A&M Law antitrust professor Randy Gordon
believes the key will be if the plaintiffs can prove an agreement
between the companies.

"It's the agreement to use that data and what it's predicting
that's illegal," he said. "That's always a significant challenge."

The suit mentions RealPage told landlords to follow their pricing
at least 80% of the time.

"There's a lot of smoke and what the plaintiffs will have to show
is that there is actually fire there," Gordon said.

The lawsuit also claims RealPage also told landlords to not
negotiate and push prices higher even if it meant vacancies. It's
unsurprising to Sandy Rollins, the executive director of the Texas
Tenants Union.

"It's disturbing. It's very disturbing to see this industry operate
in this way," she said. "Tenants are just at the mercy of the
markets and of their landlords and their landlords don't have
mercy."

The nine lessors named in the complaint include a company
headquartered in Dallas. According to the complaint, Lincoln
Property Company is the second largest manager of multifamily
rental real estates in the U.S. They're said to own over 210,000
units nationally and make "billions of dollars per year."

Outside of Lincoln, the other lessors named are headquartered in
states like Tennessee, California and Washington. The plaintiffs
named in the complaint are said to be from California and
Washington. They include major landlords like GreyStar and the
ProPublica story mentions the software was initially tested by
Houston-based Camden.

The plaintiffs said in the complaint that the alleged deal with
RealPage mainly affects the military community.

"With respect to men and women on active duty, military bases often
do not provide "on-post" housing, or have no available housing,
requiring personnel to rent apartments," the complaint reads. "Many
veterans depend upon residential leases for their housing, often
spending over half of household income on rent. Rising rents
increase levels of homelessness." [GN]

RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Dozier Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BENNIE DOZIER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-22-601523, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on October 20, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-06332 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide duty-free meal periods, failure
to provide duty-free rest periods, failure to provide vacation
wages, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to pay all
wages owed upon termination, and unfair business practices.

The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC is an operator of the luxury
hotel chain known as The Ritz-Carlton, headquartered in Maryland.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Greg S. Labate, Esq.
         SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626
         Telephone: (714) 513-5100
         Facsimile: (714) 513-5130
         E-mail: glabate@sheppardmullin.com

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Mason Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D.N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT A. MASON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Case No. 5:22-cv-01244, 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 October 20, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-06186 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of implied
warranty and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
Song-Beverly Warranty Act, California's Business and Professions
Code, and California Civil Code. The Plaintiff brings this action
against Samsung on behalf of individuals, in California, who
purchased a defective Samsung electric or gas ranges with
front-mounted burner control knobs that purportedly must be
depressed and turned in ordered to activate the heating element of
the range. Samsung is aware of the defect and has continued to
market, distribute, and retail the Samsung Ranges.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a consumer products manufacturer
located in Seoul, South Korea.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., with its headquarters in Ridgefield
Park, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         401 West C St., Suite 1760
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (714) 651-8845
         E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com

                 - and -

         Alex R. Straus, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         280 S. Beverly Drive
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (865) 247-0080
         E-mail: astraus@milberg.com

                 - and -

         Gary Klinger, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (866) 252-0878
         E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com

SAN DIEGO, CA: Grant of Summary Judgment in Verdun Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDRE VERDUN, IAN ANOUSH GOLKAR, on behalf of himself
and a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO; SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-55046 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's grant
of summary judgment to the City of San Diego.

The City of San Diego owns thousands of parking spaces that are
located on City property. The San Diego Municipal Code governs the
use of the City's parking spaces. Drivers who violate the Code's
parking regulations may be required to pay civil fines. Pursuant to
the Code, the City imposes time limits that are publicly posted and
that restrict how long a vehicle may remain in a particular parking
spot.

Since at least the 1970s, San Diego has used tire chalking as one
method of enforcing time limits for its parking spaces. The record
reflects that San Diego's parking enforcement methods, including
chalking, are intended to enhance public safety, improve traffic
control, and promote commerce. Insufficient parking impacts public
safety. Increasing parking availability and reducing traffic
congestion in turn improves commerce. Although the City has other
ways of enforcing its parking regulations, there is considerable
evidence that chalking is its most cost-effective method, and that
it is more efficient and accurate than other methods.

Plaintiffs Verdun and Golkar each received at least one parking
citation from the City after their vehicles were chalked. In May
2019, they filed a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, alleging that tire chalking violated the Fourth Amendment.
The Plaintiffs asked for an injunction against chalking and
monetary damages. The alleged damages consist of amounts the
putative class has paid in parking tickets when their cars were
ticketed after chalking.

The district court concluded that tire chalking constitutes a
Fourth Amendment search but that it is justified under the
administrative search exception to the warrant requirement. The
district court thus granted summary judgment to the City. The
Plaintiffs timely appealed.

The Ninth Circuit is asked to decide whether the longstanding
practice of chalking tires for parking enforcement purposes
violates the Fourth Amendment. It opines that it does not. It finds
that even assuming the temporary dusting of chalk on a tire
constitutes a Fourth Amendment "search," it falls within the
administrative search exception to the warrant requirement.
Complementing a broader program of traffic control, tire chalking
is reasonable in its scope and manner of execution. It is not used
for general crime control purposes. And its intrusion on personal
liberty is de minimis at most.

The Ninth Circuit holds that municipalities are not required to
obtain warrants before chalking tires as part of enforcing time
limits on city parking spots. Accordingly, it affirms the district
court's grant of summary judgment to the City of San Diego.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3c9x2vf5 from Leagle.com.

Daryoosh Khashayar (argued) -- daryooshlaw@gmail.com -- Khashayar
Law Group, San Diego, California; Ramin R. Hariri, Hariri Law
Group, in San Diego, California, for the Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Meghan A. Wharton -- mwharton@sandiego.gov -- (argued), Deputy City
Attorney; George F. Schaefer -- GSchaefer@sandiego.gov -- Assistant
City Attorney; Mara W. Elliott -- cityattorney@sandiego.gov -- City
Attorney, Office of the City Attorney, in San Diego, California,
for the Defendants-Appellees.


SONUS NETWORKS: Veleno Petitions for Writ of Mandamus
-----------------------------------------------------
GIUSEPPE VELENO, et al. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in
the lawsuit entitled Ron Miller, et al., individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sonus Networks, Inc.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12344-GAO, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought this suit against Sonus Networks and certain of its
officers and/or directors and various persons who issued knowingly
false statements during the Class Period in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the case is a federal securities class
action on behalf of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants, who purchased the securities of Sonus during the period
of January 8, 2015 and March 24, 2015, both dates inclusive. On
October 23, 2014, Sonus, including those "stretch numbers" in its
forecast, projected $74 million in revenue in the first quarter of
2015 ("Q1 2015"). Concurrently, senior sales personnel were
informing their superiors in weekly meetings, relayed to Defendants
Raymond P. Dolan and Mark T. Greenquist, that the Company would not
reach $74 million in revenue in Q1 2015. Nevertheless, on January
8, 2015, Sonus reaffirmed its comfort with analysts' estimates of
$74 million in revenue in Q1 2015. On February 18, 2015, Sonus
inexplicably projected $74 million in revenue for Q1 2015. When the
truth was revealed, the price of Sonus's stock plummeted $4.46 per
share, over 33%, to close at $8.70 per share on March 24, 2018,
damaging investors.

On August 30, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim, which the Plaintiffs
opposed on October 4, 2019.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on October 31, 2022,
Martina Barash at Bloomberg News said Judge George A. O'Toole Jr.
ruled that shareholders adequately alleged that Sonus Networks Inc.
and some of its executives committed securities fraud related to
sales projections.

Plaintiffs Guiseppe Veleno, Gary Williams, and Ron Miller plausibly
alleged the defendants had the necessary state of mind, and so the
investors can advance their claims against the technology company
and three of its executives, the federal court said more than three
years after the company asked it to toss the proposed class
action.

The appellate case is captioned In Re: Veleno, et al., Case No.
22-1794, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit, filed on October 18, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners GIUSEPPE VELENO, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Esq.
            Glen DeValerio, Esq.
            265 Franklin St.
            Boston, MA 02110
            Telephone: (617) 936-2796

                   - and -

            Gonen Haklay, Esq.
            Jacob Alexander Goldberg, Esq.
            ROSEN LAW FIRM
            101 Greenwood Ave., Ste. 440
            Jenkintown, PA 19046
            Telephone: (215) 600-2817

                   - and -

            Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
            ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
            275 Madison Ave., 40th Fl.
            New York, NY 10016
            Telephone: (212) 686-1060

                   - and -

            Garth Spencer, Esq.
            GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
            1925 Century Park E., Ste. 2100
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 201-9150

Defendants-Respondents SONUS NETWORKS, INC., et al., are
represented by:

            John F. Batter, III, Esq.
            WILMERHALE LLP
            60 State St.
            Boston, MA 02109
            Telephone: (617) 526-6000

                   - and -

            Thomas Lampert, Esq.
            WILMERHALE LLP
            60 State St.
            Boston, MA 02109
            Telephone: (617) 526-6105

                   - and -

            Andres O'Laughlin, Esq.
            WILMERHALE LLP
            60 State St.
            Boston, MA 02109
            Telephone: (612) 526-6220

                   - and -

            Stephen Nicholas Provazza, Esq.
            WILMERHALE LLP
            60 State St.
            Boston, MA 02109
            Telephone: (617) 526-6212

STERLING BANCORP: Distribution Plan of $12M Oklahoma Suit Deal OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. STERLING BANCORP, INC.; GARY JUDD; THOMAS LOPP;
MICHAEL MONTEMAYOR; SCOTT SELIGMAN; BARRY ALLEN; JON FOX; SETH
MELTZER; SANDRA SELIGMAN; PETER SINATRA; BENJAMIN WINEMAN; LYLE
WOLBERG; PIPER SANDLER COMPANIES; AND AMERICAN CAPITAL PARTNERS,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-10490-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Judith E. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan approves the Class Representative's class distribution
plan.

By its Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice issued
Sept. 23, 2021 and its Order Approving Plan of Allocation issued
Sept. 23, 2021, the Court approved the terms of the settlement set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated April 16, 2021 and the
proposed plan for allocating the net settlement proceeds to
eligible Settlement Class Members.

The Court had directed the parties to consummate the terms of the
Settlement and Plan of Allocation.

The Settlement provided for consideration of $12.5 million in cash
and, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation, the Settlement
Amount was deposited into an escrow account established by the Lead
Counsel for the benefit of the Settlement Class.

The deadline for Settlement Class Members to submit Claims to the
Court-approved claims administrator for the Settlement, A.B. Data,
Ltd., in order to be potentially eligible to participate in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund has passed. The process of
reviewing Claims has been completed and no Class Member has
requested judicial review of their claim determination.

The Class Representative, through the Lead Counsel, now seeks
authorization to distribute the proceeds of the Settlement Fund to
the Authorized Claimants, after deduction of any taxes, fees, and
expenses previously approved by the Court or approved by the
Order.

Upon careful consideration, Judge Levy approves the administrative
determinations of A.B. Data accepting the Claims described in the
Walter Declaration and listed on Exhibits A and G thereto,
calculated pursuant to the Court-approved Plan of Allocation set
forth in the Notice, and accepts said Claims. She also approves the
administrative determinations of A.B. Data rejecting the Claims
described in the Walter Declaration and listed on Exhibit F
thereto, and rejects said Claims.

A.B. Data will be paid the sum of $16,243.12 from the Net
Settlement Fund as payment for the fees and expenses expected to be
incurred by it in connection with the Initial Distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund.

The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to the Authorized
Claimants listed on Exhibits D and E to the Walter Declaration
pursuant to the Court-approved Plan of Allocation in proportion to
each Authorized Claimant's Recognized Claim as compared to the
total Recognized Claims of all Authorized Claimants as shown on
such Exhibits.

All checks to Authorized Claimants issued in the Initial
Distribution will bear the notation "DEPOSIT PROMPTLY; VOID AND
SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION IF NOT NEGOTIATED WITHIN 120 DAYS OF
DISTRIBUTION." The Lead Counsel and A.B. Data are authorized to
take appropriate actions to locate and/or contact any Authorized
Claimant who has not cashed his, her or its check within said
time.

Authorized Claimants who do not cash their checks within the time
allotted will irrevocably forfeit all recovery from the Net
Settlement Fund.

A.B. Data may make additional redistributions of balances remaining
in the Net Settlement Fund to the Authorized Claimants who have
cashed their prior checks and who would receive at least $10 on
such additional redistributions if the Lead Counsel, in
consultation with A.B. Data, determines that additional
redistributions, after payment of any unpaid fees and expenses
incurred in administering the Settlement, including for such
redistributions, would be cost-effective.

Any balance that remains in the Net Settlement Fund after further
distributions or payment of any otherwise valid Claims received
after Sept. 28, 2022, or Claims adjusted after Sept. 28, 2022,
which is not cost-effective to reallocate, will be contributed,
after payment of any unpaid fees and expenses incurred in
administering the Settlement, to the nonsectarian, not-for-profit
organization of Loyola University School of Law's Institute for
Investor Protection.

A.B. Data is authorized to destroy paper copies of Claims and all
supporting documentation one year after the Second Distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund, if that occurs, or, if there is no Second
Distribution, two years after the Initial Distribution and all
electronic copies of the same one year after all funds have been
distributed.

The Court retains jurisdiction over any further application or
matter which may arise in connection with the Action.

No Claim received or adjusted after July 29, 2022, will be included
in the Initial Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9xpm48 from Leagle.com.


TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: S.D.N.Y. Dismisses in Part Amended Rand Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JENNIFER RAND, individually and on behalf of
a class similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 21 CV 10744 (VB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Vincent L. Briccetti of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants in part and denies in part Travelers'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Travelers and its related entitles provide insurance, banking,
investment, retirement, and mortgage services.

Ms. Rand brings the putative class action against Travelers,
arising out of Travelers' disclosure of her personal identifying
information ("PII") to non-party cybercriminals. She asserts claims
under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA") and Section 349
of the New York State General Business Law, as well as state law
claims for negligence and negligence per se.

On Feb. 16, 2021, and again on March 30, 2021, the New York State
Department of Financial Services ("NYSDFS") issued cybersecurity
fraud alerts warning regulated financial entities like Travelers
that cybercriminals were targeting "websites that offer instant
online automobile insurance premium quotes" to steal driver's
license numbers. In light of the "serious risk of theft and
consumer harm" posed by the instant quote system, NYSDFS
recommended numerous data security measures, including redacting
PII, "disabling prefill of redacted" PII, or "avoiding displaying
prefilled PII on public-facing websites" entirely.

The Plaintiff alleges she received a Dec. 10, 2021, notice from
Travelers that an unauthorized party may have accessed her name,
address, date of birth, and driver's license number by improperly
using the credentials of Travelers agents to access Travelers'
agency portal. She maintains she never applied for Travelers
insurance on her own and is not a voluntary customer of Travelers.

As a result, Travelers allegedly offered the Plaintiff and the
putative class members complimentary identity theft and credit
monitoring services for a period of one year.

Plaintiff claims she spent valuable time and resources in an effort
to detect and prevent any additional misuses of her PII and protect
against the heightened risk for fraud and identity theft for years
to come. She also claims she and putative class members face years
of constant surveillance of their financial and personal records,
monitoring, and loss of rights" and they "are incurring and will
continue to incur such damages in addition to any fraudulent use of
their PII. She further alleges she and putative class members
incurred costs associated with requested credit freezes, the
detection and prevention of identity theft, purchasing credit
monitoring and identity theft protection services, and lowered
credit scores resulting from credit inquiries following fraudulent
activities.

Now pending is Travelers' motion to dismiss the amended complaint
under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Travelers argues the Plaintiff does not allege an injury-in-fact to
support Article III standing.

Judge Briccetti disagrees. He concludes that at this early stage in
the litigation, the Plaintiff's allegations sufficiently resemble
the type of loss in privacy protected by the tort of public
disclosure of private information such that the loss constitutes an
injury-in-fact. He further concludes that the Plaintiff adequately
pleads an imminent risk of future identity theft, and therefore the
financial costs she allegedly incurred mitigating that risk
constitute an independent injury-in-fact.

Travelers then argues the Plaintiff cannot state a claim under the
DPPA because she does not plausibly allege it knowingly or
intentionally disclosed her personal information.

Again, Judge Briccetti disagrees. He concludes that the Plaintiff
adequately pleads a claim under the DPPA. He opines that (i) the
Plaintiff plausibly alleges Travelers obtained driver's license
numbers from the relevant state's department of motor vehicles or
other third parties who receive this information from state
department of motor vehicles, and thus were disclosed "from a motor
vehicle record"; (ii) Travelers' voluntary decision to
auto-populate its quote responses with driver's license numbers
constitutes a "knowing disclosure" of personal information; and
(iii) the Plaintiff adequately alleges that Travelers reasonably
should have known its auto-populating of driver's license numbers
would disclose such protected information directly to
cybercriminals for impermissible purposes. Accordingly, the DPPA
claim may proceed.

Next, Travelers argues the Plaintiff fails plausibly to state a
negligence claim under New York law because it did not owe a duty
of care to the Plaintiff, who, in any event, does not allege
cognizable damages.

Judge Briccetti disagrees as to Travelers' duty of care. He also
disagrees as to the Plaintiff's damages based on monetary harm.
However, he agrees the Plaintiff's remaining theories of damages
are not cognizable under New York law. He finds that the Plaintiff
plausibly alleges facts that, taken together, support the inference
that Travelers owed her a duty of reasonable care under New York
law. Moreover, the Plaintiff's negligence claim may proceed, but
only to the extent it is based on monetary costs incurred to
mitigate the harm caused by the data breach. To the extent the
negligence claim is based on the other alleged theories of damages,
it must be dismissed.

Travelers further argues the Plaintiff does not state a claim for
negligence per se because she does not identify an applicable
statutory duty under New York law and does not allege cognizable
damages.

Judge Briccetti disagrees as to Travelers' duty. For the reasons he
states regarding the Plaintiff's negligence claim, he also
disagrees as to the Plaintiff's damages based on monetary harm, but
agrees her remaining theories of damages are not cognizable under
New York law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's negligence per se claim
may proceed, but only to the extent it is based on monetary costs
incurred to mitigate the harm caused by the data breach. Her
negligence per se claim based on the other alleged theories of
damages must be dismissed.

Travelers argues the Plaintiff does not state a claim under Section
349 because she does not plausibly allege any deceptive conduct
"caused" her injuries.

Judge Briccetti agrees. The Plaintiff does not plausibly allege she
was ever exposed to any purportedly deceptive misrepresentation or
omission by Travelers. To the contrary, the well-pleaded
allegations that she never applied for Travelers insurance and was
not a voluntary customer of Travelers support the inference that
she was not exposed to Travelers before the data breach at all. The
Plaintiff thus fails plausibly to allege her injuries were "caused"
by any deceptive conduct on the part of Travelers.

Travelers also argues the Plaintiff's separate claim for
declaratory relief must be dismissed because it is not an
independent cause of action.

Travelers is correct there is no independent cause of action for a
declaratory judgment, but the Plaintiff may nevertheless pursue
declaratory relief to the extent her substantive claims survive,
Judge Briccetti opines. The Plaintiff's claim for declaratory
relief is derivative of her substantive claims and dependent on
whether her underlying claims proceed. As the Court dismissed the
Plaintiff's claims under Section 5 of the FTCA and the NY Shield
Act, she has no right to declaratory relief related to those
statutes. Any request for declaratory relief related to those
statutes is dismissed. The Plaintiff may seek declaratory relief
with respect to her DPPA, negligence, and negligence per se
claims.

Finally, Travelers argues the Plaintiff's separate claim for
injunctive relief must be dismissed because it is not an
independent cause of action.

Judge Briccetti agrees a request for injunctive relief is not a
separate cause of action; however, he disagrees that the
Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief must be dismissed because
she plausibly alleges entitlement to the injunctive relief she
seeks. Thus, at this early stage of the case, the Plaintiff
adequately alleges entitlement to the injunctive relief she seeks,
and her request for injunctive relief may proceed.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Briccetti denies the motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). He grants in part and denies in part
the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Plaintiff's claim under Section 349 of the New York General
Business Law is dismissed. Her request for declaratory relief is
also dismissed to the extent it is based on Section 5 of the FTCA
or the NY Shield Act. Her other claims may proceed.

The Defendant will file an answer by Nov. 9, 2022.

By separate order, the Court will schedule an initial pretrial
conference.

The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2tf336jb from Leagle.com.


TW GARNER: Faces Class Action Suit Over House Sauce False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian O'Shea, Esq., and Kelly Cousoulis, Esq., of Carr Maloney PC,
disclosed that on September 12, 2022, Plaintiff and California
resident Phillip White, brought a class lawsuit on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated plaintiffs against Defendant
T.W. Garner Food Company in the United States District Court of
Central District of California. The Complaint asserts that although
T.W. Garner brands its hot sauce products under its Texas Pete
brand name, there is "surprisingly nothing Texas about them."
Plaintiff alleges that unknown to consumers, Texas Pete's hot
sauces are standard Louisiana-style, made with ingredients sourced
outside the state of Texas, at a factory in North Carolina. Even
though the hot sauce is not from Texas, the hot sauce products
feature "packaging and labeling with distinctly Texan imagery: the
famed white 'lone' star from the Texan flag together with a
'lassoing' cowboy." Plaintiff argues that he and others were
willing to pay premium prices for Texas Pete's hot sauce under the
impression that they are "authentically connected" to Texas.
Plaintiff provides examples of premium origin products including
"authentic Mexican tortillas, Belgian Chocolate, and Napa,
California wines."

The origins of the brand name Texas Pete, according to T.W.
Garner's website, resonated from the Garner family wanting the hot
sauce to have an "American name" eventually leading it to "Texas,
which also had a reputation for spicy cuisine."

Nevertheless, Plaintiff asserts that T.W. Garner engaged in "false,
misleading, and deceptive" advertising by selling millions of
dollars of hot sauce products based on false representations.
According to Plaintiff, if he had known Texas Pete's Hot Sauce was
not authentically Texan, he would never have purchased it.

While this class action lawsuits and other lawsuits like it tend to
generate a significant amount of playful media attention, false
advertising can come with a stiff penalty. The District of
Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia all have consumer protection
statutes prohibiting false or misleading advertising -- and there
are significant penalties for violating these statutes Therefore,
when crafting advertising strategies that potentially push the
truth to the limit, such as potentially stating that hot sauce from
North Carolina is actually from Texas, businesses are almost always
wise to err on the side of caution. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Casa Libre v. DHS, Mayorkas
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CASA LIBRE/FREEDOM HOUSE, et al., Case 2116 Plaintiffs
v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01510-ODW (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the First Amended Complaint.

The lawsuit is a putative class action challenging how the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and the U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Service ("USCIS") handle and process Special
Immigrant Juvenile ("SIJ") applications. The Plaintiffs are six
individuals who submitted applications for SIJ status and six
organizations who provide legal and other assistance to such
individuals, and the Defendants are Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary
of DHS; Ur M. Jaddou, Director of USCIS; and USCIS itself.

The individual Plaintiffs bringing suit are: (i) Rene Gabriel
Flores Merino, 20 years old; SIJ petition filed Nov. 23, 2020; SIJ
status petition granted Nov. 9, 2021; (ii) Hildner Eduardo Coronado
Ajtun, 20 years old; SIJ petition filed March 12, 2020; SIJ status
petition granted Jan. 5, 2021; (iii) Carlos Abel Hernandez Arevalo,
20 years old; SIJ petition filed Dec. 8, 2021; petition remains
pending; (iv) Axel Yafeth Mayorga Aguilera, 20 years old; SIJ
petition filed Aug. 29, 2019; SIJ status petition granted March 13,
2020; (v) Rene Isai Serrano Montes, 21 years old; SIJ petition
filed Aug. 30, 2021; application pending when FAC was filed; SIJ
status petition approved June 2, 2022; and Pamela Alejandra Rivera
Cambara; SIJ petition filed July 1, 2021; application remains
pending.

The organizational Plaintiffs are Casa Libre, El Rescate, Clergy
and Laity United for Economic Justice, Salvadoran American
Leadership & Educational Fund, Central American Resource Center-DC,
and La Raza Centro Legal, Inc. These organizations provide free
social and legal services to SIJ petitioners, and, as alleged, the
Defendants' challenged policy and procedure leaves the
organizations' SIJ clients without stable incomes and housing,
diverting the limited resources of these organizations from
provision of services for other low-income clients.

On April 22, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the operative FAC. The FAC
accounts for the Policy Alert and final regulations USCIS issued in
early March 2022, and it makes additional adjustments to the two
claims at issue. In particular, the Plaintiffs now narrow their
equal protection claim challenging the sufficiency of USCIS's
policies, now specifying that the "similarly situated individuals"
are T-1 non-immigrants (victims of human trafficking), as opposed
to immigration applicants more generally. By way of their amended
equal protection claim, the Plaintiffs now allege that USCIS's
failure to provide SIJ petitioners with employment authorization
both before and after USCIS approves their petitions is unlawful
because USCIS provides T-1 nonimmigrants with both pre- and
post-approval access to employment authorization.

The Plaintiffs also modified their second claim pertaining to the
180-day adjudication period. In addition to maintaining their
allegation that the Defendants regularly take longer than 180 days
to adjudicate SIJ petitions in violation of 8 U.S.C. Section
1232(d)(2), they further allege that the newly announced start-stop
rules themselves constitute a violation of the same statute

The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to both Rule
12(b)(1) for lack of personal jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim.

Judge Wright states that the two claims are decidedly distinct from
one another in nature. The Defendants attack the equal protection
claim pursuant to both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6); Judge
Wright analyzes the equal protection claim under Rule 12(b)(6),
taking the Plaintiffs' well-pleaded factual allegations as true and
considering materials subject to judicial notice. The Defendants
attack the statutory claim facially and factually pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) only, so Judge Wright analyzes the statutory claim under
that Rule, examining the pleadings, the judicially noticeable
materials, and the evidence the parties submitted.

Initially, the Plaintiffs assert that USCIS provides T-1 applicants
pre-approval work permits in this manner as a matter of practice,
whereas the Defendants insist that providing work permits is merely
something they "may" do for bona fide T-1 applications and that
this discretion does not amount to a policy or practice.

However, even if Judge Wright accepts the Plaintiffs' allegations
as true and assumes that USCIS provides T-1 applicants pre-approval
work permits as a matter of practice, he says their claim
nevertheless fails because (1) SIJ petitioners and T-1 applicants
are not similarly situated; and (2) even if they are, the
Defendants have a rational basis for allowing T-1 applicants to
apply for work permits while their applications are pending but not
allowing SIJ petitioners to do the same.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' equal protection claim fails and is
subject to dismissal.

The Plaintiffs make no request for leave to amend, nor do they
suggest what facts they might further allege to salvage their equal
protection claim. However, Judge Wright grants them leave to amend
the equal protection claim to cure the deficiencies identified.
Amendments outside this scope will be disregarded. All other
arguments raised in connection with the equal protection claim are,
at least for the time being, moot.

The Plaintiffs then assert their second claim in two ways: (1)
directly, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1232(D)(2) and the 180-day
adjudication timeframe set forth therein; and (2) by way of the
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). The APA provides parties a
way to compel timely agency action by granting courts the power to
order agencies to take action "unlawfully withheld or unreasonably
delayed."

After amendment, and notwithstanding the two separate statutory
bases for the claim, the Plaintiffs' second claim hews into two
substantive components. The first component challenges the bare
fact that for some of the individual Plaintiffs and the putative
Class members, USCIS has taken longer than 180 days to adjudicate
SIJ petitions, as directly violative of 8 U.S.C. Section
1232(d)(2). The second component challenges the stop-start rules
themselves, as inconsistent with the terms of 8 U.S.C. Section
1232(d)(2).

The Defendants challenge both the direct-violation and the
stop-start-rule components of the Plaintiffs' first claim on the
basis of constitutional standing.

Judge Wright first considers the "direct-violation" component of
the second claim, that is, the component that challenges USCIS's
failure to adjudicate SIJ petitions within 180 days, separate and
apart from consideration of the policies and procedures USCIS might
have followed in doing so. He finds that the individual Plaintiffs
have standing to pursue this component of the claim; as a result,
he need not consider whether the organizational Plaintiffs also
have standing. For these reasons, the first component of the
Plaintiffs' second claim is viable as to all the Plaintiffs, and
will not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Having found the direct-violation component of the Plaintiffs'
second claim to be viable, what remains is the stop-start-rule
component of their second claim. Judge Wright holds that the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over the direct-violation portion
of the Plaintiffs' second claim, and for the foregoing reasons, he
does not further parse the allegations to inquire whether it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over finer portions of the claim.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' second claim is viable in its
entirety.

The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denies in
part. The Plaintiffs' first claim is dismissed with leave to amend
as provided. The Defendants' Motion is otherwise denied, and the
Plaintiffs' second claim remains viable in its entirety.

The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, if any, is due no later
than Nov. 9, 2022. The Defendants' Answer or other response -- to
the SAC, if filed, and if not, to the FAC -- is due no later than
Nov. 27, 2022.

Finally, the May 6, 2022 Order regarding the deadline for moving
for class certification is discharged. The Court will set a
deadline for moving for class certification at the appropriate
time.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 26, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2mezb4x4 from Leagle.com.


US RADIOLOGY SPECIALISTS: Tompkins Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVIA TOMPKINS; KENNETH BRENNAN; and CHANDRA BROWN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. US
RADIOLOGY SPECIALISTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00431-M-RN
(E.D.N.C., Oct. 26, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant
for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive
information of the Plaintiff and the class.

According to the complaint, on various dates throughout 2022, the
Defendant announced that between December 17 and December 24, 2021,
an unauthorized, unknown third party gained access to its computer
network, resulting in the unauthorized access or acquisition of the
personal identifying information ("PII") and protected health
information ("PHI") of the Plaintiffs and Class Members (the "Data
Breach").

The compromised Personal Information of the Plaintiffs and Class
Members is now, at the very least, in the hands of a hacker who can
sell that Personal Information on the dark web to criminals. The
Plaintiffs and Class Members face a lifetime risk of identity theft
resulting from the alleged Data Breach.

The Personal Information was compromised as a result of the
Defendant’s failure to: (i) adequately protect the Personal
Information of the Plaintiffs and Class Members; (ii) warn the
Plaintiffs and Class Members of its inadequate information security
practices; and (iii) avoid sharing the Personal Information of the
Plaintiffs and Class Members without adequate safeguards, the suit
asserts.

US Radiology Specialists, Inc. provides health care services. The
Company focuses on radiology practices and diagnostic imaging
solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          Francesca Kester, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
          LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Tel: (813) 223-5505
          Email: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
                 fkester@ForThePeople.com

               -and-

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Colleen M. Auer, Esq.
          AUER RYAN, P.C.
          20987 N. John Wayne Parkway, #B104-374
          Maricopa, AZ 85139 520-705-7332
          Email: eryan@auer-ryan.com
                 cauer@auer-ryan.com

               -and-

          Joseph P. Tunstall III, Esq.
          O'MALLEY TUNSTALL PLLC
          PO BOX 1158
          Tarboro, NC 27886
          Telephone: (252) 823-2266
          Email: jptunstall@omalleytunstall.com

WINCO FOODS: Response to Miller Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miller v. Winco Foods,
LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-02094 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey
Armistead entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed
motion for extension of time as follows:

    -- Response to motion for class          Nov. 18, 2022
       certification due by:

    -- Reply to response to motion for       Dec. 16, 2022
       class certification due by:

    -- The Plaintiff's Motion to             Feb. 14, 2023
       Certify the Class is taken
       under advisement as of:

The nature of suit states torts -- personal property damage.

WinCo is a privately held, majority employee-owned American
supermarket chain based in Boise, Idaho, with retail stores in
Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, and Washington.[CC]

[*] Calif. Class Action Lawyers Turn Sights on Website Chatbots
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Reilly, Esq. and Brad Seiling, Esq., of Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips, LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that California
class action lawyers have turned their sights on a new target:
websites that employ "chat bots," digital assistants that allow
companies to communicate with customers without employing live
website customer service representatives. These cases allege that
the website owners violate the California Invasion of Privacy Act
(CIPA, Penal Code Section 630 et seq.) by "recording"
communications between consumers and company chat bots without the
consumers' knowledge or consent. Within the last three months, more
than three dozen putative class action lawsuits have been filed in
California state and federal courts against companies in a variety
of industries, including retailers, insurance companies, financial
services companies and technology companies. Many companies have
received pre-litigation demand letters that may result in even more
cases being filed.

These are novel claims that seek to apply privacy laws first
enacted in the late 1960s that address recording phone
conversations to a consumer's interactions and communications with
a website. In recent years, the California plaintiffs' bar has
sought to apply CIPA to certain website tracking technologies such
as session replay. Now that trend has extended to chat bots, with
new lawsuits asserting claims for violation of Penal Code Section
631, the CIPA's anti-wiretapping statute, which prohibits a third
party from eavesdropping on or recording communications between two
other parties without the parties' consent. Recently, several
complaints have been amended to assert claims under a separate
provision of the CIPA, Penal Code Section 632.7, which prohibits
recording communications over cell phones without consent.

Both statutes allow a successful plaintiff to recover $5,000 per
"violation" without proving that the plaintiff suffered any actual
harm. Each individual interaction with a chat bot potentially
constitutes a separate violation, so the ceiling of alleged damages
in a certified class action could be astronomical. The statutes
also allow recovery of attorneys' fees. The combination of
statutory damages and prevailing party fees makes these statutes
very attractive to class action plaintiffs' counsel.

The claims raise numerous unsettled issues, including whether the
statutes even apply to this conduct, whether a website owner can be
liable for "wiretapping" its own communications with its customers,
and whether users expressly or impliedly consented to the
"recording," as those terms are defined by the statutory text and
case law, to name only a few. There are also interesting and novel
issues regarding the interplay between the 50-year-old CIPA and the
recently enacted California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) and
its even more recent voter-enacted amendment, the California
Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA), as well as the California Bot
Disclosure Law, which requires basic transparency around chat bots.
In addition, based on case law interpreting the CIPA in the call
recording context, the plaintiffs in these cases may face serious
obstacles in obtaining class certification.

No court has weighed in on these issues as applied to chat bot
deployment, and the defendants have only just begun filing motions
challenging the lawsuits. Because the cases are assigned to many
different judges, it is possible -- even likely -- that there will
be conflicting rulings on the merits of the claims. It may be
months or years before the Ninth Circuit or California appellate
courts provide more definitive guidance.

As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure. Companies that use chat bots and similar technologies on
their websites should review their disclosures and consent flow to
evaluate their risks. Due to the dynamic nature of privacy
regulation, consultation with legal counsel on privacy and data
protection is recommended. Being proactive may help avoid the
expense and aggravation of having to defend one of these novel and
potentially costly claims. [GN]


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***