---

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

              Wednesday, November 16, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 223

                            Headlines

2390 C LLC: Faces Garcia Suit Over Superintendents' Unpaid Wages
810 HOUSTON: Henley Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
ALLSTATE FIRE: Class Action Settlement in Erby Suit Wins Final OK
ALLSTATE FIRE: Erby's Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Prime's Unfair Cancellation Process

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Anderson Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Awaits Approval of Checked-Bag Settlement
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Discrimination Against White Employees
AMERICAN PROTECTION: Tanofsky Sues Over Failure to Properly Pay OT
AMGEN INC: ChemoCentryx Seeks Dismissal of Claims in Homyk Suit

ANNAPOLIS, MD: Wins More Time to Oppose Johnson's Class Cert. Bid
APPLE INC: Sued Over Agreement With Amazon Over iPhone Prices
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Court Narrows Claims in Ashour Consumer Suit
AVISTA CORP: Faces Several Suits Over Babb Road Fire
BATH SAVER: Agrees to Settle Spam Phone Calls Suit for $1.95M

BIMBO BAKERIES: Misclassifies Distributors, Provencher et al. Say
BLUETRITON BRANDS: Williams Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BP EXPLORATION: Claims in Charles & 8 Suits Dismissed W/ Prejudice
BP EXPLORATION: Cotton's Bid to Reconsider Summary Judgment Denied
BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Leverette and Milsap B3 Suits

BP EXPLORATION: Wynne's Toxic Tort Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
BROOKSTONE DEVELOPERS: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Unpaid Wages
CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE: Schneider Files Suit in Minn. Sup. Ct.
CLOROX COMPANY: Charles Sues Over Mislabeled Cleaning Products
CLOROX COMPANY: Swetz Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices

CLOTH & PAPER: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COLLECTION BUREAU: N.J. Court Certifies Class in Church FDCPA Suit
COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL: Website Not Blind-accessible, Bishop Says
CREDIT SUISSE: Wins Judgment in FX Benchmark Rates Antitrust Suit
DCM ADVISORS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bishop Says

DEMERT BRANDS: Shampoo Products Contains Benzene, Collette Claims
DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: N.D. Illinois Dismisses Powell BIPA Class Suit
DFINITY FOUNDATION: Asked Disqualification of Roche Law Firm
DOMENICO'S PIZZA: Cornejo-Valdez Seeks Dishwashers' Unpaid Wages
DTE ELECTRIC: Brown Sues Over Deprivation of Fair Compensation

DXC TECHNOLOGY: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss SAC Set for January 2023
EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Jan. 9
FIRST MANHATTAN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bishop Says
FORMULA E: Plaintiff in Proposed Ticket Suit Gets Surprise Refund
GEICO CORP: California Car Insurance Class Action Can Proceed

GERBER PRODUCTS: Class Suit Over Deceptive Baby Products Dismissed
GOEDEKER INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 30
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Assise Sues Over Motorcycle Parts Monopoly
HENLEY PACIFIC: Parties Agree to Arbitrate and Dismiss Mora Suit
HEY DUDE: Faces Mackey Suit Over Illegal Sales Calls

HOME DEPOT: Cal. App. Vacates in Part Summary Judgment in Camp Suit
HP INC: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Defective Laptop Batteries
HUDSON HEALTH: Grimes Suit Seeks Healthcare Staff's Unpaid Wages
ICARE CREDIT: California Court Enters Final Judgment in Vu Suit
ILLINOIS: Court Dismisses Kugler v. Donothan With Leave to Renew

IMMUNOMEDICS INC: $4-M Settlement to Be Heard on January 19, 2023
JACK RILEY: Faces Florio Suit Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
JF CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Helpers' OT Pay, Hernandez et al. Claim
JP MORGAN: Kerant & KPMG Excluded From Dennis Suit Settlement Class
KETTERING ADVENTIST: Duff Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Hagins Sues Over ERISA Violations
LAFAYETTE COLLEGE: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
LOOP INDUSTRIES: January 5, 2023 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LOS ANGELES APPAREL: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MATHEW ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hecker Suit Says
MDL 1720: Defendants Lose Summary Judgment in Antitrust Class Suit
MDL 1720: Mastercard, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Fitlife
MDL 1720: Mastercard, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Kroger
MDL 1720: Mastercard, et al., Lose Summary Judgment v. Lepkowski

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid in M.D. Suit
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. 518 Restaurant
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. ABA
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Accor
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Aldi

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. BAFL
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Bi-Lo
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Boyd Gaming
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. DOI
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. East Goshen

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Esdacy
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Exxon
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Fareway
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Fringe
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Gulfside

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Intuit
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Jasperson
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Kroger
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Lakeshore
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. LBI

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Lee
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Parkway
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Payless
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Photos Etc.
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. PLI

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Resnick
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Rite Aid
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Rue 21
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Verizon
MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Wafflerie

MGM RESORTS: Employees' Retirement Fund Class Action Can Proceed
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Averts Class Suit Over Dark Chocolate Label
MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: Court Denies Torfason's Bid to Intervene
MORGAN STANLEY: Helfand Must Respond to Sanction in Security Suit
NEW YORK: Jeffery Appeals Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Circuit

NISSAN NORTH: Appeals Judgment and Class Cert. Ruling to 9th Cir.
NORTHLAND RESOURCES: Settles Securities Class Action for EUR7.5MM
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Grandstaff Seeks Unpaid Inspectors' OT Wages
OFFICIA IMAGING: Faces Labor Class Action in California
OHIO: Court Dismisses Second Amended Complaint in Jones v. DeWine

OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL: Arbitration Recommended in Michael Suit
ORACLE AMERICA: Moves to Dismiss Mass Surveillance Class Action
ORIGIN U.S.A. INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PEABODY ENERGY: Labaton Sucharow Discloses Securities Class Action
PENELOPE BOURBON: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

PORSCHE AG: $80M Settlement in Fuel Emission Suit Gets Final OK
RAMONA MUNICIPAL: Decertification of Class in Plantier Suit Upheld
RAW APOTHECARY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REALPAGE INC: Faces Another Suit Over Artificially Inflated Prices
REDDIT INC: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Claims in Does Suit

REVOLVE GROUP: Florio Sues Over Illegal Sales Calls
SAFARICOM PLC: Second Class Suit Filed Over Data Privacy Agreement
SEADRILL AMERICAS: Faces Phillips Discrimination Class Action
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Mackey Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
SONY ELECTRONICS: Musharbash Files Suit in C.D. California

SOUTH KOREA: Class Suit Targets Negligence in Itaewon Crowd Crush
SPARTAN CAPITAL: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
STRAIGHT DOWN: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUEDE HOSPITALITY: Guirand Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY: Durbeck Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 1st Cir.

SYNGENTA CROP: Faces Class Suits Over Illegal Loyalty Programs
TERRAFORM LABS: CEO Faces Investors' Class Action in Singapore
TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
TIKTOK INC: Bimoetric Data Class Action Settlement Payouts Begin
TROVE BRANDS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

TRUE FOOD: Ortiz Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Minimum Wages
TWITTER INC: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
UNITED STATES: Camp Lejeune Veterans May Get Compensation
UNITED STATES: Neville Files Suit v. EEOC for Discrimination
UNITED STATES: Prelim. Settlement Reached in Latin Workers' Suit

UWM HOLDINGS: Okavage Group Seeks Leave to Amend FAC
UWM HOLDINGS: Suit Over Unpaid Origination Fees Junked w/ Prejudice
VIRGINIA: Violates Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
VISTRA CORP: Court Junks Complaint vs Subsidiary
WALMART INC: Averts Cough Syrup Non-Drowsy Label Class Action

YALE UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over Retirement Fund Mismanagement
[*] Israel Changes Rules in Environmental Class Action Filings

                            *********

2390 C LLC: Faces Garcia Suit Over Superintendents' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 2390 C LLC and DENALI MANAGEMENT INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09172 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for federal and state claims
relating to Plaintiff's unpaid minimum and overtime wages, unlawful
deductions, failure to maintain records, and the taking of unlawful
deductions pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act,
and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations.

Garcia has been employed by Defendants from February 2019 until
September 26, 2022. At all relevant times to this complaint, Garcia
was employed by Defendants as a superintendent wherein duties
included taking the garbage out, and cleaning the common areas of
the Defendants' building.

2390 C LLC and DENALI MANAGEMENT INC. are property management
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 203-2417

810 HOUSTON: Henley Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Henley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 810 HOUSTON, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-03804 (S.D. Tex.,
Nov. 1, 2022), is brought implicating the Defendant's violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act's ("FLSA") tip credit requirements and
the subsequent failure to pay its employees at the federally
mandated minimum wage rate for all hours worked.

The Defendant pays its tipped employees, including servers and
bartenders, below the federal minimum wage rate by taking advantage
of the tip-credit provision of the FLSA. Under the tip-credit
provision, an employer of tipped employees may, under certain
circumstances, pay its employees less than the minimum wage rate by
taking a "tip credit" against the minimum wage requirement based
upon the amount of tips the employees received from customers.

The Defendant violated the FLSA in the following respects:
Violation for failure to inform where the Defendant failed to
correctly inform Plaintiff of the desire to rely on the tip credit
to meet its minimum wage obligations; Violation for making illegal
deductions that reduced the direct wage of Plaintiff below the
minimum required hourly wage for tipped employees: Violation for
performing work unrelated to tipped occupation; Violation for
performing non-tipped side work in excess of 20% of the time spent
working in the week or for a continuous period of time during a
shift.

As a result of these violations, Defendant has lost the ability to
use the tip credit and therefore must compensate Plaintiff and all
similarly situated workers at the full minimum wage rate,
unencumbered by the tip credit, for all hours worked, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a server in Houston, Texas.

The Defendant operates a nationwide chain of sports and
entertainment restaurants under the trade name "810 Billiards and
Bowling" in several States in country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

ALLSTATE FIRE: Class Action Settlement in Erby Suit Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL ERBY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-4944-KSM (E.D.
Pa.), Judge Karen Spencer Marston of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the parties' Joint
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and the
Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees.

The Court certifies the following settlement class pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):

     All persons who submitted a private-passenger auto physical
     damage claim for a leased vehicle under an Allstate
     Pennsylvania policy during the Class Period whose claim was
     adjusted by Allstate as a total-loss claim, and whose claim
     resulted in a Total Loss Claim Payment by Allstate, and who
     were not paid Full Sales Tax.

The Court finds that the Notice Plan and the Notice constituted the
best notice practicable under the circumstances and constituted
valid, due, and sufficient notice to members of the Settlement
Class.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and the factors
set forth in Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153, 157 (3d Cir. 1975), the
Court finds the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and
approves the Settlement.

Judge Marston rules that the four valid exclusion requests will not
be considered members of the Settlement Class or bound by the
Release in the Settlement Agreement and may not receive any
benefits of the Settlement. All remaining Class Members will be
bound by this Final Approval Order and Judgment and by the
Agreement and the Settlement embodies therein.

As of the Effective Date, by operation of the entry of the Final
Approval Order and Judgment, each Settlement Class Member will be
deemed to have fully released, waived, relinquished and discharged,
to the fullest extent permitted by law, all Released Claims and
Unknown Claims that the Settlement Class Members may have against
all the Released Persons.

The Court awards Class Counsel $715,000 in attorneys' fees, which
the Court finds are fair and reasonable based on the Court's
independent analysis and consideration of the factors set forth in
Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190, 195 n.1 (3d Cir.
2000) and In re Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig. Agent
Actions, 148 F.3d 283, 338 (3d Cir. 1998).

The Court awards Class Counsel $23,083.89 in out-of-pocket expenses
incurred in the prosecution of this action, which the Court finds
are fair and reasonable.

The Court awards Michael Erby $4,500 as a Class Representative
service award.

The matter is dismissed with prejudice. The Court maintains
jurisdiction over the enforcement of the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxezur7 from Leagle.com.


ALLSTATE FIRE: Erby's Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL ERBY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-4944-KSM (E.D.
Pa.), Judge Karen Spencer Marston of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum:

   (1) granting the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of
       Class Action Settlement; and

   (2) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
       Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service
       Awards

The lawsuit is a putative class action lawsuit in which Class
Representative Erby alleges that Defendants Allstate Fire and
Casualty Insurance Co., Allstate Insurance C., Allstate Indemnity
Co., and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Co.
(collectively, "Allstate" or "Defendants"), violated Pennsylvania
law by failing to reimburse the applicable sales tax on "total
loss" leased vehicles, i.e., leased vehicles that were damaged
beyond repair.

The parties entered into a settlement in April 2022, and the
Honorable Petrese B. Tucker preliminarily approved the settlement
shortly thereafter. On July 22, 2022, this case was reassigned to
the Honorable Karen Spencer Marston.

On Aug. 25, 2016, Erby was involved in a motor vehicle accident
during which his leased Honda Accord was struck by another
motorist, who was driving a Cadillac Escalade insured by Allstate.
Following the accident, Allstate Fire provided Erby a Market
Valuation Report, which stated that the statewide value of his
leased vehicle was $18,195. Allstate Fire also provided an
adjustment to settle of $900 and a DMV fee of $60, which, when
added together with the $18,144.50, amounted to a total of
$19,104.50. Erby and Allstate Fire reduced their agreement to
writing, pursuant to which Erby authorized the release of the title
of his leased vehicle in exchange for a settlement check from
Allstate. However, Erby was never reimbursed "for sales taxes for
the total loss of his vehicle."

Mr. Erby claims Allstate does not reimburse sales tax on the total
loss of leased vehicles, in violation of Pennsylvania law. In
October 2018, Erby filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated individuals solely against the Allstate
Corporation. Specifically, Erby filed suit on behalf of individuals
"whose vehicles were reimbursed by Allstate due to total loss who
were not paid the applicable sales tax as required for
reimbursement pursuant to 31 Pa. Code Section 62.3(e)(4)."

The Complaint alleged claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), and breach of Pennsylvania's
bad faith statute. The Allstate Corporation removed the case to
this Court on Nov. 14, 2018.

On Jan. 18, 2019, Erby filed a First Amended Complaint, naming
Allstate Fire as the Defendant. Subsequently, Allstate Fire filed a
motion to dismiss, which Judge Tucker granted in part and denied in
part. The Court dismissed the breach of contract and bad faith
counts but denied the motion as to the unjust enrichment and UTPCPL
claims. Erby filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court
denied.

Following a period of discovery and settlement negotiations, the
parties filed a Stipulation in March 2022, seeking to allow Erby to
file a Second Amended Complaint to add the other Allstate
Defendants, which the Court granted. The Plaintiff filed his Second
Amended Complaint on April 4, 2022. The next day, April 5, the
parties entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement (the
"Settlement Agreement"). On April 29, the Court preliminarily
approved the settlement and provisionally certified the class, and
on May 17, the Court amended the Order, setting the date for the
Final Approval Hearing to be held on Sept. 15, 2022.

The Settlement is a "claims-made" settlement. Pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, Allstate will make a payment to each member
of the Settlement Class, who submits a timely and valid Claim Form
or Electronic Claim Form and does not request exclusion from the
Class. The Claim Payment will be the amount of unpaid Sales Tax,
which will be calculated by (1) determining the Full Sales Tax for
the vehicle that was a total loss; and (2) subtracting any amount
of sales tax that was included in any prior payment made by
Allstate on the claim.

Separate and apart from the amount to be paid to the Class Members,
Allstate has agreed that it will "not oppose or object to a motion"
requesting an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses to be
paid to Class Counsel" or a Service Award to Erby, so long as the
amounts requested do not exceed the following: $730,000 for
attorneys' fees, $25,000 for costs, and $6,500 for the service
award.

Allstate has also agreed to pay the costs incurred by the
Settlement Administrator, including "administrative costs, notice
costs, claims handling cost, postage, website maintenance, and
costs to email."

After the Settlement is finally approved, the Settlement Class will
release Allstate from any claims and causes of action arising from
or relating in any way to Allstate's failure to pay sufficient
sales tax to Plaintiff and all Settlement Class Members with
respect to any Covered Total Loss Claim during the Class Period
under an Automobile Insurance Policy. The Settlement will not
operate as a bar to any Class Member from pursuing unrelated
claims.

On April 29, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement,
and Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc. was appointed
Settlement/Claims Administrator.

As of Aug. 30, 2022, Epiq mailed and/or emailed notice to 26,746
unique Settlement Class Members. As of Oct. 6, 2022, Epiq received
9,628 Claim Forms.

On Sept. 1, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement. And that same day, the Class
Counsel filed an Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees,
Expenses, and Service Awards. The Court held the Final Approval
Hearing on Sept. 15, 2022.

The Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate. Accordingly, the Court approves the Settlement.

The Settlement Class consists of "all persons who submitted a
private-passenger auto physical damage claim for a leased vehicle
under an Allstate Pennsylvania policy during the Class Period whose
claim was adjusted by Allstate as a total-loss claim, and whose
claim resulted in a Total Loss Claim Payment by Allstate, and who
were not paid Full Sales Tax" with a Class Period of Jan. 1, 2012,
to April 29, 2022.

Judge Marston finds that the Rule 23(a) prerequisites for class
certification are satisfied. Both of the predominance and
superiority requirements set forth in Rule 23(b)(3) are also
satisfied. Because the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are
satisfied, the Court certifies the Settlement Class.

The Class Counsel asks that the Court awards attorneys' fees and
costs and grant the named Plaintiff Erby a service award. Class
Counsel requests $730,000 in attorneys' fees, representing
approximately 15.5% to 17.6% of the value of the Settlement.

Although the attorneys representing both parties are
well-credentialed and have years of experience litigating similar
matters, the Court questions the efficiency and attention to detail
of the Class Counsel given the factual inaccuracies in the Joint
Motion for Final Approval and the number of inaccurate statements
in the Joint Motion and in the original Declarations from Daniel C.
Levin, D. Aaron Rihn, and Derrek W. Cummings. The Court finds that
the requested attorneys' fees should be slightly reduced.
Accordingly, it awards $715,000 in attorneys' fees.

The Class Counsel have also requested reimbursement for $23,083.89
in out-of-pocket litigation expenses. Judge Marston finds these
expenses are reasonable, so he will grant the Class Counsel's
request for reimbursement.

The Class Counsel have also asked the Court to grant Erby a $6,500
service award. The Court finds the proposed service award slightly
high given the account of Erby's actual involvement in this class
action lawsuit. At bottom, there is no indication that he was
particularly involved in this litigation, other than at its
initiation. The Court finds that a reward of $4,500 is more
appropriate, given Erby's minimal involvement in this case.

The Court notes that this service award is being paid separate and
apart from the Class Distribution and will not reduce the Class
Members' recovery. If a service award is not granted, or if it was
reduced, that money would not be redistributed to the Settlement
Class.

For these reasons, the Court approves the Settlement. The Court
also awards $738,083.89 in attorneys' fees and costs to Class
Counsel, and $4,500 to Erby as a service award. An appropriate
Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Oct. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/39ks9r3e from Leagle.com.


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Prime's Unfair Cancellation Process
-------------------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that a lawsuit filed in Amazon's home
district of Seattle, Wash. has accused the company of making it
overly complicated to unsubscribe to its premium Amazon Prime
feature. The Western District of Washington filing says consumers
have been harmed by Amazon's tricks, causing them to pay more
subscription fees than they intended.

The complaint cites "dark patterns," a term first coined by
cognitive scientist Harry Brignull that refers to the field of user
experience. According to the filing, Amazon employs dark patterns
to hinder Amazon Prime members from ending their Prime
subscriptions. Allegedly, both European authorities and the Federal
Trade Commission have investigated these alleged practices, with
the former forcing Amazon to make certain changes.

The complaint contends that Amazon employs "misdirection," and
"'confirm-shaming,' where the option to decline is worded in such a
way as to shame the user into compliance." It further describes
Prime membership more generally as the "roach motel" dark pattern,
"where you get into a situation very easily, but then you find it
is hard to get out of it."

The filing claims that Amazon knows how to simplify the process and
has done so in Europe, but does not want to give up its deceptive
but profit-driving practices in America. The suit seeks to certify
a class of domestic Amazon Prime enrollees who attempted on or
after Nov. 9, 2018, to cancel their Prime membership online by
clicking at least two pages in the cancellation process and who
incurred an unreimbursed membership fee after failing to cancel
their membership for that period.

The class action states one claim for relief under Washington's
consumer protection law and seeks injunctive relief and damages.
The plaintiff and putative class are represented by Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Amazon has also been sued over Prime in connection with the end of
its free Whole Foods Market delivery benefit. In that consolidated
case, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint late last
month.[GN]

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Anderson Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.com Services,
LLC. The case is styled as Gale Miller Anderson, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Amazon.com Services, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06001 (N.D. Ill., Oct.
31, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated Other Labor for Denial of Overtime
Compensation.

Amazon Services LLC -- https://www.amazon.com/ -- offers many of
the Web service platforms that are Amazon offers.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Awaits Approval of Checked-Bag Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Yuko, writing for Lifehacker, reports that even before
the pandemic made everything worse, air travel was already harder
than it needed to be. One of the most frustrating parts is that as
a passenger, you could do everything right -- following all the
rules, getting there with ample of time before your flight, always
having your ticket and ID ready to go -- and still encounter plenty
of hassle, thanks to other people who weren't prepared, or didn't
follow TSA guidelines.

In other situations, it's on the airlines. This was the case for
many American Airlines customers, who accused the air travel
provider of requiring them to pay for checked bags that were
supposed to be free.

The result was a class-action lawsuit, and in August, the airline
agreed to pay the customers a settlement in order to resolve the
issue. Here's what you need to know about the payout, including
whether you're eligible to claim a portion of it.

Why was there a class-action lawsuit against American Airlines?
One of the perks of having Gold Status in the AAdvantage loyalty
program is getting to check a bag for free. That also happens to be
a benefit that comes with certain American Airlines-branded credit
cards. So after AA customers in both of those categories were
forced to pay to check their bags, a group came together to file a
class-action lawsuit against American Airlines.

In their complaint, these individuals (the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit) claim that when they went up to the counter to check their
bags, the AA employee told them that even with their Gold Status or
AA-branded credit cards, the computer doesn't indicate that they
get to check any bags for free.

The plaintiffs come to the conclusion that the AA computer system
had not been updated to reflect this perk, and "as a result, AA
passengers were improperly charged and forced to pay baggage
fees."

In its own court filings, American Airlines denied any wrongdoing.
Yet, in August, the company agreed to a payout of at least $7.5
million to compensate the customers who were incorrectly charged to
check bags. The settlement is currently awaiting final approval
from the court.

How to know if you qualify to receive part of the settlement
In the settlement, class members are divided into two groups:

Travelers with AA-branded credit cards that entitled them to free
bag-checking privileges, but were charged on a domestic flight.
Passengers who received email confirmation that one or more of
their bags would be free to check, but still had to pay.
In addition to fitting into at least one of the groups above, you
also must have traveled on or after Feb. 24, 2017, and your tickets
must have been purchased no later than April 8, 2020.

If the court approves American Airlines' proposed settlement, those
who qualify will get a full refund for the checked bags they paid
for that were supposed to be free.

How to file a claim in the settlement

This is also on hold until a court approves the settlement, but in
papers American Airlines provided to the court, the company
indicates that it plans to notify customers who are eligible to
receive a refund as part of the settlement. For now, your best bet
is to keep an eye on the settlement website for updates. [GN]

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Discrimination Against White Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Brown, writing for FOXBusiness, reports that the attorney
representing four plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit alleging
discrimination against White employees by American Express fired
off a letter to the company's lawyers accusing the credit card
behemoth of violating its own values.

"Since we exposed AmEx's discriminatory, anti-white policies over a
year ago, they have repeatedly called our allegations meritless and
false," attorney David Pivtorak told FOX Business. "Now that a host
of employees from across the country have come forward to share
similar experiences, AmEx wants to drag their stories into the
shadows."

"American Express boasts publicly about its colleague trust and
transparency," Pivtorak tweeted. "But when workers unite against
company-wide discrimination, AmEx tries to split them up and force
them into secret proceedings stacked against them. So I wrote their
lawyers, calling out the hypocrisy."

In a copy of the letter he attached to his tweet, Pivtorak wrote
that he was responding to a request from Amex's attorneys to
dismiss the lawsuit "and force the individual plaintiffs -- and the
thousands of workers they represent -- into coerced, secretive,
single-party arbitration."

AMERICAN EXPRESS SLAPPED WITH LAWSUIT ALLEGING DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST WHITE EMPLOYEES

Pivtorak went on to accuse Amex of "making a mockery" of its own
"Blue Box Values" that commit to colleague "transparency" and
"fighting against all forms of discrimination," saying "its recent
actions seem to claim otherwise."

On Aug. 23, former American Express employee Brian Netzel filed a
class-action complaint alleging that the company exhibited "callous
indifference" to civil rights law by terminating him because he is
White and spoke out against its "racially discriminatory"
policies.

The lawsuit alleges that Amex implemented "anti-racism" policies
throughout its corporate structure in the wake of George Floyd's
death that "gave preferential treatment to individuals for being
Black and unambiguously signaled to White employees that their race
was an impediment to getting ahead in the company."

Netzel told FOX Business at the time that Amex's racial policies
flooded the workplace with "a tremendous amount of animosity." He
alleged White employees were unfairly punished or passed over for
promotions, while some Black employees were promoted merely to meet
racial quotas, and that some felt empowered to "root out in
McCarthy-era fashion people who didn't agree with this overall
philosophy."

In September, three more plaintiffs joined the complaint alleging
similar treatment.
Amex has denied the lawsuit's allegations, with a spokesperson
telling FOX Business: "The allegations made about our company by
the four claimants and their lawyer are completely without merit."

Pivtorak told FOX Business that the company "is demanding secret
proceedings in front of hand-picked judges who work for an
organization that AmEx has paid to handle hundreds of its cases."

"These are precisely the types of forced, secret proceedings that
allowed Harvey Weinstein and large corporate employers to engage in
persistent predatory behavior until Congress was finally pressured
to enact the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault & Sexual
Harassment Act," the attorney continued.

"In this case, forced arbitration is not only fundamentally unfair
but ironic, given that AmEx is repeatedly staking its public
reputation on how much it values 'transparency' and listening to
the voices of its employees," Pivtorak added.

A spokesperson for Amex also pushed back against wording in
Pivtorak's letter that suggested there are "thousands" of similarly
situated employees, emphasizing to FOX Business that only four
plaintiffs have been named in the lawsuit.

Pivtorak remained adamant about his phrasing, telling FOX Business
that he believes there are indeed potentially thousands of White
employees who were subjected to discriminatory policies by the
company.

"The whole purpose of a class action is to have a few people
represent the interests of many because a litigation with hundreds
or thousands of named members is practically unworkable," he said.
"I think the overwhelming online response to the case, and the
stories it has generated from people who identify themselves as
present or former workers, speak to the enormous number of people
who agree with our claims." [GN]

AMERICAN PROTECTION: Tanofsky Sues Over Failure to Properly Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOAN A. TANOFSKY, and all others similarly situated pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), Plaintiff v. AMERICAN PROTECTION PLANS, LLC
d/b/a AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL WARRANTY, Defendant, Case No.
9:22-cv-81657-XXXX (S.D. Fla., October 28, 2022) is a class action
arising from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a sales
representative at their call center in Boca Raton, Florida on or
about August 2012.

Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, he
regularly worked between 40 and 50 hours per week. Accordingly, the
Defendant paid him and other similarly situated sales
representative non-discretionary commission incentive to induce
them to work more steadily, more rapidly, and to make more sales.
However, the Defendant did not include non-discretionary
commissions when calculating regular hourly rates for the purpose
of determining their overtime compensation. As a result, despite
working more than 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated sales representatives were not properly paid
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant willfully and
intentionally refused to pay them federal overtime wages as
required by the FLSA, says the suit.

Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated sales
representatives, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a
collective action complaint to recover unpaid overtime wages, an
additional amount of liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees
and costs, and other relief as may be deemed just and reasonable
under the circumstances.

American Protection Plans, LLC d/b/a American Residential Warranty
operates a nationwide home appliance warranty company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Jake S. Blumstein, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-
             JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          1800 SE 10th Ave., Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Tel: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

AMGEN INC: ChemoCentryx Seeks Dismissal of Claims in Homyk Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that ChemoCentryx filed a
motion to dismiss claims in the putative shareholder suit captioned
Homyk v. ChemoCentryx, Inc.

On May 5 and June 8 of 2021, ChemoCentryx and its Chief Executive
Officer were named as defendants in two putative shareholder class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (Northern District Court of California). These cases
were consolidated into Homyk v. ChemoCentryx, Inc. in which the
plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act in connection with statements regarding the
New Drug Application for TAVNEOS (avacopan) and the underlying
Phase 3 clinical trial, seeking an award of damages, interest and
attorneys’ fees.

On March 28, 2022, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint, and on May 19, 2022, ChemoCentryx moved to dismiss these
claims.

Amgen Inc. is an American multinational biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California.





ANNAPOLIS, MD: Wins More Time to Oppose Johnson's Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMARA JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF
ANNAPOLIS, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff v. HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY OF ANNAPOLIS, Third-Party Defendant, Civil Action No.
CCB-21-1120 (D. Md.), Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland grants in part and denies in
part the City's request for an extension to file its opposition to
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On Sept. 15, 2022, Johnson and those similarly situated moved for
class certification. The City had until Sept. 29, 2022, to oppose
the motion. But on the day its opposition was due, the City moved
for a 60 day extension and requested a court order allowing the
City to conduct pre-certification discovery. The Plaintiffs
consented to a 15 day extension but opposed a further extension.
They do not consent to pre-certification discovery during the
period of extension.

Judge Blake grants in part and denies in part the City's request
for an extension to file its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. The City's opposition is extended but the
request to take additional pre-certification discovery is denied. A
scheduling order was approved on July 15, 2022. The City had ample
time to propound discovery related to class certification issues.
Allowing the City to take pre-certification discovery at this stage
may encourage sandbagging and dilatory tactics. No good cause
exists to permit the City's late-breaking request for discovery.

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


APPLE INC: Sued Over Agreement With Amazon Over iPhone Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Purdy at arstechnica.com reports that  in early 2018, there
were more than 600 companies you could buy Apple products from on
Amazon's marketplace, including independent refurbishers, usually
at lower prices than Apple's own. By July 2019, there were only
seven, and a class-action lawsuit says that was the result of an
unlawful agreement between the tech giants.

The lawsuit (PDF) was filed in federal court in Seattle by law firm
Hagens Berman on behalf of Steven Floyd. Floyd is a Pennsylvania
man who bought an iPad on Amazon for $320 in early 2021 and was
denied "a lower price which would have been the case in a normal
competitive market," the suit alleges.

Hagens Berman should be a familiar name to Apple's counsel and
close watchers of the company's legal history. The firm sued Apple
over scratched iPod nano cases in 2005 and ebook price-fixing in
2011 and brokered a settlement for smaller iOS developers in the
App Store in 2021. Hagens Berman was also involved in a complicated
lawsuit involving iOS touchscreen patents that involved Apple
accusing the firm of secretly leaning on an "extra attorney."

The suit largely concerns Apple and Amazon's agreement in November
2018, one widely reported, that allowed Amazon to directly sell
Apple products through its marketplace, while also requiring any
other firm to get Apple's permission to sell its products on the
site after January 2019. This had the effect of killing a major
outlet for refurbished Apple goods, which tend to hold their value
much better in used and refurbished form than most other
electronics.

It was also, the suit claims, "an unlawful horizontal agreement
between Apple and Amazon to eliminate or at least severely reduce
the competitive threat posed by third-party merchants." That
agreement is "naked restraint" and unlawful under the Sherman Act,
the suit claims.

The benefits to this collusion, according to the suit, were that
Amazon received "consistent supplies at a discount of up to 10%" if
it kept unauthorized resellers off its store and instantly became
the leading vendor of Apple products on its site. Apple, meanwhile,
eliminated the "active price competition" that was undercutting its
own retail prices, the suit alleges. Prior to the agreement,
discounted prices for iPhones and iPads from third-party vendors on
Amazon could be 20 percent or more, an attorney for Hagens Berman
stated in a blog post.

This same agreement has previously drawn fines from Italy's
competition authority for restricting the firms that can sell Beats
headphones in Amazon's Italian store.

Neither Apple nor Amazon has addressed the lawsuit's claims as of
this writing. Hagens Berman is seeking people who bought an iPhone
or iPad from Amazon through the standard "Buy Box" to enroll in its
class. Damages were not specified in the suit, though it seeks a
jury trial and numerous forms of injunctive relief under antitrust
statutes. [GN]

ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Court Narrows Claims in Ashour Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled AHMED ASHOUR, JOY
BROWN and CRYSTAL TOWNES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC,
HORNELL BREWING CO., INC., BEVERAGE MARKETING USA, INC., ARIZONA
BEVERAGES HOLDINGS LLC, and ARIZONA BEVERAGES HOLDINGS 2 LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 19 Civ. 7081 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.).

The Defendants move to dismiss the second amended complaint for
failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 8(a) and/or 9(b).

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the
Defendants alleging that the Defendants use unfair and deceptive
practices in advertising and marketing their beverages by failing
to disclose that they contain a preservative. They assert claims
under California law for unfair competition, deceptive business
practices, false advertising, breach of express warranty, and
unjust enrichment, and claims under New York law for deceptive acts
and practices, false advertising, breach of express warranty, and
unjust enrichment.

The Defendants are sellers of AriZona beverage products, such as
AriZona Iced Tea, AriZona Green Tea, and AriZona Grapeade. The
Plaintiffs allege that these products are marketed as
preservative-free, with each product being marked with "No
Preservatives," despite containing citric acid, a "preservative
added to foods and beverages to prevent the growth of bacteria."

The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of purchasers of the Defendants' beverages. They
relied on the "No Preservative" markings on the products and
believed that they were purchasing a preservative-free beverage.
They allege that they would not have purchased the beverages, at
least not at the price they paid, had they known that the beverages
contained a preservative.

On May 14, 2019, Ashour commenced the action in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California. One day later, he
notified the Defendants, pursuant to California Civil Code Section
1782(a), that they were in violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (the "CLRA").

On July 24, 2019, the parties stipulated to transfer this action to
this district, and on July 30, 2019, the action was transferred to
this Court. On Sept. 24, 2019, Ashour filed his first amended
complaint, stating five causes of action. On Oct. 14, 2019, the
Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint. On Sept.
18, 2020, the Court issued an order (the "Order") granting the
motion as to the Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief, and
otherwise denying the motion. On March 17, 2021, the Honorable Ona
T. Wang granted leave for the Plaintiffs to file the second amended
complaint.

The second amended complaint, filed on March 19, 2021, states eight
causes of action: violation of California's Unfair Competition Law;
violation of the CLRA; violation of California's False Advertising
Law (the "FAL"); breach of express warranty under Cal. Com. Code
Section 2313; violation of the New York General Business Law
Section 349; violation of the New York General Business Law Section
350; breach of express warranty under New York common law; and
unjust enrichment.

Each of the state law causes of action were made on behalf of
possible state-specific subclasses. Only the unjust enrichment
cause of action was made on behalf of the nationwide class.
Further, the California law causes of action and the nationwide
unjust enrichment cause of action were pleaded in the first amended
complaint and subject to the Defendants' prior motion to dismiss,
and permitted to proceed by the Court.

The Defendants move to dismiss the second amended complaint for
failure to state a claim under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 9(b).
On March 31, 2022, the Court issued an order granting the
Defendants' motion as to the breach of express warranty under New
York law, and injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2) claims, and otherwise denied the motion. The
Court stated that it would issue a memorandum opinion in due
course. Judge Torres says this is that memorandum opinion.

The Defendants argue that the second amended complaint fails
because: (1) it does not state a claim that a reasonable consumer
would be deceived by the labels; (2) notice was not provided for
the breach of warranty claims; (3) Brown's pleadings were not
sufficiently particularized; (4) Ashour and Brown did not identify
advertisements for their FAL claim; (5) Townes' unjust enrichment
claim is duplicative; (6) Ashour and Brown's unjust enrichment
claim does not state a cause of action; and (7) the Plaintiffs'
definition of products is not ascertainable.

Judge Torres finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
that a reasonable customer would believe that a label stating "No
Preservatives" would mean that the product does not contain an
ingredient that is a preservative, if used in sufficient
quantities, such as citric acid, even if there is not a sufficient
quantity for the citric acid to act as a preservative in the
product. Further, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that
there is enough citric acid in the products to have preservative
qualities. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' deceptive labeling claims is denied.

The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs failed to provide notice
as required under New York and California law for their breach of
warranty claims. Judge Torres notes that there must be privity,
unless the plaintiff claims personal injury as a result of the
breach. Therefore, privity is required to state a breach of express
warranty claim.

However, Judge Torres finds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged
privity, as they plead that Townes purchased the products from
retail stores in New York, not from the Defendants. Therefore, the
Plaintiffs have not pleaded the necessary elements of a breach of
express warranty claim under New York law, and the Court need not
reach the issue of notice.

Accordingly, Judge Torres holds the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claims is granted for
the New York claim, and denied for the California claim.

The Defendants argue that Brown has not pleaded his fraudulent
advertising claim with the particularity required under Federal
Rule of Evidence 9(b). Accordingly, for the same reasons stated in
the Order as to Ashour, the Defendants' motion to dismiss Brown's
fraud claims is denied.

The Defendants contend that Ashour and Brown have failed to
identify any advertisement that they saw, what was stated therein,
where and when.

Both the Plaintiffs did so allege, Judge Torres says. They both
allege that they saw the "No Preservative" representation on
various products on numerous occasions. Further, the Court has
already found the pleading sufficient to state a claim for false
advertisement under the FAL. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the FAL claim is denied.

The Defendants further allege that Townes' claim for unjust
enrichment should be dismissed because it improperly duplicates his
tort and contract claims. Townes has alleged fraud in the same
manner the Court has already determined was sufficient pursuant to
Rule 9(b) for the California plaintiffs. Further, Townes has
pleaded that the Defendants were unjustly enriched by their
actions.

Therefore, Judge Torres holds that Townes has permissibly pleaded
his unjust enrichment claim in the alternative. Accordingly, the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the New York unjust enrichment claim
is denied.

The Defendants also move to dismiss the California unjust
enrichment claim because they contend that California does not have
a standalone unjust enrichment cause of action except in limited
circumstances not present in this case.

Assuming without deciding that California law governs the
California Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim, the Court finds
that it has been sufficiently pleaded. Judge Torres holds that
Ashour and Brown have sufficiently pleaded that the Defendants made
a misrepresentation from which they improperly profited.

The Court will not dismiss the California unjust enrichment claim
at this stage, given the uncertainty surrounding such a claim under
California law, and that the California Plaintiffs have adequately
pleaded an unjust enrichment claim, if one exists under California
law. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the California
unjust enrichment claims is denied.

Finally, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs' inclusion of
any other AriZona product representing it contains no preservatives
despite containing citric acid in the definition of "products," is
"unclear" and the complaint should be dismissed as to any product
not specifically alleged. The Court disagrees.

Judge Torres finds that the Plaintiffs have defined the products at
issue with sufficient specificity to place the Defendants on fair
notice, especially given that the Defendants produce the products,
and, therefore, should know which ones are labeled as "No
Preservatives" and contain citric acid.

For the reasons stated, the Defendants' motion is granted for the
New York law breach of express warranty and the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) injunctive relief claims, and otherwise
denied. Accordingly, the breach of express warranty claim under New
York law, and the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)
injunctive relief claim are dismissed. Further, the Defendants'
request for oral argument is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/j469xcd5 from Leagle.com.


AVISTA CORP: Faces Several Suits Over Babb Road Fire
----------------------------------------------------
Avista Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 31, 2022, the company is facing
several suits seeking unspecified damages in connection with the
Babb Road fire.

Eight lawsuits seeking unspecified damages have been filed in
connection with the Babb Road fire. These include five subrogation
actions filed by insurance companies seeking recovery for amounts
paid to insureds; two actions on behalf of individual plaintiffs;
and a class action lawsuit. All proceedings have been consolidated
for discovery and pre-trial proceedings, are pending in the
Superior Court of Spokane County Washington, and variously assert
causes of action for negligence, private nuisance, trespass and
inverse condemnation (a theory of strict liability).

On September 16, 2022, the Company filed a motion in the Superior
Court of Spokane County, Washington, seeking dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claims as a matter of law on the
grounds that they are not legally cognizable under Washington law.


On October 14, 2022, the Superior Court heard oral argument on that
motion. The Court concluded the Company's motion involved mixed
questions of law and fact and, as a consequence, could not be
granted at that stage of the proceedings; however, the Court
indicated the Company could bring the issue before the Court again
after discovery is completed.

Avista Corporation operates as an electric and natural gas utility
company. It operates in two segments, Avista Utilities, and Alaska
Electric Light and Power Company. Avista Corporation was founded in
1889 and is headquartered in Spokane, Washington.


BATH SAVER: Agrees to Settle Spam Phone Calls Suit for $1.95M
--------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Bath Saver Inc. and franchisee
Bath Fitter have established a settlement fund of $1.95 million to
resolve a class action lawsuit claiming the company violated
federal law regulating spam phone calls.

The settlement class is defined as anyo ne in the United States who
Bath Saver or its affiliates -- Kitchen Saver and/or Homespire
Windows/Doors and their affiliates -- called two or more times in a
12-month period on a telephone number registered with the National
Do Not Call Registry for more than 30 days and for whom there is no
record of written consent to call or there is a record of the
person requesting to not be called.

Bath Saver was accused of violating the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), which was created to protect consumers from
unwanted and unsolicited automated calls, sometimes called
robocalls.

Bath Saver denies wrongdoing, saying it is paying the settlement to
avoid trial costs.

Plaintiff Carol Miller, who placed her name on the National Do Not
Call Registry in 2013, alleged in the class action lawsuit that she
received prerecorded phone calls from the defendant. When the call
was returned, the caller was met with an automated system that
identified itself as Bath Fitter, which is a co-defendant
franchisee associated with Bath Saver Inc.

The plaintiff had no established business relationship with the
clients, a condition of the TCPA for making marketing calls. Others
complained Bath Fitter made multiple calls per week.

Bath Fitter is a bathtub and shower stall manufacturer that reports
having more than 2 million customers. The company offers "one-day"
installations of new shower or bath liners with no demolition or
mess. Bath Saver is a franchisee that operates in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.

Settlement class members are eligible to receive a pro rata share
of the settlement, after attorney fees, administrative costs and
other expenses are deducted from the fund.

Those who wish to exclude themselves from the settlement and those
who wish to object to the fairness of the settlement may do so by
Jan. 3, 2023.

A final approval hearing will be held Feb. 2, 2023.

Class members who wish to take part in the settlement must submit a
claim form no later than Jan. 3, 2023.

                           Who's Eligible

Anyone in the U.S. who Bath Saver or its affiliates -- Kitchen
Saver and/or Homespire Windows/Doors and their affiliates -- called
two or more times in a 12-month period on a telephone number
registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for more than 30
days without consent. [GN]

BIMBO BAKERIES: Misclassifies Distributors, Provencher et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ARTHUR PROVENCHER, MICHAEL McGUIRE and RONALD MARTEL,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.; BIMBO FOODS BAKERIES
DISTRIBUTION LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00198-wks (D.
Vermont, October 28, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Vermont
Employment Practices Laws.

The Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendants as distributors, who
perform delivery and merchandizing services to local retailers of
bakery products manufactured or sold by the Defendants. They
operate out of the Defendants distribution center in Willison,
Vermont.

The Plaintiffs assert that they and other similarly situated
distributors were misclassified by the Defendants as independent
contractors. Although they regularly worked more than 40 hours per
week, the Defendant did not pay them overtime premium pay at the
rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a class and collective
action against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime premium
wages, plus interest, liquidated damages, penalties, attorney fees
and costs, and any other relief that the Court deems just and
equitable.

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. & Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution LLC
manufacture, bake, & distribute bakery and snack food products to
retail customers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Merrill E. Bent, Esq.
          WOOLMINGTON, CAMPBELL, BENT
            & STASNY, P.C.
          4900 Main Street
          P.O. Box 2748
          Manchester Center, VT 05255
          Tel: (802) 362-2560
          E-mail: merrill@greenmtlaw.com

                - and –

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          Scott A. Moriarity, Esq.
          Nicholas P. DeMaris, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Tel: (612) 252-3570
          Fax: (612) 252-3571
          E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
                  samoriarity@baillonthome.com
                  npdemaris@baillonthome.com

BLUETRITON BRANDS: Williams Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daril Williams, Gabriel McNairy-McKinstry, Michael Morris and
Deamon Perry, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
v. BLUETRITON BRANDS, INC., and HENRIK JELERT, Case No.
3:22-cv-02438-G (N.D. Tex., Nov. 1, 2022), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime compensation from the Defendants pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

All of Plaintiffs' delivery routes were exclusively within the
State of Texas. Plaintiffs do not have a CDL, and were not
generally required to comply with DOT regulations applying to
interstate drivers, such as preparing and keeping a log of hours
driven. The job responsibilities of route drivers frequently took
over 60 hours per week to perform, depending on the work load in
any particular week. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants
improperly deprived them, as well as the Class, of overtime
compensation to which they were entitled to pursuant to the FLSA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendant in
non-supervisory, non-exempt positions.

BlueTriton Brands, Inc. is a foreign for-profit organization.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John H. Crouch, IV, Esq.
          KILGORE & KILGORE, PLLC
          3141 Hood Street, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 969-9099
          Fax: (214) 379-0844
          Email: jhc@kilgorelaw.com

               - and -

          Raphael A. Katri, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A. KATRI, APC
          8549 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (800) 349-3039
          Fax: (310) 733-5644
          Email: rkatri@gmail.com

BP EXPLORATION: Claims in Charles & 8 Suits Dismissed W/ Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, COREY ANTHONY CHARLES v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H". STERLING WAYNE BOLER v. BP EXPLORATION
& PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H". JACQUES PIERRE McINNIS,
JR. v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H".
JESSE CANTU MEDEL, III v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET
AL., SECTION: "H". DENNIS RAY MOORE v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H". MARK L. PESCHLOW v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H". TEANDRA S. AUBERT v. BP
EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H". TERRIA
JENKINS v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "H,"
Civil Action Nos. 17-3125, 17-3499, 17-3555, 17-3564, 17-3574,
17-3598, 17-3628, 17-4367 (E.D. La.), Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
grants the Motions in Limine to Exclude the General Causation
Opinions of Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr. Jerald Cook and Motions for
Summary Judgment Due to Plaintiff's Inability to Prove Medical
Causation.

The Motions are filed by Defendants BP Exploration & Production,
Inc.; BP America Production Co.; BP p.l.c.; Transocean Holdings,
LLC; Transocean Deepwater, Inc.; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
Drilling, Inc.; and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

These nine cases are among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle comprises "claims for
personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or
other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g.,
dispersant)." These cases were originally part of a multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana
before Judge Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement
or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge
Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among
the judges of the Court. The nine cases were reassigned to Section
H.

Plaintiffs Charles; Boler; McInnis; Medel, Moore, Peschlow, Aubert,
and Jenkins each filed lawsuits against the Defendants
("collectively BP") based on their alleged exposure to toxic
chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico. Each Plaintiff was allegedly involved in cleanup or
recovery work after the oil spill, and each contends that his or
her resulting exposure to crude oil and dispersants caused a litany
of health conditions. The Plaintiffs bring claims for general
maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence
against Defendants.

Now before the Court in each of the captioned cases are the
Defendants' Motions in Limine and their Motions for Summary
Judgment. In each of the Motions in Limine, the Defendants argue
that the Plaintiffs' expert on medical causation, Dr. Cook, fails
to satisfy the Fifth Circuit's requirements for an admissible
general causation opinion in toxic tort cases and should therefore
be excluded as unreliable. In each of the Motions for Summary
Judgment, the Defendants argue that assuming their Motions in
Limine are granted, each of the Plaintiffs lacks expert testimony
on general causation and therefore fails to present a genuine issue
of material fact as to whether his injuries were caused by exposure
to oil and dispersants. The Plaintiffs oppose.

Judge Milazzo explains that B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal
cause of the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other
chemicals used during the response. Their burden with respect to
causation in a toxic tort case involves proof of both general
causation and specific causation.

In each of the captioned cases Dr. Cook is listed as the
Plaintiff's only expert witness on causation. On this topic, he
produced a report dated June 21, 2022, and entitled "Health Effects
Among Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Response and Cleanup Workers: A
Cause and Effect Analysis." This report, according to Judge
Milazzo, is not unique to this case; another judge of the Court has
described it as an omnibus, non-case specific general causation
expert report that has been used by many B3 plaintiffs.

Moreover, seven sections of the Eastern District of Louisiana,
including this one, excluded an earlier version of Dr. Cook's
report dated March 14, 2022. Dr. Cook's June report does not appear
to make any changes that disturb the reasons for excluding the
March version. Indeed, at least four sections have already excluded
the June 21, 2022, report as well.

Accordingly, for the same reasons articulated by Judges Africk,
Ashe, Vance, Barbier, Morgan, and Zainey, Judge Milazzo grants the
Defendants' Motions in Limine. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs cannot
prove general causation, and she also grants the Defendants'
Motions for Summary Judgment. All of the Plaintiffs' claims are
dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/57vk2dh6 from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: Cotton's Bid to Reconsider Summary Judgment Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CILLO COTTON, JR. v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL., SECTION: H(4), Civil Action No. 17-3132 (E.D. La.),
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana denies the Plaintiff's Motion to
Reconsider its Order Granting Defendants' Motion in Limine and
Motion for Summary Judgment.

The case is one among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle comprises "claims for
personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or
other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g.,
dispersant). These cases were originally part of a multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana
before Judge Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement
or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge
Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among
the judges of this Court. This B3 case was eventually reassigned to
Section H.5

Cotton alleged continuous exposure to oil and dispersants starting
in May 2010 during his work as a boat captain and recovery
technician engaged in cleanup efforts along the Gulf coast. He
claimed to suffer from a host of medical conditions because of the
exposure, including headaches, back pain, acne, boils, dryness,
inflammation, itching, lesions, sinus pain, congestion, dizziness,
lethargy, tremors, nausea, and more.

Like other B3 plaintiffs, the Plaintiff submitted an expert report
from Dr. Jerald Cook, an occupational and environmental physician,
to demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and
dispersants can cause the symptoms that he alleged in his
complaint. Dr. Cook was his only expert on the issue of general
causation. This Court excluded the testimony of Dr. Cook as
unreliable and unhelpful under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Because expert testimony is required to establish general causation
in a toxic tort case, and the Plaintiff's sole expert witness on
the issue of general causation was excluded, the Court granted the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the
Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.

Now before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The Plaintiff argues
that the Court's order granting the Defendants' Motion in Limine
and Motion for Summary Judgment should be reconsidered in light of
the ongoing dispute in another B3 case regarding BP's decision not
to collect dermal and biometric data from cleanup workers.
Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP America Production
Company; BP p.l.c.; Transocean Holdings, LLC; Transocean Deepwater,
Inc.; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; and Halliburton
Energy Services, Inc. (collectively, the "BP parties") oppose.

Judge Milazzo finds that the Plaintiff does not identify which of
the four Rule 59(e) criteria he believes are satisfied. She says
his argument regarding the imposition of discovery sanctions in
another B3 case is irrelevant to the fact that Dr. Cook's opinion
is unhelpful and unreliable. This Court, as well as others in this
district, determined that Dr. Cook's expert report was inadmissible
and these decisions did not depend on the dermal and biometric data
that BP allegedly failed to collect. As for the Plaintiff's
anticipatory spoliation allegation, even assuming that BP had an
affirmative duty to collect biomonitoring and dermal data from
cleanup workers, this lack of information is not what renders Dr.
Cook's expert report" inadmissible.

Considering the foregoing, Judge Milazzo concludes that the
Plaintiff has not presented any justification for alteration or
amendment pursuant to Rule 59(e). Moreover, this Court is not alone
in this decision, as several other courts in this district have
also denied reconsideration on the same grounds. Therefore, the
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/54md3dat from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: Court Dismisses Leverette and Milsap B3 Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jay C. Zainey of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana grants the Defendants' motions for summary
judgment and dismisses with prejudice the lawsuits styled LEVERETTE
v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., SECTION "A." MILSAP,
v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL. SECTION "A," Case Nos.
17-3324, No. 17-4449 (E.D. La.).

The captioned cases are B3 lawsuits that were allotted to this
section from Judge Carl Barbier's MDL 2179 pertaining to the
Deepwater Horizon disaster that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in
2010. The B3 pleading bundle includes personal injury claims due to
oil or chemical exposure during the disaster response (In re Oil
Spill by Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in Gulf of Mexico, on April
20, 2010, No. MDL 2179, 2021 WL 6055613, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 1,
2021)). B3 plaintiffs either opted out of the Medical Settlement or
were not members of the settlement class.

The Plaintiff in each captioned B3 lawsuit was employed in the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill response effort and claims that
exposure to crude oil and chemical dispersants (the former being
released by the oil spill itself and the latter being used in the
cleanup process) caused various personal injuries, some temporary
and some long-term.

From the inception of the severed B3 cases, it has been understood
that to prevail "B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of
the claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals
used during the response." Because causation had proved to be the
critical element in the BELO cases, it was predicted to be the
"make-or-break" issue for many B3 cases as well. A B3 plaintiff
must prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is
exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the oil spill
response. The issue of causation will require an individualized
inquiry.

Judge Zainey notes that the plaintiff's burden with respect to
causation in a toxic tort case involves proof of both general
causation and specific causation. General causation is whether a
substance is capable of causing a particular injury or condition in
the general population. Specific causation is whether a substance
caused a particular individual's injury, i.e., the plaintiff's
injury. If the plaintiff's case fails at the first-step of
producing admissible evidence as to general causation, then the
issue of specific causation is rendered moot.

In each of the hundreds of B3 cases that were reassigned from MDL
2179 to the judges of this district, the plaintiff attempted to
prove both general and specific causation by relying on expert
medical doctor, Jerald Cook, M.D. Dr. Cook's expert report, of
which there have been several versions, has been described by
another judge as "an omnibus, non-case specific general causation
expert report that has been used by many B3 plaintiffs."
Unfortunately, no version of Dr. Cook's report has been accepted in
this district, Judge Zainey states.

The motions in limine in the captioned cases pertain to the
Plaintiffs' use of Dr. Cook's report, and the testimony that would
derive from it at trial, as evidence of both general and specific
causation. The Movants seek to exclude Dr. Cook's opinions on
various grounds including the principles espoused in Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Again, Judge Zainey says, Dr. Cook's report has been rejected under
Daubert by the judges of this district. If Dr. Cook's opinions are
excluded from trial, then the Defendants argue that their motion
for summary judgment must be granted because the plaintiff(s) will
have no expert medical causation evidence, which would constitute a
complete failure of proof on an essential element of the case.

The Court has carefully studied and considered the numerous
decisions issued by the other judges of this district, who have
determined that Dr. Cook's opinions should be excluded. For the
same reasons given by Judges Vance, Barbier, Morgan, Milazzo, and
Ashe when they granted the defendants' motions in limine directed
at the same or even "improved" versions of Dr. Cook's report, the
Court grants the Defendants' motions in limine in the captioned
cases. Consequently, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment
are likewise granted.

The motion for extension of deadlines filed in the Leverette case
is denied.

Accordingly, Judge Zainey grants the Motions in Limine filed in
each of the captioned cases.

The Motions for Summary Judgment filed in each of the captioned
cases are granted and that all of the claims of the Plaintiffs
against all of the Defendants in the captioned cases are dismissed
with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mw79u5t6 from Leagle.com.


BP EXPLORATION: Wynne's Toxic Tort Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREGG WYNNE, ET AL. v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL., SECTION: H(4), Civil Action No. 17-3230 (E.D. La.),
Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana grants the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendants BP America Production Co., BP
Exploration & Production, Inc., BP p.l.c., Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc., Transocean Deepwater, Inc., Transocean Holdings,
LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.

The case is one among the "B3 bundle" of cases arising out of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This bundle comprises claims for
personal injury and wrongful death due to exposure to oil and/or
other chemicals used during the oil spill response (e.g.,
dispersant). These cases were originally part of a multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana
before Judge Barbier. During this MDL, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement, but the B3 plaintiffs either opted out of this agreement
or were excluded from its class definition. Subsequently, Judge
Barbier severed the B3 cases from the MDL to be reallocated among
the judges of this Court. This case was reassigned to Section H.

Plaintiffs Gregg and Monette Wynne individually and on behalf of
their minor children, Minor GW, Minor MW and Minor RW, allege
continuous exposure to harmful substances and chemicals around
their residence in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida, beginning in April of
2010, as a result of the oil spill and subsequent cleanup efforts.
They claim to suffer from a variety of health complaints. They
assert claims under the general maritime law of negligence, gross
negligence, willful misconduct, and medical monitoring, as well as
fraudulent concealment, negligence per se, nuisance, battery, loss
of consortium, and medical monitoring under Florida law with
respect to the spill and its cleanup.

Now before the Court is the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. The BP Parties argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to
produce sufficient evidence to prove that exposure to oil or
dispersants caused their alleged injuries. To date, the Plaintiffs
have filed no opposition to the BP Parties' motion.

Judge Milazzo holds that the Plaintiffs have the burden of proving
causation. B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of the
claimed injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals
used during the response. Under the general maritime law, a party's
negligence is actionable only if it is a 'legal cause' of the
plaintiff's injuries. In a toxic tort suit such as this one, the
plaintiff must present admissible expert testimony to establish
general causation as well as specific causation.

The Plaintiffs' deadline for expert disclosures and reports was
Sept. 21, 2022. The Plaintiffs neither met this deadline nor moved
for its extension. Additionally, to date, the Plaintiffs have
failed to oppose the Defendants' motion or put forth any evidence
of causation. Therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot prove a necessary
element of their claims against the Defendants, and their claims
must be dismissed.

For these reasons, Judge Milazzo grants the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment, and dismisses the case with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycyzjfh3 from Leagle.com.


BROOKSTONE DEVELOPERS: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Berrio Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brookstone Developers LLC
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06475 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2022) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated individuals, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law relating to Defendant's
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours wages,
and failure to maintain records.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants who was employed
as a construction worker in Brookstone Developers LLC in New York.

Brookstone Developers LLC is a construction company headquartered
in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          Toneille Raglan, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 203-2417

CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE: Schneider Files Suit in Minn. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Children's Health
Care, et al. The case is styled as Kelly Schneider, Evarist
Schneider, II, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Petitioners v. Children's Health Care, d/b/a Children's
Hospital and Clinics, Children's Health Care Foundation,
Respondents, Case No. A22-0275 (Minn. Sup. Ct., Nov. 1, 2022).

The case type is stated "Other Civil."

Children's Minnesota -- https://www.childrensmn.org/ -- is one of
the largest free-standing pediatric health systems in the US.[BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Anthony Lavell Brown, Esq.
          FOLEY & MANSFIELD
          101 South Hanley Road, Suite 600 St.
          Louis, Missouri 63105
          Phone: (314) 925-5700
          Email: abrown@foleymansfield.com

               - and -

          Joshua Reace Williams, Esq.
          2836 Lyndale Avenue S., Suite 160
          Minneapolis, MN 55408
          Phone: 612.486.5540
          Email: jwilliams@jrwilliamslaw.com

               - and -

          Marcus Lamonse Almon, Esq.
          ALMON & KOZIOL, LLC
          210 N. 2nd St., Ste. 50
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: 651-419-3615

The Respondents are represented by:

          Danyll W. Foix, Esq.
          Washington, D.C.
          BAKERHOSTETLER
          Phone: +1.202.861.1596
          Fax: +1.202.861.1783
          Email: dfoix@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          David A. Carney, Esq.
          BAKERHOSTETLER
          Cleveland
          Phone: +1.216.861.7634
          Fax: +1.216.696.0740
          Email: dcarney@bakerlaw.com


CLOROX COMPANY: Charles Sues Over Mislabeled Cleaning Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CHARLES individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CLOROX COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-06855 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2022) seeks to remedy the
deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with
respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of the
Defendant's Pine-Sol cleaning products (hereinafter the
"Products").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant has
improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its
Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting and
not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that using the
Products may increase the risk of contracting invasive infections.

The Products contain Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which could lead to
serious and life-threatening adverse health consequences. The
Defendant specifically lists both the active and inactive
ingredients of the Products on the labeling; however, the Defendant
fails to disclose that the Products contain, or are at the risk of
containing, Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Additionally, Defendant claims
that the Products "cuts through grease and grime", despite the
Products containing, or are at risk of containing, dangerous
bacteria. Had the Defendant not made the false, misleading, and
deceptive representations and omissions regarding the contents of
the Products, the Plaintiff would not have been willing to purchase
the Products, says the suit.

THE CLOROX COMPANY manufactures and markets consumer products sold
primarily through grocery and other retail stores. The Company's
principal products include household cleaning and bleach products,
charcoal, cat litter, dressings and sauces, natural personal care,
and trash bags. Clorox markets the majority of its products in
North America and the LATAM countries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael McShane, Esq.
          Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
          Kurt D. Kessler, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Ave., Suite 500
          San Francisco CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          Email: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
                 lkuang@audetlaw.com
                 kkessler@audetlaw.com

CLOROX COMPANY: Swetz Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Swetz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Clorox Company, Case No. 7:22-cv-09374 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 1, 2022), is brought to remedy the deceptive and misleading
business practices of the Defendant with respect to the
manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendant's Pine-Sol cleaning
products (the "Products") throughout the state of New York and
throughout the country.

The Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled
and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff,
by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that
consumption of the Products may increase the risk of contracting
invasive infections. The Products contain Pseudomonas aeruginosa,
which could lead to serious and life-threatening adverse health
consequences. The risk of serious infection from Pseudomonas
aeruginosa is also particularly concerning for immunocompromised
individuals that are highly susceptible to life threatening
diseases and even death from Pseudomonas aeruginosa ingestion This
is egregious, especially because people are spreading this bacteria
all over their homes by using a product that is supposed to clean
their home.

The Defendant specifically lists both the active and inactive
ingredients of the Products on the labeling; however, Defendant
fails to disclose that the Products contain, or are at the risk of
containing, Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Consumers like the Plaintiff
trust manufacturers such as Defendant to sell products that are
safe and free from harmful known substances, including Pseudomonas
aeruginosa. The Plaintiff certainly expect that the cleaning
products they purchase will not contain, or risk containing, any
knowingly harmful substances. Unfortunately for consumers, like
Plaintiff, the cleaning products they purchased contain Pseudomonas
aeruginosa.

The Defendant is using a marketing and advertising campaign that
omits from the ingredients lists that the Products include
Pseudomonas aeruginosa. This omission leads a reasonable consumer
to believe they are not purchasing a product with a known bacterium
when in fact they are purchasing a product contaminated with
Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The Defendant's advertising and marketing
campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the Products
do contain, or risk containing, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which is
dangerous to one's health, well-being, and even life. The Plaintiff
and Class Members relied on Defendant's misrepresentations and
omissions of the safety of the Products when they purchased them,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's Pine Sol Lemon Fresh
Product that was subject to the recall.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells cleaning
products to clean surfaces in the home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (845) 483-7100
          Fax: (888) 749-7747
          Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                 markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: 215-592-1500
          Email: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
                 cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          1 Old Country Rd., Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Phone: (516) 873-9550
          Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com


CLOTH & PAPER: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cloth & Paper, Co.
The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cloth & Paper, Co., Case
No. 1:22-cv-09352-LJL (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2022).

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

Cloth & Paper -- https://clothandpaper.com/ -- designs leather
planners, minimal planner inserts, transparent sticky notes,
planner stickers, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


COLLECTION BUREAU: N.J. Court Certifies Class in Church FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLIFFORD J. CHURCH and RANDA A. HUSAIN, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COLLECTION
BUREAU OF THE HUDSON VALLEY, INC., and JOHN DOES 1 to 10
Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-3172 (SDW) (LDW) (D.N.J.), Judge
Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The Plaintiffs' Motion arises from debt collection letters sent by
Collection Bureau of Hudson Valley ("CBHV") to Church and Husain on
behalf of creditors. They allege that the letters constituted false
and misleading collection efforts because CBHV never intended to
report the debts to credit reporting agencies within seven days of
the letters' receipt, as its policy was to report debts
approximately 60 days from placement absent contract instructions
from its client. They raise claims pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq.

The Plaintiffs filed an initial complaint on March 23, 2020,
followed by a First Amended Complaint adding Husain as a plaintiff
on June 29, 2020. They then filed a Second Amended Complaint on
April 14, 2021. On April 8, 2022, they filed the instant Motion to
certify the case to proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3).

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: All natural
persons to whom Collection Bureau of Hudson Valley, Inc. mailed a
Letter from March 23, 2019 through Sept. 3, 2021 either: (a) to a
New Jersey address to collect a debt asserted to be owed to Ramapo
Valley Anesthesiology Associates LLC; or (b) to an address using
Zip Code 07503 to collect a debt asserted to be owed to Optimum.

CBHV opposed the Motion on May 5, 2022, and the Plaintiffs replied
on June 3, 2022.

Judge Wigenton explains that a party proposing class-action
certification bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating by a
preponderance of the evidence compliance with the requirements of
Rule 23. Under Rule 23(a), the requirements are referred to as
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Under Rule
23(b)(3), the requirements are referred to ascertainability,
predominance, and superiority.

Judge Wigenton finds that (i) CBHV sent the collection letter to
984 individuals (378 for Ramapo debts and 606 for Optimum debts),
so the proposed class meets the numerosity requirement; (ii)
because all class members share the same Section 1692e claim based
on identical debt collection letters, the commonality and
predominance requirements are met; (iii) typicality has been
satisfied because the same debt collection letters are sent to many
individuals; (iv) the representation is adequate; (v) because the
Plaintiffs can identify each class member who received the
Defendant's form letter, the ascertainability requirement is met;
and (vi) the superiority requirement is satisfied, along with all
other applicable Rule 23 requirements.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
is granted. An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/muadra8 from Leagle.com.


COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL: Website Not Blind-accessible, Bishop Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL PARTNERS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-09159-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's failure to maintain, and operate its
website http://www.compfinancialpartners.com/to be fully
accessible for the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired
people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New
York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.

Comprehensive Financial Partners, Inc. is a financial consultant in
New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                  Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal

CREDIT SUISSE: Wins Judgment in FX Benchmark Rates Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued a judgment in favor of the Credit Suisse Defendants in the
lawsuit titled IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 13 Civ. 7789 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.).

On Oct. 11, 2022, a jury trial commenced on the two issues with
respect to which class certification was granted.

On Oct. 20, 2022, the jury returned a special verdict finding that
the Plaintiffs did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that Defendants Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group AG and Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC knowingly participated in a conspiracy
to widen, fix, stabilize or maintain bid-ask spreads in the foreign
exchange market.

Knowing participation in a conspiracy is an element of the
Plaintiffs' remaining claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
(United States v. Aiyer, 33 F.4th 97, 122 (2d Cir. 2022)).

Accordingly, the Court entered a judgment in favor of the Credit
Suisse Defendants and against the Plaintiffs on the Section 1
claims in the Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

The Court retains jurisdiction over any matter pertaining to this
Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4c8y2fpv from Leagle.com.


DCM ADVISORS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bishop Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DCM ADVISORS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-09160-PAE (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's failure to maintain, and operate its website
https://www.dcmadvisors.com/ to be fully accessible for the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.

DCM Advisors LLC is a fund management company in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                  Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal

DEMERT BRANDS: Shampoo Products Contains Benzene, Collette Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MINDY COLLETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEMERT BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-09438 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2022) alleges that the Defendant's
shampoo products contains benzene.

According to the complaint, the Defendant distributes and sells Not
Your Mother' brand of dry shampoo (the "NYM Dry Shampoos" or the
"Products") for normal, household use. However, the Products are
defective because they contain dangerously high levels of the
chemical benzene, a known carcinogen that offers no therapeutic
shampoo benefit, says the suit.

The Defendant represents that the Products are safe for their
intended use. In reality, the Products contain significant
concentrations of the toxic chemical benzene. The Plaintiff relied
on these representations and warranties in deciding to purchase the
Product manufactured by Defendant, and these representations and
warranties were part of the basis of the bargain in that, had the
Plaintiff been aware of the existence of benzene in the Product,
she would not have purchased the Product or would have paid
significantly less, the suit asserts.

DEMERT BRANDS, INC. manufactures and distributes cosmetic products.
The Company provides beauty and cosmetic products for men and
women. DeMert Brands serves customers internationally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell Busch, Esq.
          Zoe Aaron, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN, PLLC
          405 E 50th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (630) 796-0903
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          Email: rbusch@milberg.com
                  zaaron@milberg.com

               - and -

          J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC, 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919)600-5035
          Email: hbryson@milberg.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          Erin J. Ruben, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
                  eruben@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
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          Alex Honeycutt, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com

DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: N.D. Illinois Dismisses Powell BIPA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CODY POWELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEPAUL UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case
No. 21 C 3001 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a private university
located in Chicago, Illinois. It offers undergraduate and graduate
programs to more than 21,000 students both in person and through
online learning programs.

Mr. Powell, a student at DePaul University, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, brought a First Amended Putative
Class Action Complaint against the Defendant in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, alleging that its use of Respondus
Monitor, an online remote proctoring tool designed and administered
by Respondus Inc., violates Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy
Act ("BIPA"), 740 ILCS 14/1 et. seq., by capturing, using, and
storing students' facial recognition and other biometric
identifiers and biometric information.

The Defendant removed the case to this Court and then moved to
dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim, arguing that BIPA's express terms specify that it does not
apply to financial institutions that are subject to Title V of the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLBA") and rules promulgated under that
Act.

To support its argument that it is a financial institution subject
to the GLBA, the Defendant notes that both the Federal Trade
Commission and the Department of Education ("DOE") have recognized
that institutions of higher education such as the Defendant are
considered financial institutions under the GLBA and must comply
with it and the rules enacted thereunder.

The Plaintiff admits that the publicly available documents of which
the Court has taken judicial notice, including the Defendant's
Participation Agreement with the DOE, confirm that the Defendant
engages in student aid and lending funds. He argues that the
documents do not establish that the business of the Defendant is
engaging in financial activities. Instead, he argues that the
business of defendant is higher education.

Judge Gettleman opines that each of the cases cited rejected this
argument, and this Court also rejects it. As noted in Patterson v.
Respondus, Inc., 2022 WL 7100547 (N.D. Ill. October 11, 2022), CFPB
regulations include examples that suggest the word 'significantly'
means something less than primary," the definition that the
Plaintiff suggests.

Consequently, because the documents presented show that the
Defendant participates in the federal student aid programs and
provides direct loans to consumers, Judge Gettleman concludes that
the Defendant is a financial institution subject to Title V of the
GLBA and exempt from BIPA. As a result, BIPA does not apply and the
Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ybdpt8m from
Leagle.com.


DFINITY FOUNDATION: Asked Disqualification of Roche Law Firm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Wise, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that by the time
he arrived in London in January, Kyle Roche was on a roll.

Weeks earlier, his firm had scored a $100 million judgment against
a self-proclaimed Bitcoin inventor, another step to break from the
pack of attorneys trying to make their mark in cryptocurrency law.

Roche had also landed as a client the blockchain startup Ava Labs,
paying him and his partners in digitized tokens worth millions.

Now, barely five years out of law school, the young lawyer had come
to woo potential investors for a startup venture he said he was
working on with Ava Labs. In one restaurant meeting, with the
alcohol flowing, the lawyer touted himself as a "crazy
motherf—er" when it came to court battles. He also boasted about
a bold litigation strategy on behalf of Ava Labs—using investor
class-action suits to weigh down their competitors.

In another private gathering that day, he crowed: "Because I sue
half the companies in this space, I know where this market is
going."

What he didn't know: His comments were being recorded.

Those conversations, including one in which Roche boasted his job
included giving US regulators other "magnets" to go after, became
the fuse that ignited a spectacularly swift downfall for an
apparent fast-rising star in the niche field. Since videos of them
were anonymously posted online in August, Roche has lost his role
as a lead attorney in potentially law-defining cases, exited the
firm he founded and retreated from public view.

How it happened offers a window into what can be the cutthroat
nature of a fledgling trillion-dollar industry, one whose
volatility has engendered a flood of lawsuits, courtroom
skirmishes, and, in this case, an apparent elaborate scheme to take
down a lawyer.

It's still unclear who was behind the secret recordings or behind
Crypto Leaks, the website that posted them. Roche and his former
firm, in statements online and in court, have denied wrongdoing and
claimed the videos were selectively edited to erase important
context.

They have asserted the hidden-camera ambush was orchestrated by
representatives for a Swiss blockchain firm they had sued just
months before the London meetings, though they've not offered
evidence to substantiate it.

Roche declined to comment to Bloomberg Law. But much of the story
has emerged through legal proceedings, court filings, public
statements and interviews, including with the prominent Norwegian
investor at the center of it all.

The Crypto Lawyer
Roche's interest in crypto took off during his first year at the
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law in 2013, when he became
fascinated by the legal systems surrounding currency. As a student,
he collaborated with one professor on a paper touting the long-term
advantages of the decentralized digital asset Bitcoin.

After graduating in 2016, he landed at the Armonk, N.Y., office of
Boies Schiller Flexner, the vaunted Big Law firm, and began
representing clients in crypto-related disputes.

Three years later, he co-founded his own firm, one eventually
filled with ex-Boies lawyers specializing in fast-developing areas
like crypto. One early client, Ava Labs, even agreed to pay them
with its fledgling AVAX digital tokens, which had not yet entered
the market. Roche also got an equity stake in the company.

Roche and his co-founder, Devin "Velvel" Freedman, had for months
worked on novel legal theories they'd argue under their new banner.
Their first suit, filed in October 2019, accused the crypto
exchange Bitfinex and its affiliate Tether, the company behind the
Tether stablecoin, of a multibillion-dollar price manipulation
scheme.

The firm later teamed with New York boutique Selendy Gay Elsberg to
file 11 suits against crypto exchanges and token issuers for the
alleged sale of unregistered securities.

Meanwhile, their Ava Labs bet paid massive dividends. After being
introduced in 2020, the value of AVAX tokens owned collectively by
Roche Freedman lawyers once reached $250 million, according to
claims one partner later made in federal court.

Roche and Freedman also found the spotlight representing a client
suing Craig Wright, who has claimed to be the person who developed
Bitcoin. The estate of Wright's alleged former business partner
claimed it was entitled to half a cache of Bitcoin they mined
together in the asset's early years.

A federal jury in Florida cleared Wright in December 2021 of claims
including fraud and theft, but ordered him to pay a $100 million
judgment for the unlawful seizure of intellectual property.

Roche Freedman touted the judgment as precedent-setting. Roche
would later cite the verdict to support his litigation bona fides.

"The litigation with Craig Wright put them on the map," said
Stephen D. Palley, a lawyer who has written on legal topics
relating to crypto.

Weeks after that case, however, Roche took the trip that would
change his fortunes.

Looking for Partners
He arrived in London hoping to line up investors for a litigation
crowdfunding startup he wanted to develop with Ava Labs. Named
Ryval, the venture was intended to allow people to place bets on
litigation on Ava's Avalanche platform.

On a Thursday afternoon, Roche traveled to a three-story townhouse
in the city's upscale Mayfair section that served as the office of
Christen Ager-Hanssen, a high-profile venture capitalist who has
reportedly made and lost millions in tech and media deals.
Ager-Hanssen covered the first-class airfare and hotel costs for
Roche and his fiancee, Roche would later say in a declaration
submitted in court.

The meeting was arranged by an independent business consultant
living in London, Ager-Hanssen said in an interview and a written
statement to Bloomberg Law. The Norwegian businessman said he had
never before met the consultant, who identified himself as Mauricio
Andres Villavicencio de Aguilar. According to emails shared with
Bloomberg Law, the consultant had first contacted Ager-Hanssen in
November 2021 about coordinating a potential investment opportunity
in the blockchain arena.

Ager-Hanssen said he quizzed Roche at his office for a couple hours
about Ava Labs and the proposed startup. He said he did not record
the meeting, or know who did, but that the video excerpts later
released were from the consultant's vantage at the table. He also
said he did not go with Roche to the restaurant that night, but
that the consultant did.

Ager-Hanssen said he was intrigued by the Ryval concept, and flew
to New York weeks later to continue talking with Roche and Ava Labs
executives. By March, however, his interest had waned and he opted
not to invest.

The startup plans lagged in the ensuing months. Roche still stayed
busy, splitting his time between New York and Miami as his firm
grew to more than 20 lawyers and became more active in the
class-action sphere when the digital asset market plummeted.

The crash stoked a lot of scrutiny. Amid the fallout, an anonymous
website emerged, promising to root out bad actors.

'Evil Conspiracy'
Crypto Leaks announced itself in June with a website, a Twitter
account, and pledges to expose corruption in the fledgling
industry.

"Follow us to find out what vested interests don't want you to
know," it said in its inaugural tweet. But Crypto Leaks hid behind
its own curtain: Its domain was anonymously registered that May.

Its first two posts focused on what it called "attacks" on the
Internet Computer blockchain and the once-buzzy ICP token
introduced by the Dfinity Foundation, a Swiss nonprofit led by
Dominic Wiliams. The digital asset quickly plummeted in value after
being sold to retail investors in May 2021.

Neither of the website's first posts got traction. Then, on Aug.
26, Crypto Leaks released its third so-called "case study."

"Ava Labs (Avalanche) attacks Solana and cons SEC in evil
conspiracy with bought law firm, Roche Freedman" blared the
headline.

The post claimed to reveal "an extraordinary secret pact" between
Roche Freedman and Ava Labs "that harms the crypto industry." It
described Roche as a lawyer who used the legal system "gangster
style" to attack Ava Labs' competitors, and pursue "personal
vendettas" for the blockchain company's leader.

Weaved into the text were 25 video clips of Roche speaking in two
settings: at the conference table in the Mayfair office that
January afternoon and in the bustling restaurant he visited later
that night, in front of a plate of food and a wine goblet.

Excerpts from both showed Roche explaining his close ties to Ava
Labs and his win-or-go-home approach to litigation, and at times
disparaging the legal system. In one clip, he reveled in "the fact
that 10 idiots control the flow of all the money that happens in
American class actions."

The Fallout
The recordings' release sparked a quick disavowal from Ava Labs'
CEO and statements from leaders across the crypto space—both
about what Roche said and whoever recorded it.

"Who's funding all these hit pieces?" tweeted Changpeng Zhao, the
CEO of Binance, one of the world's largest crypto exchanges.

Roche quickly denied deploying litigation as a weapon to go after
Ava Labs' competitors and vowed to fight efforts to intimidate him
and his firm. But the blowback was intense. In court filings, his
firm said he had received "threats of violence" in the days after
the recordings were released.

Within days, Roche's partners announced he was barred from
participating in any ongoing class action. They called the move an
attempt to protect the firm against appearances of impropriety.

That didn't stifle Roche's detractors. Lawyers for Bitfinex and
Tether, defendants in a class-action suit brought by Roche
Freedman, called for the entire firm to be disqualified, claiming
the videos raised "grave concerns" about their motivations.

At least four defendants in other cases, including Dfinity, also
brought disqualification motions against the law firm, citing
Roche's London comments as a conflict of interest.

At least one of Roche's clients dropped him. One partner left the
firm.

Ava Labs also sought to distance itself. CEO Emin Gun Sirer called
the allegations of targeting competitors through litigation
"conspiracy theory nonsense" and said Roche made false statements
about his work for the company. By mid-September, he publicly
declared that Roche no longer represented Ava Labs and that he'd
relinquished his shares in the company.

The next month, Roche's partners fought to keep the firm's role as
lead counsel in the class action against Bitfinex and Tether—a
case they had been litigating for three years. They argued they
were victims of a scheme by another defendant in a separate case to
cripple the firm's cryptocurrency practice.

New York Judge Katherine Polk Failla was unpersuaded, concluding
that Roche's "uniquely stupid" comments were "too detailed to
dismiss" as just being "drunk and stupid." She said she recognizes
the difference between Roche and his partners, but said, "at this
point in time, I have concerns about the firm as well."

Roche, meanwhile, tried to identify his saboteur.

He publicly claimed that Ager-Hanssen had been working for
Williams, the Dfinity leader. He offered no evidence to back up the
claim, but in a post on the website Medium, Roche cited a 2017
article in The Telegraph, a U.K.-based newspaper, that noted
Ager-Hanssen helps "eccentric billionaires" facing legal issues and
that he has a history of covert recordings.

Roche's former partners asserted in a court filing that
Ager-Hanssen is a "'conflict management' specialist" who was hired
by Dfinity to spy on Roche. The filing was made in the firm's
ongoing class action against Dfinity for alleged securities fraud
and market manipulation.

"The publicly available evidence establishes" Dfinity is behind the
Crypt Leaks site, the firm added, noting that on the same day the
Crypto Leaks domain was registered, Dfinity's CEO had tweeted he
was "coming for'' those who attacked the ICP token.

Neither Dfinity nor its outside counsel responded to repeated
requests for comment from Bloomberg Law.

In a phone interview, Ager-Hanssen denied Roche's accusation,
claiming he's never met Williams and that he did not know about the
surreptitious recordings. He said he suspected they were arranged
by the consultant. He said he has not spoken to the man since the
meetings —and can't be sure Villavicencio de Aguilar wasn't an
alias.

Still, Ager-Hanssen hasn't shied from the attention, celebrating
Roche's downfall. "Kyle Roche dragged me into this by lying about
facts," he tweeted on Aug. 30, a day after Roche accused him of
being behind the recordings.

Bloomberg Law has been unable to reach the consultant or confirm
his name and occupation. Emails sent to an address he used with
Ager-Hanssen and others were not returned.

The disclosure of the recordings could be in violation of privacy
laws in Britain, including the 2018 Data Protection Act.

Two weeks ago, Roche's partners severed ties with him and moved to
rename the firm Freedman Normand Friedland LLP.

"We are focused on continuing to provide our clients with top
quality representation and are proud of the firm's accomplishments
to date," a spokeswoman said in their only public comment. "We wish
Kyle the best in his future endeavors."

Out On His Own
Roche has since established his own practice, Kyle Roche P.A.,
according to an Oct. 20 court filing. He continues to represent
clients in some individual matters.

Like his ex-colleagues, Roche is vying to remain counsel in the
case against Wright, which is now on appeal. Wright, too, has moved
to disqualify Roche and his former firm.

It's unclear if Roche or his former firm are taking more steps to
bolster their claims that people from Dfinity were behind the
recordings. But details are likely to emerge in the coming weeks; a
California judge has scheduled a Jan. 12 hearing on Dfinity's
motion to disqualify the law firm from its class action case.

By then, nearly a year will have passed since the fateful trip that
changed Roche's path.

"You can have 15 minutes of fame and you can have 15 minutes of
infamy," said Jan Jacobowitz, a University of Miami law professor
and legal ethics adviser. "He may have loyal clients that are going
to stay with him. It's always hard to measure how long public
sentiment will last." [GN]

DOMENICO'S PIZZA: Cornejo-Valdez Seeks Dishwashers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
NELSON CORNEJO-VALDEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOMENICO'S PIZZA RESTAURANT, INC.
and DOMENICO BELCASTRO, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-06473
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2022) seeks redress against Defendants for
systematic and class-wide failure by Defendants to provide required
overtime wages, spread-of-hour wages, accurate wage payment
statements reflecting all the hours Plaintiff worked, and a notice
at the time of hiring in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dishwasher from 2012
through 2017 and as a pizza maker from 2018 through May 30, 2022.

The Defendants are the owners and/or operators of an Italian
Restaurant known as "Domenico's" located in Levittown, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Madzelan, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          116 Jackson Avenue
          Syosset, NY 11791
          Telephone: (516) 280-3008
          E-mail: Matthew.M@Belllg.com

DTE ELECTRIC: Brown Sues Over Deprivation of Fair Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Brown, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY, Case No. 2:22-cv-12633-DML-DRG
(E.D. Mich., Nov. 1, 2022), is brought against the Defendant's
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan
Workforce Opportunity Wage Act by engaging in illegal policies
depriving the Plaintiff of fair compensation for their labor.

The Defendant schedules System Supervisors to work 48 hours a week
every other week and does not pay the System Supervisors time and a
half for these additional eight hours. The Defendant does pay the
System Supervisors straight time for these eight hours, displaying
that Defendant recognizes the System Supervisors' entitlement to
overtime pay. As such, the Defendant knew, or should have known, as
early as January 2017 that the System Supervisors are non-exempt
employees and therefore entitled to time and a half for all hours
worked over 40 in any given week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff, a resident of Detroit, Michigan, presently works for
the Defendant as a System Supervisor and has since 2003.

DTE is a Detroit-based diversified energy company involved in the
development and management of energy-related businesses and
services nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard G. Mack, Esq.
          Andrea M. Frailey, Esq.
          MILLER COHEN, PLC.
          7700 Second Avenue, Suite 335
          Detroit, MI 48202
          Phone: (313) 964-4454
          Fax: (313) 964-4490
          Email: rmack@millercohen.com
                 afrailey@millercohen.com


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss SAC Set for January 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2022, that the hearing on
the Company's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (SAC)
is scheduled in January 2023.

On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former
officer of the Company, among other defendants. The action asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading
statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding
the Company's prospects and expected performance. The putative
class of plaintiffs includes all persons who acquired shares of the
Company's common stock pursuant to the offering documents filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
April 2017 transaction that formed DXC.

The State of California action had been stayed pending the outcome
of the substantially similar federal action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The federal action was dismissed with prejudice in December 2021.

Thereafter, the state court lifted the stay and entered an order
permitting additional briefing by the parties.

In March 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the
Company moved to dismiss.

In August 2022, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss,
but permitted Plaintiffs to amend and refile their complaint.

In September 2022, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which the Company has moved to dismiss.

A hearing on the Company's motion is scheduled for January 2023.

The Company believes that the final remaining lawsuit described
above is also without merit, and intends to vigorously defend it.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC
Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
Tysons, Virginia.


EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Jan. 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: EIGR) between
March 10, 2021 and October 4, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 9, 2023.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Eiger securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Eiger class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9654 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 9, 2023. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) defendants overstated Eiger's clinical
and regulatory drug development expertise; (2) defendants failed to
properly assess, and/or ignored issues with, the design of the
TOGETHER study and its ability to support the peginterferon lambda
Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA"); (3) there were issues with the
conduct of the TOGETHER study and/or the TOGETHER study was not
properly designed for the peginterferon lambda EUA in the current
context of the pandemic; (4) as a result, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration was unlikely to approve the submission of a
peginterferon lambda EUA; (5) as a result of all the foregoing,
peginterferon lambda's regulatory and commercial prospects for the
treatment of COVID-19 were overstated; and (6) as a result, Eiger's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Eiger class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9654 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. [GN]

FIRST MANHATTAN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bishop Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST MANHATTAN CO. INCORPORATED, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-09161-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2022) arises
from the Defendant's failure to maintain, and operate its website
https://firstmanhattan.com/ to be fully accessible for the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.

First Manhattan Co. Incorporated operates as an investment
management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                  Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal

FORMULA E: Plaintiff in Proposed Ticket Suit Gets Surprise Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Drewa at GlobalNews.ca reports that one of the plaintiffs
named in the proposed class action against organizers of the
now-cancelled Canadian E-Fest electric car race has received a full
refund. The Vancouver event was cancelled in April 2022 with the
promise of refunding ticketholders, but many haven't seen a dime.
Consumer Matters reporter Anne Drewa has more on this latest
development and what it means for the class action moving forward.

Shannon Campbell says she was in shock after discovering an
unexpected refund deposited into her bank account by Canadian
E-Fest.

"Out of the blue, I received an email from Formula E and it was
more or less a ticket cancellation," Campbell told Consumer
Matters.

The  Lower Mainland resident received a full refund of $420 but
says she never received an explanation for the deposit or exactly
who issued the refund.

"I found this experience to be exhaustive, not genuine, " said
Campbell.

Campbell is one of three representative plaintiffs in a proposed
class action against Vancouver Formula E organizers on behalf of
customers who purchased tickets for the Canadian E-Fest event.

The three-day festival was cancelled back in April and organizers
and promoters announced in July that ticket holders requesting
refunds would be contacted to start the process.

However, countless ticket buyers haven't received refunds and many
continue to reach out to Consumer Matters for help. "I think it's
despicable and I don't think businesses like that should be able to
further be in business," said Campbell.

The notice of civil claim names two companies as defendants – One
Stop Strategy Group (OSS Group) – the organizers and promoters of
the Canadian E Fest event and ATPI Travel and Events Canada – a
Quebec-based ticket reseller that acted as a ticketing provider for
the event.

The suit alleges  "fraudulent misrepresentation" where the
defendants advertised and sold passes at various prices for the
event without securing all the required permits for the
construction and operation of the Canadian E-Fest. It also alleges
the defendants breached the Business Practices and Consumer
Protection Act in numerous deceptive actions in the supply,
solicitation, offer, advertisement and promotion of the passes.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

Richard Chang is a Vancouver lawyer and partner with Diamond &
Diamond Lawyers behind the proposed class action. He said
Campbell's refund is a surprise.

"She's the only representative plaintiff in our proposed class
action to receive money. We've contacted the other two
representative plaintiffs for the proposed class action they as of
yet have not received refunds," said Chang.

He added he continues to hear from Canadian E-Fest ticket holders
who haven't received a refund.

"I don't know if something is happening with the organizers and
they are slowly trying to refund everyone? If that is the case,
that would be great news and then our action wouldn't be necessary,
but as of right now we are still hearing from people who have not
received refunds," said Chang.

Despite Campbell receiving a refund, Chang said the class action is
still going ahead.

"From how we see things at Diamond & Diamond nothing changes
because the two representative plaintiffs in the class action and a
number of individuals who have reached out to us, they are still
waiting for refunds as well," said Chang.

Consumer Matters reached out to OSS Group and ATPI for comment but
did not receive a response.

Ticketholders who haven't received a refund can contact Richard
Chang: rchang@diamondlaw.ca [GN]

GEICO CORP: California Car Insurance Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
on Oct. 31 said a lawsuit accusing Geico Corp of overcharging more
than 2 million California policyholders on car insurance early in
the COVID-19 pandemic may proceed as a class action.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose, California,
rejected Geico's contention that a group lawsuit over the alleged
inadequacy of its "Geico Giveback" program would create
"insurmountable manageability problems."

Geico, part of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N),
said a class action would not sufficiently account for differences
among policyholders, including the time periods they had
insurance.

The Chevy Chase, Maryland-based insurer also said it would be
difficult to assess damages, isolate pandemic costs and adjust
rates retroactively.

But the judge said a class action was preferable to individual
lawsuits, and the plaintiffs' damages model "could present an
appropriate percentage refund over a sufficiently long time" to
address manageability concerns.

Lawyers for Geico did not immediately respond to requests for
comment. The plaintiffs' lawyers did not immediately respond to
similar requests.

Policyholders objected to Geico's decision to provide $2.5 billion
of credits, including 15% on renewals, starting in April 2020,
reflecting how people were at the time driving and getting into
accidents less often.

They said Geico reaped a "windfall" because the credit fell "well
short" of adequate given the lessened risks, and accused the
insurer of falsely claiming that its credits provided "substantial
and full relief."

Some insurers, including State Farm and Allstate Corp (ALL.N),
offered pandemic-related refunds to policyholders.

The class covers California residents who bought Geico car,
motorcycle or RV insurance between March 1, 2020 and now.

Geico is defending against a similar federal lawsuit in Chicago,
and in May persuaded an appeals court in Manhattan to uphold a
judge's dismissal of a similar lawsuit there.

Berkshire, based in Omaha, Nebraska, has owned all of Geico since
1996.

The case is Day v. Geico Casualty Co et al, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, No. 21-02103. [GN]

GERBER PRODUCTS: Class Suit Over Deceptive Baby Products Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin A. Hill at mintz.com reports that on October 17, 2022, the
District Court granted Gerber Products Company's ("Gerber") motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit in which Plaintiffs had alleged
that Gerber deceptively led consumers to believe their baby food
products were "healthy" and "safe" despite allegedly containing
unsafe levels of toxic metals. See In re: Gerber Products Company
Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation, No. 21-cv-269 (October 17, 2022,
Memorandum Opinion and Order) (the "Order").

Plaintiffs' allegations had relied, in part, on reports issued by
the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and
Consumer Policy, Committee on Oversight and Reform, titled "Baby
Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium,
and Mercury," which allegedly found measurable levels of these
heavy metals in baby food products including those sold by Gerber.

U.S. District Court Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff rejected
Plaintiffs' claims holding that (1) Plaintiffs failed to state a
plausible claim that they suffered an economic injury and that they
were entitled to injunctive relief, and (2) the FDA should
determine what foods are unsafe under the primary jurisdiction
doctrine.

Plaintiffs Failed to Plead Economic Injury Sufficient to Establish
Standing.

As to standing, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs' alleged
speculative risk of future harm was not enough to confer standing
under either a "benefit of the bargain" or "price premium" theory.
The Court explained, "Plaintiffs' only purported basis for economic
injury stems from their allegation that the [products] posed a
threat of future harm…" Order at 9. Thus, Plaintiffs failed to
allege sufficient facts to support a finding of economic injury
because there was no "actual or imminent" injury. Id. at 9-10.

The Court rejected Plaintiff's "benefit of the bargain" theory
(i.e., plaintiff was deprived of the benefit of her bargain where,
because of the seller's deceptive act, unfair price or
representation, she purchased a product that is worth less than the
represented value). The Court explained, here, "Plaintiffs paid for
safe and healthy food for their children and apparently received
just that—the benefit of their bargain. Accepting the pleadings
as alleged, Plaintiffs' only complaint is that the [products']
levels of Heavy Metals are 'unsatisfactory to [them]'…[w]ithout
more, such an assertion does not amount to a concrete and
particularized injury." Order at 14. Moreover, Plaintiffs'
allegations lacked specificity as to the harm suffered by them, as
opposed to some other more generalized risk.

For similar reasons, the Court rejected Plaintiff's "price premium"
theory (i.e., the plaintiff paid more for a product than she
otherwise would have as a result of a defendant's deception). Here,
Plaintiffs failed to allege facts "that would permit the court to
determine the economic value of their alleged lost benefit without
resorting to mere conjecture." Order at 18. In other words,
Plaintiffs' complaint lacked, among other things, allegations about
how much they paid or how much they would have paid if the
allegedly material facts had been disclosed to them. Furthermore,
Plaintiffs could not rely on comparisons to other products in the
market where Plaintiffs did not allege that those products
contained the desired disclosures or that the price correlated to
their heavy metal content. Id.

The takeaway here is that allegations of some future generalized
harm are simply not sufficient to confer Article III standing.

The FDA Has Primary Jurisdiction to Determine Safe Amounts of Heavy
Metals.

Gerber also argued for dismissal under the primary jurisdiction
doctrine (i.e., the FDA, and not the Court, should determine what
amounts of heavy metals are safe in these types of products). This
doctrine takes "advantage of agency expertise" allowing courts to
refer "issues of fact not within the conventional expertise of
judges...In this way, primary jurisdiction serves judicial economy
because the dispute may be decided by the administrative agency and
obviate the need for court intervention." Id. at 21 (internal
citations omitted).

The Fourth Circuit considers four factors in applying this
doctrine: (1) whether the issue is within the conventional
experience of judges or whether it involves technical or policy
considerations within the agency's particular field of expertise;
(2) whether the issue is particularly within the agency's
discretion; (3) whether there exists a substantial danger of
inconsistent rulings; and (4) whether a prior application has been
made to the agency. Id. at 21-22.

Here, Fourth Circuit precedent weighed in favor of finding that the
FDA had primary jurisdiction. Id. 24. The resolution of Plaintiffs'
claims depends on considerations in the FDA's field of expertise,
discretion, and pending litigation related to similar issues may
result in a "patchwork of decisions" varying by location, court,
manufacturer, and product. Id. at 26-37. The Court also noted that
the FDA is presently working on its Closer to Zero Plan, which
identifies actions the FDA will take over the next few years to
reduce exposure to heavy metals. We have reported elsewhere on
FDA's ambitious action plan for further reducing children's
exposure to toxic elements from foods. Although the Court noted it
was not aware that the parties had made any previous application to
the FDA on the issues before the Court, this alone was not enough
to tip the scales.

Of significance, here, the Court dismissed the case "without
prejudice," which gives the Plaintiffs the opportunity to file an
amended complaint to address the deficiencies identified in the
Order. It remains to be seen if Plaintiffs will pursue this route
or otherwise seek an appeal of the decision. In addition, we will
be watching closely to see if jurisdictions with similar pending
litigation will follow the District Court's application of the
primary jurisdiction doctrine. [GN]

GOEDEKER INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that investors with
substantial losses have opportunity to lead the securities fraud
class action lawsuit against Polished.com Inc. f/k/a 1847 Goedeker
Inc. ("Polished" or the "Company") (NYSE: POL).

Class Period: July 27, 2020 - August 25, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 30, 2022

Investors suffering losses on their Polished investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

The complaint filed alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company
would restate certain financials; (2) the Company's internal
controls were inadequate; (3) the Company downplayed and obfuscated
its internal controls issues; (4) the Company did not properly
construct or remediate its inadequate and ineffective internal
controls; (5) contrary to the Company's statements, the Company was
not remediating its internal controls; (6) as a result, the Company
would engage in an independent investigation; (7) as a result of
the investigation, the Company would, among other things, retain
independent counsel and consultants, and delay its quarterly
filings in violation of NYSE requirements of listing; (8) following
the commencement of the investigation, the Company's CEO and CFO
would leave the Company; and (9) as a result, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at
this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action
and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to
learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Howard
G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol
Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at
(215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Assise Sues Over Motorcycle Parts Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE ASSISE; and ROBERT ASSISE; individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-06068 (N.D.Il., Nov. 3, 2022) alleges
violation of the Sherman Act, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant is
engaged in anticompetitive conduct. Harley-Davidson allegedly used
its warranty to try to force Harley owners to use its own parts, in
preference to the many quality aftermarket parts available for its
motorcycles. It did so in plain contravention of law. This conduct
constitutes a violation of federal and state antitrust laws.

Because Harley-Davidson illegally tied its motorcycles and,
specifically, the factory warranties that go with them to its
parts, Harley-Davidson's parts have been overpriced, forcing the
company's loyal following to pay this cost, which they should not
have, says the suit.

HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC. designs, manufactures, and sells motorcycles.
The Company's products include heavyweight touring, custom, and
performance motorcycles, as well as a line of motorcycle parts,
accessories, and general merchandise. Harley-Davidson serves
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
          Email: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

          Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
          Lillian R. Grinnell, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212)545-4653
          Email: burt@whafh.com
                 grinnell@whafh.com

HENLEY PACIFIC: Parties Agree to Arbitrate and Dismiss Mora Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAVIER MORA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. HENLEY PACIFIC, LLC a Delaware
corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-CV-00571-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P.
Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California signed the parties' stipulation.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Parties submit
their Stipulation to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Pursue Informal Resolution or Arbitration.

On March 16, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior
Court for the County of Merced entitled JAVIER MORA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. HENLEY PACIFIC, LLC;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 22CV-00809, styled as a Class
Action Complaint, alleging: (1) failure to pay lawful wages; (2)
failure to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu
thereof; (3) failure to provide lawful rest periods or compensation
in lieu thereof; (4) failure to pay employee expenses; (5) failure
to timely pay wages during employment; (6) failure to timely pay
wages at termination; (7) failure to provide accurate, itemized
wage statements, and (8) violations of the unfair competition law;

Shortly thereafter, this matter was removed by the Defendant to
this Court. The Defendant informed the Plaintiff's counsel that the
Plaintiff, in consideration for his employment with the Defendant,
entered into an agreement with it entitled, "Mutual Agreement to
Arbitration Claims." Based on the Arbitration Agreement, including
the Class Action Waiver, the Plaintiff agreed to submit claims
arising out of the course and scope of his employment to binding
arbitration on an individual basis only, and not as part of a class
or collective action.

After reviewing the Arbitration Agreement and meeting and
conferring with the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed this matter
does not belong in this Court. The Parties continue to meaningfully
communicate, and are attempting to settle this matter informally
before expending the time and resources required for arbitration
proceedings.

Based on the foregoing, the Parties therefore stipulate, agree, and
request that (a) the Court orders that the Plaintiff's individual
claims be submitted to binding non-judicial arbitration pursuant to
the Parties' Arbitration Agreement, and (b) that the case be
dismissed without prejudice.

Pursuant to the Stipulation, Judge Grosjean so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5dee6jm7 from Leagle.com.

James R. Hawkins, Esq. SBN 192925 -- James@jameshawkinsaplc.com --
Isandra Fernandez, Esq. SBN 220482 -- info@jameshawkinsaplc.com --
Kacey E. Cook, Esq. SBN 337905 -- kacey@jameshawkinsaplc.com --
JAMES HAWKINS APLC, Irvine, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff JAVIER MORA
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.

Amy Todd-Gher, Esq. -- atodd-gher@littler.com -- Bar No. 208581,
Jamie L. Santos -- jaime@santoswalding.com -- Bar No. 325564,
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., San Diego, CA, Attorneys for Defendant
HENLEY PACIFIC, LLC.


HEY DUDE: Faces Mackey Suit Over Illegal Sales Calls
----------------------------------------------------
Samantha Mackey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hey Dude (US) LLC, Defendant, Case No.
22-005038-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., Oct. 24,
2022) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in telephonic
sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express
written consent as required by the FTSA to promote its goods and
services. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been aggrieved
by the Defendant's unlawful conduct, which adversely affected and
infringed upon their legal rights not to be subjected to the
illegal acts at issue, says the suit.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff individually and the Class
members and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the alleged unlawful actions of Defendant.

Hey Dude (US) LLC is a consumer goods and services retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HOME DEPOT: Cal. App. Vacates in Part Summary Judgment in Camp Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DELMER CAMP, et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendant and Respondent,
Case No. H049033 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California
for the Sixth District vacates in part the trial court's order
granting Home Depot's motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Delmer Camp and Adriana Correa filed a
putative class action for unpaid wages against Home Depot. They
alleged that Home Depot's electronic timekeeping system captured
each minute worked by employees, but that due to its quarter-hour
rounding policy, employees were paid for less time than reflected
in its timekeeping system.

Home Depot moved for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' complaint
arguing that Plaintiff Correa did not have standing to bring a
claim for unpaid wages because she did not lose any wages as a
result of the rounding policy. Although it acknowledged that
Plaintiff Camp had lost a total of 470 minutes over approximately
four and a half years due to the rounding policy, Home Depot
contended it was still entitled to summary judgment because its
rounding policy was neutral on its face, neutral as applied, and
otherwise lawful under See's Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court
(2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889 (See's Candy). The trial court granted
the motion, finding that Home Depot's rounding policy met the
standard articulated in See's Candy.

On appeal, Correa concedes that she was overpaid and cannot state a
claim for unpaid wages. The Appellate Court will dismiss her appeal
as abandoned.

On appeal, Camp contends, among other arguments, that
notwithstanding See's Candy, neither the Labor Code nor the
relevant wage order authorizes time rounding that results in an
individual employee failing to receive compensation for all time
worked. He expressly states that he does not contend that all
rounding is unlawful, and he acknowledges that there are rounding
systems that do not run afoul of California's wage and hour laws.

Based on the particular facts of this case, and in view of the
guidance and direction provided by more recent California Supreme
Court opinions in Troester v. Starbucks Corp. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 829
(Troester) and Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) 11 Cal.5th 58
(Donohue), the Appellate Court concludes that Home Depot, in
relying on its quarter-hour rounding policy, did not meet its
burden to show that there was no triable issue of material fact
regarding Plaintiff Camp's claims for unpaid wages, where Home
Depot could and did track the exact time in minutes that an
employee worked each shift and those records showed that Camp was
not paid for all the time he worked.

The Appellate Court, therefore, reverses the judgment against
Plaintiff Camp and directs the trial court to enter a new order
denying Home Depot's summary judgment motion as to Camp.

Associate Justice Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian, writing for the
Panel, finds that there is evidence that Camp was not paid for all
work performed. The evidence reflects that Camp lost more than
seven hours of worktime due to Home Depot's quarter-hour rounding
policy.

Home Depot contends that rounding makes it easier for employers to
produce verifiable wage statements, because unrounded time does not
easily translate to the decimal system used to calculate employee
pay, and rounding also results in a pay stub that is easier for
employees to decipher.

The Panel is not persuaded by Home Depot's argument that the
calculation of wages is "easier" with rounded time. More
importantly, Home Depot cites no provision in California law that
privileges arithmetic simplicity over paying employees for all time
worked.

Home Depot also contends that "punch times captured by a
timekeeping system" may not "accurately reflect an employee's work
time." Home Depot argues that an employee might engage in a
personal phone call or talk to a coworker while still punched in,
and these minutes do not constitute compensable time even though
the employee is "on the clock." Home Depot contends that rounding
is a statistically neutral way to smooth out those uncertainties by
adding or subtracting time at set intervals.

The Appellate Court is not persuaded by this argument as Home Depot
fails to provide evidence to support this contention. To the
contrary, in support of its summary judgment motion, Home Depot
submitted a copy of its written Kronos procedures (electronic
timekeeping system), which instructs that, as a rule, employees
should not delete punches from timecards because they represent
actual times that associates started and stopped working.

Lastly, the Appellate Court observes that it has been well settled
for nearly a decade that neutral time rounding is lawful under
California law. The California Supreme Court, however, has never
decided the validity of the rounding standard articulated in See's
Candy. As an intermediate court, the Appellate Court is bound to
apply the law as guided, directed, and interpreted by the
California Supreme Court. In this regard, the Appellate Court also
respectfully invites the California Supreme Court to review the
issue of neutral time rounding by employers and to provide guidance
on the propriety of time rounding by employers, especially in view
of the "technological advances" that now exist, which "help
employers to track time more precisely."

The judgment against Plaintiff Delmer Camp is reversed, and the
matter is remanded. The trial court is directed to vacate the order
granting summary judgment against Plaintiff Camp and to enter a new
order denying the motion as to Plaintiff Camp.

Plaintiff Adriana Correa's appeal is dismissed as abandoned.

Defendant Home Depot and Plaintiff Correa are to bear their own
costs. Costs are awarded to Plaintiff Camp.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yvwcsmz3 from Leagle.com.

Moon & Yang, APC, Howard Scott Leviant --
scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com -- Kane Moon --
kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com -- Lilit G. Tunyan --
lilit.tunyan@moonyanglaw.com -- Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants
Delmer Camp and Andriana Correa.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Donna Marie Mezias --
dmezias@akingump.com -- Dorothy Frances Kaslow --
dorothyfkaslow@gmail.com -- Counsel for Defendant/Respondent Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc.


HP INC: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Defective Laptop Batteries
------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HP Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-23482-PCH (S.D. Fla., Oct. 25, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for breaches of express warranty, implied
warranty of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; negligent misrepresentation; fraud;
unjust enrichment; and violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and State Consumer Fraud Acts.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and/or sells the HP Pavilion
15 Series of laptop computers under the HP brand with lithium-ion
(Li-ion) batteries. The Plaintiff purchased the product on
Walmart.com in or around November 2020.

According to the complaint, the battery in Plaintiff's laptop
suffered premature failure and degradation after only several
months of normal usage, whereby it was incapable of obtaining and
maintaining its charge for any reasonable period of time,
preventing and limiting his ability to use it. Moreover, the
Plaintiff and consumers paid more for the product than they would
have had they known the batteries were only subjected to
electrochemical characterization tests, focusing on macroscopic
battery performance, instead of the occurrence of other defects
which could and did cause battery failures, says the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Wright, Esq.
          THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
          515 N Flagler Dr Ste P-300
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 514-0904
          E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

               - and -

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

HUDSON HEALTH: Grimes Suit Seeks Healthcare Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
LATRICE GRIMES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUDSON HEALTH SERVICES, INC. d/b/a HUDSON
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-02743-ADC (D. Md.,
Oct. 25, 2022) seeks to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages
for uncompensated hours worked that were excluded from their paid
hours pursuant to Defendant's automatic meal-break deduction policy
and to recover back wages, overtime pay, treble damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a healthcare worker from
approximately June 21, 2021, until July 18, 2022.

Hudson Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Hudson Behavioral Health,
maintains and operates healthcare centers located in Maryland and
Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Edward Rubin, Esq.
          THE RUBIN EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, PC
          600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 204
          Rockville, MD 20852
          Telephone: (301) 760-7914
          E-mail: jrubin@rubinemploymentlaw.com

               - and -

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

ICARE CREDIT: California Court Enters Final Judgment in Vu Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HUNG V. VU, D.D.S., A PROFESSIONAL DENTAL CORP., d/b/a
Vu Orthodontics, Plaintiff v. ICARE CREDIT SOLUTIONS, LLC, d/b/a
iCare Financial LLC, Defendant, Case No.: 2:17-cv-04609-RAO (C.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California enters Final
Judgment.

Pursuant to the Order Granting Amended Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and Granting-in-Part Amended Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Award entered concurrently
therewith, Judge Oliver confirms as final the Court's provisional
certification of the Class in its June 17, 2019 order preliminarily
approving the Settlement.

The following Class is certified: All persons within the United
States to whom the Defendant sent or caused to be sent one or more
facsimile advertisements for marketing purposes from Feb. 16, 2013
to June 17, 2019.

Judge Oliver also confirms as final the appointment of (i)
Plaintiff Hung V. Vu. D.D.S., A Professional Dental Corporation, as
the Class Representative and awards Dr. Vu $1,500 for his service
and (ii) Michael H. Boyamian and Armand R. Kizirian of Boyamian
Law, Inc., Thomas W. Falvey of the Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey,
Andre E. Jardini of Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, APC, and Stephen M.
Rinka of The Rinka Law Firm, P.C. as the Class Counsel.

Judge Oliver approves an award of attorneys' fees of $36,000 (30%
of the gross settlement) and litigation costs of $10,592.90, for a
total fee and expense award of $46,592.90. These amounts are to be
deducted from the settlement fund of $120,000 pursuant to the terms
of the Settlement Agreement and Release Between Plaintiffs and
Defendants.

The payment of fees and other charges of the settlement
administrator Simpluris, Inc. of $22,000 is approved.

Payment will be made according to those allocations and pursuant to
the procedure set forth in the Settlement and the Order. The
Settlement Administrator will pay the attorneys' fees and costs to
the Class Counsel pursuant to the terms of the Settlement.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), Judge Oliver grants final
approval to the Settlement, and orders the parties to implement,
and comply with, its terms.

By operation of the Order and upon the effective date of the
Judgment, the Plaintiff will release, relinquish, and discharge all
claims against the Releasees released under the terms of Paragraph
12 of the Settlement. All Class Members who have not opted out of
the Settlement will be deemed to have, and by operation of the
Judgment will have, fully, finally, and forever released,
relinquished, and discharged all Released Claims against the
Releasees as set forth in Paragraph 12 of the Settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the Defendant has
consented to the entry of an injunction and is enjoined, for a
period of four years following the Effective Date, as follows:
Defendant will continue, since 2016, to not send, or cooperate with
others to send, facsimile advertisements for marketing purposes
unless each recipient has given prior express written consent to
receive facsimile advertisements from Defendant.

The Judgment is intended to be a final disposition of the action in
its entirety and is intended to be immediately appealable.

The Court will retain jurisdiction with respect to all matters
related to the administration and consummation of the settlement,
and any and all claims, asserted in, arising out of, or related to
the subject matter of the lawsuit.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2r7mphty from Leagle.com.


ILLINOIS: Court Dismisses Kugler v. Donothan With Leave to Renew
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEVIN KUGLER, Plaintiff v. GREG DONOTHAN, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-4138 (C.D. Ill.), Judge James E. Shadid of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, denies the Plaintiff's Petition to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis with leave to renew.

The pro se Plaintiff is detained at the Rushville Treatment and
Detention Center and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP). His complaint lists the following Defendants: Program
Director Gregory Donathan, Assistant Program Director Erin Posey,
Security Director William Epperson, Program Administrator Sharon
Coleman, Secretary Grace Hou, and unknown Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff says the Defendants have created a punitive policy
threatening to take his personal property, and forcing him to
destroy, send out, donate his electronics by force if he refuses a
roommate. He says this action violates his First Amendment Right to
the pursuit of happiness, his due process rights, and his right to
be free from cruel and unusual punishment. He says Donathan, Posey,
and Epperson created the policy on July 26, 2022.

The Plaintiff further alleges the Defendants knew this policy was
unconstitutional due to a previous case in the Northern District of
Illinois. Plaintiff cites to Hargett v. Adams, No. 02 C 1456, 2005
WL 399300, (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2005). In this class action lawsuit,
the court found although the "prison-like" environment at the
Joliet Treatment and Detention Center was not optimal for a
positive therapeutic environment, it did not significantly impede
the delivery of effective treatment. In addition, the fact that the
facility operated much like a prison did not, itself, violate the
Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

The court also found the prior Secure Management Status (SMS) at
the facility was unconstitutional. SMS refers to the status and set
of conditions that a patient may be placed under when he is
determined to be a danger to himself or others. The most common
reason a patient is placed on SMS is assaultive or threatening
words or behaviors aimed toward another patient or staff.

It is not clear to Judge Shadid how the Hargett case is relevant to
the Plaintiff's claims. In short, the Plaintiff has failed to
provide enough information to clearly state a violation of his
constitutional rights, and therefore his complaint is dismissed. He
allows the Plaintiff an extension of time to file an amended
complaint if he believes he can clarify his allegations. The
Plaintiff should not provide caselaw or other information, but only
the information relevant to his specific claims. His proposed
amended complaint must stand complete on its own and not refer to
his previous complaint.

For these reasons, Judge Shadid denies the Plaintiff's Petition and
dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. If the
Plaintiff believes he can cure the deficiencies noted in his
complaint, he may file an amended complaint by Nov. 29, 2022. The
pleading must be titled Amended Complaint and must include all
claims and Defendants without reference to the initial complaint.
Failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline will result in
the dismissal of this case for failure to state a claim.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to reset the internal merit
review deadline within 21 days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/kwutcvwr from Leagle.com.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: $4-M Settlement to Be Heard on January 19, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Sobol Shapiro LLP on Oct. 31 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey has approved
the following announcement of a proposed securities class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of Immunomedics, Inc.
securities.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED IMMUNOMEDICS,
INC. SECURITIES FROM MAY 2, 2016 THROUGH JUNE 24, 2016, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, that a hearing will
be held on January 19, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable
Katharine S. Hayden, United States District Judge of the District
of New Jersey, United States Courthouse, Room 4015, 50 Walnut
Street, Newark, NJ 07102 for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned Action ("Settlement") for consideration including
the sum of $4,000,000 ("Settlement Amount") should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of attorneys
for Lead Plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff's Counsel") for an award of
attorneys' fees of up to one-third plus interest of the Settlement
Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $180,000 and an
incentive payment of no more than $10,000 to Lead Plaintiff should
be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated April 13, 2022 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). The
Court may also hold the hearing telephonically or by
videoconference.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Immunomedics, Inc.
("Immunomedics") publicly-traded securities during the period from
May 2, 2016 through June 24, 2016, both dates inclusive (the
"Settlement Class Period"), you are a "Settlement Class Member" and
your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the
release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to
your ownership interest in Immunomedics securities. If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may download a copy at
www.strategiclaims.net/Immunomedics/ or obtain copies by contacting
the Claims Administrator at: Immunomedics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste.
205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax)
(610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net.

If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must electronically
submit a properly completed Proof of Claim by 11:59 p.m. on
December 6, 2022 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you
are entitled to recovery. If you are unable to electronically
submit a Proof of Claim, you may mail a Proof of Claim at your own
expense. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked no later than December
6, 2022 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are
entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion
request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action
whether or not you make a claim.

If you want to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than December 29, 2022, in the manner and
form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment and the releases therein entered in the
Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff must be in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received
no later than December 29, 2022, to each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
District of New Jersey

King Fed. Bldg. & United States Courthouse
50 Walnut St., Room 4015
Newark, New Jersey 07102

LEAD COUNSEL:

Bruce D. Greenberg
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102

Reed R. Kathrein
Wesley Wong
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:

Caryn G. Schechtman
DLA Piper LLP (US)        
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020

Kristin A. Pacio
DLA Piper LLP (US)
51 John F. Kennedy Parkway, Suite 120
Short Hills, NJ 07078

Albert H. Manwaring, IV
Morris James LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Plaintiff's Counsel:

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Reed Kathrein
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
reed@hbsslaw.com
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC

Bruce D. Greenberg
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: October 5, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY [GN]

JACK RILEY: Faces Florio Suit Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Florio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jack Riley Investments LLC d/b/a
Pink Lily, Defendant, Case No. 159858996 (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial,
Hillsborough Cty., Oct. 24, 2022) arises from the Defendant's
violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in telephonic
sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express
written consent as required by the FTSA to promote its goods and
services. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been aggrieved
by the Defendant's unlawful conduct, which adversely affected and
infringed upon their legal rights not to be subjected to the
illegal acts at issue, says the suit.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff individually and the Class
members and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the alleged unlawful actions of Defendant.

Jack Riley Investments LLC, d/b/a Pink Lily, is a consumer goods
and services retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

JF CONSTRUCTION: Underpays Helpers' OT Pay, Hernandez et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ and FERMIN CRUZ AVILA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JF
CONSTRUCTION OF NY INC., DEISY POLANCO and JORGE LINARES FLORES, as
individuals, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-06549 (E.D.N.Y., October
28, 2022) bring this collective action complaint against the
Defendant to recover damages for its alleged egregious violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Hernandez has worked for the Defendant from in or around
March 2021 until in or around June 2021 as a construction helper
while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants.
Plaintiff Avila was also employed by the Defendant from in or
around June 2020 until in or around February 2021 as a helper while
also performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs claim that they regularly worked more than 40 hours
throughout their employment with the Defendants. However, the
Defendant denied them of their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Instead, they were only paid a flat hourly rate regardless of the
number of hours they have worked. The Plaintiffs also assert that
the Defendants 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 Defendants willfully
failed to provide them with any wage statements upon each payment
of their wages, as well as with a written notice of their
applicable regular rate, regular rate of pay, regular pay day, and
all such information as required by NYLL, the Plaintiffs say.

On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
construction helpers, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that
judgment be granted to them awarding them unpaid overtime wages and
other unpaid wages, 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.

JF Construction of NY Inc. is a construction company co-owned by
Deisy Polanco and Jorge Linares. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

JP MORGAN: Kerant & KPMG Excluded From Dennis Suit Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York rules that Kerant Capital Limited and KPMG
Luxembourg S.A. are excluded from the settlement class in the
lawsuit captioned RICHARD DENNIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. JP MORGAN
CHASE & CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-6496 (LAK)
(S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs' Oct. 17, 2022 letter indicates that there have been
two requests for exclusion from the pending settlements.

Pursuant to Section III.C of the Notice of Proposed Class Action
Settlements, class members seeking exclusion were required to
submit the following information in a written, signed and notarized
request to the class administrator no later than Sept. 2, 2022:

      (i) the name, address, and telephone number of the Settlement
Class Member;

      (ii) a list of all trade names or business names that the
Settlement Class Member requests to be excluded;

      (iii) the name of the Action (Dennis et al. v. JPMorgan Chase
& Co. et al., No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.));

      (iv) a statement certifying such person is a Settlement Class
Member;

      (v) a description of the BBSW-Based Derivatives transactions
purchased, acquired, sold, held, traded or that the Settlement
Class Member otherwise had any interest in that fall within the
Settlement Class definition (including, for each transaction, the
identity of the broker, the date of the transaction, the type
(including direction) of the transaction, the counterparty (if
any), the exchange on which the transaction occurred (if any), any
transaction identification numbers, the rate, the effective and
maturity dates and/or trade dates for each of the aforementioned
transactions and the notional value or amounts of the
transactions); and

      (vi) a statement that 'I/we hereby request that I/we be
excluded from the Settlement Class in Dennis et al. v. JPMorgan
Chase & Co. et al., No. 16-cv-06496 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.) for the
Settlements with' JPMorgan, Westpac, ANZ, CBA, NAB, Morgan Stanley,
Credit Suisse, and/or BNPP, Deutsche Bank, RBC, RBS and UBS.'

The Oct. 17 letter indicates that the first request, on behalf of
Kerant Capital Limited, is postmarked July 25, 2022. The second,
filed by KPMG Luxembourg S.A. (as liquidator or Nordea Bank S.A.),
is not postmarked but was notarized on Aug. 31, 2022.

Although the Class Administrator apparently takes the position that
the latter request is untimely, the Court notes that the
Plaintiffs' Oct. 20, 2022 letter communicates that none of the
settling Defendants shares that view. A minority of the settling
Defendants posits that both requests are deficient "because they do
not provide the information required by the Class Notice," namely
the description of the class member's relevant BBSW-Based
Derivatives transactions.

The Court concludes the written requests as described are timely
and sufficiently clear to warrant the requesting members' exclusion
from the settlement class. Rule 23 does not require more, nor is
the Court persuaded that it should do so in these circumstances.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc3bv42b from Leagle.com.


KETTERING ADVENTIST: Duff Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHARLES DUFF, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KETTERING ADVENTIST HEALTHCARE
d/b/a KETTERING HEALTHCARE NETWORK, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00305-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio, October 28, 2022) challenges the
Defendant's alleged unlawful policies and practices that violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
and hourly-paid employee, alleges that the Defendant did not
compensate him and other similarly situated employees for the time
they spent performing the Hygienic Practices before and after their
scheduled shift as required by the Defendant to maintain sterile
environments from being contaminated. Thus, performing the Hygienic
Practices is integral and indispensable work in able to perform
their duties in sterile environments at the Defendant's facilities.
Despite working more than 40 hours per week, they were not properly
paid overtime compensation at the legally applicable overtime rate
because they were not paid for all hours they have worked.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees have been unlawfully deprived of tens of
thousands of hours of overtime pay.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class and collective
action against the Defendant to recover actual damages for unpaid
wages, liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid wages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs &
disbursement, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.


Kettering Adventist Healthcare d/b/a Kettering Healthcare Network
operates various hospitals, surgery centers and other healthcare
facilities throughout southern Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher St., N.W., Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Tel: (330) 470-4428
          Fax: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Hagins Sues Over ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hagins, and Tommie Woodard, individually and on behalf of
the Knight-Swift Transportation Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs v.
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01835-MTM (D. Ariz., Oct. 26, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for breaching its fiduciary duties of
prudence in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

The Plaintiffs are Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc.
Retirement Plan participants. To safeguard plan participants and
beneficiaries, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and
prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries. As of December
31, 2021, the Plan had $432,416,489 in assets and 14,426 total
participants. Instead of leveraging the Plan's tremendous
bargaining power to benefit participants and beneficiaries, the
Defendant caused the Plan to pay unreasonable and excessive fees
for recordkeeping and other administrative services. The Defendant
also selected and retained for the Plan high priced investments
when identical investments were available to the Plan at a fraction
of the cost, says the suit.

The Defendant's mismanagement of the Plan constitutes a breach of
the fiduciary duty of prudence in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section
1104. The Defendant's actions (and omissions) were contrary to
actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its
participants millions of dollars, the suit added.

Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. is a publicly traded,
American motor carrier holding company based in Phoenix,
Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael C. McKay, Esq.
          MCKAY LAW, LLC
          5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 170  
          Scottsdale, AZ 85250
          Telephone: (480) 681-7000
          E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us

               - and -

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.  
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com

LAFAYETTE COLLEGE: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lafayette College.
The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Lafayette College, Case No.
1:22-cv-00819-LJV (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2022).

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

Lafayette College -- https://www.lafayette.edu/ -- is a private
liberal arts college in Easton, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


LEHIGH UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lehigh University.
The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Lehigh University, Case No.
1:22-cv-00826-JLS (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2022).

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

Lehigh University -- https://www1.lehigh.edu/ -- is a private
research university in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania in the Lehigh Valley
region of eastern Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


LOOP INDUSTRIES: January 5, 2023 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 31 disclosed
that the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Loop
Industries, Inc. common stock (NASDAQ: LOOP):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION
EXPENSES

TO: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired Loop Industries, Inc. ("Loop") common stock on an open
market located within the United States, including but not limited
to the NASDAQ stock exchange or another domestic exchange, between
September 24, 2018 and October 12, 2020, inclusive, and who were
damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $3,100,000 in cash
(the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action.

A hearing will be held on January 5, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. via AT&T
teleconference, before the Honorable Nelson S. Román, to determine
(i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated May 17, 2022 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses should be approved. To access the teleconference, please
follow the directions in paragraph 71 of the Notice.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.LoopIndustriesSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain
copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims
Administrator at Loop Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, P.O.
Box 230, Media, PA, 19063.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form either online at
www.LoopIndustriesSecuritiesSettlement.com by 11:59 p.m. EST on
February 15, 2023 or postmarked no later than February 15, 2023 to
the Claims Administrator. If you are a Settlement Class Member and
do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement,
but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than December 8, 2022,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, to the
Claims Administrator. If you properly exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to
share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than December 8, 2022, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Loop, or its
counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the
proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Loop Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205
P.O. Box 230
Media, PA 19063
Toll-free: (866) 274-4004
Email: info@strategicclaims.net
www.LoopIndustriesSecuritiesSettlement.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Leanne H. Solish, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (888) 773-9224
Email: settlements@glancylaw.com

POMERANTZ LLP
Murielle J. Steven Walsh, Esq.
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Email: mjsteven@pomlaw.com

By Order of the Court [GN]

LOS ANGELES APPAREL: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Los Angeles Apparel,
Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Los
Angeles Apparel, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09365 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1,
2022).

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

Los Angeles Apparel -- https://losangelesapparel.net/ -- is a
basics apparel manufacturer and distributor founded by Dov Charney,
a long-standing leader in American garment manufacturing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MATHEW ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hecker Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN HECKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MATHEW ENTERPRISE, INC; and DOES through
20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22CV405334 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Oct. 25, 2022) seeks to recover, among other things,
Plaintiff's unpaid wages, unreimbursed business expenses, benefits,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and penalties
pursuant to the California Labor Code and the California Code of
Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon alleges, that
Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and
hour laws by, among other things: (a) failing to pay all wages
(including minimum wages and overtime wages); (b) failing to
provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (c)
failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide
compensation in lieu thereof; (d) failing to reimburse necessary
business—related costs; (e) failing to provide accurate itemized
wage statements; (f) failing to pay wages timely during employment;
and (g) failing to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee.

Mathew Enterprise, Inc. was founded in 2007. The Company's line of
business includes the retail sale of new and used automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: jcampbell@aegis1awfirm.com

MDL 1720: Defendants Lose Summary Judgment in Antitrust Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01720
(E.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants'
arguments. The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have
offered no proof that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were
caused by the Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust
laws," the Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the
Plaintiffs' request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

Mastercard is the second-largest payment-processing corporation
worldwide. It offers a range of financial services. Its
headquarters are in Purchase, New York.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Tz5JeSat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Mastercard, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Fitlife
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fitlife Health Systems of
Arcadia, Inc., v. Mastercard International Incorporated et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-05153 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 3, 2005), the Hon.
Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants’ acceptance of such payment cards.

The Fitlife suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Mastercard is the second-largest payment-processing corporation
worldwide. It offers a range of financial services. Its
headquarters are in Purchase, New York.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3fWVrYgat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Mastercard, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Kroger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Kroger Co. v.
Mastercard Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-00039 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 05,
2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants’ acceptance of such payment cards.

The Kroger case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Mastercard is the second-largest payment-processing corporation
worldwide. It offers a range of financial services. Its
headquarters are in Purchase, New York.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tnwSa8at no extra charge.[CC]


MDL 1720: Mastercard, et al., Lose Summary Judgment v. Lepkowski
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lepkowski v. Mastercard
International Incorporated et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04974
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants’ acceptance of such payment cards.

The Lepkowski is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Mastercard is the second-largest payment-processing corporation
worldwide. It offers a range of financial services. Its
headquarters are in Purchase, New York.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3WUAQ7Fat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid in M.D. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leeber Cohen, M.D. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05878 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The M.D. case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hmUrNn at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. 518 Restaurant
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as 518 Restaurant Corp. v.
American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc.., Case No.
1:05-cv-05884 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo
K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The 518 Restaurant case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment
Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation.
The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UmsLHbat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. ABA
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as American Booksellers
Association (ABA) v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-05319 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo
K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants’ acceptance of such payment cards.

The ABA suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa U.S.A. provides payment services. The Company offers digital
payments solutions, credit card processing services, and
transactions for consumers, businesses, banks, and governments.
Visa serves customers worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Gc8sIoat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Accor
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Accor Management US Inc.,
et al., v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-04616 (E.D.N.Y., Case
Aug. 12, 2019), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Accor case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3G8Nqdmat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Aldi
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aldi Inc. v. Visa Inc.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-04568 Filed (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2018), the Hon.
Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants’ acceptance of such payment cards.

The Aldi case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa is an American multinational financial services corporation
headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates
electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly
through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hBEHGEat no extra charge.[CC]


MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. BAFL
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baltimore Avenue Foods,
LLC v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05080 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Oct. 26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Baltimore is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3g0yXWgat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Bi-Lo
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bi-Lo, LLC et al v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-02532 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May
22, 2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defendants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Bi-Lo case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G7X6oN at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Boyd Gaming
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boyd Gaming Corporation,
et al., v. VISA INC. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01325 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed March 16, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an
order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants’ acceptance of such payment cards.

The Boyd Gaming suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Boyd Gaming is an American gaming and hospitality company based in
Paradise, Nevada.

Visa provides payment services. The Company offers digital payments
solutions, credit card processing services, and transactions for
consumers, businesses, banks, and governments. Visa U.S.A. serves
customers worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3USXECLat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. DOI
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Discount Optics, Inc. v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05870 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec 14,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Discount Optics is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa U.S.A. provides payment services. The Company offers digital
payments solutions, credit card processing services, and
transactions for consumers, businesses, banks, and governments.
Visa serves customers worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3fWQnDpat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. East Goshen
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as East Goshen Pharmacy, Inc.
v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05073 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct.
26, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defendants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The East Goshen case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tnjx1j at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Esdacy
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Esdacy, Inc. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-05583 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 17,
2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants’ acceptance of such payment cards.

The Esdacy case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa is an American multinational financial services corporation
headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates
electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly
through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3hBcyiIat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Exxon
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Exxon Mobil Corporation v.
Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02495 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 04,
2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants’ acceptance of such payment cards.

The Exxon suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Exxon is U.S.-based oil and gas company formed in 1999 through the
merger of Exxon Corporation and Mobil Corporation.

Visa provides payment services. The Company offers digital payments
solutions, credit card processing services, and transactions for
consumers, businesses, banks, and governments. Visa U.S.A. serves
customers worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Et3A0dat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Fareway
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fareway Stores, Inc., et
al., v. Visa, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01483 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Mar 20, 2020), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defendants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Fareway case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UMKKX2at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Fringe
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fringe, Inc. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-04194 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Sept.
2, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Fringe suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa provides payment services. The Company offers digital payments
solutions, credit card processing services, and transactions for
consumers, businesses, banks, and governments. Visa U.S.A. serves
customers worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tqeAVOat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Gulfside
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gulfside Casino
Partnership v. Visa, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-03225 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed July 29, 2009), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an
order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defendants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Gulfside case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EqNqEEat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Intuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Intuit, Inc. et al., v.
Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01175 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Mar. 08,
2021), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Intuit suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa provides payment services. The Company offers digital payments
solutions, credit card processing services, and transactions for
consumers, businesses, banks, and governments. Visa U.S.A. serves
customers worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3Us6I1Mat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Jasperson
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jasperson v. Visa U.S.A.,
Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05070 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26, 2005), the
Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defendants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Jasperson case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3fTxL7nat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Kroger
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kroger Co. v. Visa U.S.A.,
Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05078 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margo K.
Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Kroger case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hvt1Fh at no extra charge.[CC]


MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Lakeshore
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lakeshore Interiors v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05081 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Lakeshore case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa is an American multinational financial services corporation
headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates
electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly
through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3UtxDKHat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. LBI
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lombardo Bros., Inc. v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05882 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 14,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants’ acceptance of such payment cards.

The Lombardo Bros is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa U.S.A. provides payment services. The Company offers digital
payments solutions, credit card processing services, and
transactions for consumers, businesses, banks, and governments.
Visa U.S.A. serves customers worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ElQDEfat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Lee
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lee, et al., v. Visa
U.S.A. Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-03800 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug.
10, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Lee suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa U.S.A. provides payment services. The Company offers digital
payments solutions, credit card processing services, and
transactions for consumers, businesses, banks, and governments.
Visa serves customers worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3AbbAAdat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Parkway
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Parkway Corp. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05077 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Parkway case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa is an American multinational financial services corporation
headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates
electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly
through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3E39gfKat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Payless
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Payless Shoe Source, Inc.
v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-01832 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Apr.
14, 2006), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Payless suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa provides payment services. The Company offers digital payments
solutions, credit card processing services, and transactions for
consumers, businesses, banks, and governments. Visa U.S.A. serves
customers worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3TpTfq5at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Photos Etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Photos Etc. Corp. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05071 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defendants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Photos Etc. is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3NZAcBDat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. PLI
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Performance Labs, Inc. v.
American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc., Case No.
1:05-cv-05869 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an
order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants’ acceptance of such payment cards.

The Performance Labs suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment
Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation.
The lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa U.S.A. provides payment services. The Company offers digital
payments solutions, credit card processing services, and
transactions for consumers, businesses, banks, and governments.
Visa serves customers worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3EodD6Eat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Resnick
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Resnick Amsterdam &
Leshner P.C. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al,, Case No. 1:05-cv-03924
(E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 16, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie
entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused the the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Resnick suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa provides payment services. The Company offers digital payments
solutions, credit card processing services, and transactions for
consumers, businesses, banks, and governments. Visa U.S.A. serves
customers worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tHrlvnat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Rite Aid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rite Aid Corporation et al
v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-05352 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed Nov. 14, 2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an
order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Rite Aid case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa is an American multinational financial services corporation
headquartered in San Francisco, California. It facilitates
electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most commonly
through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3DRIpDqat no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Rue 21
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rue 21, Inc., v. Visa Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-07018 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 2, 2014), the
Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defendants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Rue 21 case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NZCu3W at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Verizon
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Verizon Sourcing LLC et.
al. v. Visa, Inc. et. al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05882 (E.D.N.Y.,), the
Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defednants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Verizon suit is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa provides payment services. The Company offers digital payments
solutions, credit card processing services, and transactions for
consumers, businesses, banks, and governments. Visa U.S.A. serves
customers worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3O7Qad5at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 1720: Visa, et al., Lose Summary Judgment Bid v. Wafflerie
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bonte Wafflerie, LLC v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:05-cv-05083 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 26,
2005), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants used anticompetitively
acquired market power to delay imposing Euripay, Mastercard, and
Visa (EMV) technology, which caused fraud to increase, and then
used the same market power to shift the costs of the fraud to the
Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find that
this is the case."

The Court says that it isn't persuaded by the Defendants arguments.
The Defendants argue that because "Plaintiffs have offered no proof
that their alleged EMV chargeback damages were caused by the
Defendants; alleged violations of the antitrust laws," the
Defendants are "entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
request for EMV chargeback damages."

EMV technology is a "global standard for credit cards that uses
computer chips and chip readers to authenticate (and secure)
chip-card transactions."

The actions in MDL No. 1720 involve allegations that Visa and
MasterCard engaged in anticompetitive conduct with respect to
interchange fees imposed on credit and debit card transactions and
rules governing merchants' acceptance of such payment cards.

The Wafflerie case is consolidated in MDL 1720 RE: Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation. The
lead case is Case No. 1:05-md-01720.

Visa Inc. is an American multinational financial services
corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. It
facilitates electronic funds transfers throughout the world, most
commonly through Visa-branded credit cards, debit cards and prepaid
cards.

A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 26, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UBkU8A at no extra charge.[CC]


MGM RESORTS: Employees' Retirement Fund Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Silvia Pavlof, writing for Gambling News, reports that a lawsuit
against MGM Resorts in connection with charges for mismanagement of
employees' retirement fund has been authorized as a class action by
a Nevada federal court.

Retirement Fund Mismanagement Lawsuit Against MGM Resorts Turns
into a Class Action

Play USA reported that on October 19, Judge Jennifer Dorsey
certified the lawsuit filed by Eboni Lucas and other plaintiffs as
a class action.

The lawsuit has been going on for more than two years and may
finally move toward a resolution after the judge's decision to make
it into a class action.

The case includes all MGM Resorts employees who have opted in for
the company's 401(k) Savings Plan since 2014. However, exempt from
the class action are board of directors members, MGM Internal
Compensation Committee members, Administrative Committee members,
and any employees that decide to not take part in the class
action.

The case was filed by Eboni Lucas and a few other plaintiffs back
on December 4, 2020. They accuse MGM Resorts of breaching the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by not properly
managing the employees' investments in the retirement fund offered
by the company resulting in a loss of value.

More precisely the main charge included in the lawsuit is presented
as follows: "Failing to objectively and adequately review the
Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each
investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and maintaining
certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or
similar investment options with lower costs and/or better
performance histories."

The plaintiffs further highlight that due to MGM Resorts' neglect
of its duties, the employees who had opted for the retirement plan
lost millions of dollars.

MGM Resorts disputed the claims by noting that bringing in smaller
returns is not a legitimate reason to press charges for violation
of fiduciary duty.

Another Class Action Lawsuit Against MGM Resorts Was Filed in
Mississippi
MGM Resorts is the object of another class action lawsuit in
Mississippi which was filed by plaintiff Leane Scherer.

She accuses the company of robbing its customers of small change on
thousands of cash-out transactions, which results in major profits
for the company.

When a player wants to cash out his winnings from a slot machine,
MGM Resorts rounds the payout to the nearest dollar, which means
that if the player has $100.50 to cash out the casino cage will
only pay out $100, effectively depriving the customer of his
change.

The charges against MGM Resorts include unfair enrichment and
violation of contract and may result in serious financial
liabilities. [GN]

MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Averts Class Suit Over Dark Chocolate Label
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Anne Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a
proposed class action alleging that Mondelez International Inc.
misleadingly labeled its dark chocolate products as being made with
cacao, instead of cocoa, is over.

The label isn't misleading because the products are, in fact,
derived from cacao, the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York said. Additionally, named plaintiff C.K. Lee didn't
allege facts showing that a reasonable consumer would find
Mondelez's use of the term "cacao" misleading, it said.

Lee -- a professed dark chocolate lover -- sued Mondelez and its
distributor, Mondelez Global LLC, under New York laws that prohibit
businesses from engaging in deceptive acts. [GN]

MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: Court Denies Torfason's Bid to Intervene
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAMES PAUL ANDREW TORFASON, Plaintiff v.
STEVE BERNAL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07037-JSW, the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies
as unnecessary the Plaintiff's motion to intervene.

Mr. Torfason moves to intervene in a 2013 prior class action in
which he alleges he is a class member.

Steve Bernal is the Sheriff of Monterey County, California.

Within seven days of the date this order is filed, the Court
directs the Defendants to show cause why the Plaintiff's motion to
compel should not be granted. In their response, the Defendants
must address why they should also not produce to the Plaintiff the
reports and other documents referenced in the Plaintiff's motion to
intervene.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2uxsxtkd from Leagle.com.


MORGAN STANLEY: Helfand Must Respond to Sanction in Security Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled In re Morgan Stanley Data Security
Litigation, Case No. 20 Civ. 5914 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A.
Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York directs Objector Steven Helfand to file a response on the
Plaintiffs' proposed sanction and the alternative form of proposed
coercive sanction.

On Aug. 5, 2022, the Court approved (1) the proposed class action
settlement; and (2) attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards,
issuing separate orders as to these subjects. On Aug. 17, 2022,
Steven Helfand, an objector and non-party member of the Class,
filed a notice of appeal.

On Sept. 28, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
order that Helfand post an appeal bond of $25,000 as a condition of
proceeding with his appeal. The basis for the bond were the
substantial costs, inconvenience, and delay in receiving relief
that a pending appeal would visit upon the settlement class; and
the Court's assessment that an appeal, if based on the objections
that Mr. Helfand articulated in connection with the settlement
approval, could not form the basis of a meritorious appeal.

Among other consequences, a pending appeal of the settlement
threatens to delay, for months if not longer, class members' access
to the Aura Financial Shield product that is a central component of
the settlement. The Court ordered that Mr. Helfand post the bond
and file and serve proof of satisfaction of the bond requirement by
Oct. 18, 2022. On Oct. 14, 2022, Mr. Helfand appealed the Court's
order granting the motion for bond. He has not, however, posted the
bond, nor sought or obtained relief from doing so.

The Plaintiffs now move to hold Mr. Helfand in contempt of the
Court's order granting the motion to impose bond, on the ground
that he has not complied with the requirement to post an appeal
bond of $25,000. They request that the Court imposes monetary
sanctions in the amount of $50,000 in the form of a fine payable to
the Court and, if it deems appropriate, an award of attorney's fees
to settlement class counsel. The Plaintiffs represent that
Defendant Morgan Stanley does not oppose the motion or the
requested relief.

As an alternative to the Plaintiffs' proposed means of assuring Mr.
Helfand's compliance with his unexcused duty to post an appeal
bond, the Court is considering a different form of contempt
sanction, under which he, beginning Nov. 4, 2022, would be ordered
to pay $250/day to the Clerk of the Court until either posting such
a bond or dismissing his appeal.

The Court directs Mr. Helfand to file a response on the docket of
this case, which is to address both the Plaintiffs' proposed
sanction and the alternative form of proposed coercive sanction. It
further scheduled an emergency in-person conference for Nov. 2,
2022, at which the Court will consider possible civil contempt
sanctions. It directs Mr. Helfand and counsel for both Plaintiffs
and Morgan Stanley to attend.

The Court directs the Plaintiffs to furnish a copy of the motion
for contempt, the documents supporting the motion, and this order
to Mr. Helfand forthwith and to file a notice of such service on
the docket.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/29fftad2 from Leagle.com.


NEW YORK: Jeffery Appeals Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------
LAMEL JEFFERY, et al., are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Lamel Jeffery, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-02843, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
commenced a putative class action against the City Defendants;
Andrew Cuomo, former Governor of the State of New York,
individually; and 50 unnamed New York City Police Department
("NYPD") officers, individually and in their official capacities,
for deprivation of federal rights, municipal liability, and
violations of First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment Rights
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

On March 17, 2021, the former Governor filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety. The same day, the City Defendants
filed a partial motion to dismiss.

On Jan. 21, 2022, the Court dismissed the claims against the former
Mayor in his individual capacity and against the former Governor,
as well as the claims that the curfew was facially
unconstitutional, that the arrests were unlawful, and the claims
alleging false imprisonment. It sustained the selective enforcement
and municipal liability claims.

Following the partial dismissal, the Plaintiffs moved pursuant to
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an entry of
partial final judgment on the Plaintiffs' claims related to, and
contingent on, the curfew's validity. The City Defendants opposed
the motion.

On July 12, 2022, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis denied Plaintiffs'
motion for entry of partial judgment under Rule 54(b).

On August 10, 2022, the parties sought and obtained an order from
Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy adjourning all deadlines and
conferences sine die; and permitting the parties to file a
stipulation of voluntary dismissal in 30 days.

On September 23, 2022, Judge Garaufis entered Final Judgment on its
January 21, 2022 Dismissal Order that dismissed, inter alia, the
False Arrest Claims against all defendants. All findings of law and
fact contained in the Court's January 21, 2022 Dismissal Order are
incorporated by reference into the final Judgment. Having entered
Final Judgment on the Dismissal Order, plaintiffs may now pursue an
immediate appeal of the Dismissal Order.

Moreover, pursuant to the parties' Stipulation, the sole remaining
Equal Protection Claim asserted in the Complaint is dismissed and
discontinued with prejudice against the City defendants without
costs to either party as against the other. The sole purpose of
this stipulation and dismissal of the remaining Equal Protection
Claim is to enable plaintiffs to pursue and immediate appeal of the
Court's January 21, 2020 Dismissal Order.

The appellate case is captioned Jeffery v. City of New York, Case
No. 22-2745, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on October 25, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees LAMEL JEFFERY, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Joshua P. Fitch, Esq.
            COHEN & FITCH LLP
            233 Broadway
            New York, NY 10279
            Telephone: (212) 374-9115

Defendants-Appellees CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., are represented by:

            Sylvia Hinds-Radix, Esq.
            NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
            100 Church Street
            New York, NY 10007
            Telephone: (212) 356-0800

                   - and -

            Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
            NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
            28 Liberty Street
            New York, NY 10005

NISSAN NORTH: Appeals Judgment and Class Cert. Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order
granting in part and denying in part its motion for summary
judgment and the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
lawsuit entitled Sherida Johnson, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nissan North
America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00517-WHO, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Plaintiffs in this putative class action purchased vehicles
made by Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. Those vehicles had a
premium feature: large panoramic sunroofs (PSRs). According to the
Plaintiffs, Nissan's PSRs are designed in a way that creates a
propensity to fracture and shatter under ordinary driving
conditions. The Plaintiffs brought this suit in February 2017
against Nissan under California, New York, Colorado, Florida, and
Illinois law. They claim that Nissan violated those states'
consumer protection statutes by failing to disclose the alleged
defect. And they claim that Nissan violated implied warranties of
merchantability because the alleged defect rendered the vehicles
unfit for ordinary use. On February 17, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved
to certify state-based classes for these claims; Nissan moved to
exclude the Plaintiffs' damages and technical experts and for
summary judgment on June 15, 2021.

On July 21, 2022, Judge William H. Orrick entered an Order denying
Nissan's Daubert motions; granting in part Nissan's motion for
summary judgment to the extent the Plaintiffs seek restitution or
unjust enrichment for purchases of used cars from entities other
than Nissan, and denying in part that there are genuine disputes of
material fact about the existence of this alleged defect, whether
it would be material to reasonable consumers, whether they would
rely on it if it had been properly disclosed, and the handful of
other challenges Nissan makes. The motion to certify was granted on
the California, New York, Colorado, and Florida classes while
certification of the Illinois class and the Plaintiffs' untimely
request for certification of an injunctive-relief class were
denied.

The appellate case is captioned Sherida Johnson, et al. v. Nissan
North America, Inc., Case No. 22-16644, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 25, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Nissan North America, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire
was due on November 1, 2022;

   -- Appellant Nissan North America, Inc. opening brief is due on
February 2, 2023;

   -- Appellees April Ahrens, Sherida Johnson, Chad Loury, Subrina
Seenarain, Linda Spry and Lisa Sullivan answering brief are due on
March 6, 2023; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees SHERIDA JOHNSON, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Mitchell Breit, Esq.
            MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
            405 E. 50th Street
            New York, NY 10022
            Telephone: (347) 668-8445

                   - and -

            Greg Frederic Coleman, Esq.
            Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
            William A. Ladnier, Esq.
            Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
            MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
            800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
            Knoxville, TN 37929
            Telephone: (865) 247-0080

Defendant-Appellant NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. is represented by:

            Andrew Chang, Esq.
            Amir Nassihi, Esq.
            SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, LLP
            555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
            San Francisco, CA 94105
            Telephone: (415) 544-1900

NORTHLAND RESOURCES: Settles Securities Class Action for EUR7.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Settlement has been reached in a Class Action lawsuit against
Northland Resources S.A. ("Northland") and certain of its former
directors and officers (the "Defendants"). To be a member of this
Class Action, persons or entities, wherever they may reside or be
domiciled, must have acquired Securities in Northland between April
1, 2012 and January 23, 2013 and have held some or all of those
Securities as of January 23, 2013.

The proposed Settlement, in the amount of EUROS 7,550,000.00,
resolves the case in its entirety. In exchange, the Defendants will
be provided with a full release of claims against them. The
Settlement is not an admission of liability, fault or wrongdoing
but is a compromise of disputed claims. The Settlement must be
approved by the Court before it becomes effective.

Northland declared Bankruptcy in 2014. The company no longer
operates and it has no assets following a bankruptcy liquidation.
The Settlement recoveries are payable from certain limited
securities-related insurance coverages that were in place prior to
the bankruptcy. The Settlement recoveries include the full limit of
Northland's securities-related insurance coverage (EUROS 5
million), plus the full amount of the Defendant director's and
officer's calculated exposure under liability limits contained in
Ontario securities law and amounts for legal costs and costs of
notice and administration.

The plan for distributing the Settlement Funds to Class Members
must also be approved by the Court before payments can be made. The
proposed plan is posted for review at
www.northlandclassaction.com.

A hearing has been set to approve the Settlement Agreement, the
proposed plan of distribution, and the fees, disbursements and
applicable taxes of Class Counsel. The hearing will be held on
January 5, 2023 at 10:00am.

Class Members have the right to submit comments or objections for
consideration by the Court in respect of the Settlement, the plan
of distribution for the Settlement Funds and the fee request of
Class Counsel. The deadline for those comments is December 30,
2022.

The dates for making claims for compensation from the Settlement
Fund will be published through a separate notice as soon as
possible after the Court approves the Settlement Agreement and the
plan of distribution. Updates and information about how to make a
claim will be posted as soon as they are available at
www.northlandclassaction.com. If you would like to be provided with
direct notice of the opening of the claims process, please register
on the Settlement website.

If you are a Class Member who wants to be included in the Class
Action, you do not need to do anything. If you do not want to be
included in this Class Action, you must exclude yourself by
completing the Opt-Out Form found at www.northlandclassaction.com
and submitting it to Class Counsel by December 30, 2022.

For more detailed information, and to view the Settlement Agreement
and the Court-approved notices, please visit
www.northlandclassaction.com.

Media Contact: Foreman & Company, Jonathan Foreman,
jforeman@foremancompany.com

Foreman & Company represents Class Members in this case. Based in
London, Ontario, Foreman & Company has more than 20 years'
experience in class action litigation and expertise in a full range
of class action matters. [GN]

OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Grandstaff Seeks Unpaid Inspectors' OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK GRANDSTAFF, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
5:22-cv-01184-XR (W.D. Tex., October 28, 2022) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a mechanical
inspector from approximately January 2020 until May 2020.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated inspectors regularly worked more than 40 hours per week.
Instead of paying them overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they have
worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Defendant paid them a flat
day-rate for each day worked regardless of the number of hours they
worked in a day or week, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation for
himself and all other similarly situated inspectors, as well as
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs & expenses, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as may be necessary and
appropriate.

Occidental Petroleum is an independent oil and natural gas
exploration and production company operating throughout the U.S.,
including Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77005
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

OFFICIA IMAGING: Faces Labor Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego labor law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL
Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against Officia
Imaging, Inc. and Alternative Business Equipment, Inc.
(hereinafter, collectively, "Office1") for allegedly failing to
provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods. The
class action lawsuit, Case No. 37-2022-00041104-CU-OE-CTL, is
currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the
State of California. A copy of the complaint can be read here.

According to the lawsuit, Office1 allegedly violated California
Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 246, 510, 512,
558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing to: (1) pay
minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide required meal
and rest periods; (4) pay wages when due; and (5) provide accurate
itemized wage statements.

Under California law, every employer shall pay to each employee, on
the established payday for the period involved, not less than the
applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period,
whether the remuneration is measured by time, piece, commission, or
otherwise. Hours worked is defined in the applicable Wage Order as
"the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an
employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or
permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." Office1
allegedly required its employees to perform work before and after
their scheduled shifts, as well as during their off-duty meal
breaks. The lawsuit alleges Office1 failed to compensate its
employees for any of the time spent under the employer's control
while working off-the-clock. As such, Office1 allegedly failed to
pay its employees the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked
in a payroll period.

If you would like to know more about the Office1 lawsuit, please
contact Attorney Jackland Hom today by calling (619) 255-9047.

Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and
employment law firms with offices located in California that
dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been
wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices.
Contact one of their attorneys today if you need help with
workplace issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination,
retaliation, discrimination, and harassment. [GN]

OHIO: Court Dismisses Second Amended Complaint in Jones v. DeWine
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, dismisses the second amended
complaint in the lawsuit titled AARON L. JONES, SR., Plaintiff v.
MIKE DEWINE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03301 (S.D.
Ohio).

The Plaintiff is a state inmate under the supervision of the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections ("ODRC"), proceeding
without the assistance of counsel. Along with 20 fellow inmates, he
initiated this putative class action in May 2020 against Defendants
Governor Mike DeWine and ODRC regarding the conditions of
confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A first amended complaint was filed, followed by a "Request for
Removal from Civil Action" by certain Plaintiffs to pursue their
claims in a related case. Motion practice ensued. The Magistrate
Judge's initial screen of the first amended complaint, which was
adopted and affirmed by the Court, dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims
in their entirety but granted Mr. Jones leave to amend to develop
his individual claims. Mr. Jones filed a second amended complaint.

Before the Court today is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, which was issued after performing an initial screen
of the second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections
1915(e)(2), 1915A. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court
dismiss Mr. Jones' claims in their entirety and close the case. Mr.
Jones objects.

The Magistrate Judge found that Mr. Jones' second amended complaint
is substantially identical to the first amended complaint and that
his individual claims overlap with those previously dismissed by
the Court. The Magistrate Judge also explains that Mr. Jones used
his right to amend to clarify and repeat that he seeks
compassionate release due to heart problems, breathing problems,
and diabetes, but the Court has already held it is without
authority to address this request as to Mr. Jones' state court
sentence.

The Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's reasoning or
conclusions. The objections provide no basis for concluding
otherwise. Mr. Jones repeats many of his complaint allegations in
his objection. He does not explain how his second amended complaint
differs from the previously-dismissed first amended complaint. In
fact, he concedes "That The Second Complaint Is Substantially
Identical To The First Complaint. This Is Somewhat True."

Mr. Jones avers "Deliberate Indifference Is Included In THIS
Complaint," but points to no new allegations curing the Court's
previous finding that his pleading falls short of satisfying the
subjective component of a deliberate indifference claim.

Finally, Mr. Jones again indicates he seeks compassionate release
but as explained, the Court has addressed this request in previous
orders.

Accordingly, Judge Morrison overrules Mr. Jones' Objection. The
Court adopts and affirms the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. The second amended complaint is dismissed. The
Clerk is directed to terminate this case from the docket of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/j9mfkkar from Leagle.com.


OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL: Arbitration Recommended in Michael Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Austin Division, issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration be granted in the lawsuit entitled KRISTEN MICHAEL, an
individual on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL, LLC, a limited liability
company, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00529-LY (W.D. Tex.).

Before the Court are the Defendant's Opposed Motion to Compel
Individual Arbitration and Dismiss or Stay, filed June 27, 2022;
the Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration, filed July 11, 2022; and the Defendant's Reply, filed
July 18, 2022.

Michael, a Texas resident, alleges that Opportunity Financial
("OppFi"), an Illinois-based online money lender, has issued
consumer loans to her and millions of other borrowers in Texas with
interest rates exceeding 130%, which is above the 30% maximum rate
permitted under Texas law.

Under Texas law, a lender such as OppFi "must hold a license" to
"engage in the business of making, transacting, or negotiating
loans." The maximum interest rate such a lender may charge on a
consumer loan not secured by real property is "30 percent a year."

The Plaintiff alleges that OppFi operates a "rent-a-bank scheme,"
in which a lender markets high-interest loans to consumers in a
state where interest rate caps are low, using a partnership with a
bank chartered in a different state where interest rate caps are
higher, in an attempt to skirt the lower interest rate caps in the
state where the loans are made. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges
that in states like Texas, where high interest rates on consumer
loans are illegal, OppFi names two entities on the loan agreements:
OppFi as the loan servicer and, as the purported lender, a bank
chartered in Utah, which has no usury laws prohibiting
high-interest loans.

The Plaintiff further alleges that after the loans are signed,
OppFi "buys 95% of each loan from the rented Utah-chartered bank."
She alleges that OppFi bears all risk of loss, holds the
predominant economic interest, funds the expenses for the provision
of the loans, and "handles all acquisitions, all marketing, all
underwriting, and all servicing of the loans." She alleges that
OppFi "is the true lender on these loans."

The Plaintiff alleges that on June 22, 2021, she took out a $1,400
loan from OppFi at an annual percentage rate of 130.54% and a
duration of 19 months (the "Loan Agreement"). She contends that the
Loan Agreement violates Texas law because the interest rate exceeds
the maximum amount allowed under Texas law.

To obtain her loan, Plaintiff electronically signed a Promissory
Note and Disclosure Statement listing the terms of the loan (the
"Note"). The Note states that FinWise Bank, a Utah state-chartered
bank, is the lender and its mailing address is "C/O Opportunity
Financial, LLC, 130 E. Randolph St., Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60601."
This is OppFi's corporate mailing address. The Note further states
that "Opportunity Financial, LLC ('OppLoans')" is the servicer on
the loan. The Note also contains an arbitration clause requiring
the arbitration of "all Claims" related to the loan (the
"Arbitration Clause").

On June 1, 2022, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action
lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, alleging (1)
violations of Texas usury laws; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3)
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"). The Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment that
OppFi is the true lender of the loans; the loans are governed by
Texas law; and the loan contracts, including the arbitration
clause, are unconscionable, void, and unenforceable.

The lawsuit is filed on behalf of Plaintiff and (1) the putative
class, defined as: "All individuals in Texas who obtained a loan
from, through, by way of, or with the assistance of Opportunity
Financial on or after June 2, 2018, with an interest rate over 30%
per year"; and (2) the RICO Sub-Class, defined as: "All individuals
in Texas who obtained a loan from, through, by way of, or with the
assistance of Opportunity Financial on or after June 2, 2018, with
an interest rate over 60% per year."

OppFi now moves to compel arbitration, arguing that all of the
Plaintiff's claims must be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the
Arbitration Clause in the Note. The Plaintiff argues that the
Arbitration Clause is unenforceable under both federal and Texas
law.

The Plaintiff does not dispute that she signed the Note, but argues
that the Arbitration Clause is unenforceable because it (1)
prospectively waives her federal RICO claims, in violation of
federal law, and (2) is void under Texas law.

The Plaintiff argues that the Arbitration Clause is unenforceable
because it prospectively waives her federal RICO claims. Because
the Choice of Law provision in the Note requires the arbiter to
apply "the substantive law of Utah" and the Arbitration Clause
states that the "Arbiter must enforce your agreements with us, as
they are written," the Plaintiff argues, the arbiter is required to
enforce the loan agreement as "valid under Utah law." She contends
that such a finding would bar her RICO claims because a violation
of state law is required to show a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section
1961(6) and she would not be able to show a violation of Utah law.

The Court disagrees that the Arbitration Clause bars RICO claims.
Judge Hightower opines that the Choice of Law provision and the
Arbitration Clause do not mandate that the arbiter apply Utah law;
nor do these provisions bar the Plaintiff's RICO claims. The
Plaintiff does not dispute that she could assert a RICO claim in
the arbitration proceeding.

Judge Hightower notes that it is not clear whether an arbiter will
apply Utah or Texas law in this case. It will be for the arbitrator
to determine whether choice-of-law principles require the
application of Texas law rather than Utah law.

The Plaintiff argues that the Arbitration Clause is unconscionable
and void under Texas law because it requires the arbiter to apply
Utah law and "gives the arbiter no choice but to declare the loans
valid." As the Court found with respect to her RICO claims, this
argument lacks foundation, Judge Hightower holds. The Note and the
Arbitration Clause do not waive the Plaintiff's statutory claims
under federal or Texas law, and the Plaintiff's concern with the
Choice of Law provision in the Note is premature and is not grounds
for voiding the Arbitration Clause, Judge Hightower points out.

Judge Hightower finds that the Plaintiff presents no valid grounds
to declare the Arbitration Clause unenforceable. Accordingly, the
Court finds that the Arbitration Clause is enforceable.

The Court also concludes that the Arbitration Clause covers all of
the Plaintiff's claims. Because all issues the Plaintiff has raised
must be referred to arbitration, the Court recommends dismissal of
this action.

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
District Court grant the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration
and dismiss the Plaintiff's lawsuit without prejudice.

The Court further orders that the Clerk remove this case from the
Magistrate Court's docket and return it to the docket of the
Honorable Lee Yeakel.

The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation.
A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings
or recommendations to which objections are being made. The District
Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general
objections. A party's failure to file written objections within
fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the
Report will bar that party from de novo review by the District
Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report
and, except on grounds of plain error, will bar the party from
appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and
legal conclusions accepted by the District Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Report and Recommendation dated
Oct. 24, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx27cd2x from
Leagle.com.


ORACLE AMERICA: Moves to Dismiss Mass Surveillance Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that Oracle America, Inc. filed a motion
to dismiss to the Northern District of California alleging the
plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief could be
granted in a case alleging mass surveillance.

The lawsuit was initiated by Michael Katz-Lacabe, Jennifer Golbeck
and Johnny Ryan, who argue that the defendant's Oracle Advertising
product collects personal data from unsuspecting internet users,
leading to violations of common law and statutes. The plaintiffs
argue that Oracle commits egregious breaches of social norms and
profits from its comprehensive surveillance of much of the American
and worldwide public.

Conversely, the motion to dismiss argues that the complaint fails
to allege factual allegations and instead "cobbles together various
media reports and online publications." Additionally, Oracle argues
that the complaint relies on unsupported and inaccurate theories on
how Oracle operates.

Further, Oracle states its Oracle Advertising services deliver
relevant advertising through interest segments which are developed
from anonymous identifiers collected by third-party websites with
the visitor's consent. Oracle states that it is committed to
consumer privacy and routinely reviews and updates its privacy
policies to reflect changes in the law and market.

The motion to dismiss states that the plaintiffs fail to state a
cause of action on which relief could be granted and that they are
asking the court to "legislate privacy rights from the bench on an
unprecedented scale" by relying on misrepresented facts.
Accordingly, Oracle requests that the court dismiss the plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice.

Oracle is represented by Morrison & Foerster LLP, and the
plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. [GN]

ORIGIN U.S.A. INC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Origin U.S.A., Inc.
The case is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Origin U.S.A., Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-09353 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2022).

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

Origin USA -- https://originmaine.com/ -- specializes in Solar and
Roofing installations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


PEABODY ENERGY: Labaton Sucharow Discloses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP announces that the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the
following announcement of a proposed securities class action
settlement on behalf of purchasers of Peabody Energy Corp. publicly
traded common stock (NYSE: BTU):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

To: all persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired Peabody Energy Corp. publicly traded common stock during
the period from April 3, 2017 through October 28, 2019, inclusive
(the "Settlement Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the
"Settlement Class")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that Lead Plaintiff Oregon
Public Employees Retirement Fund ("Lead Plaintiff"), on behalf of
itself and all members of the Settlement Class, and Peabody Energy
Corporation ("Peabody" or the "Company"), Glenn L. Kellow, and Amy
B. Schwetz (collectively, "Defendants," and, together with Lead
Plaintiff, the "Parties"), have reached a proposed settlement of
the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") and
related claims in the amount of $4,625,000 (the "Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable P. Kevin Castel on
February 7, 2023, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 11D of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court
should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated October 7, 2022;
(iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of
the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to
Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the
Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT
need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution
from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and
Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting
the Claims Administrator's website
www.strategicclaims.net/Peabody/, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

Peabody Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
www.strategicclaims.net/Peabody/
(866) 274-4004

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:

LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
Christine M. Fox, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
settlementquestions@labaton.com
(888) 219-6877

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online to the Claims
Administrator no later than February 2, 2023. If you are a
Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all
judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or
unfavorable.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice so that it is received no later than January 17, 2023. If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court,
whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than January 17, 2023.
[GN]

PENELOPE BOURBON: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penelope Bourbon LLC.
The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Penelope
Bourbon LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06639-BMC (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2022).

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

Penelope Bourbon -- https://penelopebourbon.com/ -- is an
award-winning premium straight bourbon whiskey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORSCHE AG: $80M Settlement in Fuel Emission Suit Gets Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Ethington at jurist.org reports that US District Judge
granted final approval of Volkswagen and Porsche's $80 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit. The companies were accused of
manipulation of fuel economy and fuel emission tests for nearly
500,000 gasoline-powered Porsche class vehicles with a model year
between 2005-2020. Judge Breyer also granted approximately $25
million in attorneys' fees and costs to class members.

This finalized settlement ends litigation over Volkswagen's "clean
diesel" marketing, sales practices and product liability that began
in December 2015. The settlement benefits vary depending on if the
class member belongs to the Fuel Economy Class Members and
submitted a valid claim (ranging from $250 to $1,109.66), Sports+
Class Members who bring in their vehicle(s) for a software update
even if they did not submit a claim ($250), or Other Class Vehicle
Class Members who could have been impacted ($200).

Volkswagen announced that it aims "to mak[e] its data center
operations net carbon-neutral" by 2027. In 2018, Volkswagon "was
the first automaker to commit to the Paris climate agreement" and
aims to be carbon neutral by 2050.

The settlement approval comes as "countries come together to take
action towards achieving the world's collective climate goals as
agreed under the Paris Agreement and the Convention" during the
2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference.[GN]

RAMONA MUNICIPAL: Decertification of Class in Plantier Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned EUGENE G. PLANTIER, as Trustee, etc., et
al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v. RAMONA MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT,
Defendant and Respondent, Case No. D079529 (Cal. App.), the Court
of Appeals of California for the Fourth District, Division One,
affirms the order decertifying class.

Appellants Eugene G. Plantier, as trustee of the Plantier Family
Trust, Progressive Properties Incorporated, and Premium
Development, LLC, brought a putative class action against
Respondent Ramona Municipal Water District (District), seeking
declaratory and monetary relief for District's alleged violation of
Proposition 218 (Cal. Const., art. XIII D, Section 61) in its
method of setting sewer charges. They appeal an order in which the
trial court decertified their class action on grounds of an
irreconcilable conflict among class members, based in part on the
court's sua sponte reconsideration of a 2015 order granting class
certification.

The Plaintiffs contend the court abused its discretion in
reconsidering the class certification order. They further contend
the court erred because (1) they pleaded that the sewer service
charges exceeded the funds required to provide the service, and
thus the entire class was overcharged; (2) there was no conflict of
interest among class members; and (3) District did not meet its
burden on its decertification motion. The Plaintiffs finally
contend the court abused its discretion by failing to permit them
to file a renewed class certification motion or amend the class
definition or claims.

District provides water and wastewater (sewer) services to
businesses and residents in an unincorporated area of San Diego
County (Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water Dist. (2019) 7 Cal.5th
372, 376 (Plantier)). It charges for sewer service based on
estimated wastewater capacity needs, flow and strength for
different customer types or classes. District uses an "Equivalent
Dwelling Unit" (EDU) system, levying fixed sewer rates based on the
number of EDUs assigned to the particular type of development. EDUs
are assigned to each property based on the type of use and the
property's estimated wastewater system capacity needs.

In November 2013, Plantier and Progressive presented a claim
against District. The complaint alleged that District's EDU system
does not meet the requirements set forth in Section 6(b)(3) of the
Article XIII D of the California Constitution and related statutory
requirements and, thus, the fees were unlawful and invalid. It
alleged the sewer service charge was subject to section 6(b)(3),
and in violation of that section, the charge was imposed based
solely on EDUs, without regard to actual wastewater use, a
property's proportional burden on the wastewater system, or the
actual cost of providing a property with wastewater service.

The complaint alleged that the lack of a rational relationship
between the sewer charge and actual wastewater use resulted in the
systematic overcharge of wastewater consumers for whom the
proportional cost of providing their property with wastewater
service is less than their EDU-based sewer charge. It also alleged
District's connection fees were invalid, as they were also imposed
on a per-EDU basis without regard to the cost of the physical
facilities necessary to make a sewer connection and, thus, did not
meet the definition of Government Code section 66013, subdivision
(b).

In January 2014, after District rejected the claim, the Plaintiffs
filed a putative class action complaint alleging in part that
District's EDU billing system violated Proposition 218. The
operative first amended complaint, brought on behalf of all
District customers, who paid a sewer service charge on or after
Nov. 22, 2012, sought declaratory relief, as well as damages in the
form of a refund of the assertedly unlawful charges. The Plaintiffs
repeated their allegations concerning how District's charges
violated section 6(b)(3). They again alleged that the lack of a
rational relationship between the sewer charge and actual
wastewater use resulted in the systematic overcharge of wastewater
consumers for whom the proportional cost of providing their
property with wastewater service is less than their EDU-based sewer
charge.

The Plaintiffs successfully moved for and obtained certification of
the requested class before Judge Timothy Taylor. Judge Taylor ruled
common issues--namely, whether the EDU-based charges violated
section 6(b)(3)--predominated over individual issues. Judge Taylor
ruled the proposed class was ascertainable and numerous, that the
Plaintiffs were adequate class representatives, and that the
Plaintiffs' claims were typical of the class, as they and the class
members were assigned EDU values and assessed sewer charges based
on that value. Judge Taylor found no present conflict of interest
among the class members. However, Judge Taylor said if a conflict
in fact arises, the class action may be decertified.

After a bench trial, the trial court ruled the Plaintiffs failed to
meet an exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement in
Proposition 218 because none of them had participated in a
Proposition 218 rate increase hearing. This Appellate Court
reversed, and the California Supreme Court in Plantier affirmed
that decision.

Following remand, the Plaintiffs challenged Judge Taylor and the
matter was reassigned to Judge Gregory Pollack, who notified the
parties the court had concerns over a conflict of interest between
class members, who underpaid for sewer services and those who
overpaid. Judge Pollack eventually granted District leave to file a
motion to decertify the class.

In its decertification motion, District argued the calculation of
sewer service charges was a "zero-sum" scenario. It argued the
Appellants' class includes both harmed ratepayers, who were
allegedly overcharged, and unharmed--indeed,
benefitted--ratepayers, who (if the Plaintiffs' theory is correct)
were allegedly undercharged. It argued that awarding all charges
paid since 2012 would amount to an over $50 million judgment that
District would have to pay by assessing charges to current
ratepayers, creating another conflict. District also argued, among
other things, that the Plaintiffs failed to show sufficient
causation for liability of damages to justify certification, and
they could not show they had suffered overcharges or that their
claims were consistent with all other ratepayers, thus they were
inadequate class representatives.

In opposition, the Plaintiffs argued District did not identify new
law or evidence of changed circumstances to justify decertifying
the class. The Plaintiffs argued, among other things, that District
could not meet its burden to prove compliance with Proposition 218,
in part because class members were charged over $8 million more
than the cost of the service provided during the class period.

The trial court decertified the class. Sustaining District's
objections to declarations from the Plaintiffs' consultants and
accountants, and granting District's requests for judicial notice,
it ruled the class as certified created an irreconcilable conflict
among class members. It found the single common issue--whether
District's EDU methodology was legally permissible under section
6(b)(3)--did not predominate over the many individual issues. At
the same time the court ruled on District's decertification motion,
it sua sponte reconsidered Judge Taylor's 2015 order granting class
certification, considering only the evidence before the court in
2015.

Judge Pollack specifically ruled he had the inherent authority to
do so as long as he gave the parties an opportunity to fully brief
the matter, and considered only the evidence originally submitted
to Judge Taylor. Judge Pollack ruled Judge Taylor's class
certification order was erroneous. Similarly, because some class
members have been allegedly harmed by District's use of the subject
EDU assignment method, others have necessarily benefitted based
upon the zero-sum scenario, thereby, creating a class containing
both 'harmed' and 'unharmed' members.

The Plaintiffs filed this appeal.

The Appellate Court begins by addressing District's contention that
the trial court's order decertifying the class is not an
immediately appealable "death knell" order.

The order--decertifying the entire class--is such an appealable
death knell order, Associate Justice Terry B. O'Rourke, writing for
the Panel, holds. The Judge adds that District's cited authorities
do not convince the Appellate Court otherwise.

Unlike the FLSA action in Haro v. City of Rosemead (2009) 174
Cal.App.4th 1067, 1070 (Haro) or the PAGA action in Munoz v.
Chipotle Mexican Grill (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 291, absent class
certification, the present action against District cannot proceed
with the individuals acting on behalf of other unnamed class
members, Judge O'Rourke opines. The order decertifying the class in
this case does not have the special circumstances of Haro and
Munoz; it is therefore immediately appealable, Judge O'Rourke
holds.

With respect to prejudice from delay, Judge O'Rourke holds the
Plaintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that a court
abuses its discretion by reconsidering a class certification order
years after it was issued, or that prejudice from delay, if shown,
justifies maintaining a class. Judge O'Rourke opines that there is
no basis to conclude Judge Pollack abused his discretion by
reconsidering the class certification order strictly due to the
passage of time between the original order and District's
decertification motion. In sum, the Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated Judge Pollack abused his discretion procedurally by
sua sponte reconsidering Judge Taylor's order.

As to the merits of the trial court's decertification order, Judge
O'Rourke finds that the Plaintiffs do not allege a violation of
Section 6(b)(1). Even liberally construed, there are no allegations
in the Plaintiffs' operative pleading that reasonably state a
violation of section 6(b)(1), Judge O'Rourke points out.

Judge O'Rourke also finds that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in granting reconsideration and decertifying the class
based on class members' conflicts of interest.

Given its conclusion, the Panel need not reach the arguments made
by amicus California Association of Sanitation Agencies. Applying
the framework set out in Katzberg v. Regents of University of
California (2002) 29 Cal.4th 300, it contends a refund is not an
appropriate remedy for a constitutional Proposition 218 violation.
But the issue was not raised by District in the Appellate Court or
below, and the Panel will not consider it anew

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4fy286rw from Leagle.com.

Patterson Law Group, James R. Patterson --
jim@pattersonlawgroup.com -- and Jennifer M. French --
jenn@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Carlson Lynch and Todd D. Carpenter
-- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants
Eugene G. Plantier, as Trustee of the Plantier Family Trust,
Progressive Properties Incorporated and Premium Development, LLC.

Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, John D. Alessio --
john.alessio@procopio.com -- Adriana R. Ochoa --
adriana.ochoa@procopio.com -- and Gregory V. Moser --
greg.moser@procopio.com -- for the Defendant and Respondent.

Hanson Bridgett LLP, Adam W. Hofmann -- ahofmann@hansonbridgett.com
-- Sean G. Herman -- SHerman@hansonbridgett.com -- for California
Association of Sanitation Agencies as Amicus Curiae on behalf of
Defendant and Respondent.


RAW APOTHECARY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Raw Apothecary LLC.
The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Raw
Apothecary LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-09362 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2022).

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

Raw Apothecary -- https://www.rawapothecary.com/ -- is a premier
seller of raw, all-natural products for your DIY beauty
routine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

REALPAGE INC: Faces Another Suit Over Artificially Inflated Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
therealdeal.com reports that proptech company RealPage won't be
able to turn the page on its software controversy anytime soon.

A class-action lawsuit filed by a University of Washington student
accused RealPage of colluding with student housing providers to
inflate rent, Multifamily Dive reported. The lawsuit, filed last
month, names a number of prominent multifamily landlords, including
Greystar and Cushman & Wakefield.

The plaintiff alleges collusion in popular college towns, such as
Ann Arbor and Gainesville. The lawsuit claimed operators had the
ability to collaborate and track competitors' rents through the
RealPage platform.

"RealPage provided pricing information for student housing
providers that allowed them to closely analyze their pricing in
comparison to their competitors at a bedroom-by-bedroom level," the
lawsuit said.

Landlords previously calculated student housing rents to get "heads
in beds" for the school year, the suit claimed, before RealPage's
platform allowed landlords to glean information from competitors.

RealPage told the outlet it "strongly" denied the allegations, but
would not comment further on pending litigation.

This is the second class-action lawsuit RealPage has faced in
recent weeks. The company and seven property management firms were
accused last month of forming a "cartel" to artificially inflate
apartment prices above competitive levels.

Major apartment managers including Lincoln Property Company, Sam
Zell's Equity Residential were named in the previous suit. Greystar
is on the receiving end of both lawsuits.

Litigation started popping up after ProPublica reported RealPage's
YieldStar software could be inflating apartment rents and
suppressing competition nationwide based on its algorithm. The
platform analyzes data gathered from clients, including private
information on competitors' charges, to recommend rent for an
available unit.

While landlords reserve the right to reject the suggestions, former
RealPage employees said as many as 90 percent of recommendations
are accepted. The company previously took credit for the platform's
role in driving apartment rents up 14.5 percent.

RealPage has been the country's main provider of rent-setting
analytics since 2017, when it merged with rival software company
Lease Rent Options.[GN]

REDDIT INC: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Claims in Does Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JANE DOES, No. 1-6; JOHN DOES, No. 2, 3,
and 5, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. REDDIT, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
21-56293 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirms the dismissal of the Plaintiffs-Appellants'
claim.

The Opinion is written by Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., and
Partial Concurrence by Judge R. Nelson.

Users of the social media platform Reddit posted and circulated
sexually explicit images and videos of minors online. In response,
the victims, or their parents, sued Reddit pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1595. The district court dismissed the claim, holding that
section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C.
Section 230(c)(1), shielded Reddit from liability.

Because Reddit is an "interactive computer services" provider, it
generally enjoys immunity from liability for user-posted content
under Section 230(c)(1), or "section 230 immunity." However,
pursuant to the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex
Trafficking Act of 2018 (FOSTA), section 230 immunity does not
apply to child sex trafficking claims--if the "conduct underlying
the claim" also violates 18 U.S.C. Section 1591, the criminal child
sex trafficking statute.

The dispute in this case is whether the availability of FOSTA's
immunity exception is contingent upon a plaintiff proving that a
defendant-website's own conduct--rather than its users'
conduct--resulted in a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1591. The
Court of Appeals holds that it does.

Reddit is a social media platform that allows users to publicly
post content. It is organized by small, searchable forums devoted
to specific topics, called subreddits. Reddit users create and
moderate each subreddit, dictating the type of content users can
post. In turn, Reddit employees can remove moderators, content, or
entire subreddits that do not conform to Reddit policies.

The Plaintiffs are the parents of minors, and one former minor, who
have had sexually explicit images and videos of them posted to
Reddit. Each Plaintiff tells a similar story: after discovering
explicit images or videos of their children (or themselves) posted
to one or more subreddits, they immediately reported the content to
the subreddit moderators and to Reddit employees. In response,
Reddit sometimes--though not always--removed the content, only for
it to be reposted shortly afterward. This cycle repeated again and
again across different subreddits. Collectively, the Plaintiffs
contacted Reddit hundreds of times to report the explicit posts.

The Plaintiffs allege that the presence of child pornography on
Reddit is blatant, but Reddit has done little to remove the
unlawful content or prevent it from being posted, because it drives
user traffic and revenue. They allege that Reddit earns substantial
advertising revenue from subreddits that feature child pornography
because they generate controversy and attract viewers. They further
contend that, because it enjoys the revenue generated by child
pornography, Reddit has taken little action to block it from the
platform.

The Plaintiffs allege that Reddit does not adequately train its
moderators to screen and remove unlawful content and that some
moderators post child pornography themselves. Moreover, Reddit has
not implemented basic security measures, such as age verification
or IP-address tracking to ban repeat offenders, and it delayed
adoption of automated image-recognition technologies like
"PhotoDNA," which can detect child pornography and prevent it from
being posted.

Based on this, the Plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against
Reddit pursuant to the federal civil sex trafficking statute, 18
U.S.C. Section 1595, claiming that Reddit is liable as a
beneficiary of child sex trafficking, among other causes of
action.

Reddit filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
which the district court granted. The district court held that, to
avoid section 230 immunity under FOSTA, the Plaintiffs were
required to plead that Reddit's own conduct violated the criminal
sex trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1591, and they failed to
do so. The Plaintiffs now appeal.

Judge Smith notes that at issue in this appeal is the scope of
FOSTA's exception to section 230 immunity for civil child sex
trafficking claims. The answer to the question involves several
interrelated statutory provisions. Judge Smith states that websites
are generally immune from liability for user-posted content, but
that immunity does not cover civil child sex trafficking claims if
the "conduct underlying the claim" violates 18 U.S.C. Section
1591.

Both parties agree that section 230 immunity applies to the claims
against Reddit. Accordingly, the parties focus their arguments on
whether the Plaintiffs' claims benefit from FOSTA's exception.

The parties dispute whose conduct must have violated 18 U.S.C.
Section 1591 for a website to be held liable in a civil trafficking
suit. Reddit argues that a website may only be liable for its own
criminal conduct. The Plaintiffs argue that a website may be liable
as a beneficiary when someone's conduct (likely a user's conduct)
violated the criminal statute and the claim against the website
derives from that violation.

Judge Smith says district courts in this circuit are split on the
issue. The Court of Appeals has not had the opportunity to address
the issue until now. The Court of Appeals states that for a
plaintiff to invoke FOSTA's immunity exception, she must plausibly
allege that the website's own conduct violated section 1591.

Both parties to the appeal claim that the text of FOSTA is
unambiguous. Accordingly, the Panel commences its analysis by
considering the plain text of the statute. Doing so, the Panel
concludes that the plain text of FOSTA and precedent interpreting a
similar immunity exception establishes that a website can only be
held liable if its own conduct--not a third party's--violates 18
U.S.C. Section 1591.

The structure of the Plaintiffs' complaint confirms how central
Reddit's conduct is to their case, Judge Smith observes. Although
the Plaintiffs take the position that the conduct "underlying"
their claim is the conduct of the Reddit users, who posted the
offending images and videos, very little of their complaint
describes the trafficking conduct itself. Rather, the complaint
focuses on the facts critical to Reddit's liability--the ways that
Reddit makes money from permitting child pornography on its
platform and Reddit's responses to reports of that pornography.

Because the Court of Appeals concludes that the "gravamen" of a
section 1595 beneficiary claim is the Defendant's participation in
and benefit from the trafficking scheme, Judge Smith holds that a
defendant-website's own conduct must underlie the claim for
purposes of 47 U.S.C. Section 230(e)(5)(A). As such, a website's
own conduct must violate 18 U.S.C. Section 1591 for the immunity
exception to apply.

In this case, Judge Smith finds that the Plaintiffs have not
alleged that Reddit knowingly participated in or benefitted from a
sex trafficking venture. They allege that Reddit provides a
platform where it is easy to share child pornography, highlights
subreddits that feature child pornography to sell advertising on
those pages, allows users who share child pornography to serve as
subreddit moderators, and fails to remove child pornography even
when users report it, as the Plaintiffs did in this case. Together,
they say, this amounts to knowing participation in a sex
trafficking venture.

Taken as true, these allegations suggest only that Reddit "turned a
blind eye" to the unlawful content posted on its platform, not that
it actively participated in sex trafficking, Judge Smith holds.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs have not alleged a connection between the
child pornography posted on Reddit and the revenue Reddit
generates, other than the fact that Reddit makes money from
advertising on all popular subreddits.

Judge Smith points out that the plaintiffs, who have successfully
alleged beneficiary liability for sex trafficking, have charged the
defendants with far more active forms of participation than the
Plaintiffs allege here, citing Canosa v. Ziff, No. 18 CIV. 4115
(PAE), 2019 WL 498865, at *23-24 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2019). As such,
Judge Smith holds the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim that
Reddit violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1591.

The Court of Appeals concludes, based on the law as written by
Congress, that civil plaintiffs seeking to overcome section 230
immunity for sex trafficking claims must plead and prove that a
defendant-website's own conduct violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1591.

For claims based on beneficiary liability, this requires that the
Defendant knowingly benefited from knowingly facilitating sex
trafficking. Because the Plaintiffs have not plead that Reddit has
done so in this case, the Court of Appeals affirms.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 24, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3n6bhu from Leagle.com.

Krysta K. Pachman -- kpachman@susmangodfrey.com -- Davida Brook --
dbrook@susmangodfrey.com -- Halley W. Josephs --
hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey L.L.P., in Los
Angeles, California; Arun Subramanian --
asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com -- Tamar E. Lusztig --
tlusztig@susmangodfrey.com -- Amy Gregory --
agregory@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey L.L.P., in New York
City; Steve Cohen -- SCohen@PollockCohen.com -- Raphael Janove --
Rafi@PollockCohen.com -- Pollock Cohen LLP, in New York City, for
the Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Theane Evangelis -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Michael H. Dore --
mdore@gibsondunn.com -- Bradley J. Hamburger --
bhamburger@gibsondunn.com -- Matt A. Getz -- mgetz@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, in Los Angeles, California; Kristin
A. Linsley -- klinsley@gibsondunn.com -- Matthew N. Ball --
mnball@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, in San
Francisco, California, for the Defendant-Appellee.

Andrew J. Pincus -- apincus@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, in
Washington, D.C.; Avi M. Kupfer -- akupfer@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP, in Chicago, Illinois, for Amici Curiae Chamber of
Progress and Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

Marci A. Hamilton, Alice Bohn, and Jessica Schidlow, CHILD USA, in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Andrew N. Chang -- achang@ecbappeal.com
-- Esner Chang & Boyer, in Pasadena, California, for Amicus Curiae
Child USA.


REVOLVE GROUP: Florio Sues Over Illegal Sales Calls
---------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Florio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Revolve Group, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 159860526 (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Hillsborough Cty.,
Oct. 24, 2022) arises from the Defendant's violations of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in telephonic
sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express
written consent as required by the FTSA to promote its goods and
services. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been aggrieved
by the Defendant's unlawful conduct, which adversely affected and
infringed upon their legal rights not to be subjected to the
illegal acts at issue, says the suit.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff individually and the Class
members and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the alleged unlawful actions of Defendant.

Revolve Group, Inc. is a consumer goods and services retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SAFARICOM PLC: Second Class Suit Filed Over Data Privacy Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------
businessdailyafrica.com reports that Kenya's biggest telco
Safaricom and the sector regulator are facing a second class action
suit in four weeks after two senior advocates moved to court,
accusing the firm of forcing subscribers to sign a data privacy
statement that allows the company to collect bank account details.

Senior counsel Wilfred Nderitu and Charles Kanjama say in a case
filed at the High Court that their SIM cards were suspended on
October 15 and that they were forced to re-register to enjoy
services and products offered by Safaricom.

While signing the statement, Mr Nderitu says, a clause that stated
that some of the information required would be about his credit or
debit card, bank account numbers and Swift code and other banking
details caught his attention.

"I was appalled by this provision as I did not understand the
correlation on the information to be collected and the SIM
registration exercise," he says.

The statement, he says, provided that the company would collect his
personal information with his knowledge and consent whenever he
carries out any of Safaricom's services.

This is the second class action suit against Safaricom and the
Communications Authority of Kenya (CA) after a businessman, Abdi
Zeila, sued the giant telco over SIM-swap fraud that has seen
scammers drain millions of shillings from mobile phone subscribers'
bank accounts.

Mr Zeila has invited other victims through the class action suit to
have Safaricom cited for negligence and liability for lost cash.

He wants the CA to be found negligent of its regulatory duties by
allegedly failing to ensure Safaricom is providing services that
are secured from fraudsters.

The US-style class action suit is where one or several people sue
on behalf of a much larger group, and if successful all consumers
aggrieved stand to get compensated.

In the latest case, Mr Nderitu says being the telecommunications
company with the biggest customer base, the stringent mechanisms,
and crafty ways of collecting data without assurance of data
security are precipitated by the thought that its clients have no
option but opt-in for them to continue enjoying the products and
services offered.

The two advocates want the court to grant a temporary order
stopping Safaricom from effecting the Data Privacy Statement.

They say if not restrained, and the company goes ahead with the
forced re-registration, there is a real danger that their rights
will be violated, causing them harm that cannot be compensated by
way of damages.

They have also sought the court's permission to institute a class
action suit on their behalf and other interested registered
subscribers of Safaricom, who were aggrieved by the suspension of
their lines on October 15.

Mr Nderitu says he has been a Safaricom subscriber for the past 23
years and a registered M-Pesa user since 2007.

Mr Kanjama says he has been a Safaricom subscriber for more than 20
years. "That on 15th October 2022, I learnt with utter shock and
dismay that my SIM card had been suspended. As a result, I could
not make calls, send messages, access my M-Pesa wallet or make any
payments," Mr Kanjama said.

The CA had in February this year directed mobile operators to
ensure registration details of all its subscribers by April 15 as
per the Kenya Information and Communications (Registration of
SIM-cards) regulations. The deadline was extended by six months.

Mr Nderitu says when he registered his line over two decades ago,
he gave his identity card to an authorised dealer and was
successfully registered.

But on October 15, he received a message telling him to register
his number and thought it was a mistake.

He registered the line but says the process unreasonably burdens
him as a subscriber to ensure the SIM-card is registered yet
Safaricom has all the details required for registration.

"This does not rhyme with my legitimate expectation that once I
have registered and been on-boarded onto the platform, the 1st
defendant (Safaricom) has a duty to ensure that I enjoy unfettered
access to the products and services for as long as I pay the
predetermined rates," he says.

The services include registration of SIM-card, post-pay
subscriptions, M-Pesa and M-Pesa-powered services.

The lawyers say they are aware of numerous people who have the same
claim and might be willing to join the case.

"I verily believe that such numerous subscribers who have the same
interest as the plaintiffs herein will be catered for if this court
grants leave to the plaintiffs to continue this suit as a class
action suit and such joinder will be instrumental in preventing
multiplicity of suits," Mr Nderitu says. [GN]

SEADRILL AMERICAS: Faces Phillips Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. SEADRILL AMERICAS INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-03676 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 24, 2022) is an age and religion
discrimination suit arising under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, et. al.,
as amended; inclusive of Religious Discrimination under Federal and
State Law; and Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code.

Mr. Phillips has a disability as that term is defined under Title
VII and Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Chapter 21 of the
Texas Labor Code. He has expressed religion objection to the
vaccine requirement. The Plaintiff was able to perform his job with
or without a reasonable accommodation to the requirement. He
asserts that the Defendants discriminated against him and
terminated him because of his religions objection and that the
Defendants intentionally engaged in the practices of age
discrimination made unlawful under the named statutes.

The Plaintiff seeks back pay, front pay, actual damages,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, consequential damages,
expert witness fees, court costs, attorney's fees, and pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest.

Seadrill Americas Inc. provides contract drilling services. The
Company offers offshore deepwater drilling for oil and gas field
operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark G. Lazarz, Esq.
          Sidd Rao, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: mlazarz@eeoc.net
                  srao@eeoc.net

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Mackey Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Mackey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Sherwin-Williams Company, Defendant,
Case No. 22-005039-CI (Fla. Cir., 6th Judicial, Pinellas Cty., Oct.
24, 2022) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in telephonic
sales calls to consumers without having secured prior express
written consent as required by the FTSA to promote its goods and
services. The Plaintiff and the Class members have been aggrieved
by the Defendant's unlawful conduct, which adversely affected and
infringed upon their legal rights not to be subjected to the
illegal acts at issue, says the suit.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and
statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff individually and the Class
members and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the alleged unlawful actions of Defendant.

The Sherwin-Williams Company is a consumer goods and services
retailer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SONY ELECTRONICS: Musharbash Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sony Electronics,
Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Musharbash, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Movant v. Sony
Electronics, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-07958 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 1,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Sony Electronics Inc. -- https://electronics.sony.com/ -- provides
audio-visual products.[BN]

SOUTH KOREA: Class Suit Targets Negligence in Itaewon Crowd Crush
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Hyo-jin at koreatimes.co.kr reports that bereaved families of
victims of the Itaewon crowd crush on Oct. 29 are moving to take
class action against the government, seeking compensation over its
botched prevention and response to the disaster.

Good Lawyers, a Seoul-based law firm, is encouraging the families
of the 156 who died in the tragedy to take part in the collective
lawsuit against the central and local governments.

"Grieving for the victims has been our top priority, but now that
the facts about what happened that night are being disclosed, we
cannot hold back our anger against the central and local
governments' incompetence and their attempts to evade
responsibility," read the statement from the law firm.

"Compensation claims against the state and local governments (Seoul
Metropolitan Government and Yongsan District Office) are
technically the only way victims and their bereaved families can
exercise their legal rights," it said.

Eight people have joined the collective legal action, according to
Jeon Su-mi, an attorney handling the case. Jeon, who is a member of
the policy committee of the main opposition Democratic Party of
Korea (DPK), served as the party's deputy spokesperson last year.

"We are reviewing to seek compensation from the central government
in accordance with the act on the duties and performance of the
police. And Yongsan District Office and Seoul City can be held
accountable under the Framework Act on the Management of Disasters
and Safety," Jeon told The Korea Times.

She said the law enforcement agency's poor handling of the
incident, even though public harm was anticipated due to the
surging crowd size, could be seen as a violation of related laws.

According to the police, a total of 11 emergency calls were made
before the incident began at 10:15 p.m., with the first call placed
at 6:34 p.m. The police, however, did not take sufficient measures
in response to the repeated calls.

The lawyer also noted that families of foreign victims have also
reached out to her. Among the 156 deaths, 26 were foreign nationals
from 14 countries.

"I have received calls from families of victims of three different
countries," she said, without specifying their nationalities.[GN]

SPARTAN CAPITAL: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPARTAN CAPITAL SECURITIES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-09114-AT (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's failure to maintain, and operate its website
https://spartancapital.com/ to be fully accessible for the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.

Spartan Capital Securities, LLC operates as an institutional
brokerage firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                  Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal

STRAIGHT DOWN: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Straight Down
Enterprises. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Straight Down Enterprises, Case No. 1:22-cv-09363 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
1, 2022).

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

Straight Down -- https://www.straightdown.com/ -- offers a complete
line of men's apparel, including polos, quarter-zips, outerwear,
shoes and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUEDE HOSPITALITY: Guirand Sues Over Bartenders' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEMETRIUS GUIRAND, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. SUEDE HOSPITALITY GROUP,
INC d/b/a CARIBBEAN SOCIAL, SUEDE BROOKLYN, INC. d/b/a SUEDE
RESTAURANT, CARIBBEAN KITCHEN BROOKLYN INC d/b/a CARIBBEAN KITCHEN,
and CHASEN HOLLACIND, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06483 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 25, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover from
Defendants unpaid wages, including overtime; unpaid wages,
including overtime, due to time shaving; unpaid overtime due to an
invalid tip credit; compensation for late payment of wages; unpaid
spread of hours premium; unlawful retaliation; statutory penalties
liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a bartender in
October 2020 at Defendants' Caribbean Social restaurant in
Brooklyn, New York City. In February 2021, he was promoted to head
bartender. The Plaintiff quit in October 2021 when he was not being
paid all his wages.

The Defendants own and operate three restaurants in Brookly, New
York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY: Durbeck Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 1st Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
JULIA DURBECK, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion for class certification in  In re: Suffolk
University Covid Refund Litigation, Case No. 20-10985-WGY, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought by the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant's decision to
close campus, constructively evict students, and transition all
classes to an online/remote format due to the Novel Coronavirus
Disease ("COVID-19") while refusing to provide reimbursement for
the tuition, fees and other costs that the Defendant is no longer
providing, or providing inadequate and/or arbitrary reimbursement
that does not fully compensate the Plaintiff and members of the
Classes for their loss.

According to the complaint, while closing campus and transitioning
to online classes was the right thing for the Defendant to do, this
decision deprived the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class
from recognizing the benefits of in-person instruction, access to
campus facilities, student activities, and other benefits and
services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and
tuition.

On March 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. The Plaintiffs propose certifying the following
class: All students enrolled in an in-person/on-campus based
program or classes at Suffolk University (Suffolk), and not any
separate Suffolk online programs only, before March 11, 2020, who
paid Suffolk any of the following costs for the Spring 2020
semester: (a) Tuition, and/or (b) Fees.

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

On October 11, 2022, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification through an Order entered by Judge William G.
Young. The Court held that it simply cannot conclude that class
action treatment is either "superior" or more than just the
available alternative. Judge Young determined that the Plaintiffs'
likelihood of proving damages is vanishingly small so long as this
Court maintains its view that evidence material to the issue of
program quality implicates educational malpractice, a claim the
Court has foreclosed. In these circumstances, class adjudication is
simply not superior to individual or aggregate litigation as a
practical matter, it ruled.

The appellate case is captioned In re: Suffolk University Covid
Refund Litigation, Case No. 22-8024, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on October 25, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners JULIA DURBECK, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
            POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC
            32 Ann Street
            Charleston, SC 29403
            Telephone: (843) 614-8888
            E-mail: blake@akimlawfirm.com

                   - and -

            David Pastor, Esq.
            PASTOR LAW OFFICE PC
            63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
            Boston, MA 02110
            Telephone: (617) 742-9700
            E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

SYNGENTA CROP: Faces Class Suits Over Illegal Loyalty Programs
--------------------------------------------------------------
dtnpf.com reports that two farmers are seeking damages in separate
class-action lawsuits filed against Syngenta Crop Protection and
Corteva Inc., alleging the companies pay distributors to block
competitors from selling less-expensive generic pesticides and
other products to farmers.

The Federal Trade Commission and attorneys general from 10 states
sued the companies at the end of September, alleging they run
so-called "loyalty programs" in which distributors only get paid if
they limit business with competing manufacturers.

Following the FTC lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Middle North Carolina, Jackson County-Illinois-farmer
Charles Anderson and Chautauqua County-New York-farmer Frederick C.
Croscut filed identical class-action lawsuits in the same court.

Both farmers are seeking a jury trial on alleged anti-trust
violations including conspiracy to restrain trade, monopolization,
violation of state anti-trust laws, state consumer-protection laws
and unjust enrichment.

Syngenta and Corteva are two of the largest pesticide manufacturers
operating in the United States. Syngenta, based in Switzerland, is
a subsidiary of a Chinese state-owned company. Corteva,
headquartered in Indianapolis, is the company formed as part of a
merger between DuPont and Dow Chemical Company.

"Defendants also maintain their so-called 'rebates' (in reality,
exclusion payments meant to impede generic sales) at levels that
ensure distributors will profit more from selling defendant's
branded products than they would from selling generic products,
even at high volumes," the lawsuits said.

"Additionally, defendants strictly enforce the terms of the loyalty
programs and penalize distributors who do not meet loyalty
thresholds. In some instances, the consequences of missing a
loyalty threshold can be so severe that distributors have declined
to purchase or promote generic products at all, have endeavored to
exceed loyalty thresholds, and have deferred purchases of generic
products until the end of the season, in order to minimize the risk
of inadvertently missing a loyalty threshold."

The lawsuits said loyalty-program "complexity" and a "lack of
transparency" to farmers and generic manufacturers "harmed by the
conduct and deferred payment timing" cause distributors to retain
loyalty program payments as profit and "make them less likely to
pass on loyalty program payments to farmers in the form of lower
prices."

In an Oct. 21, 2022, letter sent to Syngenta distributors and
retailers, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, President Vern Hawkins
said the company would continue to offer the loyalty program while
the legal cases play out.

In the letter, Hawkins said the lawsuit by FTC and the 10 states
including California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Oregon, Texas and Wisconsin, makes "false and misleading
allegations" regarding Syngenta's discount program and that the
company intends to defend the program.

"Please rest assured that our program will remain available for all
customers who choose to participate while we defend this matter,"
Hawkins wrote.

Although the FTC lawsuit alleges the discount program "coerces"
distributors and retailers to not buy generic products, Hawkins
said it was not true and that distributors and retailers "always
have the free choice not to participate in Syngenta discount
programs and to purchase whatever generic companies' products or
other innovator companies' products they want."

Hawkins said despite FTC claims, the U.S. crop protection industry
is "very competitive and distributors, retailers and farmers have
many crop protection product choices."

He went on to say, "We are disappointed that the FTC has chosen to
disregard the pro-competitive effects these discount programs
provide to you, including greater choice and lower prices."

Corteva offered the following statement to DTN in response to the
FTC complaint in September: "Corteva Agriscience believes there is
no basis for the complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission on
Sept. 29, 2022, and that the FTC's case faces significant hurdles
on both the facts and the law. We will vigorously defend our
position that Corteva's customer marketing programs are fully
compliant with the antitrust laws and are, in fact, pro-competitive
programs that benefit both channel partners and farmers.

"Corteva's marketing programs, contrary to the FTC's assertion that
they block generics from entering the market, facilitate the
company's pro-competitive mission of providing innovative products,
services, support and stewardship to customers through Corteva's
network of distributors and retailers. As always, our aim is to
provide significant value and choices to customers, allowing them
to be more sustainable, productive and profitable in their
operations. Corteva also equips them to provide consumers with a
wider range of healthy and nutritious food options, as well as to
produce fuel, feed and fiber to support the needs of society.

"As a U.S.-based innovator of crop protection products, this case
threatens the pro-competitive investments that Corteva makes and
that growers rely on to protect America's crops. We are confident
that we will prevail in this litigation and that there is no basis
for the FTC's complaint." [GN]

TERRAFORM LABS: CEO Faces Investors' Class Action in Singapore
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Asmakov, writing for Decrypt, reports that Terraform Labs
CEO and co-founder Do Kwon faces yet another legal battle -- this
time in a Singapore court, which is set to hear a class-action
lawsuit filed on behalf of more than 350 international investors.
They claim to have lost about $57 million in the collapse of the
algorithmic stablecoin TerraUSD (UST) and its ecosystem, according
to a Wall Street Journal report.

The legal claim states that the UST stablecoin, being pegged 1:1 to
the U.S. Dollar, was designed to act as a store of value and as
such was supposed "to be protected from the volatility of the
cryptocurrency markets."

The Terra ecosystem imploded in May this year, with more than $40
billion of investors' wealth wiped out in a matter of weeks.

Terra's collapse accompanied a massive crypto selloff, sending the
prices of Bitcoin and other top cryptocurrencies tumbling. The
crash led to the bankruptcies of high-profile crypto lenders
Celsius and Voyager, as well as hedge fund Three Arrows Capital,
and prompted increased scrutiny towards crypto investing and
stablecoins from regulators across the world.

It is alleged that Kwon, despite being aware of the "structural
weakness" of the UST stablecoin, made "fraudulent
misrepresentations," inducing investors into purchasing the asset.

The lawsuit is led by Julian Moreno Beltran, a citizen of Spain who
claims to have lost about $1.1 million worth of TerraUSD, and a
Singapore native Douglas Gan Yi Dong.

Many other claimants, who say they are "entitled to claim for the
loss and damage suffered in purchasing the UST tokens," as well as
unspecified "aggravated damages," invested tens or hundreds of
thousands of dollars in TerraUSD, according to court documents.

Other defendants in the lawsuit are the Singapore-incorporated
Terraform Labs PTE Ltd, the company's former head of research
Nicholas Platias, and the Luna Foundation Guard (LFG), a fund
established to support the growth of the Terra ecosystem.

The lawsuit was filed on September 23, with the hearing scheduled
for Wednesday, November 2.

Terraform Labs denies wrongdoing
A spokesperson for Terraform Labs, however, rejected the
allegations, adding that the firm will defend itself against the
claims laid out in the lawsuit.

"There is a fundamental difference between a public market event
and fraud," the spokesperson said in a statement cited by the WSJ.
"The risks were publicly known and discussed, and the underlying
code was open-sourced."

Kwon is also wanted by South Korean authorities, who issued an
arrest warrant for the Terraform Labs' boss in September, charging
him with violating the country's capital markets act. Interpol also
approved South Korean prosecutor's request to issue a red notice
for Kwon.

Earlier in October, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs
canceled Kwon's passport.

The Terraform Labs chief was also slapped with a class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. in June, while the U.S Securities and Exchange
Commission is reportedly investigating whether the company violated
federal investor protection rules with the way it marketed UST.

Despite facing numerous investigations into the collapse of Terra,
Kwon, whose whereabouts are unknown, has denied allegations that
the project was a "fraud." He also claimed that he had personally
lost nearly all his net worth in Terra's crash. [GN]

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Texas Christian
University. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Texas Christian
University, Case No. 1:22-cv-00828 (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2022).

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

Texas Christian University -- https://www.tcu.edu/ -- is a private
research university in Fort Worth, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


TIKTOK INC: Bimoetric Data Class Action Settlement Payouts Begin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Sauer, writing for NBC, reports that TikTok users across the
US who created videos on the app before September 30, 2021, began
receiving payments between $US27.84 ($A43.41) and $US167.04
($A260.44) following a $US92 ($A143.44) million class-action data
privacy settlement with the social media platform.

The largest cheques went to short- and long-term residents of
Illinois, where TikTok was sued for violating the state's strict
biometric data laws by collecting and implementing facial
recognition data into its algorithms without user consent.

Not everyone who uses TikTok in the US is getting a cheque because
a comparable federal law doesn't currently exist.

But the lawsuit "asserted a variety of common law and other types
of claims" in state and local courts to maximise the number of
people who could get a payout, Katrina Carroll, a founding partner
at Lynch Carpenter LLP and one of the case's co-lead prosecutors,
tells CNBC Make It.

Up to 89 million people qualified to submit a claim, according to
the settlement.

This isn't the first time TikTok has come under fire for exploiting
user privacy: In 2019, it agreed to pay $US5.7 ($A8.8) million to
settle Federal Trade Commission allegations of illegally collecting
and storing personal information of minors.

The social media platform, owned by Chinese company ByteDance, is
just the latest tech business to pay fines for violating Illinois'
biometric data law.

In May, 1.4 million current and former Illinois residents received
cheques and virtual payments up to $US397 ($A618) from a similar
$US650 ($A1013) million lawsuit against Facebook, which allegedly
used facial recognition data without consent to prompt users to tag
their friends in photos.

More cheques from privacy lawsuits are likely on their way. In
September, a judge approved a $US100 ($A155) million settlement
against Google, with 420,000 Illinois residents set to receive
about $US150 ($A233) each, according to the Chicago Tribune.

In August, some Snapchat users received notice to submit a claim by
November 5 to take part in a similar $US35 ($A54) million lawsuit
against the company. Sandwich chain Pret A Manger and photography
company Shutterfly have also settled similar lawsuits over the past
13 months.

On the surface, facial recognition features on social media seem
harmless, if not beneficial to the user experience -- but experts
say there are underlying consequences.

For instance, New York-based software company Clearview AI claims
to have scraped more than 20 billion images from sites such as
Facebook, YouTube and Venmo to "help law officials accurately and
rapidly identify suspects, protect victims and keep communities
safe", according to its website.

In a May court settlement in Illinois, Clearview agreed to stop
selling its information to both individuals and private businesses
in the U.S. The company is also banned from doing any business in
Illinois for the next five years.

That same month, Clearview was fined £7.5 million ($A13.5 million)
by a UK privacy regulator. France and Italy's data protection
agencies each fined the company 20 million euros ($A31 million)
within the last year, too.

But experts are still concerned, about both Clearview and other
companies like it. Matthew Kugler, a privacy law professor at
Northwestern University told CNBC Make It in May that such
businesses hold the potential to eliminate our anonymity.

"As we walk down the street, everyone can see our face, but only
some people can link our face to our name," Kugler said.

Easy-access facial recognition data could make it easier for people
to harass their local barista, or jeopardise the lives and safety
of domestic violence victims, sex workers and people in witness
protection programs, he added.

In 2019, a study Kugler authored found that 70 per cent of its
participants were uncomfortable with companies using facial
recognition data to track individual's locations and serve target
ads.

The Illinois law, along with ones in Texas and Washington, help
limit the collection of that data: Users in those states can't
access Meta's "face filter services" on Instagram or Facebook, for
example.

Similar laws are set to go into effect in California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Utah and Virginia next year. [GN]

TROVE BRANDS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trove Brands, LLC.
The case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Trove
Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06640-NGG-MMH (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 1,
2022).

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

Trove Brands -- https://trovebrands.com/ -- is a bottle
manufacturer and designer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRUE FOOD: Ortiz Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. True Food Kitchen Holdings, LLC and FRC
Balance, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01821-JZB (D. Ariz.,
Oct. 24, 2022) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act's and the Virginia Minimum Wage Act's tip
credit requirements and the subsequent underpayment of Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees at the federally and state
mandated minimum wage rate.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants at the True Food Kitchen in
Fairfax, Virginia as a server from April 2019 to March 2020.

The Defendants operate a nationwide chain of restaurants with the
name "True Food Kitchen" with principal place of business in
Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & Forty, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM LLC
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com

TWITTER INC: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
-------------------------------------------------------
EMMANUEL CORNET; JUSTINE DE CAIRES; GRAE KINDEL; ALEXIS CAMACHO;
and JESSICA PAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. TWITTER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-06857 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2022) alleges violation of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("Warn Act"), the
Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages
and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60
days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without
cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees
in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were
terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the
60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the
suit.

TWITTER, INC. provides online social networking and microblogging
service. The Company offers users the ability to follow other users
activity, read, and post tweets. Twitter serves customers
worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Thomas Fowler, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Email: sliss@llrlaw.com
                 tfowler@llrlaw.com

UNITED STATES: Camp Lejeune Veterans May Get Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Parker Perry, writing for Springfield News-Sun, reports that United
States veterans who live in Clark and Champaign counties and served
at Camp Lejeune may be entitled to compensation, and area veteran
service officials are asking those over the age of 53 to contact
them.

The Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act funds relief
for veterans who served at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North
Carolina between the years 1953 and 1987 and suffer from a specific
set of illnesses. Veteran Affairs says during this time frame,
there were chemicals in the drinking water that could have caused
cancer and other health issues.

"Scientific and medical evidence has shown an association between
exposure to these contaminants during military service and
development of certain diseases later on," the VA says on their
website.

The diseases include adult leukemia, aplastic anemia and other
myelodysplastic syndromes, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, liver
cancer, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and Parkinson's
disease, according to the VA.

Family members who lived on the base or at MCAS New River during
the time period and suffered health issues could also receive
compensation, the VA said. For the claim, a family member must
provide a document showing their relationship to the veteran, a
document showing that they lived at Camp Lejeune or MCAS New River
for at least 30 days and medical records that show they have one of
15 conditions.

The conditions include bladder cancer, breast cancer, esophageal
cancer, female infertility, hepatic steatosis, kidney cancer,
leukemia, Lung cancer, miscarriage, multiple myeloma,
myelodysplastic syndromes, neurobehavioral effects, non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma, renal toxicity, scleroderma.

The VA said that two on-base water wells were shut down in 1985
after chemicals including Trichloroethylene (TCE),
Perchloroethylene (PCE), Benzene, Vinyl chloride and other
compounds were found.

The Clark County Veteran Service Commission has received more calls
recently from veterans who served at Camp Lejeune, said David
Mitchell, a veteran services officer with the local commission.

"We can get them the benefits they are looking for," Mitchell
said.

The Clark County Veterans Service Commission is hosting a
meet-and-greet on Saturday, Nov. 5, at the Clark County Heritage
Center between noon and 4 p.m. Veterans can learn about all the
benefits and services the commission offers. Veterans who want to
learn more about Camp Lejeune compensation can attend the event or
call the commission at 937-521-2030.

The Greene County Veteran Service Office has worked with veterans
who served at Camp Lejeune and suffered from cancer, Parkinson's
disease and other health issues, said Executive Director Tim
Espich.

"Imagine serving your country and doing everything involved with
that and then having to deal with serious health issues," Espich
said.

He said the new Camp Lejeune Justice Act allows veterans to file a
class action lawsuit against the federal government, but that may
be impacted by any service-connected disability payments the
veteran already received. He said it's important for a veteran to
look at all their options before making a decision. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Neville Files Suit v. EEOC for Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
TINA NEVILLE and RACHEL BENNETT, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHARLOTTE A. BURROWS, in Her
Official Capacity as Chair of the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03246 (D.D.C.,
Oct. 24, 2022) is a class action brought under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Administrative Procedure Act to
address the failure of Defendant, the acting Chair of the United
States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to enforce its
order prohibiting and punishing employment discrimination by United
States military agencies.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the members of the
class they represent are dual-status employees of United States
military agencies who (a) were discriminated against in the course
of their employment, (b) obtained judgment for relief against their
employers through the EEOC and (c) were never properly administered
relief by those employers under those judgments.

Through this action, the Plaintiffs challenge the acting Chair's
failure to refer the case to the Attorney General and the Office of
Special Counsel when it could not enforce its own decisions. This
failure continues to injure Plaintiffs and similarly situated
dual-status employees by preventing the individuals who have
endured unlawful discrimination from obtaining the appropriate
relief as ordered by the EEOC under the EEOC's valid investigatory
measures under the law, says the suit.

Defendant Charlotte A. Burrows is sued in her official capacity as
the Chair of the EEOC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Eisenberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL EISENBERG
          700 12th Street, NW Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 558-6371
          E-mail: Michael@Eisenberg-Lawoffice.com

UNITED STATES: Prelim. Settlement Reached in Latin Workers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
impactfund.org reports that in April 2018, an immigration raid at
the Southeastern Provision meatpacking plant in the small town of
Bean Station, Tennessee upended a community. Federal agents from
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) descended
on the plant alongside Tennessee Highway Patrol troopers and local
police officers. Armed with long guns and raid gear, agents
detained around 100 Latinx workers, transported them to a National
Guard armory, and placed most in deportation proceedings.

Among those detained included individuals with permission to remain
in the United States and at least one U.S. citizen. The purported
target of the operation was the plant's owner, against whom the
federal agents were executing a search warrant for documents. But
agents racially profiled and detained only Latinx workers, while
the white workers—including the plant owner and his
associates—were free to leave (he and other managers later
pleaded guilty to tax and immigration violations). During the raid,
an ICE agent placed his boot on the neck of a prone and handcuffed
worker and punched another worker in the face.

The raid split up families and terrorized the community - over 50
of those arrested were sent to ICE detention centers in Louisiana
and even those released the day of the raid faced deportation
proceedings. The day after the raid, over 500 children did not show
up for school in nearby Morristown. At the time, the raid was the
largest in a decade; several larger ICE raids followed as part of
the Trump administration's hardline approach to immigration
enforcement.

After nearly four years of litigation, the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee has preliminarily approved a
class settlement in Zelaya v. Hammer that will provide monetary and
other relief to the workers who alleged civil rights violations.

In February 2019, the National Immigration Law Center and the
Southern Poverty Law Center, alongside pro bono counsel Sherrard
Roe filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, alleging Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims
under Bivens and claims under 42 U.S.C. sections 1985(3) and 1986
(conspiracy to interfere with civil rights and failure to prevent
that conspiracy) on behalf of individual plaintiffs and a putative


In January 2021, U.S. District Judge Travis McDonough granted in
part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. The
court permitted the putative class conspiracy claims to proceed,
along with an individual excessive force Bivens claim and the FTCA
claims. In dismissing other Bivens claims, the court noted that
they "are barred not because Plaintiffs failed to allege illegal
conduct, but because the law provides them no pecuniary remedy for
violation of their constitutional protections."

Following extensive discovery, the court in August 2022 certified
the class under sections 1985(3) and 1986. The parties then reached
a settlement, which the court preliminarily approved in October
2022, requiring payment of $550,000 to the class of approximately
100 individuals, $475,000 to the individual plaintiffs for their
FTCA claims, and $150,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses. In
addition, class members will have access to a letter signed by ICE
and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of
Virginia, which can be used in support of immigration applications
and requests for prosecutorial discretion with the Department of
Homeland Security. A final fairness hearing is set for February 27,
2023.

The Biden administration had previously repudiated the use of
worksite raids, underscoring in a memo from U.S. Department
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that "[t]hese highly
visible operations misallocated enforcement resources while
chilling, and even serving as a tool of retaliation for, worker
cooperation in workplace standards investigations." At Southeastern
Provision, workplace safety and wage and hour violations were
rampant. The plant owner previously agreed to pay $610,000 in back
wages and damages to the workers following a U.S. Department of
Labor suit.

The Zelaya case is the only known settlement of class claims
arising out of a worksite immigration raid. The Supreme Court's
tightening of the Bivens remedy in recent years will make it even
more difficult to hold federal agents accountable for civil rights
violations. While the wounds in the Morristown community have not
fully healed, the class settlement is a step toward justice for the
workers and their families. [GN]

UWM HOLDINGS: Okavage Group Seeks Leave to Amend FAC
----------------------------------------------------
UWM Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that the Okavage
Group, LLC's motion for leave to amend their first amended
complaint remains pending in court.

On October 21, 2022, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend its first amended complaint which remains pending.

On April 23, 2021, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida against the Company and Mat
Ishbia, individually by The Okavage Group, LLC on behalf of itself
and all other mortgage brokers who are, or have been clients of UWM
and either Fairway Independent Mortgage or Rocket Pro TPO.

After the Company and Mat Ishbia filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, Okavage filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint
on August 2, 2021.

On August 3, 2021, the Court granted Okavage's motion and ordered
the clerk to file Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint
with its corresponding attachments. In its amended complaint,
Okavage dropped the Company as a defendant and added UWM as a
defendant.

Okavage purports to represent the same set of mortgage brokers as
in its original complaint and alleges that UWM's new policy to no
longer enter into new transactions with independent mortgage
brokers who also sold mortgage loans to these two market
participants amounted to anticompetitive conduct under federal and
Florida antitrust laws.

Okavage seeks class certification, treble damages, attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief. The Company filed a renewed motion to
dismiss on September 7, 2021.

On July 27, 2022, the magistrate judge assigned to consider our
motion to dismiss recommended that the amended complaint be
dismissed in its entirety without prejudice, and that plaintiff be
given fourteen days to file a second amended complaint if it so
chooses.

On September 26, 2022, an Order was issued by the Court holding in
abeyance our renewed motion to dismiss and providing that the
plaintiff file, on or before October 21, 2022, a motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint, or rest upon the allegations
stated in its first amended complaint.

On October 21, 2022, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend its first amended complaint which remains pending.

UWM Holdings Corp. regularly accepts and processes mortgage loan
applications submitted by Plaintiff and each of the Class Members.
Additionally, UWM regularly funds mortgage loans based on such
mortgage loan applications.[BN]

UWM HOLDINGS: Suit Over Unpaid Origination Fees Junked w/ Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
UWM Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that on October 11,
2022, the court issued an order dismissing with prejudice the cases
against UWM, which alleges unpaid origination fees.

On December 11, 2020, a complaint was filed against UWM (f/k/a
United Shore Financial Services, LLC) in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan by three independent mortgage
brokers.

The plaintiffs in this matter sought class certification and
monetary damages for alleged unpaid origination fees arising from a
change in UWM's commission policy.

Following the Court's opinion granting in part and denying in part
UWM's motion to dismiss, UWM filed its answer to the complaint on
April 11, 2022.

On October 11, 2022, an Order was issued by the Court dismissing
the case with prejudice.

UWM regularly accepts and processes mortgage loan applications
submitted by Plaintiff and each of the Class Members. Additionally,
UWM regularly funds mortgage loans based on such mortgage loan
applications.[BN]

VIRGINIA: Violates Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Wm. Moyer and John D. Harden, writing for The Washington
Post, report that Northern Virginia school systems grant fewer than
1 percent of requests from parents of children with disabilities
seeking enrollment in schools that better accommodate their needs,
according to data submitted in a civil rights lawsuit.

Plaintiffs allege the state's education department has "curated"
officials who almost always decide cases in its favor, according to
the class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in September by
parents of an autistic student. The state has prevented disabled
children from getting the educational support they need, the
parents say, disadvantaging a generation of people with special
needs.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, told the story of a student referred to only as "D.C.," a
19-year-old who suffers from autism,
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and Tourette's syndrome,
among other disorders. Attorneys in the case shared the data with
The Washington Post.

In 2008, according to the suit, Fairfax County Public Schools found
D.C. eligible for special education services and placed him in a
public school. There, the lawsuit says, D.C. struggled academically
and behaviorally, exhibiting "severe aggressive behavior and
violence" -- sometimes including self-harm and ending with
hospitalization.

When his parents, Trevor and Vivian Chaplick, asked that he be
placed in a private residential program, their request was denied.
Although a social worker warned the Chaplicks that they would lose,
the suit said, they appealed anyway -- and did lose in 2015.

During a second appeal in 2021, they filed Freedom of Information
Act requests to determine how often parents like them won when
challenging decisions about their disabled children's care. What
the Chaplicks found troubled them.

"Parents and disabled students in Virginia almost always lose,
especially in Northern Virginia," the suit said.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which protects
disabled students, allows parents to appeal school placements. But
between 2010 and July 2021, just three petitions out of 395 in
Northern Virginia prevailed.

Across Virginia, the results were not much better, according to the
data. Just 13 parents in 847 cases, or about 1.5 percent,
successfully challenged school district decisions about their
children's placements. By comparison, the suit said almost 35
percent of California parents -- the state with the most special
needs students in the country -- won such cases, as did around 15
percent of Maryland parents. Virginia served more than 169,000
disabled students from 2021 to 2022, officials said.

In an email, Virginia Department of Education spokesman Charles B.
Pyle said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

"The department is committed to ensuring that students with
disabilities receive all services and supports that they are
entitled to under federal and state law," he said.

In a statement, Fairfax County Public Schools said it couldn't
comment on ongoing litigation. "We stand ready to work with anyone
to improve services and opportunities for our students," the
statement said.

But the Chaplicks say in their suit that Fairfax and the state
failed to deliver appropriate educational resources despite their
child's desperate need.

"Most of the days we had to deal with his self-injurious
behaviors," Vivian Chaplick recalled. "He would self-harm himself.
He would try to harm other people. It was a battle of trying to
keep him safe."

The suit alleges that Virginia's education department "carefully
curated" a slate of hearing officers who almost always find for the
state.

These officers, who are attorneys certified by the state, can earn
more than $40,000 on one case, the suit said. Because they have a
financial interest in keeping the state happy -- by winning
referrals in exchange for denials -- they are biased, according to
the suit: Two-thirds of the state's 22 officers examined in the
suit have never ruled for parents statewide, nor have 83 percent in
Northern Virginia.

It added that state officials "train [officers], pay them, appoint
them . . . all with the promise of a long-term, steady stream of
income that requires no marketing expenses for hearing officers who
simply refrain from biting the hand that feeds." This creates a
pool of "crony hearing officers" who, if they don't support the
state, may not get future cases.

"The result has been an entire generation of disabled children and
their parents facing a near-insurmountable hurdle," the suit said.

Trevor Chaplick, a corporate attorney, said raising a disabled
child can be "one of most difficult parenting situations you can
imagine." Chaplick said he was thankful his family had resources to
help his child, who now lives at his school. But the state doesn't
do enough to help those of limited means, according to Chaplick.

He recalled attending a self-defense class for parents of autistic
children, learning techniques to keep themselves and their children
safe during emotional outbursts.

"I'll never forget sitting in that room seeing a cross section of
society . . . the poor, the middle-class," he said. "These were
people on edge financially and emotionally."

The suit comes after the U.S. Department of Education faulted
Virginia for failing to provide sufficient services for disabled
students in 2020. A report from the nonprofit group the American
Institutes for Research commissioned by the Fairfax school board
released earlier in October also found disabled students in the
state are more likely than their peers to be suspended and to fail
state tests.

Callie Oettinger, an advocate for improving Virginia's treatment of
special-needs students, said in an interview that she battled
Fairfax Public Schools for years after the system did not provide
services she thinks were needed for her son, who is dyslexic.

Though Oettinger suspected her son had dyslexia as early as first
grade, the school system refused to evaluate him until sixth grade,
telling her that "boys are slower to read," she said. (Fairfax
County declined to discuss the case, citing privacy concerns.)

Once her son was diagnosed, the school system refused to provide a
program Oettinger thought would be appropriate. A hearing officer
agreed programming was needed, she said -- but found the school had
provided free and appropriate education as the law requires.

The result was inevitable: "We worked with him ourselves,"
Oettinger said.

"That's what parents do," she said. "It rips families apart. It
stresses out marriages. It puts stress on kids and siblings, and
Fairfax County knows this is happening. And you see it happening
over and over again."

Bill Hogan, an investigative journalist formerly of the Center for
Public Integrity and other news organizations, said he adopted his
daughter at age 3 from Russia in 1993. She suffered multiple
learning disabilities including dyslexia, he said, possibly because
of the effects of fetal alcohol syndrome.

When she was a student in Fairfax County schools in the mid-1990s,
he battled for years with the district, culminating in litigation.
At one point, school experts said Hogan's daughter would never
learn to read -- but they would not pay for placement at a private
school that Hogan thought could help.

Hogan ended up paying out of pocket, then settling with the school
system around the time his daughter turned 18. His daughter, now
33, is literate with a high-school diploma.

"The system didn't help her," he said. "I feel I helped her." [GN]

VISTRA CORP: Court Junks Complaint vs Subsidiary
------------------------------------------------
Vistra Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 4, 2022, that in October 2022, the
district court granted the motion of the Company to dismiss the
complaint of the Illinois attorney general against Illinois Gas &
Electric (IG&E) related to improper marketing conduct and
overcharged customers.

In July 2022, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint, and in
October 2022, the district court granted in part its motion to
dismiss.

In May 2022, the Illinois Attorney General filed a complaint
against IG&E, a subsidiary the company acquired when the company
purchased Crius in July 2019. The complaint filed in Illinois state
court alleges, among other things, that IG&E engaged in improper
marketing conduct and overcharged customers.

The vast majority of the conduct in question occurred prior to its
acquisition of IG&E.

In July 2022, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint, and in
October 2022, the district court granted in part its motion to
dismiss, barring all claims asserted by the Illinois Attorney
General that were outside of the 5-year statute of limitations
period, which now limits the period during which claims may be made
to start in May 2017 rather than extending back to 2013 as the
Illinois Attorney General had alleged in its complaint.

Vistra Corp. (NYSE: VST) is a holding company operating an
integrated retail and electric power generation business primarily
in markets throughout the U.S. Through its subsidiaries, the
Company is engaged in competitive energy market activities
including power generation, wholesale energy sales and purchases,
commodity risk management and retail sales of electricity and
natural gas to end users. Vistra Corp. has six reportable segments:
(i) Retail, (ii) Texas, (iii) East, (iv) West, (v) Sunset and (vi)
Asset Closure.

WALMART INC: Averts Cough Syrup Non-Drowsy Label Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that Walmart Inc has
escaped a proposed class action lawsuit accusing it of falsely
marketing store-brand cough syrup as "non-drowsy."

U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman in Manhattan ruled on Oct. 28 that
plaintiff Aileen Goldstein's claims for economic damages were
blocked by federal drug law, and that she had no standing to ask
for a court order against Walmart's marketing because she was not
likely to be injured by it in the future.

Lawyers for Goldstein and Walmart did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

Goldstein alleged in her 2022 lawsuit that she became drowsy after
taking an Equate-brand cough syrup containing the active ingredient
dextromethorphan hydrobromide (DXM), despite the label promising it
was non-drowsy. She said DXM, which is also found in the brand-name
Robitussin cough syrup, is in fact known to cause drowsiness in
some people.

Goldstein, seeking to represent a nationwide class, brought claims
under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and various state
consumer protection laws. She sought money damages, saying she
would not have bought the product without the false claim, and an
order prohibiting the allegedly misleading marketing.

Walmart, moving to dismiss, argued that claims were preempted by
the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which gives the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate drugs. It
also said Goldstein had no standing to ask for an injunction
because, now that she no longer trusts the "non-drowsy"
representation, she will not be harmed by it again.

Liman agreed on both counts. He said that, while the FDA had not
explicitly approved the "non-drowsy" representation, it did require
drowsiness to be disclosed as a side effect of some drugs, but not
of DXM.

The FDCA explicitly preempts many state law claims related to
over-the-counter drugs, but makes an exception for product
liability claims. However, Liman said that exception did not apply
to Goldstein's claims because they alleged only economic loss, not
personal injury.

Liman rejected Goldstein's argument that she will suffer future
harm because she can no longer rely on labels, entitling her to an
injunction. Now that she knows she cannot rely on labels, he said,
the labels are "immaterial to her future decisions to purchase the
product."

Goldstein's case is one of a number of similar proposed class
actions filed around the country against companies including
Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc, Rite Aid Corp and brand-name
Robitussin maker GlaxoSmithKline Plc over their marketing of
DXM-containing cough syrup as non-drowsy. Some of these claims have
been dismissed, but others remain pending.

The case is Goldstein v. Walmart Inc, U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, No. 1:22-cv-00088.

For Goldstein: Simon Franzini and Jonas Jacobson of Dovel & Luner

For Walmart: Kevin Underhill and Emily Weissenberger of Shook,
Hardy & Bacon [GN]

YALE UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over Retirement Fund Mismanagement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Gorelick and William Porayouw, writing for Yale News, report
that Yale must appear in court to face charges over the
mismanagement of employee retirement funds, United States District
Court Judge Alvin W. Thompson ruled.

The class action suit, Vellali et al. v. Yale University et al.,
represents more than 20,000 employees who claim Yale breached its
fiduciary duty by failing to adequately oversee its 403(b)
retirement plan, costing employees millions. Factual claims about
Yale's record-keeping fees and investment oversight remain
unresolved, Thompson's ruling declares, meaning that the plaintiffs
will be seeing Yale in court.

"The defendants' motion for summary judgment is being granted with
respect to [several counts], and otherwise denied," the motion
ruling read.

Workers first filed a complaint in 2016. Following this, lawyers
conducted a years-long discovery process where they took
depositions, named plaintiffs and conducted expert reports.

It was only last February that the plaintiffs filed opposition
papers to Yale's motion for summary judgment. A summary judgment,
according to plaintiff attorney Jerry Schlichter, is an opportunity
for a judge to prevent claims from a case from going to trial.

Schlichter told the News that, while some claims will not go
forward, "the vast bulk" of the case will. For now, all claims
calling for damages will move forward, he said.

"We've been looking forward to a trial for more than six years, and
now we will have that trial, and we believe it will be soon,"
Schlichter told the News.

Schlichter said that the plaintiffs hope the court will set the
trial date for as soon as possible.

The University filed a motion last year in a bid to avoid trial.
Interim Vice President of Communication Karen Peart wrote in an
email to the News that the University was "pleased" that the Court
granted summary judgment on some of the plaintiffs' claims.

"The money in the [retirement plan] account is each person's
money," Schlichter said. "And so if fees are high, or investments
are poor performing, it comes directly out of the pocketbook of
employees and retirees."

In their complaint, the plaintiffs wrote that employees on the plan
were forced to take on "excessive" administrative and recordkeeping
fees. The plaintiffs argue that such fees violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or ERISA, requirement for
"reasonable" fees. ERISA is a federal law that requires that
retirement account managers act in the best interests of plan
participants.

The plaintiffs added that the University "failed" to offer
affordable investment plans for employees, forcing them to purchase
the high-price plan.

The suit also claims that Yale "allowed" the Teachers Insurance and
Annuity Association of America -- the organization managing Yale
employees' retirement plans -- to take "highly confidential"
information outside of the plan to sell services, such as wealth
management, salary and insurance, said Schlichter.

In July 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced
a $97 million enforcement action against the TIAA for violations in
retirement rollover recommendations. Charges include inaccurate and
misleading statements and a failure to adequately disclose
conflicts of interest to thousands of participants in record-kept
employer-sponsored retirement plans.

The TIAA did not respond to requests for comment.

The University, on the other hand, argues that it regularly
monitored the plans' investment options, and the switch to a single
record keeper reduced -- not increased -- expenses.

"Yale provides excellent retirement benefits through plans that are
proficiently administered in the interests of our plan participants
and in full compliance with all applicable laws," Peart wrote in an
email to the News.

The plaintiffs for the case are Joseph Vellali, Nancy S. Lowers,
Jan M. Taschner and James Mancini. [GN]

[*] Israel Changes Rules in Environmental Class Action Filings
--------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that the Tel Aviv District Court recently
allowed a motion to certify a class action against the Volkswagen
Group and its importer in Israel, Champion Motors Ltd. The class
action focuses on the Dieselgate scandal, after an investigation
discovered that Volkswagen installed emissions management software
in its diesel-powered vehicles that falsifies air pollution data.

The Dieselgate scandal first made headlines in late 2015. Since
then, countries around the world have instituted a series of
governmental and judicial actions against the Volkswagen Group and
its officers.

Shortly after exposure of the global scandal, three owners of
diesel-powered vehicles manufactured by the Volkswagen Group filed
a motion to certify a class action with the Tel Aviv District
Court. They are seeking to conduct the class action on behalf of
two classes: The first is the general public who has been and will
be exposed (until the ruling in the class action) to excess air
pollution as a result of Volkswagen's violations of the emissions
standards. The second is the owners of Volkswagen vehicles in which
the emissions management software was installed.

The causes of action include, inter alia, deception (by action and
omission) in violation of provisions of the Consumer Protection
Law, environmental torts by virtue of the Clean Air Law and the
Prevention of Environmental Nuisances (Civil Action) Law, fraud and
breach of a statutory obligation in violation of provisions of the
Torts Ordinance, and infringement of an individual's autonomy.

Who Has the Right to Sue?
In a precedent-setting ruling, the court ruled that individuals may
file a class action on behalf of the general public in respect of
damage caused by environmental hazards. Moreover, it determined the
State no longer has the exclusive right to conduct legal
proceedings on behalf of the general public when it suffers
environmental damages. Thus, the ruling gave legitimacy and
motivation to citizens to file legal proceedings in respect of
environmental damages that are deleterious not only to them but
also to the general public.

The court issued this ruling as part of its deliberation of the
State Attorney General's notice regarding the State's appearance
during the proceeding (after which, the State itself filed a civil
suit in this regard). The notice argued that the State has a
special status as a plaintiff in respect of damages caused to the
general public, including environmental damages. The State Attorney
General's rationale was that it is the State's responsibility to
protect natural resources and the public from harm to them.

In its notice, the State Attorney General also argued that, unlike
a private entity, the State is the appropriate litigant to sue on
behalf of the general public in respect of environmental damage and
that it can prove and quantify the concrete damage the air
pollution caused.

As noted, the court denied the State's plea that it has a unique
right to sue in this regard and ruled that there is no significant
advantage in the State managing the proceeding. The ruling stated
that a class action (or mass tort action) pertaining to
environmental quality is an effective tool since it can be used to
fulfill the "polluter pays" principle.

As a result, the court ruled that individuals may file class
actions in respect of damages caused to them by environmental
hazards, particularly air pollution, since environmental class
actions are an effective means to combat environmental quality
offenses (together with administrative measures and civil
enforcement). At the same time, the court gave the State an
opportunity to join the class action and conduct a joint legal
battle.

                    The Defendants' Identities

With regard to the identities of the defendants, the court did not
overlook the responsibility of the importer, Champion Motors.
Moreover, it rejected Champion Motors' claim that it was unaware of
the software installed in Volkswagen Group's vehicles prior to the
exposure of the Dieselgate scandal in 2015. The court thus ruled
that it would remain one of the defendants in the proceeding.

The ruling also stated that the purpose of the emission standards
and the Clean Air Law and its related regulations is to protect
public health and the environment. Thus, any violation thereof
presumes the causing of harm to the air, to public health, and to
the environment as a whole. Therefore, the court rejected the
opinion Volkswagen presented regarding the negligibility of its
deviation from the standard. It ruled that the offense is serious
and even tantamount to defiance of legislation and air pollution
standards imposed worldwide and in Israel, particularly now, when
the world is more aware of the dangers of air pollution and demands
strict enforcement to prevent it.

Accelerating Environmental Legislation
Israel's Clean Air Law constituted significant legislative progress
in protecting Israel's air resource, after Israel initially lagged
far behind all other countries in the western world.

The certification of this motion and the upcoming adjudication of
the class action, while stressing the public's right to safe
environmental conditions, is another example of growing
environmental awareness in Israel. This is reflected, inter alia,
in the accelerated environmental legislation in recent years, in
Israel's adoption of European standards (updated from time to
time), and in the State authorities' increased enforcement of such
standards. We predict the court's ruling will motivate many Israeli
citizens to take legal action against various environmental hazards
and to begin filing actions calling for the enforcement of
environmental laws and standards against entities that cause
environmental damages that are deleterious not only to them as
individuals but also to the general public.[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 ***