/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221117.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, November 17, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 224

                            Headlines

AMAZON.COM INC: Over-Length Briefing on Bid to Toss Joyce Suit OK'd
AMERICAN CREDIT: Clay Files FDCPA Suit in D. Montana
ANDERSON COUNTY, TN: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Accord Suit
AT&T MOBILITY: $14MM Class Settlement in Vianu Suit Wins Final OK
BAPTIST HEALTH: $3MM Class Settlement in Whitley Suit Gets Final OK

BOYLAND AUTO: Sabet Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
BRENDA MAYRACK: Schramm Sues Over Misapplication of Property
CARTERS INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DAMARA MANAGEMENT: Kirmes Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Class Deal in Kostka Suit Gets Prelim. Approval

DISCOVERY INC: Todorovski Sues Over Omitted Info in Spinco Merger
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Braver FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. New York
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Lackie Drug Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
EXAMONE WORLD: Faces Brauer Suit Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
EZ FESTIVALS: Solorzano Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls

FLINT, MI: Bid to Quash Denial in Walters Water Crisis Suit Vacated
GRUMA CORPORATION: Cruz Files Suit in D. Texas
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Weaver Sues Over Unlawful Warranties
I.C. SYSTEM: Rodriguez-Ocasio FDCPA Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice
INDIANA: Carter's Bid to Amend Complaint Denied Without Prejudice

INSIDER INC: Court Consolidates Johnson and Roby VPPA Class Suits
LLADRO USA: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MARTIN BUSCH INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MARYLAND: Tribue, et al. File Suit v. MSP for Discrimination
MDL 2873: AFFF Exposure Caused Cancer, Anderson Suit Says

MDL 2873: Foster Sues Over Death Due to AFFF Exposure
MDL 2873: Higgins Blames AFFF Exposure for Illness
MDL 2873: Mendoza Files PI Suit Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF
MDL 2913: Athol-Royalston Files Suit Over E-Cigarette Crisis
MDL 2913: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Barnegat Township Says

MDL 2913: Westport Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
MENDOZA JADDOU: Valdez Files Suit in S.D. Florida
MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Chai Suit Upheld
NETFLIX INC: Order Granting Bid to Dismiss Ashdown Suit Affirmed

PARK NATIONAL BANK: Workman Files Suit in Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
PUMA NORTH AMERICA: Licea Suit Removed to C.D. California
SOHOTEL ARTSPACE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ST. BONAVENTURE UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York

ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
STAR BRANDS: S.D. Illinois Dismisses Cox's Claims Without Prejudice
VERMONT BREAD: Protective Order Bid in Chaney Suit Granted in Part
WASHINGTON STATE: Summary Dismissal of Elgiadi Class Suit Affirmed
ZIONS BANCORP: $14MM Class Settlement in Evans Suit Wins Final OK


                            *********

AMAZON.COM INC: Over-Length Briefing on Bid to Toss Joyce Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SONNY JOYCE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., ANDREW R. JASSY,
JEFFREY P. BEZOS, BRIAN T. OLSAVSKY, DAVID A. ZAPOLSKY, and NATE
SUTTON, Defendants, ASBESTOS WORKERS PHILADELPHIA WELFARE AND
PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., ANDREW R. JASSY, BRIAN T.
OLSAVSKY, and DAVID FILDES, Defendants. DETECTIVES ENDOWMENT
ASSOCIATION ANNUITY FUND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., ANDREW R.
JASSY, BRIAN T. OLSAVSKY, and DAVID FILDES, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00617-JHC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John H. Chun of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle,
grants the parties leave to file over-length briefing in connection
with the Defendants' forthcoming motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7(f), Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Jeffrey
P. Bezos, Andrew R. Jassy, Brian T. Olsavsky, David A. Zapolsky,
Nate Sutton, and David Fildes, and Lead Plaintiffs
Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH,
Universal-Investment-Luxembourg S.A., Menora Mivtachim Insurance
Ltd., Menora Mivtachim Pensions and Gemel Ltd., The Phoenix
Insurance Co., Ltd., and The Phoenix Provident Pension Fund Ltd.,
and Plaintiffs Asbestos Workers Philadelphia Welfare and Pension
Fund, and Detectives Endowment Association Annuity Fund
respectfully request that the Court grants the parties leave to
file over-length briefing in connection with the Defendants'
forthcoming motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

On Aug. 17, 2022, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties,
the Court ordered the consolidation of three putative securities
class actions: (i) Joyce v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 2:22cv-00617;
(ii) Asbestos Workers Philadelphia Welfare and Pension Fund v.
Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 2:22-cv-00934; and (iii) Detectives
Endowment Association Annuity Fund v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.,
2:22-cv-00950-JHC. The claims in Joyce arose from alleged
misrepresentations and omissions concerning Amazon's alleged use of
third-party seller data the claims in Asbestos Workers and
Detectives arose from alleged misrepresentations and omissions
concerning the capacity of Amazon's fulfillment network.

The Plaintiffs' 173-page Consolidated Complaint asserts claims for
alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and associated Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The 532 paragraphs in the Consolidated Complaint
allege 48 misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Third
Party Seller Allegations and 10 additional misrepresentations and
omissions concerning the Capacity Allegations.

In anticipation of Defendants' motion to dismiss, the counsel for
the parties met and conferred regarding the appropriate number of
pages for the parties to adequately brief that motion. Given the
breadth and complexity of the allegations, claims, and legal
arguments involved, and the consolidation of three cases resulting
in the Consolidated Complaint, the parties agree and submit that
the standard page limits under Local Rule 7(e) will not allow the
parties to adequately cover all of the issues. Accordingly, the
parties respectfully request that the Court modifies the page
limitations for the briefing associated with Defendants'
forthcoming motion to dismiss.

Having reviewed the parties' Stipulated Motion, Judge Chun grants
the parties' Stipulated Motion. He grants (i) the Defendants leave
to file an opening brief for their forthcoming motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint with an additional 21
pages, for a total of 45 pages; (ii) the Plaintiffs leave to file
an opposition brief with an additional 21 pages, for a total of 45
pages; and (iii) the Defendants leave to file a reply brief with an
additional 10 pages, for a total of 22 pages.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mryfs3sr from Leagle.com.

FENWICK & WEST LLP Brian D. Buckley -- bbuckley@fenwick.com --
Seattle, WA.

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP Daniel J. Kramer --
dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Audra J. Soloway -- asoloway@paulweiss.com
-- Daniel S. Sinnreich -- dsinnreich@paulweiss.com -- New York,
NY.

Martha L. Goodman -- mgoodman@paulweiss.com -- Washington, DC,
Attorneys for the Defendants.

BRESKIN, JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC Roger M. Townsend --
rtownsend@bjtlegal.com -- Seattle, WA.

MOTLEY RICE LLC Gregg S. Levin -- glevin@motleyrice.com -- William
S. Norton , Joshua C. Littlejohn -- jlittlejohn@motleyrice.com --
Christopher F. Moriarty -- cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- Mt.
Pleasant, SC.

POMERANTZ LLP Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Emma
Gilmore, Dolgora Dorzhieva, Villi Shteyn, New York, NY.

Orly Guy, Eitan Lavie -- eitan@pomlaw.com -- Givatayim, Israel.

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP James A. Harrod, Adam
Hollander, Brendan Walden, New York, NY.

BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE Stephen R. Basser -- sbasser@barrack.com --
Samuel M. Ward -- sward@barrack.com -- San Diego, CA.

Jeffrey A. Barrack -- jbarrack@barrack.com -- Philadelphia, PA,
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.


AMERICAN CREDIT: Clay Files FDCPA Suit in D. Montana
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Credit
Acceptance, LLC. The case is styled as Jennifer Clay, on behalf of
herself individually, and as putative class representative for
others similarly situated nationwide v. American Credit Acceptance,
LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00076-BMM (D. Mont., Nov. 2, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

American Credit Acceptance LLC --
https://americancreditacceptance.com/ -- operates as a subprime
automotive finance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence E. Henke, Esq.
          VICEVICH LAW
          3738 Harrison Ave.
          Butte, MT 59701
          Phone: (406) 782-1111
          Email: larry@vicevichlaw.com


ANDERSON COUNTY, TN: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Accord Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY ACCORD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ANDERSON COUNTY,
TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants, COCKE COUNTY, TENNESSEE,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 22-5206 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the district court's grant of
the County's motion to dismiss.

On June 29, 2018, a highway patrolman stopped Gary Accord in Cocke
County, Tennessee for driving with "no headlight." But the stop
didn't end with a blown headlight. Accord admitted to taking the
opioid "Hydrocodone" earlier that day, and he did "poorly" on the
patrolman's drug test. As a result, the patrolman arrested Accord
for driving under the influence and transported him to county
jail.

Rather than obtaining an arrest warrant, the patrolman filed a
complaint-affidavit called the "Uniform Citation Form/Affidavit of
Complaint." And the State later prosecuted Accord using that same
form.

On Dec. 3, 2018, Accord and the County struck a plea deal. Under
the terms, the County's General Sessions Court reduced Accord's DUI
charge to reckless endangerment and sentenced him to 11 months and
29 days in jail, with a suspended sentence.

About two years later, on Feb. 1, 2021, Accord filed a class action
complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against all 95 Tennessee
counties -- Cocke County included. He alleged that the officials
from the General Sessions Court of Cocke County had not used a
proper charging instrument or prepared and signed an arrest
warrant. He argued that his charging form did not provide formal
notice of an offense or comply with Tennessee's criminal procedural
rules. And he reasoned that the form invalidates his criminal
proceedings.

Mr. Accord alleged that his experience was not unusual. He
contended, on behalf of a class, that every General Sessions Court
in Tennessee fails to use proper charging instruments—a practice
he says violates the United States Constitution, as well as
Tennessee law. He later amended his complaint, still alleging
Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, as well as a state-law claim for false light invasion
of privacy.

With 95 counties joined to the class action suit, the district
court ruled on a slew of motions. Most relevant among them, the
court dismissed 94 of the counties for lack of standing. Only Cocke
County remained.

The court then granted the County's Rule 12(b)(6) motion with
prejudice. It reasoned that the applicable statute of limitations
barred Accord's claims. And the court rejected Accord's argument
that he could assert direct constitutional claims along with his
Section 1983 claims. Because the statute of limitations barred the
suit, it declined to consider the County's other bases for
dismissal. Accord timely appealed.

The Sixth Circuit first addresses whether Tennessee's two
applicable one-year statutes of limitations barred Accord's Section
1983 and state-law claims. It opines that they did and holds that
the district court correctly held that the statutes of limitations
barred each of his claims. Accord's federal claims are subject to a
one-year statute of limitations and his state-tort claim also faces
a one-year statute of limitations. Seeing that Accord's
void-ab-initio argument does not negate the limitations on his
claims, the Sixth Circuit holds his suit time-barred.

The Sixth Circuit next addresses whether Accord can bring a direct
constitutional challenge against a municipality because he can no
longer raise his time-barred Monell claim. It opines that he
cannot. It says binding precedent limits him to a Section 1983
claim, even if he can't succeed on the claim. Put simply, parties
can no longer bring a direct constitutional action where Section
1983 applies.

For these reasons, the Sixth Circuit affirms the district court's
grant of the County's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p99uj5j from Leagle.com.


AT&T MOBILITY: $14MM Class Settlement in Vianu Suit Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IAN VIANU, ELIZABETH BLUM, and DOMINIC GUTIERREZ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-03602-LB (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
grants the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement
and for attorney's fees, expenses, and service awards.

The lawsuit is a class action against AT&T. The Plaintiffs --
current and former wireless-service customers of AT&T -- allege
that AT&T engages in a "bait-and-switch scheme" with customers by
advertising flat monthly rates for wireless-service plans but then
(after customers sign up) "covertly" adding a monthly
administrative fee.

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on June 20, 2019, claiming the
following: (1) violations of the California's Unfair Competition
Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (2)
violations of the False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Section 17500, et seq.; (3) violations of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; (4) a
claim for public-injunctive relief, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code
Section 3422, to permanently enjoin the alleged false advertising
and deception; and (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.

The parties engaged in extensive discovery. They reached their
settlement after two mediations.

On May 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of
the settlement. The Court held a hearing and granted the motion on
June 16, 2022. The Plaintiffs then moved for final approval and for
attorney's fees, expenses, and service awards. The Court held the
final fairness hearing on Nov. 3, 2022. The parties consented to
magistrate-judge jurisdiction.

The Settlement Class is defined as follows: All consumers residing
in California (based on the Accountholder's last known billing
address) with a post-paid wireless service plan from AT&T Mobility
LLC through a Consumer or Individual Responsibility User (IRU)
account and who were charged an Administrative Fee on such account
between June 20, 2015 and the date of preliminary settlement
approval.

Under the Settlement Agreement, AT&T accounts are used to determine
class membership: only one valid Claim may be submitted for each
Settlement Class Account. After preliminary approval was granted,
AT&T provided its customer data to the Settlement Administrator,
and that data yielded 5,647,781 unique account numbers. The
deadline for exclusions and objections was Sept. 29, 2022. The
Settlement Administrator received 14 requests for exclusion.

The Settlement Fund consists of $14 million and is fully
non-reversionary. The Net Distributable Funds will be determined
after the following deductions: (1) Administrative Costs (estimated
at $1,211,791.26 and including an Administrative Costs Advance of
$600,000); (2) attorney's fees ($3.5 million) and litigation
expenses ($74,993.24); and (3) service awards for the named
Plaintiffs ($3,500 for each).

The Net Distributable Funds will be distributed equally to all
Settlement Class Members who submit a claim form. The Plaintiffs
estimate that the individual payment amounts will be about $17.25.

The method of payment to Settlement Class Members will depend on
whether they are still AT&T customers. If so, payment will be
automatically credited to their AT&T accounts. If not, payment will
be via mailed check, with appropriate steps taken to locate updated
address information and re-issue checks that are returned
undeliverable. Any residual funds remaining one year after checks
are initially mailed will be treated as the unclaimed property of
the relevant customers, subject to the procedures of the California
Unclaimed Property Law. And any administrative costs resulting from
the residual-funds process will be paid from the residual funds,
and will reduce pro rata the respective unclaimed property
amounts.

Settlement Class Members will release AT&T and its affiliates from
any claims about the issues in the case. The scope of the release
substantively tracks the scope of the operative [first amended
complaint]. The Settlement Class Members also waive their rights
under California Civil Code Section 1542 and any similar provisions
of federal or state law.

The Court previously appointed Angeion Group as the Settlement
Administrator. After receiving AT&T's customer data, Angeion sent
notice to the Settlement Class Members on July 29, 2022. The
deadline for Class Members to submit a claim was Oct. 29, 2022. As
of Nov. 2, 2022, Angeion had "validated 522,948 claims," and it was
expected that once the validation process was complete, the total
number of valid claims would be "approximately 532,000." Thus, the
claims rate would be about 9.42%. Additionally, two objections to
the settlement were filed with the court.

The Court held a fairness hearing on Nov. 8, 2022.

Judge Beeler finds that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3)
are met. She certifies the class under Rule 23(b)(3) for settlement
purposes only.

After evaluating the Settlement Agreement for overall fairness,
Judge Beeler concludes that it is free of collusion and approval is
appropriate. Viewed as a whole, she says the proposed settlement is
sufficiently fair, adequate, and reasonable.

Turning the Class Counsel's request for $3.5 million in attorney's
fees (25% of the Settlement Fund) and $74,993.24 in expenses, Judge
Beeler awards both amounts. She holds that the requested fees are
reasonable and appropriate as a percentage of the common fund,
supported by a lodestar cross-check. The record also establishes
sufficiently the reasonableness of the requested expenses. The
record further establishes sufficiently the efforts of the three
class representatives. Judge Beeler approves awards of $3,500 for
each.

In addition, Judge Beeler, for settlement purposes only, confirms
the Court's appointment of (i) Ian Vianu, Elizabeth Blum, and
Dominic Gutierrez as the class representatives; (ii) Roger N.
Heller, Michael W. Sobol, and Daniel E. Seltz of Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; and Daniel M. Hattis of Hattis & Lukacs
as the Class Counsel; and (iii) Angeion Group as the Settlement
Administrator. Angeion is entitled to $1,211,791.26, even though
that is an increase over the initial estimate of $842,057, because
of unanticipated but reasonable Postcard Notice costs.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Beeler grants final approval to the
settlement, including the fees, expenses, and service awards.

The Parties and Settlement Administrator are directed to consummate
and implement the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its
terms, including distributing settlement payments to the Settlement
Class Members and other disbursements from the Settlement
Consideration as provided by the Settlement Agreement.

The Action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any
Party, other than as specified in the Settlement Agreement and the
Final Order.

Each of the Settlement Class Members and the Releasing Parties has,
by operation of the Final Order, released all Released Claims
against all Released Parties.

To ensure that it captured all the matters the party wanted
captured, the Court will separately enter the proposed judgment
filed at ECF No. 160.

The Final Approval Order disposes of ECF Nos. 152 and 153.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2022 Final Approval Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2zuxr3f6 from Leagle.com.


BAPTIST HEALTH: $3MM Class Settlement in Whitley Suit Gets Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN WHITLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. BAPTIST HEALTH; BAPTIST
HEALTH HOSPITALS; and DIAMOND RISK INSURANCE LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-cv-624-DPM (E.D. Ark.), Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central
Division, grants Whitney's motion for final approval of the
settlement and motion for fees and expenses for the class counsel
and the claims administrator, as well as an incentive award.

On behalf of the class, Whitley requests final approval of the
settlement. He also seeks fees and expenses for the class counsel
and the claims administrator, as well as an incentive award for
serving as the Lead Plaintiff. The motions are unopposed.

The Court preliminarily approved the agreement a few months ago.
All steps required up to this point have been taken: proper notice
was given; CAFA was complied with; and a comprehensive near-final
report of claims was prepared by the claims administrator. There
was a full and fair opportunity for class members to object. Not
one did. And the fairness hearing confirmed the Court's initial
impression that the $3 million settlement number is fair,
reasonable, and adequate. The Court has come to this conclusion
after considering all the material circumstances.

The Court has relied on Whitley's experienced counsel to conclude
that the plan of allocation is fair and reasonable. It therefore
approves the plan of allocation.

The Court authorizes and directs implementation of the settlement
agreement. It incorporates in the present Order all releases
contained in the settlement agreement. The released defendant
parties must wire all payments to Heninger Garrison Davis LLC law
firm as required under the settlement agreement.

As provided in that settlement agreement, Whitley and all class
members have released the released defendant parties from all
claims, known and unknown. The released Defendant parties have not
admitted liability or fault; they have made a good faith settlement
of disputed claims. The Court incorporates and approves the agreed
limitations on future use of the fact of settlement, and of all
related documents, Orders, and the Judgment.

Judge Marshall awards all the attorney's fees and expenses
requested. He also approves the $7,500 incentive award to Whitley,
a modest award for his efforts as the Lead Plaintiff during
approximately six years of litigation.

Final Judgment will be issued. The Court will retain jurisdiction
to oversee the settlement, to resolve any issues that might arise
under the settlement or this Order, and to address Baptist's
request to vacate certain Orders. That oversight will include
receiving further reports about claims administration. Supplemental
reports about administration are due on Dec. 2 2022, March 31,
2023, and thereafter as directed by the Court. Response from the
class on the request to vacate due by Nov. 21, 2022; Reply due by
Dec. 5, 2022.

The claims administrator must post the Order, as well as the
accompanying Judgment, on the class website now. And copies of the
Order and accompanying Judgment must be mailed to each claimant
with their check.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdhap45s from Leagle.com.


BOYLAND AUTO: Sabet Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
--------------------------------------------------------
Niazie Sabet, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BOYLAND AUTO ORLANDO LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-02009 (M.D.
Fla., Nov. 2, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text
messaging.

To market its goods, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text
messaging and violates TCPA by continuing to place calls to
consumers after they request to opt out of Defendant's messaging.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
the Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also
seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the
Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Osceola County,
Florida.

The Defendant owns and operates a new and used vehicle
dealership.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301


BRENDA MAYRACK: Schramm Sues Over Misapplication of Property
------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Schramm; Christine Kydd; Mark Hilferty; Ludovic Bonnin, on
behalf of themselves and otherpersons similarly situated v. BRENDA
MAYRACK, individually and in her capacity as the Delaware State
Escheator, BRIAN WISHNOW, in his capacity as the Assistant Director
Enforcement of the Office of Unclaimed Property, RICHARD J.
GEISENBERGER, in his official capacity as the Secretary of Finance
for the State of Delaware; and the STATE OF DELAWARE, Case No.
1:22-cv-01443-UNA (D. Del., Nov. 2, 2022), is brought challenging
the Defendants' misapplication of Delaware's Unclaimed Property
Law, which requires banking organizations and other entities
holding so-called "abandoned" property to transfer it to the
Department of Finance Office of Unclaimed Property ("OUP"). Such
property includes savings accounts, payroll checks, customer or
vendor credits, gift cards or gift certificates, and stock and bond
accounts, etc.

The UPL allows the State to escheat certain types of unclaimed
property held by businesses chartered in the State, if the
particular business holding the property is not the owner of it,
and if there has been no contact with the owner for a specified
period of time.

Operating in the leading domicile for corporations, Defendants,
acting under color of law, have thus maximized the seizure
elements, and have taken full advantage of the United States
Supreme Court's Texas trilogy framework for identifying which state
will be allowed to escheat intangible property albeit while
ignoring the statutory and constitutional provision designed to
protect owners and their property rights.

After property is transferred to the OUP, the Defendants continue
to deny owners any individualized notice, even after they have been
deprived of their property. Instead, Defendants operate a
searchable Internet website that property owners may visit, if they
become aware that this property has been taken. However, it is
difficult or impossible for owners to reclaim their property
because: the unsearchable public website hides the identifying
information from the owner; there is no legal claim process; and
the Defendants fail to verify owner information with the other
Delaware state databases (such as the Department of Motor Vehicles
or voter registration lists).

In addition to failing to provide constitutional and statutory
notice to owners prior to the seizure, destruction and/or sale of
their private property, Defendants also fail and refuse to convey
any property information to the owner about the seized property
after the seizure without the owner first completing the
Defendants' claim form. The Defendants' failure and refusal to
provide post-deprivation property information, such as its
identification (what was taken), value, and the address of the
account whether on their website or otherwise, makes it impossible
for the owners to determine what property was taken during
Defendants' unnoticed seizure process and for the owner to confirm
that the property is theirs and to determine if the claim process
is worth their time, effort, and legal expense of filing and
perfecting a claim to recover the property stolen by the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs in this case received no constitutional notice
before their property was seized by the Defendants and transferred
to the OUP. All of the Plaintiffs subsequently were unsuccessful in
seeking return of their property pursuant to the post-deprivation
procedures. Post seizure, the private property was not restored;
instead, Plaintiffs received an arbitrary amount of cash without
interest, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs had personal properties that were seized, sold, and
otherwise destroyed by the Defendants.

Brenda Mayrack is the Secretary's delegate as the Delaware State
Escheator, located at Carvel State Office building, 820 North
French Street, Wilmington, Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David P. Primack, Esq.
          MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
          300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1014
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 300-4512
          Facsimile: (302) 654-4031
          Email: dprimack@mdmc-law.com

               - and -

          William W. Palmer, Esq.
          PALMER LAW GROUP, A PLC
          8033 W. Sunset Blvd., No. 880
          Hollywood, CA 90046
          Phone: (310) 984-5074


CARTERS INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carters, Inc. The
case is styled as Miriam Cruz, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Carters, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06684
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2022).

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

Carter's, Inc. -- https://www.carters.com/ -- is a major American
designer and marketer of children's apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


DAMARA MANAGEMENT: Kirmes Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Kirmes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Damara Management Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01412-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 26, 2022) seeks appropriate
monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendant's
willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals with minimum and overtime wages as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Minimum Wage Act of Delaware.

The Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver for Defendant's Papa
John's Pizza stores from March 1, 2020 through approximately May
31, 2022.

Damara Management Corporation owns and operates a chain of Papa
John's Pizza stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L, Simon, Esq.
          SIMON LAW CO.
          5000 Rockside Road
          Liberty Plaza - Suite 520
          Independence, OH
          Telephone: (216) 816-8696
          E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 644-3425
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Ferry, Esq.
          FERRY JOSEPH, P.A.
          1521 Concord Pike, Suite 202
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 575-1555
          Facsimile: (302) 575-1714
          E-mail: bferry@ferryjoseph.com

DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Class Deal in Kostka Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEMI KOSTKA and VINCENT JEAR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DICKEY'S
BARBECUE RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03424-K,
Consolidated with Case No. 3:20-cv-03603-K, Case No.
3:21-cv-00137-K., 3:21-cv-00769-K, 3:21-cv-01962-K, 3:21-cv-01963-K
(N.D. Tex.), Judge Ed Kinkeade of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, grants the Settling
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement.

Judge Kinkeade has considered the Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford dated Oct.
14, 2022, and has reviewed them for plain error. Finding none, he
accepts the Findings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mn4r2d57 from Leagle.com.


DISCOVERY INC: Todorovski Sues Over Omitted Info in Spinco Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOME TODOROVSKI and VIOLETA TODOROVSKI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DISCOVERY, INC.,
WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY, INC., DAVID ZASLAV, and GUNNAR WIEDENFELS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09125 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2022) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of all persons or
entities who: (1) exchanged Discovery common stock for WBD common
stock pursuant or traceable to Discovery's February 4, 2022
Registration Statement on Form S-4 and Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus filed with the SEC on February 10, 2022; (2)
acquired WBD common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, including shareholders of AT&T Inc.
and/or Magallanes, Inc, a Delaware corporation who acquired WBD
common stock as a result of the merger between Discovery and
Spinco; or (3) purchased shares of WBD common stock on the open
market traceable to the Prospectus through the date of the filing
of this Complaint.

This action relates to the Merger between Discovery and Spinco, a
wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T organized specifically for the
purpose of effecting the separation of the WarnerMedia business
from AT&T. The Merger was announced on May 17, 2021 and closed on
April 8, 2022. This is brought on behalf of a subset of the Section
11 Class consisting solely of former Discovery shareholders who
exchanged Discovery common shares for WBD common shares pursuant to
the Prospectus. As a result of the Merger, former Discovery
shareholders owned 29% of the equity of WBD, and AT&T's
shareholders owned 71% of the equity of WBD, says the suit.

At the time of filing the Registration Statement and Prospectus,
Discovery and the Individual Defendants either knew or had access
to adverse information concerning operations of the WarnerMedia
business. However, that adverse information was not disclosed to
Discovery or AT&T shareholders in the Registration Statement or
Prospectus or at any time before the vote on the Merger or the
effective date of the Merger. As a result, the Registration
Statement and Prospectus and certain of the Defendants' other
public statements contained untrue statements of material fact or
omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein or
necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, in
violation of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933, the complaint alleges.

From April 11, 2022, the first trading day after completion of the
Merger, to September 23, 2022, WBD's market price fell by 52.4%,
from $24.78 to $11.79 per share, as the market became aware of the
misrepresented and omitted facts, adds the complaint.

Discovery, Inc. is a mass media company based in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Braver FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Isac Braver, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc.,
Case No. EF005486/2022 was removed from the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on Nov. 2, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:22-cv-09390 to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Diversified Adjustment Service --
https://diversifiedadjustment.com/ -- provides debt collection
services to companies for their consumers using our helping hand
methods.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dana Brett Briganti, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          800 3rd Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 471-6200
          Fax: (212) 935-1166
          Email: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com


DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Lackie Drug Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lackie Drug Store Inc., on behalf of itself and
Arkansans similarly situated v. Arkansas CVS Pharmacy LLC, CVS
Health Corporation, Caremark LLC, CaremarkPCS LLC, Express Scripts,
ESI Mail Processing Inc., ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc., Express
Scripts Pharmacy, MedImpact Healthcare Systems Inc., MedImpact
Direct LLC, OptumRx Inc., OptumRx Pharmacy Inc., Pharmaceutical
Care Management Association, Case No. 4:20-cv-01515 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on
Nov. 2, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-01163-PLC to the
proceeding.

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

Diversified Adjustment Service --
https://diversifiedadjustment.com/ -- provides debt collection
services to companies for their consumers using our helping hand
methods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Everett Clarke Tucker, IV, Esq.
          CLARKE TUCKER LAW
          407 President Clinton Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 812-3943
          Email: clarke@clarketuckerlaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Wyly, Esq.
          Sean Fletcher Rommel, Esq.
          WYLY ROMMEL PLLC
          4004 Texas Blvd.
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Phone: (903) 334-8646
          Fax: (903) 334-8645
          Email: jwyly@wylyrommel.com
                 srommel@wylyrommel.com

               - and -

          John R. Whaley, Esq.
          NEBLETT AND BEARD
          P.O. Box 12120
          Alexandria, LA 71315
          Phone: (318) 487-9874
          Fax: (318) 561-2591
          Email: rwhaley@whaleylaw.com

               - and -

          Philip Daniel Holland, Esq.
          POYNTER LAW GROUP
          407 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 201
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 317-5536
          Email: daniel@poynterlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
          POYNTER LAW GROUP
          400 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 2910
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 907-2555
          Fax: (501) 907-2556
          Email: scott@poynterlawgroup.com

               - and -

          M. Darren O'Quinn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DARREN O'QUINN, PLLC
          36 Rahling Road Circle, Suite 4
          Little Rock, AR 72223
          Phone: (501) 817-3124
          Fax: (501) 817-3128
          Email: darren@darrenoquinn.com

               - and -

          Preston Tull Eldridge, Esq.
          ELDRIDGE LAW FIRM PLLC
          407 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 201
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 940-8510
          Email: preston@eldridgefirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Reece Owens, Esq.
          Micheal L. Alexander, Esq.
          BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 372-6175
          Fax: (501) 375-2802
          Email: rowens@barberlawfirm.com
                 malexander@barberlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Eliza T. Davis, Esq.
          Kevin P. Shea, Esq.
          Seth A. Horvath, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 5200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 977-4150
          Email: etdavis@nixonpeabody.com
                 kpshea@nixonpeabody.com
                 sahorvath@nixonpeabody.com

               - and -

          Kierstan Schultz, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          900 Elm Street, 14th Floor
          Manchester, NH 03101
          Phone: (603) 628-4031
          Fax: (844) 675-4275
          Email: kschultz@nixonpeabody.com

               - and -

          Michael J Philippi, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP - Chicago
          70 West Madison St., Suite 5200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 977-4875
          Fax: (312) 977-4405
          Email: mphilippi@nixonpeabody.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Butler Routh, Esq.
          Michael B. Kimberly, Esq.
          Sarah P. Hogarth, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
          The McDermott Building
          500 North Capital Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-1531
          Phone: (202) 756-8165
          Email: jrouth@mwe.com
                 mkimberly@mwe.com
                 shogarth@mwe.com

               - and -

          Robert Ryan Younger, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
          Phone: (501) 379-1757
          Email: ryounger@qgtlaw.com

               - and -

          Warren Haskel, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL LLP - New York
          One Vanderbilt Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 547-5533
          Email: whaskel@mwe.com

               - and -

          Camille S. Bass, Esq.
          Samantha G. Masters-Brown, Esq.
          THE PHOENIX LAW GROUP PLC
          8765 East Bell Road, Suite 101
          Scottsdale, AZ 85260
          Phone: (480) 361-0431
          Email: cbass@phoenixlawgroup.com
                 sbrown@phoenixlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Heller, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
          Regions Center, Suite 2000
          400 West Capitol Avenue
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3522
          Phone: (501) 370-1506
          Email: heller@fridayfirm.com

               - and -

          Lyn P. Pruitt, Esq.
          MITCHELL AND WILLIAMS
          320 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 1000
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 688-8869

               - and -

          Megan D. Hargraves, Esq.
          Graham Caughman Talley, Esq.
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD PLLC
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 688-8800
          Fax: (501) 688-8807
          Email: mhargraves@mwlaw.com
                 gtalley@mwlaw.com

               - and -

          Dean Richlin, Esq.
          FOLEY HOAG LLP
          155 Seaport Boulevard
          Boston, MA 02210-2600
          Phone: (617) 832-1140
          Email: drichlin@foleyhoag.com

               - and -

          Kristyn Marie DeFilipp, Esq.
          FOLEY HOAG LLP
          155 Seaport Boulevard
          One Post Office Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Phone: (617) 832-1218
          Email: KBunceDeFilipp@foleyhoag.com

               - and -

          Peter R. Shults, Esq.
          Steven T. Shults, Esq.
          SHULTS LAW FIRM LLP
          200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1600
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: (501) 375-2301
          Email: pshults@shultslaw.com
                 sshults@shultslaw.com


EXAMONE WORLD: Faces Brauer Suit Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LARS F. BRAUER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXAMONE WORLD WIDE INC. and QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-07760 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' widespread violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum
possible accuracy of the consumer reports they prepare and
disseminate in connection with Plaintiff's and other consumers'
applications for insurance.

According to the complaint, the Defendants regularly include on
such reports prescription and other medical history that does not
pertain to the individual who is the subject of the report.
Furthermore, the Defendants  systemically fail to clearly and
accurately identify to consumers the source(s) of the information
that they place on their consumer reports. The Defendants, thus,
deprive consumers of valuable congressionally-mandated information
and make it more difficult for consumers such as Plaintiff to
correct errors that are caused by private vendor sources, rather
than the pharmacies and/or medical providers that Defendants
misidentify as their sources. The Defendants' conduct deprives
consumers of their rights under federal law and results in
widespread harm, says the suit.

The Plaintiff is a consumer about whom Defendants sold inaccurate
prescription and medical history information, to whom Defendants
failed to disclose information as required by the FCRA.

The Defendants are specialty consumer reporting agencies in the
business of gathering and selling reports about consumers which
contain information about their medical histories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450  
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
                  amcentee@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Kolin Tang, Esq.
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          19712 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 222
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: ktang@millershah.com
                  jshah@millershah.com

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          Lauren Kw Brennan, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103  
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

EZ FESTIVALS: Solorzano Sues Over Unsolicited Telephonic Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Solorzano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EZ Festivals LLC, Case No. CACE-22-015569
(Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Nov. 2, 2022), is
brought against the Defendant for the Defendant's violations of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act by engaging in unsolicited
telephonic sales calls.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLINT, MI: Bid to Quash Denial in Walters Water Crisis Suit Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, IN RE: FLINT WATER CASES. LEE-ANNE WALTERS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, E.S.; A.T.; R.V.; D.W., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. RICHARD
DALE SNYDER (22-1353); DARNELL EARLEY (22-1355); RICHARD BAIRD
(22-1357); HOWARD D. CROFT (22-1358); GERALD AMBROSE (22-1360),
Defendants-Appellants, VEOLIA NORTH AMERICA, LLC; VEOLIA NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; VEOLIA WATER NORTH AMERICA OPERATING SERVICES, LLC;
LOCKWOOD, ANDREWS & NEWMAN, P.C.; LOCKWOOD, ANDREWS & NEWMAN, INC.;
LEO A. DALY COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos.
22-1353/22-1355/22-1357/22-1358/22-1360 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacates the district court's order
denying the Appellants' motions to quash.

The present case is another dispute stemming from the infamous
Flint Water Crisis, the events of which are well known and have
been well documented. In short, as a cost-saving measure, public
officials switched Flint's municipal water supply from the Detroit
Water and Sewage Department to the Flint River, reviving the
previously dormant Flint Water Treatment Plant.

Flint residents began receiving water from the Flint River on April
25, 2014, and residents began complaining of water that looked,
tasted, and smelled foul within weeks. Other severe problems
emerged, including evidence of E. coli contamination in the water,
a localized outbreak of Legionnaires' disease, and a dangerously
high lead poisoning rate in children. Without proper
corrosion-control treatment, lead leached from the aging pipes in
Flint's water system into the water. With a public-health disaster
mounting, Flint reconnected to its original water sources in
October 2015.

Both criminal and civil proceedings began shortly thereafter. On
the civil side, a host of litigants filed suit, alleging injury
from Flint's contaminated drinking water. This includes the
Plaintiffs here -- four minor children who lived in Flint and
suffered lead poisoning, brain damage, and other injuries after
being exposed to lead-contaminated water.

The Plaintiffs sued two groups of defendants: "governmental
defendants," i.e., public officials and entities who they alleged
were responsible for the decisions that created the crisis, and
"engineering defendants," i.e., those firms who were allegedly
responsible for administering the Flint Water Plant, using the
river as a source for drinking water, and evaluating the system for
public safety. Among those named as governmental defendants were
former Michigan Governor Richard Snyder, former City of Flint
Emergency Managers Gerald Ambrose and Darnell Earley, and former
Flint Director of Public Works Howard Croft ("Appellants"
collectively), and named as engineering defendants were Veolia
North America and Lockwood, Andrews, and Newman, P.C. ("Appellees"
collectively).

The pending cases were largely consolidated in the Eastern District
of Michigan. The district court created a bellwether trial process
to manage the litigation -- the first was to begin in June 2021
(though it did not actually begin until February 2022), with
additional trials following in October 2023 and January 2024.

The criminal process was also underway during this period. In 2016,
Michigan's then-Attorney General, Bill Schuette, appointed a
Special Prosecutor for criminal investigations related to the Flint
Water Crisis. Ambrose, Earley, and Croft, but not Snyder or Baird,
were later indicted on several charges connected to the crisis. But
things changed after the 2018 election. Michigan's new Attorney
General, Dana Nessel, appointed a new Solicitor General and
assigned lead of the criminal investigations to her. Shortly
thereafter, all pending criminal charges, including those against
Ambrose, Earley, and Croft, were dismissed without prejudice.

In September 2019, Earley, Ambrose, and Croft moved for a
protective order in the civil litigation after their initial
criminal charges were dismissed but prior to sitting for any
depositions. The district court denied the motion, noting that the
three were not currently under indictment and that the Plaintiffs,
district court, and public at large had an interest in proceeding
expeditiously.

Throughout 2020, the grand jury conducted confidential
investigations, and it issued sealed indictments of each Appellant.
In March and September of 2020, Earley was indicted on three counts
of felony misconduct in office, and Ambrose was indicted on four
counts of felony misconduct in office. On Jan. 8, 2021, indictments
were issued against the other three appellants. Snyder was indicted
on two misdemeanor counts of willful neglect of duty. Baird was
indicted on four felony counts: perjury during an investigative
subpoena, misconduct in office, obstruction of justice, and
extortion. Croft was indicted on two misdemeanor counts of willful
neglect of duty. These charges were finally unsealed and announced
on Jan. 14, 2021.

Back on the civil side, the governmental defendants reached a
settlement agreement with the Plaintiffs in November 2020. That
agreement was preliminarily approved by the district court in
November 2021. As a result, Snyder, Ambrose, Earley, and Croft,
along with other state and municipal individuals or entities,
became non-parties to this civil case.

Veolia and Lockwood, though, continued to actively litigate their
liability, seemingly planning to pin much of the blame on the
Appellants and other public officials at trial. Veolia then served
subpoenas on the Appellants, calling them to testify at the
forthcoming first bellwether trial.

The Appellants moved to quash the subpoenas, contending that they
could, and would, invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination. The district court, however, denied the
motions, concluding that the Appellants had waived the privilege at
trial by testifying at their depositions.

The Appellants then moved the district court to certify such an
appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Neither Veolia nor Lockwood
opposed the motion. The district court granted the motion and
certified the issue for appeal.

Meanwhile, the civil trial progressed. As expected, each Appellant
was called to testify, and each invoked his respective Fifth
Amendment privilege. After conferring with the parties, the
district court declared a mistrial. It has since rescheduled that
trial to begin on Feb. 22, 2023.

In one final twist on the criminal side, the Michigan Supreme Court
decided People v. Peeler on June 28, 2022. As part of that case,
Nicholas Lyons, another defendant charged in connection to the
Flint Water Crisis, challenged Michigan's one-man grand jury
statute, Mich. Comp. Laws Section 767.4. The Michigan Supreme Court
held that the statute did not authorize a one-man grand jury to
issue indictments.

After that opinion was released, the Appellants announced that they
would seek dismissal of all criminal charges against them because
the same one-man grand jury had charged them. In response, the
Solicitor General publicly reiterated her belief that the "charges
can and will be proven in court," and that her team was both
"prepared to move forward" and "committed to seeing this process
through to its conclusion." The Genesee Circuit Court has since
dismissed the charges against Baird, Ambrose, and Earley, among
others. The Solicitor General and her prosecution team released a
statement shortly thereafter expressing their "anger and
disappointment" at the ruling and reaffirming their commitment to
"exhaust all available legal options" in their "pursuit of justice
for Flint," including appealing that dismissal.

This brings the case to its current posture.

The Sixth Circuit explains that one of the fundamental liberties
enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution is the right
not to be compelled to bear witness against oneself. The
inquisitorial abuses of the Star Chambers eventually led to the
inclusion of this right in the Bill of Rights. This bedrock
privilege originates from the maxim "nemo tenetur seipsum
accusare," that "no man is bound to accuse himself."

In the present case, the district court ordered the Appellant state
officials to testify at trial -- to be witnesses against themselves
-- despite their invocation of their right against
self-incrimination. According to the district court, the Appellants
"waived" their right not to be witnesses against themselves at
trial by voluntarily submitting to a discovery deposition.

The Sixth Circuit disagrees. It concludes that the district court
erroneously held that testifying at a pretrial deposition waives
invocation of the privilege at a later trial in the same civil
case. In doing so, it holds that a Fifth Amendment waiver does not
extend to trial under these circumstances. Thus, it vacates the
district court's order denying the motions to quash and remands for
further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/c9pr53z4 from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Charles R. Quigg -- cquigg@wnj.com -- WARNER NORCROSS +
JUDD, LLP, Grand Rapids , Michigan, for Appellant Richard Snyder.

Juan A. Mateo, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant Darnell Earley.

Sarissa K. Montague, LEVINE & LEVINE, Kalamazoo, Michigan, for
Appellant Richard Baird.

Alexander S. Rusek -- arusek@fosterswift.com -- RUSEK LAW PLLC,
Lansing, Michigan, for Appellant Howard D. Croft.

William W. Swor, WILLIAM W. SWOR, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant
Gerald Ambrose.

Minh Nguyen-Dang -- mnguyen-dang@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Veolia Appellees.

S. Vance Wittie -- vance.wittie@faegredrinker.com -- FAEGRE DRINKER
BIDDLE & REATH, LLP, Dallas, Texas, for Appellees Lockwood, Andrews
and Newman, Inc. and Leo A. Daly Company.

ON BRIEF: Charles R. Quigg, Brian P. Lennon -- blennon@wnj.com --
Gaëtan E. Gerville-Reache -- greache@wnj.com -- WARNER NORCROSS +
JUDD, LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellant Richard Snyder.

Juan A. Mateo, Gerald K. Evelyn, T. Santino Mateo, Detroit,
Michigan, for Appellant Darnell Earley.

Sarissa K. Montague, Anastase Markou, LEVINE & LEVINE, Kalamazoo,
Michigan, for Appellant Richard Baird.

Alexander S. Rusek, RUSEK LAW PLLC, Lansing, Michigan, for
Appellant Howard D. Croft.

William W. Swor, Michael A. Rataj, WILLIAM W. SWOR , Detroit,
Michigan, for Appellant Gerald Ambrose.

Minh Nguyen-Dang, Michael E. Lackey, Jr. -- mlackey@mayerbrown.com
-- MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., Timothy S. Bishop --
tbishop@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for
Veolia Appellees.

S. Vance Wittie -- vance.wittie@faegredrinker.com -- FAEGRE DRINKER
BIDDLE & REATH, LLP, Dallas, Texas, Philip A. Erickson --
perickson@plunkettcooney.com -- PLUNKETT COONEY, Lansing, Michigan,
for Appellees Lockwood, Andrews and Newman, Inc. and Leo A. Daly
Company.

Corey Stern, LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP, New York, New York, for the
Plaintiff Appellees.

Stephanie Franxman Kessler -- skessler@pinalesstachler.com --
PINALES, STACHLER, YOUNG & BURRELL, CO., L.P.A., Cincinnati, Ohio,
William J. Murphy -- wmurphy@zuckerman.com -- ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER
LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, Bryan M. Reines -- breines@zuckerman.com


GRUMA CORPORATION: Cruz Files Suit in D. Texas
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gruma Corporation.
The case is styled as Erasmo Ponce Cruz, Angel Cazalez, and all
others similarly situated v. Gruma Corporation, d/b/a Mission
Tortillas, HEB, LP, Sellers Bros, Inc., Lewis Food Town, Inc., Does
1 through 100, Case No. DC-22-15306 (D. Tex., Nov. 2, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Employment."

Gruma -- https://www.gruma.com/en -- is a Mexican multinational
corn flour and tortilla manufacturing company headquartered in San
Pedro, near Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico.[BN]

HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Weaver Sues Over Unlawful Warranties
-----------------------------------------------------
Rita Weaver, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY GROUP, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01142-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2022), is brought against
the Defendant for the marketing, manufacture, and/or sale of
consumer products that include motorcycles, parts, accessories, and
other products sold under the Harley-Davidson brand name (the
"Products"), the warranties of which include statements that
condition the continued validity of the warranty on the use of only
an authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts (a
"tying arrangement" or "unlawful repair restriction").

Tying arrangements that condition a consumer product's warranty on
the use of a specific repair service in this manner violate state
and federal law. Had Plaintiff – or reasonable class members –
been aware that the repair restriction was unlawful, she would not
have purchased the Product, or would have paid significantly less
for it.

In numerous instances, Defendant, through its warranty statements
on the Products, condition warranty coverage on the usage of
Defendant's repair services to perform maintenance and repair work,
rather than allowing consumers to repair the product themselves or
take it to a third-party repair service. The Defendant has not
provided genuine Harley-Davidson replacement parts to consumers
without charge under the warranty. Defendant also did not seek a
waiver from the Federal Trade Commission that would permit it to
condition warranty coverage on the use of genuine Harley-Davidson
parts and accessories. The Defendant also fails to fully set forth
in its warranty what is covered by or excluded from the warranty.
Instead, as described above, the warranty directs the owner to
check with a local Harley-Davidson dealer to fully understand the
warranty's coverage. The Defendant's practices also violate state
laws which prohibits unfair or deceptive actors or practices, as
well as unfair methods of competition, in or affecting commerce.

The Plaintiff brings her claims against the Defendant individually
and on behalf of a class of all other similarly situated purchasers
of the Products for: violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
unjust enrichment, fraud, fraudulent omission, declaratory
judgment, and violations of consumer protection statutes, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff bought a Harley-Davidson FLHTCUTGSE motorcycle from a
dealership in Albany, New York

The Defendant has manufactured, advertised, offered for sale, sold,
and distributed Harley-Davidson motorcycles, parts, accessories,
and other products to consumers throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Ave, Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
                 jdiamond@bursor.com

               - and -

          Neal Deckant, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
                 jsmith@bursor.com


I.C. SYSTEM: Rodriguez-Ocasio FDCPA Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismisses the case, LUIS A.
RODRIGUEZ-OCASIO, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC.; & JOHN DOES 1 to 10,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-13447 (D.N.J.), without prejudice.

The putative class action alleges that I.C. attempted to collect
money to which it was not entitled, in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq.

The Plaintiff allegedly incurred a debt to Banfield Pet Hospital
and did not pay it. Banfield hired I.C. to collect the debt. I.C.
sent the Plaintiff a collection letter dated June 6, 2018. The
letter indicates that the "Principal Due" is $593.45. It further
assesses a "Collection Charge Due" of $103.85, resulting in a
"Balance Due" of $697.30.

The Plaintiff explains that the Collection Charge is a 17.5%
contingent fee based on the amount that I.C. actually collects on
behalf of Banfield. The envelope has a glassine window in the
upper-left corner through which I.C.'s logo -- a stylized version
of its name -- and mailing address are visible. The Plaintiff's
name and address are also visible on the envelope.

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 5, 2019, asserting that
the Collection Charge is a false statement because it is not based
on any costs that I.C. actually incurred since it is not paid to
I.C. until after the debt is collected. He accuses I.C. of
violating sections 1692e, 1692e(2),1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5),
1692e(10), 1692f, 1692f(1), 1692f(8), 1692g, and 1692g(4) of the
FDCPA.

On Jan. 7, 2022, Plaintiff moved for class certification. I.C.
filed an opposition, to which the Plaintiff replied. I.C. submitted
a notice of supplemental authority on Aug. 17, 2022, bringing to
the Court's attention an opinion filed in Madlinger v. Enhanced
Recovery Co., LLC, No. 21-cv-00154 (D.N.J. July 5, 2022). On Oct.
5, 2022, the Court held a telephone conference with the parties and
issued the Order to Show Cause to determine whether the Court has
subject matter jurisdiction in light of TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez,
___ U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021). D.E. 87.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's brief as to subject
matter jurisdiction, D.E. 88, and Defendant's response, filed
pursuant to the Court's Order to Show Cause. Judge Vazquez has
reviewed the parties' submissions and considered the motions
without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
78(b) and Local Civil Rule 78.1(b).

Judge Vazquez explains that Article III of the U.S. Constitution
limits the judicial power of federal courts to deciding "Cases" or
"Controversies." To meet the case-or-controversy requirement, a
plaintiff must show that he has standing to sue. To satisfy Article
III's standing requirements, the burden is on the plaintiff to show
"(1) it has suffered an 'injury in fact' that is (a) concrete and
particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged
action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision.

At issue is the first prong: whether the Plaintiff has asserted
that his injuries are "concrete." The Plaintiff's brief only
appears to address its Section 1692e claim, as it focuses only on
the alleged intangible injuries that stem from the debt collector's
inclusion of the collection fee.

Judge Vazquez opines that the allegations do not demonstrate that
the Plaintiff himself experienced any downstream consequence or
adverse effect since he only asserts that the letter harmed the
hypothetical "least sophisticated consumer" by leaving such
consumer "uncertain as to the amount allegedly owed, how to
properly prioritize their expenses versus their indebtedness and
uncertain as to the actual amount."

In short, the Plaintiff appears to assert consumer confusion
(although not necessarily confusion by him). And the weight of
authority in this district finds that under TransUnion, confusion
alone is not enough. Lastly, the few post-TransUnion cases cited
favorably by the Plaintiff do not sway the Court because the cases
rely on pre-TransUnion authority.

As a result, the Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden to show
that he has standing. Without standing, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction.

Therefore, for these reasons, Judge Vazquez dismisses the matter
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The
Clerk's Office is directed to close the matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yzkmvv58 from Leagle.com.


INDIANA: Carter's Bid to Amend Complaint Denied Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LARONA CARTER, NYCLETHA BYRD, LAVETTA SPARKS-WADE,
Plaintiffs v. STATE OF INDIANA; and PAIGE McNULTY, in her
individual capacity, Defendants, Cause No. 2:21-CV-256-PPS-JPK
(N.D. Ind.), Judge Joshua P. Kolar of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, denies the
Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiffs Larona Carter and Nycletha Byrd initiated the action by
filing a complaint on Aug. 20, 2021 alleging that they are African
American citizens of Indiana and registered voters in Lake County,
Indiana, and that their constitutional rights were violated when
the Lake County Board of Election and Registration (LCBER) and the
Distressed Unit Appeal Board (DUAB) authorized a public question to
be placed on the Nov. 3, 2020 ballot in Gary, Indiana, where the
Plaintiffs reside, own property, and/or are registered to vote. The
public question was whether to raise taxes to provide funding for
the Gary Community School Corp.

The initial complaint alleged that the majority of voters approved
the referendum to increase property taxes, but that the public
question was illegally placed on the ballot by Dr. Paige McNulty,
the Emergency Manager of the GCSC, appointed to that position by
the DUAB after the Indiana General Assembly designated the GCSC as
a financially distressed political subdivision.

The initial complaint named the LCBER and the DUAB as Defendants.
It sought various declarations regarding the alleged constitutional
violations, as well as an injunction against the enforcement of IC
6-1.1-20.3-9.9, an injunction removing the DUAB's decision-making
authority over the GCSC, and an injunction mandating an election to
convene a governing body for the GCSC with full authority over the
school community.

The LCBER responded to the initial complaint by filing a motion to
dismiss. The DUAB filed a separate motion to dismiss in which it
argued that it is a state entity and therefore entitled to
sovereign immunity.

The Plaintiffs responded to the motions to dismiss filed by the
LCBER and the DUAB by seeking leave to file an amended complaint.
The proposed amended complaint added some factual allegations, and
also dropped the DUAB as a defendant. In the DUAB's place, the
Plaintiffs named the State of Indiana and McNulty as defendants.
McNulty was named in her individual capacity only. The proposed
amended complaint also added a third plaintiff, LaVetta
Sparks-Wade, a parent of a student who attends the GCSC.

While the motion to amend was still pending, the Plaintiffs and the
LCBER reached an agreement pursuant to which they filed a joint
motion to allow the amended complaint to be filed, with the
additional joint request that, once the amended complaint was
filed, the Court would dismiss the LCBER from the case. The Court
granted the agreed motion, and then entered an order dismissing the
Plaintiffs' claims against the LCBER with prejudice, leaving the
two yet-to-be-served new parties -- the State of Indiana and
McNulty -- as the only defendants in the case.

The currently operative Amended Complaint includes eight counts
against the State of Indiana and two counts against McNulty, all
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section  1983. The counts against the
State of Indiana include the following: (1) Count I - denial of
equal protection and violation of right to no taxation without
representation based on the Nov. 3, 2020 public referendum; (2)
Count II - violation of the First Amendment based on the
250-signature requirement in IC 6-1.1-20.3-9.9; (3) Count  -
violation of the First Amendment based on the DUAB's refusal to
allow public comments at a board meeting held on July 9, 2020; (4)
Count VI - denial of equal protection primarily based on the
Indiana General Assembly's elimination of the GCSC's governing
body, and disparate treatment of the MCSC; (5) Count VII - denial
of equal protection primarily based on the Indiana General
Assembly's failure to repeal or end its designation of the GCSC as
a distressed school corporation, and disparate treatment of the
MCSC; (6) Count VIII - injunctive relief seeking the repeal of the
state statutes related to the designation of the GCSC as a
distressed political subdivision and elimination of the GCSC's
elected governing body; (7) Count IX - Monell claim alleging state
liability for the actions of McNulty; and (8) Count X -
indemnification claim for the actions of McNulty.

The two counts against Defendant McNulty include the following: (1)
Count III - violation of the First Amendment arising out of an
event to support the public referendum held at the West Side
Leadership Academy on Sept. 10, 2020, where McNulty did not allow
opposing views to be expressed; and (2) Count IV - violation of the
First Amendment arising out of a meeting of the GCSC Advisory Board
on Sept. 21, 2020, where McNulty stopped the meeting and denied
Plaintiff Carter the opportunity to ask questions regarding the
finances of the GCSC.

Following the Court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims against
the LCBER, the newly named defendants were served with the Amended
Complaint, and each then filed a motion to dismiss.

On June 7, 2022, the Plaintiffs once again responded to the pending
motions to dismiss by filing a motion for leave to amend the
complaint. The proposed Second Amended Complaint purports to no
longer sue the State of Indiana, and, in the State's place, names
two new defendants: Justin McAdam, in his official capacity as the
Chairman of the DUAB, and Eric Holcomb, in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of Indiana.

The Plaintiffs also seek to add class action claims on behalf of
two classes: (1) all registered voters in the Nov. 3, 2020 election
in Gary, Indiana, where the public question was placed on the
ballot; and (2) all property owners in Gary, Indiana, who are
required to pay additional property taxes due to the passage of the
referendum but are not allowed to have representation through a
governing body.

In response to the Plaintiffs' motion to file the Second Amended
Complaint, the State of Indiana and McNulty withdrew their motions
to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and filed briefs in opposition to
the Plaintiffs' motion to amend. The Plaintiffs filed separate
replies to the Defendants' oppositions, and the motion to amend is
now ripe for ruling.

McNulty argues that Counts III and IV of the proposed Second
Amended Complaint alleging personal capacity claims against her for
denial of free speech are futile because no Plaintiff claims to
have attended the meeting on Sept. 10, 2020 at issue under Count
III, while only Carter attended the meeting on Sept. 21, 2020 at
issue under Count IV.

Judge Kolar holds that the allegations in Counts III and IV of the
proposed Second Amended Complaint are identical to the allegations
in Counts III and IV of the Amended Complaint. A finding by the
Court that Counts III and IV are futile would not result in the
dismissal of the very same allegations in the Amended Complaint.
The only factual allegation in Count IV is that Carter was not
allowed to speak at the meeting is not sufficient for the Court to
plausibly infer that her First Amendment rights were violated.

The State of Indiana argues that the Plaintiffs' proposed
"amendment would be futile because it does not look like the
plaintiffs have stated a claim for which relief can be granted."

To the extent that the State is making a vague reference to
previous arguments for dismissal in its withdrawn motion to
dismiss, Judge Kolar opines that the State failed to even express
an intention to incorporate those arguments in its opposition to
the motion to amend. It is not clear why the State filed an
opposition to the motion to amend if it believed that the only way
it could attack the proposed Second Amended Complaint was by a Rule
12(e) motion rather than a motion under Rule12(b)(6).

Defendant McNulty also argues that the request to amend the
complaint to add class action allegations should be denied because
Plaintiffs could have alleged class claims in either of the last
two complaints and they do not "explain why doing so now is worth
the substantial increase in complexity, expense, and burden."

Judge Kolar finds that the class allegations in the proposed Second
Amended Complaint are alleged in such a manner that it is
impossible for the Court to assess whether the Plaintiffs can
plausibly state class claims. The request to amend the complaint to
allege class claims accordingly is denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kolar denies without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion to amend the Amended Complaint. While the
Plaintiffs are not required to file an additional motion to amend,
if they choose to do so, they will comply with the following:

      1. Any motion to amend must attach a revised proposed Second
Amended Complaint in accordance with the Local Rule governing
motions to amend.

      2. A red-lined version of the attached revised proposed
Second Amended Complaint should also be attached, which shows how
the proposed complaint differs from the currently operative Amended
Complaint.

      3. The motion to amend must explain in detail, with citations
to specific allegations, how the revised proposed Second Amended
Complaint includes claims and defendants consistent with the legal
authorities discussed in this order.

      4. The Court cautions the Plaintiffs that it may choose to
take additional factors into consideration in ruling on a future
motion to amend, such as whether the party previously had an
opportunity to amend or the burden on the Defendants and the
judicial system imposed when a party fails to correct previously
identified deficiencies in the pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s4xba68 from Leagle.com.


INSIDER INC: Court Consolidates Johnson and Roby VPPA Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York consolidated the cases, SANCHEZ JOHNSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. INSIDER INC., Defendant; and DARMEL ROBY, JENNIFER
JUENKE, JAMIE SPRITZER, and TIMOTHY STOKES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INSIDER,
INC., Defendant, Case Nos. 22 Civ. 6529 (AT), 22 Civ. 6834 (AT)
(S.D.N.Y.), for all purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 42(a).

On Sept. 6, 2022, the Court notified the parties that it intended
to consolidate the captioned actions and directed them to file any
requests to appoint interim counsel by Sept. 13, 2022, and any
opposition to consolidation by Sept. 19, 2022. On Sept. 13, 2022,
the Plaintiffs in both cases filed a motion to appoint interim
class counsel. None of the parties oppose consolidation.

Judge Torres concludes that consolidation is appropriate. She finds
that none of the parties oppose it. In fact, the parties jointly
filed a proposed order of consolidation indicating that the
Plaintiffs in both actions and the Defendant have conferred and
agree that consolidation is appropriate. In each action, the
Plaintiffs bring a putative class action against the same defendant
for alleged violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA")
arising out of the Defendant's use of a "Meta Pixel," which
disclosed the Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information and
viewing history to Meta, Inc. The actions involve common questions
of law and will likely involve some common questions of fact. Judge
Torres further finds that consolidation will avoid unnecessary
cost, delay, and repetition.

Accordingly, the captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).

On Sept. 13, 2022, the Plaintiffs in both actions filed a motion to
appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips
Grossman, PLLC, and Girard Sharp LLP as co-lead interim class
counsel, and Lowey Dannenberg P.C. as liaison counsel.

Judge Torres concludes that the Firms have identified and
investigated this VPPA litigation, demonstrating that they have and
will continue to fairly and adequately represent the proposed
class. They also have substantial experience handling complex
consumer litigation, class action litigation, data privacy actions,
and VPPA actions in federal courts across the country, including in
this district. And, the Firms are well-established and have the
resources and personnel necessary to pursue the case. Accordingly,
Bursor, Milberg, and Girard are appointed the co-lead interim class
counsel with Lowey as the liaison counsel.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs will file a consolidated complaint
within 30 days of the Order. The Defendant will respond to the
consolidated complaint within 30 days of the filing of the
consolidated complaint. The parties will file a jointly proposed
case management plan within 45 days of the Order.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at 22 Civ.
6529, ECF No. 14, and consolidate the captioned actions, with 22
Civ. 6529 as the lead case. The Clerk of Court is further directed
to amend the caption to read "In re Insider, Inc. Pixel-VPPA
Litigation."

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4ujwjt5z from Leagle.com.


LLADRO USA: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lladro USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Lladro USA, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06679
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2022).

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

Lladro USA, Inc. -- https://www.lladro.com/ -- provides porcelain
figurines and gifts. The Company offers lord shiva, horse, and
other show pieces and gift items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


MARTIN BUSCH INC: Hwang Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Martin Busch, Inc.
The case is styled as Jenny Hwang, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Martin Busch, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06680 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2022).

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

Martin Busch Jewelers -- https://www.martinbuschjewelers.com/ -- is
a jewelry store in the Financial District, NYC specializing in
custom jewelry, engagement rings, and watch restoration.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


MARYLAND: Tribue, et al. File Suit v. MSP for Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Byron Tribue, Matin Dunlap, and Analisse Diaz, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Maryland
Department of State Police, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-02732-GLS
(D. Md., Oct. 24, 2022) seeks to recover damages and civil
penalties arising from unlawful employment practices by Defendant
MSP, and to obtain injunctive relief to stop Defendant's ongoing
discrimination.

The Plaintiffs are all current or former uniformed police officers
of the Defendant who are persons of color, including Black,
Hispanic, Asian-American, South Asian and Middle Eastern officers.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has engaged in a pattern
or practice of systemic discrimination against Officers of Color,
which include maintaining centralized disciplinary policies and
procedures that disparately treat Officers of Color; maintaining
centralized policies and procedures for promotions that disparately
deny Officers of Color promotions; intentionally discriminating
against Officers of Color through disparate treatment of these
officers through disciplinary measures and denial of promotions;
and maintaining and allowing a hostile work environment.

The Defendant also employs a further policy of retaliating against
Officers of Color who complain about discrimination, including
disparate discipline as compared to Caucasian officers. The
Defendant treats Officers of Color who report discrimination less
favorably than Caucasian officers who report discrimination, the
suit alleges.

Maryland Department of State Police is the official state police
force for the State of Maryland.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michal Shinnar, Esq.
          Jay P. Holland, Esq.
          JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (301) 220-2200
          Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
          E-mail: mshinnar@jgllaw.com
                  Jholland@jgllaw.com

               - and -

          Eric Bachman, Esq.
          BACHMAN LAW
          4800 Hampden Lane, Suite 200  
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 769-1681
          Facsimile: (240) 303-8091
          E-mail: ebachman@ebachmanlaw.com

MDL 2873: AFFF Exposure Caused Cancer, Anderson Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MARK ANDERSON, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03705-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 26, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

Plaintiff Anderson is a resident and citizen of Weed, California.
He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit alleges.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

MDL 2873: Foster Sues Over Death Due to AFFF Exposure
------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Foster, and James Foster by the Proposed Administrator and
Next-of-Kin, Andrea Foster, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03706-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 26, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

Plaintiff Andrea Foster is an adult resident of the State of
Pennsylvania. She is the proposed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of James
Foster. Decedent James Foster was, at the time of death, an adult
resident and citizen of Glassport, Pennsylvania. Decedent regularly
used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to
extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter. Prior to death, Decedent was diagnosed with
pancreatic cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products. Mr. Foster's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his
death, alleges the suit.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

MDL 2873: Higgins Blames AFFF Exposure for Illness
--------------------------------------------------
JOHN HIGGINS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03709-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 26, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

Mr. Higgins is a resident and citizen of Lodi, California. The
Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF
in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit alleges.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

MDL 2873: Mendoza Files PI Suit Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------
RONALD MENDOZA, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA USS. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03711-RMG
(D.S.C., Oct. 26, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated individuals seeking damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

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

Plaintiff Mendoza is a resident and citizen of Modesto, California.
He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with
leukemia as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the
suit alleges.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

MDL 2913: Athol-Royalston Files Suit Over E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------
Athol-Royalston Regional School District, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A
PAX Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker;
Hoyoung Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client
Services LLC; Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris
USA, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06532 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 26,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Athol-Royalston Regional School District case has been consolidated
in MDL No. 2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Plaintiff Athol-Royalston is a unified school district organized
and operating pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Barnegat Township Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barnegat Township School District, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX
Labs, Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung
Huh; Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC;
Altria Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06526 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 26, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

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

Plaintiff Barnegat Township is a unified school district organized
and operating pursuant to the laws of the State of New Jersey.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2913: Westport Community Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westport Community Schools, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL Labs, Inc. F/K/A PAX Labs,
Inc.; James Monsees; Adam Bowen; Nicholas Pritzker; Hoyoung Huh;
Riaz Valani; Altria Group, Inc.; Altria Client Services LLC; Altria
Group Distribution Company; and Philip Morris USA, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-06542 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 26, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Westport Community Schools case has been consolidated in MDL No.
2913, IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC. MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

Plaintiff Westport is a unified school district organized and
operating pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MENDOZA JADDOU: Valdez Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mendoza Jaddou, et
al. The case is styled as Ricardo Guillen Valdez, on behalf of all
individuals similarly situated v. Director Ur Mendoza Jaddou,
USCIS; Director David Roark, Texas Service Center USCIS; Secretary
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS; U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Case No.
1:22-cv-23577-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 2, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Mandamus & Other for Petition for
Writ of Mandamus.

Ur Mendoza Jaddou is an American attorney who is the current
director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in
the Department of Homeland Security.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduardo Rigoberto Soto, Esq.
          EDUARDO SOTO
          999 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1040
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 446-8686
          Fax: 529-0445
          Email: grace@esotopa.com


MONMOUTH UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monmouth University
Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Monmouth University Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00827-CCR (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2022).

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

Monmouth University -- https://www.monmouth.edu/ -- is a private
university in West Long Branch, New Jersey.[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


NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Chai Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID CHAI, Plaintiff and Respondent v. NATIONAL
ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. H049322
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Sixth
District affirms the trial court's denial of the Defendant's motion
to compel arbitration.

Mr. Chai filed a class action complaint against Appellant NES
seeking statutory damages under Civil Code section 1788 et seq.,
the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. He
filed a complaint against NES in 2020, claiming that, on an unknown
date, he was alleged to have incurred a financial obligation in the
form of a consumer credit account owed to Citibank, N.A. He
admitted that he was unable to pay the debt and defaulted.

Mr. Chai contended that Citibank sold the debt to USI Solutions,
Inc. for "collection purposes." USI thereafter hired, contracted,
or otherwise engaged NES to collect the debt on USI's behalf. Chai
asserted in the complaint that NES engaged in a routine practice of
sending initial communications that failed to provide notice as
required by Civil Code section 1788.14, subdivision (d)(2), which
governs attempts to collect "time-barred" debts -- those that are
"past the date of obsolescence set forth in Section 605(a) of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1691c)."

After filing a response to the complaint, in which it alleged that
Chai's claims might be subject to an arbitration provision
contained within the agreement between Chai and Citibank, NES filed
a motion to compel arbitration. In support of the motion, NES
offered two purported "cardholder agreements" produced by Citibank
in response to a subpoena, issued in a separate action, seeking
"credit card agreements, contracts, and any other document that
outlines the terms and conditions of the account belonging to
Chai."

The two documents provided by the custodian are entitled "Card
Agreement," one with a copyright date of 2005, and the other with a
copyright date of 2011. Both include arbitration provisions.
Neither card agreement references Chai by name or account number,
and neither includes Chai's signature.

NES submitted the card agreements to the trial court as part of a
declaration from its then-attorney, along with a copy of the
complaint, NES' answer, and two case management orders. Counsel did
not include any additional documents received from Citibank. Nor
did counsel provide any substantive declaration regarding Chai's
agreement(s) with Citibank.

Chai opposed the motion to compel arbitration, arguing that NES
failed to link Chai to the "generic documents" offered with the
motion. Chai denied having seen the two card agreements before; he
claimed he had not received the documents and had not agreed to be
bound by their terms. In reply, NES argued that the card agreements
had been properly authenticated.

After considering the parties' written submissions, and hearing
oral argument, the trial court determined that the card agreements
proffered by NES were not admissible. Even if the court could
properly rely on the documents, it found there was no evidence the
agreements were ever sent to Chai, nor did NES "explain how Chai
could have consented to any agreement with which he had never been
provided." Having failed to show evidence of mutual assent, the
trial court determined NES could not show that the card agreements
were enforceable binding arbitration agreements, and thus it denied
the motion to compel arbitration.

NES timely appealed from the order.

The Court of Appeals concludes that NES failed to meet its burden
to prove the existence of an arbitration agreement between Citibank
and Chai. While the trial court found the card agreements offered
by NES in support of the motion to be inadmissible, the Court of
Appeals need not determine whether it erred in doing so. Even if
the Court of Appeals assumes without deciding that the agreements
were admissible, NES did not provide sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that Chai received the agreements or accepted their
terms. Neither of the agreements are signed by Chai, or contain any
reference to Chai, either by name or by account number.

While the custodian of records for Citibank declared that the
agreements were linked to Chai's credit card account, the custodian
did not declare how or if the agreements were provided to Chai for
his review and acceptance. NES did not provide any evidence that
the card agreements were given to Chai, or that Chai assented to
the terms of the agreements.

Similarly, the evidence offered by NES in support of the motion to
compel arbitration did not demonstrate that Chai had seen or
accepted the subject card agreements. If the court were to accept
the premise that Citibank intended the card agreements offered with
the motion to compel to govern Chai's account, there is no evidence
that Citibank communicated that intent to Chai, or that Chai
subsequently communicated his intent to be bound by the agreements
in using the credit account. While NES cites caselaw allowing the
court to infer an agreement to repay the debt from Chai's use of
the card, it does not cite legal authority that allows the court to
infer consent to the arbitration provisions of the card agreements
absent evidence Citibank provided the agreements to Chai.

In sum, NES has failed entirely to demonstrate that Citibank
provided Chai with the card agreements containing the arbitration
provisions. Absent such evidence, the trial court properly
determined that NES failed to meet its burden to prove the
existence of the agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. The
June 24, 2021 order denying NES's motion to compel arbitration is
affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to Chai.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yhtu2rt2 from Leagle.com.


NETFLIX INC: Order Granting Bid to Dismiss Ashdown Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, City of Ashdown, Arkansas, individually and on behalf
of all others, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Netflix, Inc.; Hulu, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. City of Creve Coeur; Gwinnett County,
Georgia; City of Brookhaven, Georgia; Unified Government of
Athens-Clarke, Georgia, Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s), DirecTV
LLC; DISH Network, L.L.C; Sling TV, L.L.C., Amici on Behalf of
Appellee(s), Case No. 21-3435 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit affirms the judgment of the district court
granting Netflix and Hulu's motions to dismiss.

The Arkansas Video Service Act of 2013 (VSA) establishes a
statewide franchising scheme for authorizing video service
providers to provide services in political subdivisions within the
state. Providers may either negotiate franchises with individual
political subdivisions or obtain a certificate of franchise
authority from the Secretary of State, which can cover multiple
political subdivisions. The certificate authorizes providers to use
public rights-of-way to deliver their video service and requires
the provider to pay a fee as required by each political subdivision
in which service is provided.

Netflix and Hulu were already providing online video streaming
services prior to the passage of the VSA; they have not applied for
certificates of franchise authority. The City of Ashdown, Arkansas,
filed a putative class action against Netflix and Hulu in 2020,
seeking both a declaration that they must comply with the VSA and
damages for their failure to pay the required fee. The district
court granted Netflix and Hulu's motions to dismiss, concluding,
among other things, that the VSA does not give Ashdown a right of
action to bring this suit. Ashdown appeals, arguing that the
district court misinterpreted the VSA.

The Eighth Circuit reviews the dismissal of claims de novo. It
applies Arkansas rules of statutory construction to interpret the
VSA.

As noted, the Public Service Commission has the right and duty to
bring suit to enforce the VSA. The statute limits the Commission to
mandamus and injunction proceedings, which do not allow relief in
the form of compelling payment of past-due fees by a private
corporation. Ashdown argues that this lack of a remedy undercuts
the purpose of the statute, so the Eighth Circuit should recognize
an implied right of action to allow municipalities to pursue their
own remedies. Whether the failure to recognize an implied right of
action would circumvent the statute's intent is an inversion of the
question at issue, however, which is focused on the effects of
recognizing an implied right of action.

The Eighth Circuit concludes that recognizing a right of action
would circumvent the intent of the VSA. Read as a whole, the
statute aims to establish and regulate a statewide franchising
system. The legislature stated that "this act is immediately
necessary because it ensures uniform regulation of video service
providers, assures equality of treatment of video service
providers, and encourages new video service providers to enter the
state." The VSA's clear intent to create uniformity across the
state would be undermined if individual municipalities possessed
authority to bring enforcement suits independently of the state
body charged with enforcement. Because Ashdown is not part of a
special class intended to be protected by the VSA and allowing
Ashdown to bring this suit would circumvent the intent of the
statute, the Eighth Circuit concludes that the VSA does not create
an implied right of action in municipalities to enforce the
statute.

The judgment is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yn2w2sky from Leagle.com.


PARK NATIONAL BANK: Workman Files Suit in Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Park National Bank.
The case is styled as Georgia Carol Workman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Park National Bank, Case
No. 2022 CV 01217 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, Licking Cty., Nov. 2,
2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Civil."

Park National Bank -- https://parknationalbank.com/ -- is a
Chicago-based bank owned by FBOP Corporation, with branches in
Chicago and several nearby suburbs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn K. Judge, Esq.
          Two Miranova Place, Ste. 700
          Columbus, OH 43215


PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pepperdine
University. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Pepperdine
University, Case No. 1:22-cv-00832-JLS (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2022).

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

Pepperdine University -- https://www.pepperdine.edu/ -- is a
private research university affiliated with the Churches of Christ
with its main campus in Los Angeles County, California.[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


PUMA NORTH AMERICA: Licea Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Miguel Licea, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Puma North America, Inc., Does 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2216492 was removed from the
San Bernardino County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on Nov. 2, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-01939-SSS-KK to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Puma North America Inc. -- https://us.puma.com/ -- provides apparel
goods. The Company offers wholesale distribution of men and boys
apparel and furnishings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Megan A Suehiro, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 612-2500
          Fax: (213) 612-2501
          Email: megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com


SOHOTEL ARTSPACE: Cruz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sohotel Artspace
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Miriam Cruz, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Sohotel Artspace Group, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-06685 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2022).

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

Sohotel Artspace Group, LLC is an art gallery in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


ST. BONAVENTURE UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Bonaventure
University. The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. St. Bonaventure
University, Case No. 1:22-cv-00833 (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2022).

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

St. Bonaventure University -- https://www.sbu.edu/ -- is a private
Franciscan university in St. Bonaventure, New York.[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


ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Louis University.
The case is styled as Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. St. Louis University, Case No.
1:22-cv-00834 (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2022).

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

Saint Louis University -- https://www.slu.edu/ -- is a private
Jesuit research university with campuses in St. Louis, Missouri,
United States, and Madrid, Spain.[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

STAR BRANDS: S.D. Illinois Dismisses Cox's Claims Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, INGRID COX, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAR BRANDS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-CV-141-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J.
Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismisses
Cox's claims without prejudice.

The case arises under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. Section
505/1, et seq., and Illinois common law. Cox alleges that she
purchased Flipz White Fudge Covered Pretzels produced by Star
Brands, only to discover that the pretzels are not coated in fudge
because they lack sufficient milkfat. Her lawsuit, brought as a
putative class action, raises six claims: (1) a claim under the
ICFA and similar state laws in Iowa, New Mexico, Michigan, Texas,
Arkansas, Virginia, and Oklahoma; (2) a claim under Illinois
contract law; (3) a claim for breach of warranty under Illinois law
and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2301, et
seq.; (4) a claim for negligent misrepresentation under Illinois
law; (5) a claim of fraud under Illinois law; and (6) a claim of
unjust enrichment under Illinois law.

Star Brands is the producer of Flipz White Fudge Covered Pretzels.
Its advertising for the pretzels purports that the product is
coated in "creamy white fudge." In reliance on this advertising,
Cox purchased packages of Flipz White Fudge Covered Pretzels on one
or more occasions. Cox would not have bought the Flipz White Fudge
Covered Pretzels at the price they were sold but for her belief
about the ingredients used to make the coating. She further alleges
that she entered into a contract with Star Brands for the purchase
of the product, and that her fellow class members were similarly
influenced by Star Brands' marketing of the product.

Star Brands now moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss Cox's complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It argues
principally that a reasonable consumer would not believe from the
packaging that "Flipz White Fudge Covered Pretzels" had a certain
level of milkfat. It also argues that Cox failed to sufficiently
plead a contract existed between Cox and Star Brands, that
insufficient notice was given to maintain a claim for breach of
warranty, and that Cox cannot recover for economic loss under
negligent misrepresentation. Cox filed a response in opposition and
withdrew her breach of contract claim.

Judge Rosenstengel finds that Cox has failed to plead facts
demonstrating that reasonable consumers were misled by Star Brands'
marketing. Other courts to consider similar claims have reached the
same result. While Star Brands advertised its products as being
coated in "creamy white fudge," the "traditional fudge" gloss that
Cox put on the advertising cannot support a claim under the ICFA in
the absence of affirmative representations by Star Brands. To the
extent that other state laws also follow the reasonable consumer
standard, as Star Brands suggested and Cox did not contest, Cox's
claims on behalf of the putative Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class
similarly fail.

Ms. Cox's claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability
similarly fails, Judge Rosenstengel holds. She says Cox has not
pleaded that the pretzels are "unfit for the ordinary purposes for
which such goods are used," i.e., human consumption. While Cox
claims the phrase "White Fudge Pretzels" is an affirmation of fact
made on the label, again, the use of the term "fudge" is not a
guarantee or promise that the product will be made using a specific
fudge recipe. Finally, she claims the product was not fit for its
particular purpose, which was to deliver a creamy candy coating
made with butter, sugar, and milk. The Court has already found,
however, that a reasonable consumer would not expect the candy
coating to be made exclusively of butter, sugar, and milk. Cox's
claims for breach of express and implied warranties are dismissed.

Ms. Cox's failure to state a claim under Illinois warranty law also
defeats her claim under the MMWA, Judge Rosenstengel holds.

Next, Judge Rosenstengel finds that Cox has not pleaded facts
making it plausible that consumers were misled by Star Brands'
marketing. As such, Cox has not adequately alleged that Star Brands
made a false statement of material fact. Furthermore, Cox is
pursuing purely economic damages, as she claims she would not have
paid as much or purchased the product if she had been aware of the
ingredients. While this rule has exceptions, none of them apply to
Cox's claim. Alternatively, Star Brands' marketing information was
merely ancillary to the sale of the product.

Ms. Cox's fraud claim fails because she has not plausibly alleged
that the product contained a false statement. Even if she had,
Judge Rosenstengel says Cox's conclusory statements that the
Defendant's fraudulent intent is evinced by its knowledge that the
Product was not consistent with its representations, fails to
adequately allege the required scienter.

As Cox has not adequately pled fraud or another wrong by the
Defendant, the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim also fails.

Finally, Judge Rosenstengel does not find Star Brands' labeling
practices plausibly deceptive to a reasonable consumer, so Cox has
failed to demonstrate harm. As Cox is now aware that the Flipz
White Fudge Covered Pretzels are made with ingredients other than
sugar, butter, and milk, she is not likely to be harmed by the
alleged misrepresentation in the future. Accordingly, injunctive
relief is unavailable to Cox.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Rosenstengel concludes that Cox
has not adequately pleaded the remainder of her claims. She grants
the Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismisses Cox's claims
without prejudice. Cox is granted leave to amend her complaint by
Dec. 8, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4kab6pxj from Leagle.com.


VERMONT BREAD: Protective Order Bid in Chaney Suit Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Matthew Chaney, Nadine Miller and Arthur Gustafson, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Vermont Bread Company, Superior Bakery, Inc., Koffee Kup Bakery,
Inc., Koffee Kup Distribution LLC, KK Bakery Investment Company
LLC, KK Bakery Holding Acquisition Company, and American Industrial
Acquisition Corporation, Defendants, and Linda Joy Sullivan, in her
capacity as the Dissolution Receiver for Koffee Kup Bakery, Inc.,
Vermont Bread Company, Inc. and Superior Bakery, Inc.,
Intervenor-Defendant-Crossclaimant, v. KK Bakery Investment
Company, LLC, KK Bakery Holding Acquisition Company, and American
Industrial Acquisition Corporation, Crossclaim Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-120 (D. Vt.), Judge William K. Sessions, III, of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Vermont:

   a. grants in part and denies in part the motion for protective
      order filed by American Industrial Acquisition Corp. and KK
      Bakery Investment Co. LLC; and

   b. denies their related emergency motion to stay.

Movants AIAC and KKBIC move the Court for a protective order with
respect to their Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. The Plaintiffs have
proposed 62 deposition topics. The Movants contend the topics are
not sufficiently tailored for either temporal or substantive
relevance, are not stated with reasonable particularity, and seek
testimony that is protected by the attorney-client privilege. As
the parties have failed to reach agreement on those objections, the
Movants seek a protective order from the Court.

The class action alleges violations of the WARN Act in connection
with the closure of a group of bakery facilities. Relevant to the
upcoming Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, the core facts include: the
acquisition of shares of Kup Co. by KKBIC; operations of the Koffee
Kup entities between November 2020 and April 2021; closure of the
bakeries in April 2021; and efforts to find a buyer after the April
2021 closure and prior to the sale to Flowers Food in August 2021.
The deposition topics proposed by Plaintiffs include questions
about those events, as well as inquiries into the relationships
between AIAC, KKBIC, and related entities as the Plaintiffs seek to
support their "single employer" theory.

The Movants object, at least in part, to over half of the 62
deposition topics proposed by the Plaintiffs. They first object to
questions about events that pre-date the acquisition of Kup Co.
shares, arguing that events prior to that date are not relevant.
They also object to questioning about the present-day relationships
between Kup Co., the Koffee Kup entities, AIAC, and KKBIC,
asserting that those current relationships are not relevant to the
2021 closures and alleged WARN Act violations.

The Movants next submit that the proposed inquiries into AIAC's
affiliates, and the business dealings of those affiliates, are
overly broad. The Plaintiffs' counsel has argued that such matters
are relevant to show the nature of operational and financial
control regularly maintained by AIAC over its affiliates, as well
as the assets that are available to AIAC and the authorization of
certain persons to act as AIAC's agents. The Movants' counsel noted
in a letter to opposing counsel that AIAC has been affiliated with
hundreds of companies worldwide, and that questions about its
business dealings must therefore be narrowed in scope.

The Movants also object to certain topics as lacking reasonable
particularity. For example, the first two topics propose general
questions about discovery responses and documents that have been
produced without identifying any specific responses or documents.
Other objections overlap with the Movants' prior claims regarding
either temporal or substantive relevance. Finally, they object to
certain topics as seeking access to privileged information.

The Movants filed their motion, together with an emergency motion
to stay the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, eight days before the
depositions are scheduled to start. In compliance with the Court's
request, the Plaintiffs submitted an immediate response. They note,
among other things, that the Notices of Deposition were served in
July 2022, and that the Movants waited until essentially the eve of
the depositions to file their motions. The Plaintiffs claim
prejudice from the compressed response timeline. They also allege
"stonwewalling and prior inadequate discovery responses."

First, Judge Sessions holds that the Movants' argument with respect
to temporal relevance has merit. Accordingly, while he declines to
strike individual topics, he says any such questions must be
limited to events (communications, payments, etc.) that took place
no more than two years prior to the alleged WARN Act violations. As
to topics that post-date the closures and alleged legal violations,
the Movants acknowledge that certain events, such as recent
communications about the closure of the Koffee Kup entities, may be
relevant. Accordingly, rather than impose an additional temporal
restriction, Judge Sessions addresses the Movants' post-sale date
objections on the basis of substantive relevance and the required
reasonable particularity.

Next, the Movants ask the Court to limit all questioning strictly
to matters relating to the Koffee Kup entities. But, Judge Sessions
allows questions that go beyond the Koffee Kup transactions. The
breadth of such questioning, however, must be tailored to
ultimately support Plaintiffs' "single employer" claim as it
pertains to the case.

Judge Sessions also finds that on their face, several of the
Plaintiffs' proposed topics lack the required particularity. He
allows questioning with respect to AIAC discovery responses and all
documents produced by AIAC and/or KKBIC and the Plaintiffs'
discovery requests generally. The Plaintiffs are faced with
late-filed motions to delay or prevent questioning of a Rule
30(b)(6) witness after their prior efforts at discovery reportedly
resulted in minimal production. While their listed topics are in
many cases overly-broad, the overarching issue is one of scope. As
set forth above, a reasonable temporal limitation is warranted.
Also, the deposing party must tailor all questioning to the primary
theories in the case.

In addition, the Plaintiffs' broad questions about corporate
relationships and individual communications appear to be aimed at
(1) identifying all parties bearing responsibility for the alleged
WARN Act violations and (2) garnering support for the "single
employer" theory. So long as the deposing party's questions are
limited in scope to such matters, and to any other theories or
factual development relevant to the claims or defenses asserted in
the case, Judge Session says the overbreadth of individual proposed
deposition topics will be of no consequence. The Rule 30(b)(6)
deponent should be prepared to answer only such questioning, and
need not come to the deposition equipped with knowledge beyond that
which is relevant to the facts, allegations, and legal theories
presented by the parties.

The Movants' final objection is to topics that seek privileged
information. Judge Sessions holds that attorney-client privilege
may be asserted by counsel on a question-by-question basis at the
time of the deposition, and need not be addressed by the Court in a
protective order.

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Sessions grants the motion for
protective order to the extent that questioning must be limited to
a certain time period and must be tailored to address only issues
that are relevant to the case. He otherwise denies the motion. The
related emergency motion to stay is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3rb8fcuk from Leagle.com.


WASHINGTON STATE: Summary Dismissal of Elgiadi Class Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SALEH ELGIADI, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Appellant v. WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
SPOKANE, an agency of the State of Washington and THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON, Respondents, Case No. 38784-4-III (Wash. App.), the
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three, affirms the trial
court's summary judgment rulings.

Settling parties in employment discrimination cases sometimes
include a no-rehire provision in their settlement agreements. In
the provision, the former employee agrees not to seek or accept
employment from the former employer. The question presented in the
case is whether a former employee who settles a claim of unlawful
discrimination may effectively waive their contingent right to be
rehired.

Mr. Elgiadi worked for Washington State University (WSU) for 29
years. During this time, he worked in information technology,
eventually becoming the chief information technology officer for
WSU-Spokane's information technologies systems (ITS) department.
Following a wage dispute, WSU terminated his employment.

Mr. Elgiadi brought suit against WSU and the State of Washington
(collectively the State) alleging breach of contract, promissory
estoppel, wrongful termination in violation of public policy,
negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation,
intentional interference with a business expectancy, retaliation,
and age discrimination. His request for relief included lost wages,
benefits, back wages, front pay, double damages, prejudgment
interest, and attorney fees; he did not ask to be reinstated. His
claim for age discrimination was dismissed on summary judgment.

In early 2020, Mr. Elgiadi and the State entered into a settlement
agreement. The agreement required Mr. Elgiadi to release the State
from all claims arising out of his former employment. In exchange,
the State agreed to pay him $295,000.

The agreement contained the following provision, which provides
only one limitation on Mr. Elgiadi's future employment: "3. As a
condition of this settlement, State of Washington requires that
Plaintiff agree he will neither seek nor accept employment with
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY-SPOKANE, at any time in the future. The
parties agree this required limitation applies only to employment
with WSU-Spokane and that it does not prevent Plaintiff for [sic]
working for an independent contractor providing services,
consulting, acting as a vendor or other contractors providing
materials, supplies or services to WSU-Spokane."

Seven months later, Mr. Elgiadi brought suit against the State. His
suit sought class action status for all former State employees
whose discrimination claim settlements included a no-rehire
provision.

Pertinent to the issues on appeal, Mr. Elgiadi's complaint asserts
that the above-italicized provision -- referred to hereafter as the
"no-rehire provision" -- violates the public policy behind the
Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter 49.60 RCW,
violates WLAD's antiretaliation statute (RCW 49.60.210), and is an
unlawful restraint of trade (RCW 49.62.020). The State denied that
the provision violated those laws and affirmatively asserted
defenses—including the defenses of waiver, accord and
satisfaction, equitable estoppel, and judicial estoppel.

Prior to seeking class certification, Mr. Elgiadi filed a motion
for partial summary judgment requesting the trial court declares
the no-rehire provision void and unenforceable. The State filed a
cross motion for summary judgment, requesting dismissal of Mr.
Elgiadi's claims. The trial court denied the former and granted the
latter. Mr. Elgiadi timely appealed the trial court's rulings.

Before addressing Mr. Elgiadi's arguments, the Court of Appeals
discusses what his remedy would be if he succeeds in having the
no-rehire provision declared void and unenforceable. It holds that
the objective manifestations of the parties establish that
settlement was dependent upon the no-hire provision.

Mr. Elgiadi, with the benefit of counsel, signed the agreement. In
return, the State paid him $295,000. Because the State's assent for
paying Mr. Elgiadi $295,000 was dependent on him accepting the
no-rehire provision, the provision is not severable. The Court of
Appeals concludes, if Mr. Elgiadi succeeds in invalidating the
no-rehire provision, he will be required to return the $295,000 to
the State, and the claims in the initial action will then be
reinstated.

The Court of Appeals now turns to whether the no-rehire provision
violates public policy. Mr. Elgiadi raises three arguments.
However, the first two -- the no-rehire provision violates both
WLAD's public policy and WLAD's antiretaliation statute -- are
substantially the same argument. They both rely upon WLAD's
antiretaliation statute as construed by Zhu v. North Central
Educational Service District-ESD 171, 189 Wn.2d 607, 404 P.3d 504
(2017).

The Court of Appeals opines that public policy does not require
invalidating the no-rehire provision and rescinding the settlement
agreement. Mr. Elgiadi in his initial lawsuit did not seek to be
rehired. Because the no-rehire provision is narrow, Zhu does not
require us to invalidate it.

In addition, the no-rehire provision does not violate RCW
49.62.020. Mr. Elgiadi was not an employee or independent
contractor when he agreed to the no-rehire provision. He was a
former employee. Thus, the provision is not a noncompetition
covenant, and RCW 49.62.020 is not implicated.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's
summary dismissal of Mr. Elgiadi's claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bddku2fy from Leagle.com.

Kevin W. Roberts -- kevin@robertsfreebourn.com -- Roberts |
Freebourn, PLLC, 1325 W 1st Ave Ste 303, Spokane, WA, 99201-4600,
Chad Harrison Freebourn -- chad@robertsfreebourn.com -- Roberts |
Freeborn, PLLC, 1325 W 1st Ave., Suite 303, Spokane, WA,
99201-4600, Counsel for the Appellant(s).

Carl Perry Warring, Evans, Craven & Lackie, P.S., 818 W Riverside
Ave., Suite 250, Spokane, WA, 99201-0910, Office of the Attorney
General of Washington, 1116 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA, 99201,
Counsel for the Respondent(s).


ZIONS BANCORP: $14MM Class Settlement in Evans Suit Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALD C. EVANS, JOAN M. EVANS, DENNIS TREADAWAY, and
all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZIONS BANCORPORATION,
N.A., dba California Bank and Trust, Defendant, ZIONS
BANCORPORATION, N.A., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. JTS, LARRY CARTER,
JACK SWEIGART AND BRISTOL INSURANCE, Third-Party Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01123 WBS DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants
the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of the parties'
class action settlement and attorneys' fees, costs, and a class
representative service payment.

The Plaintiffs brought the putative class action against Defendant
Zions, d/b/a California Bank and Trust ("CB&T"), asserting claims
based on CB&T's alleged acquiescence in and provision of support
for a fraud scheme perpetrated by one of its clients against
putative class members.

The parties participated in an arms-length mediation before two
experienced litigation mediators: retired Judge Richard L. Gilbert
and retired Judge Ronald Sabraw from JAMS. On March 25, 2022, Judge
Sabraw recommended that the Bank pay the class $14 million to
settle approximately $55 million in unrepaid loans. On April 1,
2022, the parties were informed by the Judge that both sides had
accepted the mediator's proposal. On June 17, 2022, the parties
drafted and executed a long-form settlement agreement.

As part of the settlement, the parties agreed that the Plaintiffs'
counsel would seek attorney's fees totaling 30% of the net amount
remaining from the $14 million payment after the reduction of the
following: (1) litigation expenses not to exceed $200,000; (2)
settlement administration expenses not to exceed $150,000; (3) a
combined $15,000 enhancement award for the Evans Plaintiffs ($5,000
each). As such, the requested attorney's fees will amount to
$4,105,905. The remaining $9,580,445 will be available to be
distributed to members of the settlement class, which is
approximately 17% of each class member's respective net loss.

The parties selected The Beverly Group, Inc. ("TBG") to serve as
the Settlement Administrator.

On Aug. 1, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Plaintiffs
now move unopposed for final approval of the parties' class action
settlement and attorneys' fees, costs, and a class representative
service payment.

The Court held a hearing on Nov. 7, 2022. No class members appeared
at the hearing to object to or to opt out of the settlement.

Judge Shubb finds that (i) the class definition proposed by the
Plaintiffs meets the requirements of both Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3);
(ii) the notice complies with Rule 23(c)(2)(B)'s requirements;
(iii) the parties' settlement appear fair, adequate, and
reasonable; and (iv) the requested fees, costs, and Representative
Service Award are reasonable.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Shubb grants the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for final approval of the parties' class action
settlement and attorneys' fees, costs, and a class representative
service payment.

Solely for the purpose of this settlement, and pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, he certifies the following class:

            "All Net Losers, including assignees, but excluding Net
Losers who have already released the Bank from IMG-related claims,
and also excluding any governmental entities, any judge, justice or
judicial officer presiding over this matter, and the members of his
or her immediate family, the Bank, along with its corporate
parents, subsidiaries and/or affiliates, successors, and attorneys
of any excluded Person or entity referenced above, and any Person
acting on behalf of any excluded Person or entity referenced
above.

            Net Loser means any Settlement Class Member who
suffered a Net Loss from lending to or investing money in IMG's
medical supply-related business(es).

            Net Loss means the total amount transferred by a
Settlement Class Member to IMG minus the total amount received back
from IMG, including, but not limited to any return on investment,
return of principal, fees, and other payments by IMG to the
Settlement Class Member. For purposes of this settlement, for each
Participating Class Member, the Net Loss will be the amount of the
allowed claim as reflected in the Claims Approval Order, provided
that such allowed claim only includes monies provided to IMG for
the purpose of lending to or investing money in IMG's medical
supply-related business(es)."

Judge Shubb appoints (i) the named Plaintiffs as the class
representative and (ii) Robert L. Brace and Michael P. Denver as
the class counsel.

The Settlement Agreement's plan for class notice and the class
notice are approved and adopted.

As of the date of the entry of the Order, the Plaintiffs and all
the class members who have not timely opted out of this settlement
herby do and will be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever
released, settled, compromised, relinquished, and discharged
defendants of and from any and all settled claims, pursuant to the
release provisions stated in the parties' settlement agreement.

The Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to fees in the amount of
$4,105,905, and litigation costs of $153,650.

The Beverly Group, Inc. is entitled to administration costs in the
amount up to $150,000.

Plaintiffs Ronald Evans and Joan Evans are entitled to an incentive
award in the amount of $5,000.

The remaining settlement funds will be paid to participating class
members in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Shubb dismisses the action with prejudice. However, without
affecting the finality of the Order, the court will retain
continuing jurisdiction over the interpretation, implementation,
and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement with respect to all
parties to this action and their counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 8, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/6963z6mj from Leagle.com.



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***