---

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

              Monday, November 28, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 231

                            Headlines

980 COLUMBUS FOOD: Rueda Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
AERSALE INC: Fails to Pay Aircraft Mechanics' OT, Cruz Suit Claims
AGA SERVICE: Tasakos Suit Stayed With Leave to Reopen to Litigate
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Gonzalez Inmates Suit
ALLAKOS INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Kim Class Action

AMAZON.COM INC: Has Until Dec. 16 to Move to Dismiss Service Suit
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: $4.8M in Fees & Costs Awarded in Martinek Suit
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Final Judgment Entered in Martinek Class Suit
APPLE INC: Tracks Users' App Activity Data Without Permission
AT&T MOBILITY: $14M Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval

ATLAS CORP: Halper Investigates Potential Securities Violations
AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Pre-Motion to Dismiss Letter Filed in Gru Suit
B.P. EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment Bid; Zayzay Suit Dismissed
BBQVC FOOD: Houston Seeks Servers' Unpaid Minimum Wages
BED BATH: Cohen Milstein Won't Get to Lead Securities Class Action

BIG LOTS: Faces Class Action Over SoundBody's Lidocaine Patches
BLUE CROSS: Refuses to Cover Transgenders' Health Insurance
BLUE CROSS: Transgender Discrimination Class Action Certified
BOEING CO: Appeals Court Tosses 737 MAX 8 Class Action Suit
BRAEMAR HOTELS: Discovery Continuing in Workers Suit in Cal Sup. Ct

CALIFORNIA: Court Grants Craig's Bid to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
CANADA: Courts Lift Stays of Proceedings in Securities Class Suit
CARTHAGE OPCO: Jaco Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation
CBS CORP: $3.7MM in Attys.' Fees Awarded in Laborers Pension Suit
CBS CORP: Final Judgment Issued in Laborers Pension Trust Suit

CEDAR REALTY TRUST: Krasner Suit Removed to N.D. New York
CERIDA INVESTMENTS: Saunders Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
COAST DENTAL SERVICES: Sejpal Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
CONFLUENCE HEALTH: Class Suit Over Wrongful Termination Dismissed
COOK COUNTY, IL: Seventh Circuit Reverses Ruling in ADA Class Suit

CORE SCIENTIFIC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 19
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Yamido Suit Removed to N.D. California
CRICKET WIRELESS: Order Compelling Bodie to Arbitration Affirmed
CUSTOM WOOD: Hunsaker Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Termination
DANONE NORTH: Cappalli Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice

DECISION GAMES: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DHALIWAL LABS: Hit With Privacy Class Action Suit in Illinois
DIGNITY COLLECT: Patterson Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
DJULA USA LLC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DOLGEN MIDWEST: Husar Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio

EAGLE FAMILY: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Popcorn Indiana Products
EASY PICKINS: Caba et al. File Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Lifshitz Law Announces Securities Class Action
ENERGY TRANSFER: Securities Suit Moved From New York to N.D. Texas
EVEREVE INC: Approval of Settlement in Shanley FLSA Suit Denied

FINANCIAL EDUCATION: Cofer Sues Over Breach of Agency Agreement
FIRST STUDENT: Stewart Wins Bid to Transfer Class Suit to N.D. Ohio
FIRSTENERGY: PFP Partly Compelled to Show Docs in Securities Suit
FTX TRADING: Celebrities Among Defendants in Fraud Class Action
FTX TRADING: Crypto Policies Explored Following Ponzi Scheme Suit

FTX TRADING: Golden State Warriors Among Defendants in Class Action
FUJIFILM HOLDINGS: Sued Over Defective X-Pro3 Ribbon Connectors
FUND FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK: Jones Sues Over Sexual Harassment
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS: Fadel Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
GAIA INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Business Info

GEICO CASUALTY: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Day Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Action Suit Alleges Toxic Workplace for Women
HABIB RESTAURANT: Traylor Sues Over Illegal Retention of Tips
HONDA CANADA: Court Approves Settlement in Defective Vehicles' Suit
HONDA OF MANHATTAN: Court Certifies Two Classes in TCPA Lawsuit

HOWARD COUNTY, MD: District Court Tosses Kim v. Board of Education
INTERJET SA: Ordered to Pay $7.2 Million in Breach Class Action
ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Status Conference for Suit Set for Dec. 7
JBS USA: Faces Wage Price-Fixing Class Action in Colorado
JOHNSON COUNTY, IN: Court Denies Boling's Bid to Certify Class

KHAYLIE HAZEL: Court Directs Martin to File Supplemental Brief
KRISPY KREME: Settles Overtime Lawsuit for $1.2 Million
L'OREAL USA: Faces Class Action Over Dark & Lovely Hair Relaxers
LABETTE HEALTH: Lane Suit Removed to D. Kansas
LIGHTRICKS US INC: Boyd Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois

LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Suit Over Arrestees' Illegal Bail Policy
MANITOBA: Adult, Youth Inmates Affected by Class Action Lawsuit
MASSACHUSETTS NATURAL: Burt Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
MASSACHUSETTS: NCLA Files Class Action v. DPH Over COVID Spyware
MAYFIELD CONSUMER: Workers Sue Over Unfair Labor Practices

MDL 2924: Dismissal of CTPPCC in Zantac Liability Suit Reversed
MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Faces $1-Bil. Compensation Bill Over Cyberattack
MEDINA COUNTY, OH: Judgment on Pleadings in Gault Suit Reversed
MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Class Action in Australia Over Cheat Devices
MONROE OPERATIONS: Chung Suit Removed to C.D. California

MORRIS COUNTY GOLF: Yanez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA: RV Suit Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 15, 2023
MYPATIENTCALENDAR INC: Katz Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
NATERA INC: Lifshitz Law Announces Shareholder Class Action
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses Horti's 3rd Amended Complaint

NVIDIA CORP: Faces Suit in New York Over Melting Graphics Card
OAK BEND MEDICAL: Awazi Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
OAK BEND MEDICAL: Somer Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
OAK STREET: Awaits Dismissal Bid Ruling in Allison Suit
OCEAN SPRAY: Faces Desmarais Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay OT

OHIOHEALTH CORP: Underpays Licensed Practical Nurses, Hine Claims
OKTA INC: Lifshitz Law Announces Shareholder Class Action Suit
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Seeks Suit Lead Counsel Role
PANASONIC CORP: Final Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement Upheld
PATRIOT HOME: Williams Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.

PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Green Wins Conditional Class Certification
PILOT CORPORATION: Burns Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
POLITBURO OF THE CHINESE: Zhao Appeals Rulings in Conspiracy Suit
PREMIER VALLEY: Order Sustaining Demurrer to Whitlach Suit Affirmed
PSP GROUP: Adams Sues Over Surreptitious Interception in Website

PTT EXPLORATION: Concludes Out of Court Oil Spill Settlement
RAISING CANE'S USA: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Bajjuri Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
REALPAGE INC: Bohn Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Housing Prices
RECON OILFIELD: McDaniel & Klees Suits Combined for Deal Approval

REX DIRECT: Faces Reimer Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
RUNWAY INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 13, 2023
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Simon Suit Removed to N.D. California
SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION: Colton Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
SEED LEAF: Fasih Suit Removed to S.D. California

SEZZLE INC: Court Refuses to Remand Sliwa Suit to State Court
SHASHI INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SLEEP NUMBER: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Registration Info
SOCIETY INSURANCE: Bid to Stay Discovery in Solly Class Suit Denied
SPERL INC: Court OK's Neubauer's Class Action Settlement Notice

TERRAFORM LABS: Court Refuses to Move Albright Suit to California
TOM'S OF MAINE: Faces Class Action Over All-Natural Toothpaste
TORRID HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 17
TOUCH OF CLASS: Campbell Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Indiana
TOYOTA MOTOR: Judgment Entered in Martin Suit After Deal Approval

UNILEVER UNITED: Hit With Class Action Over Benzene in Dry Shampoos
UNILEVER: Barnette Sues Over High Levels of Carcinogenic Chemical
UNITED STATES: Bradley Sues Over Privacy Act Violations
UNITED STATES: ICDC Lawsuit Over Gynecological Procedures Pending
UNITED STATES: Settlement in Suit v. Education Dep't Okayed

UNITI GROUP: Final Order and Judgment Issued in Securities Suit
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL: Three Title IX Suits Ongoing, Two Nixed
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH: Tuition Fee Suit Goes to Fla. Supreme Court
VANDERLANDE INDUSTRIES: Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California
VILLAGE PARTY STORE: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: $80M Class Suit Settlement Gets Court's Final OK
VROOM INC: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in Vehicle Deficiency Suits
WALMART STORES: Lara Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising
WALT DISNEY: Sued Over Inflated YouTube TV Subscription Prices
WASHINGTON: Court of Appeals Reverses Benson's DUI Conviction

[*] Healthcare Provider Faces FCRA Suit Over Background Checks

                            *********

980 COLUMBUS FOOD: Rueda Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Balbuena Rueda, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. 980 COLUMBUS FOOD CORP. (D/B/A RANCH DELI),
RANCH DELI (D/B/A RANCH DELI), ANWAR ALOKAM, and ADAL MOSAD SALEH
A/K/A ALI SALEH, Case No. 1:22-cv-09587 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 9, 2022),
is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y.
Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to
pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a
timely basis. In this regard, the Defendants have failed to provide
timely wages to the Plaintiff. The Defendants maintained a policy
and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work
in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage
and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a deli man,
sandwich maker, and cook at the deli.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located in New York
city under the name "Ranch Deli."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AERSALE INC: Fails to Pay Aircraft Mechanics' OT, Cruz Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILL CRUZ, for himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
AERSALE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00857 (D. New Mexico,
November 10, 2022) brings this complaint as a class and collective
action against the Defendant for its alleged illegal policy in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid aircraft
mechanic in September 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant did not pay him overtime
compensation at the legally mandated overtime rate despite knowing
that he regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. Instead, he
was only paid straight time pay for his overtime hours. The
Plaintiff also claims that the same straight time for overtime
payment scheme to all the class members seeks to represent.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover, for himself and for all others
similarly situated employees, all unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and all other relief to which they may show
themselves to be justly entitled.

AerSale performs maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) services
on aircraft and their components. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 877-8788
          Fax: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

                - and –

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Tel: (713) 352-1100
          Fax: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com

AGA SERVICE: Tasakos Suit Stayed With Leave to Reopen to Litigate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, stays the case, ANDREW
TASAKOS, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY (d/b/a ALLIANZ
GLOBAL ASSISTANCE JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00433-RSM (W.D. Wash.).

The matter came before the Court on the parties' stipulated motion
to stay the action pending final approval of a proposed class
action settlement in another case. Judge Martinez has considered
the motion and the record.

The action is stayed, with leave to (a) reopen to litigate, if the
proposed settlement is not perfected, is terminated, or is not
approved in the earlier filed action pending in the Northern
District of California (Elgindy v. AGA Service Co. et al.,
4:20-cv-06304-JST); or (b) dismiss the action, if the proposed
settlement is finally approved.

The parties will file joint reports on the status of the settlement
every 90 days, until this action is dismissed or reopened.

Judge Martinez strikes the Defendants' pending Motion to Dismiss
and removes from the Court's Calendar with leave to refile if
necessary.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3ym6rbym from Leagle.com.


ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Gonzalez Inmates Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part
the Defendants' motions to dismiss the lawsuit titled DANIEL
GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07423-JSC (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs, current and former inmates from Santa Rita Jail,
bring this Section 1983 putative class action alleging violations
of their constitutional rights. They allege conditions of
confinement claims against Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's
Office, as well as four individual deputies, (collectively, the
"County"); Wellpath Management, Inc., and Aramark Correctional
Services LLC. The County and Aramark have separately filed motions
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint, and Wellpath
joined the County's motion to dismiss.

On April 6, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to file a
fifth amended complaint to substitute new named plaintiffs for
those previously named plaintiffs, who were no longer detained at
Santa Rita Jail. The Plaintiffs were not granted leave to amend
their complaint in any other manner.

At that hearing, the Plaintiffs represented that they were only
pursuing three categories of claims for injunctive relief: (1)
inadequate and contaminated food (as to Aramark and the County);
(2) inadequate medical care (as to Wellpath and the County); and
(3) inadequate sanitation (as to the County). The Plaintiffs
subsequently filed their Fifth Amended Complaint, which substitutes
new named plaintiffs, names additional defendants, and pleads
claims beyond the three referenced claims.

Aramark's motion to dismiss is two-fold. First, it maintains that
neither the newly added Plaintiffs (Eric Wayne, James Mallett,
Rasheed Tucker, Darryl Geyer, Timothy Phillips, Donald Corsetti,
and Tiara Arnold), nor the previously named Plaintiffs Lockhart and
Harris, have Article III standing to pursue food claims. Second,
Aramark contends that the Plaintiffs have not adequately pled a
Monell claim or the elements of a conditions of confinement claim.

Aramark contends that the newly-added Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs
Lockhart and Harris lack standing because they have not alleged an
injury in fact as to the food claims against Aramark. Indeed, the
Fifth Amended Complaint does not include any allegations about the
food served to these Plaintiffs. However, the Fifth Amended
Complaint includes allegations regarding the food served to
Plaintiffs David Misch, Daniel Gonzalez, Lawrence Gerrans, Tikisha
Upshaw, and Eric Rivera and Aramark does not dispute that these
individuals have standing to pursue their food claims against
Aramark.

The Fifth Amended Complaint also includes allegations regarding
unsanitary, contaminated, and inedible food generally, including
that food in the kitchen is kept in such a manner that provide the
birds, rats and mice easy access and rats climb over the bread and
chew open packages, used food trays are stacked in the kitchen in a
way that continually attracts mice and rats, prisoners have
repeatedly notified sheriff deputies of rodent and vermin droppings
and of bird excrement in their food, as well as the presence boiled
mice and other foreign objects in their food, and detainees are
routinely served spoiled, overcooked food.

Because all detainees are fed from this same kitchen, Judge Corley
finds these allegations plausibly support an inference that all
detainees face a risk of serious injury based on the food
conditions at the Jail. Judge Corley holds this is sufficient to
establish Article III standing.

Next, Aramark argues that the Plaintiffs have not alleged an
Aramark policy or widespread custom or practice sufficient to
establish Monell liability and have not adequately alleged either
prong of a conditions of confinement claim.

The Court has repeatedly rejected Aramark's argument that the
Plaintiffs' allegations fail to establish a basis for Monell
liability. As previously held, the Plaintiffs have adequately
alleged a practice of serving prisoners inadequate food and food
that is inedible due to contamination and spoiling.

To the extent that Aramark's motion is based on the Plaintiffs'
allegations regarding the adequacy of their diet, the Plaintiffs
have repeatedly disavowed that this is a basis for their conditions
of confinement claim. And the Plaintiffs were not granted leave to
amend their complaint to add a new theory of liability. The
Plaintiffs' food claims are based on the theory that detainees
receive constitutionally inadequate food because it is
contaminated, spoiled, and otherwise inedible.

Accordingly, Aramark's motion to dismiss is denied.

The County's motion to dismiss the claims against the newly added
Defendants Deputy Lenahan and Classification Sergeant MacBride is
granted. The Plaintiffs did not seek, and the Court did not grant
them, leave to add additional defendants; the Court only granted
leave to file a fifth amended complaint for the injunctive relief
claims that substituted new plaintiffs for plaintiffs no longer
incarcerated at the Jail.

Likewise, to the extent that the Plaintiffs replead their
class-wide First Amendment claim, Judge Corley notes this claim was
previously dismissed without leave to amend and, thus, is
dismissed. The Plaintiffs concede that the Court previously
dismissed without leave to amend the individual claims against
Deputies Joe and Ignot based on inadequate medical care and should
be dismissed.

The County also moves to dismiss the claims of the new Named
Plaintiffs for failure to state a claim. The motion is denied
except as to Plaintiff Arnold. Drawing all inferences in the
Plaintiffs' favor, Judge Corley finds Plaintiffs Wayne, Mallett,
Tucker, Geyer, and Phillips have adequately alleged claims based on
inadequate medical care and/or unsanitary conditions.

Judge Corley states that these allegations are not tethered to the
Plaintiffs' theory of liability; that is, that detainees are
provided inadequate medical care because of the Jail's financial
incentive policy. Plaintiff Arnold does not allege either that the
pillow, extra mattress, or shoes are medically necessary, or that
she was denied these items by Wellpath to reduce costs. To the
extent that Plaintiff Arnold's allegations seek to revive the
dismissed class wide First Amendment claim, as previously noted,
this dismissal was without leave to amend. And to the extent Arnold
seeks to make a new claim, the Court has not granted the Plaintiff
leave to do so. Accordingly, the County's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff Arnold's claims is granted.

Wellpath filed an untimely joinder in the County's motion to
dismiss. Wellpath filed its joinder--three days after the
deadline--on Sept. 22, 2022, and did not seek leave for its
untimely filing. The Court will, thus, not consider Wellpath's
untimely submission.

For the reasons stated, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is
granted in part and denied in part. The following claims survive:

   (1) Inadequate and Unsanitary Food Claims as the County and
       Aramark (claims 1 and 2);

   (2) Inadequate Medical Care as to the County and Wellpath
       (claims 3 and 4);

   (3) Inadequate Sanitation as to the County, as well as
       Plaintiff Gerrans' individual claim against Deputies Joe
       and Ignot (claims 5 and 6);

   (4) Plaintiff Gerrans' First Amendment claim as to the County
       (claim 7).

The claims against Deputy Lenahan and Classification Sergeant
MacBride are dismissed, as are the inadequate medical care claims
against Deputy Joe and Deputy Ignot. Plaintiff Tiara Arnold's
claims are also dismissed. The Defendants' answer was due Nov. 21,
2022.

The Court sets a case management conference for Dec. 1, 2022, at
1:30 p.m., via Zoom video to discuss a class certification briefing
schedule. On Nov. 21, 2022, the Plaintiffs were to provide the
Defendants with a statement indicating which named Plaintiff(s)
they intends to offer as a class representative for each of the
remaining class claims set forth. The parties will then meet and
confer, and file a joint, or separate if they are unable to agree,
proposals for the class certification briefing schedule.

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 196, 204, and 205.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2asbwxbx from Leagle.com.


ALLAKOS INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Kim Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allakos Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that its motion to dismiss
a second amended complaint in the case captioned Kim v. Allakos et
al., No. 20-cv-01720 (N.D. Cal.) remains pending.

On March 10, 2020, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Kim v. Allakos et al., No. 20-cv-01720 (N.D. Cal.) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr.
Robert Alexander, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Leo
Redmond.

The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and seeks damages based on alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions concerning its Phase 2 clinical
trials of lirentelimab.

The proposed class period is August 5, 2019, through December 17,
2019, inclusive.

On August 28, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding as defendants Adam Tomasi, the Company's President and Chief
Operating Officer, and Henrik Rasmussen, the Company's former Chief
Medical Officer.

On March 31, 2022, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss, with leave to amend.  

On April 29, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
which extended the proposed class period from December 17, 2019 to
December 21, 2021 and added additional claims related to the
Company's Phase 3 ENIGMA clinical trial.

On June 13, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.

Given the early stage of this litigation matter, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate a potential future loss or a range of potential
future losses, if any.

Allakos Inc. is a clinical stage biotechnology company developing
lirentelimab (AK002), formerly known as antolimab, the company's
wholly-owned monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of various
mast
cell and eosinophil related diseases. The company is based in
Redwood City, California.

AMAZON.COM INC: Has Until Dec. 16 to Move to Dismiss Service Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AMAZON SERVICE LITIGATION, Case No.
2:22-cv-00743-TL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Tana Lin of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, extends the
time for Amazon to file a motion to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the briefing schedule with
respect to that motion.

On Sept. 27, 2022, the Court entered an Order Consolidating Cases,
Denying Motion to Dismiss or Stay, and Appointing Interim Class
Counsel. In that Order, it directed the interim class counsel to
file a consolidated amended complaint by Oct. 27, 2022.

On Oct. 25, 2022, Dena Griffith filed her Amended Complaint against
Amazon.

Through their respective counsel, the parties have stipulated to --
and now jointly and respectfully request that the Court approves --
an extension of time for Amazon to file a motion to dismiss the
Complaint and the following briefing schedule with respect to that
motion:

     a. the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss - Dec. 16, 2022;

     b. the Plaintiff's Opposition - Jan. 16, 2023; and

     c. the Defendant's Reply - Feb. 3, 2023.

Pursuant to the parties stipulation, Judge Lin so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/munt6nc8 from Leagle.com.

FENWICK & WEST LLP, Brian D. Buckley -- bbuckley@fenwick.com -- Y.
Monica Chan -- mchan@fenwick.com -- Jedediah Wakefield --
jwakefield@fenwick.com -- (admitted pro hac vice) San Francisco,
CA, Attorneys for Defendant AMAZON.COM, INC.

BORDE LAW PLLC, Manish Borde -- mborde@bordelaw.com -- Seattle, WA,
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Adam J. Berger -- berger@sgb-law.com
-- Seattle, WA, LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, Ronald A. Marron
-- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- (admitted pro hac vice) Michael T.
Houchin -- mike@consumersadvocates.com -- (admitted pro hac vice)
Lilach Halperin -- lilach@consumersadvocates.com -- (admitted pro
hac vice) San Diego, CA, Interim Class Counsel.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: $4.8M in Fees & Costs Awarded in Martinek Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAN MARTINEK, Plaintiff v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., BARRY D. ZYSKIND, GEORGE KARFUNKEL, AND LEAH KARFUNKEL,
Defendants, Case No. 19 Civ. 8030 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine
Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York grants the Lead Counsel's requests for an order awarding
attorneys' fees and expenses and service award to the Lead
Plaintiff.

The action has been pending in the Court. At the Settlement Hearing
on Nov. 16, 2022, the Court considered the Lead Plaintiff's Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Approval of Plan
of Allocation. It also considered the Lead Counsel's Requests for
an Order awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of 33.33% of the
$13 million Settlement Fund, or $4,332,900, and reimbursement of
Litigation expenses in the amount $460,000, and the Lead Plaintiff
a Service Award of $15,000, plus interest earned on such amounts at
the same rate as the Settlement Fund.

In a separate Final Judgment, the Court has made rulings and
entered Judgment with respect to the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Approval of Plan of
Allocation.

Judge Failla's present Order resolves the Lead Counsel's Requests.
Having considered all matters submitted at the Settlement Hearing
and otherwise, she grants the Lead Counsel's Requests.

The Lead Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of 33.33%
of the $13 million Settlement Amount, or $4,332,900, and also
$460,000 in payment of the Lead Counsel's litigation expenses
(which fees and expenses will be paid from the Settlement Fund),
plus interest earned on both amounts at the same rate as the
Settlement Fund, which sums the Court find to be fair and
reasonable.

The Lead Plaintiff is awarded a Plaintiff Service Award of $15,000,
which will be paid from the Settlement Fund, with interest earned
on the amount to be at the same rate as the Settlement Fund.

Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Court's approval of the
Lead Counsel's Requests will in no way disturb or affect the
finality of the Final Judgment.

Exclusive jurisdiction is retained over the parties and the Class
Members for all matters relating to the Action, including the
administration, interpretation, effectuation or enforcement of the
Stipulation and the Order.

In the event that the Settlement is terminated or the Effective
Date of the Settlement otherwise fails to occur, the Order will be
rendered null and void to the extent provided by the Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3n94nu3v from Leagle.com.

WOLF POPPER LLP Carl L. Stine -- cstine@wolfpopper.com -- Patricia
I. Avery -- pavery@wolfpopper.com -- Adam J. Blander --
ablander@wolfpopper.com -- Radha Raghavan --
rraghavan@wolfpopper.com -- New York, New York, Attorneys for Class
Representative Jan Martinek and the Class


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Final Judgment Entered in Martinek Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York enters final judgment in the case,
JAN MARTINEK, Plaintiff v. AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., BARRY
D. ZYSKIND, GEORGE KARFUNKEL, AND LEAH KARFUNKEL, Defendants, Case
No. 19 Civ. 8030 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.).

On Feb. 3, 2022, the Court granted the Motion for Class
Certification filed by Lead Plaintiff and Class Representative
Martinek, in this securities action, appointing him as the Class
Representative and the Lead Counsel (Wolf Popper LLP) as the Class
Counsel, and certifying the Action as a class action, and
certifying a class defined as: "All persons who purchased Series A
preferred stock of AmTrust Financial Services, Inc., or AmTrust's
Depositary Shares Representing 1/40th of a share of either
AmTrust's Series B, C, D, E or F preferred stock on the open market
on a U.S. stock exchange from Jan. 22, 2018, to Jan. 18, 2019,
inclusive excluding present and former executive officers of
AmTrust and any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of AmTrust, Barry
D. Zyskind, George Karfunkel, and Leah Karfunkel and their
immediate family members (collectively, the 'Excluded Persons') and
the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any
such Excluded Person."

The Lead Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of the Class,
and the Defendants have entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated June 22, 2022, that provides for a cash payment of
$13 million to the Class as consideration for a complete dismissal
with prejudice of the claims asserted against the Defendants in the
Action, and on the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation, subject to the approval of the Court.

By Order dated July 21, 2022, the Court: (a) found, pursuant to
Rule 23(e)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that it
would likely be able to approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable,
and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2) (b) ordered that notice of the
proposed Settlement be provided to potential Certified Class
Members; (c) provided Certified Class Members with the opportunity
either to exclude themselves from the Class or to object to the
proposed Settlement; and (d) scheduled a hearing regarding final
approval of the Settlement.

Due and adequate notice has been given to the Certified Class.

Judge Failla conducted the Settlement Hearing on Nov. 16, 2022.
Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, she fully and finally approves the
Settlement set forth in the Stipulation in all respects. The
Parties are directed to implement, perform, and consummate the
Settlement in accordance with the terms and provisions contained in
the Stipulation.

The Action and all of the claims asserted against the Defendants in
the Action by the Lead Plaintiff and the other Class Members are
dismissed with prejudice. The Parties will bear their own costs and
expenses, except as otherwise expressly provided in the
Stipulation.

The Releases set forth in the Stipulation are effective as of the
Effective Date.

Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, the
Court retains continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over: (a) the
Parties for purposes of the administration, interpretation,
implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement; (b) the
disposition of the Settlement Fund; (c) Lead Counsel's Requests;
(d) any motion to approve the Plan of Allocation; (e) any motion to
approve the Class Distribution Order; and (f) the Class Members for
all matters relating to the Action.

Separate orders will be entered regarding the Lead Counsel's
Requests. Such orders will in no way affect or delay the finality
of this Judgment and will not affect or delay the Effective Date of
the Settlement.

Without further approval from the Court, the Lead Plaintiff and the
Defendants are authorized to agree to and adopt such amendments or
modifications of the Stipulation or any exhibits attached thereto
to effectuate the Settlement that: (a) are not materially
inconsistent with this Judgment; and (b) do not materially limit
the rights of Class Members in connection with the Settlement.
Without further order of the Court, they may agree to reasonable
extensions of time to carry out any provisions of the Settlement.

There is no just reason to delay the entry of this Judgment as a
final judgment in the Action. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court
is expressly directed to immediately enter this final judgment in
the Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Final Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5jvyj8vb from Leagle.com.


APPLE INC: Tracks Users' App Activity Data Without Permission
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter at classaction.org reports that a proposed class
action alleges Apple records consumers' app activity even after
they have disabled tracking tools in their iPhone or iPad privacy
settings.

According to the 20-page suit, Apple makes the "utterly false"
promise that consumers can control when the company collects their
data as they use Apple-owned apps, including the App Store, Apple
Music, Apple TV, Books and Stocks, by turning off "Allow Apps to
Request to Track" and "Share [Device] Analytics" in their device
settings. Instead, the filing claims, Apple records, tracks,
collects and monetizes users' browsing histories and activity
information, regardless of any privacy safeguards consumers
employ.

The case accuses Apple of violating the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, which prohibits the unauthorized recoding of
confidential communications.

The suit argues that consumers have a reasonable expectation of
privacy based on Apple's purported settings options, as well as
promises in its advertising and privacy policy that its
"advertising platform is designed to protect your information and
give you control over how we use your information." Moreover, the
filing contends that Apple's "lofty pronouncements about its
concern for user privacy" have furthered this privacy-first
impression, referencing a 40-foot billboard advertisement that
touted the slogan "Privacy. That's iPhone" in locations around the
world for months.

In truth, Apple's data privacy guarantees are completely
"illusory," the case alleges.

"Apple's practices infringe upon consumers' privacy; intentionally
deceive consumers; give Apple and its employees power to learn
intimate details about individuals' lives, interests, and app
usage; and make Apple a potential target for 'one-stop shopping' by
any government, private, or criminal actor who wants to undermine
individuals' privacy, security, or freedom. Through its pervasive
and unlawful data tracking and collection business, Apple knows
even the most intimate and potentially embarrassing aspects of the
user's app usage—regardless of whether the user accepts Apple's
illusory offer to keep such activities private."

Per the complaint, researchers at the software company Mysk found
that whether analytic controls are switched on or off, Apple's data
collection process remains the same. The suit claims that Apple can
identify certain actions users take in one of its apps in
particular:

"For example, the App Store harvests information about every action
users take while using the app in real time, including what users
tapped on, which apps users search for, what ads users see, and how
long users looked at a given app and how users found it. The App
Store app sends details to Apple about users and their devices as
well, including ID numbers, what kind of phone they are using,
their screen resolution, their keyboard languages, how they're
connected to the internet—notably, the kind of information
commonly used for device fingerprinting."

The filing asserts that popular web browsers like Google Chrome and
Microsoft Edge do not collect the above-mentioned data when
analytics settings are turned off, as Apple's alleged tracking
scheme is not a standard industry practice.

The case argues that Apple, the largest technology company in the
world with a net worth of over $2 trillion, has enjoyed "enormous
financial success" as it uses this tracked data to enhance its
targeted advertising algorithms.

The lawsuit looks to present anyone who turned off "Allow Apps to
Request to Track," "Share iPhone Analytics," "Share iPhone & Watch
Analytics," and/or "Share iPad Analytics," and whose mobile app
activity was still tracked by Apple on an iPhone mobile device [GN]

AT&T MOBILITY: $14M Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that AT&T Mobility
LLC's $14 million settlement to resolve customer claims over an
alleged "bait-and-switch scheme" has won the US District Court for
the Northern District of California's final approval.

The lawsuit, filed in 2019, alleged that the wireless service
provider would lure customers by advertising flat monthly rates for
wireless plans, only to "covertly" add monthly administrative fees
once customers signed up.

The settlement, finally approved on Nov. 8, releases all related
claims, including alleged violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.

The settlement class comprises all California consumers with an
AT&T post-paid. [GN]

ATLAS CORP: Halper Investigates Potential Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halper Sadeh LLC, an investor rights law firm, is investigating the
following companies for potential violations of the federal
securities laws and/or breaches of fiduciary duties to shareholders
relating to:

Atlas Corp. (NYSE: ATCO)'s sale to Poseidon Acquisition Corp. for
$15.50 per share in cash. If you are an Atlas shareholder, click
here to learn more about your rights and options.

IAA, Inc. (NYSE: IAA)'s sale to Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers
Incorporated for $10.00 per share in cash and 0.5804 shares of
Ritchie Bros. common stock for each share of IAA common stock. If
you are an IAA shareholder, click here to learn more about your
rights and options.

Oyster Point Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: OYST)'s sale to Viatris Inc. for
$11.00 per share in cash plus a contingent value right for a
potential cash payment of up to $2.00 per share. If you are an
Oyster Point shareholder, click here to learn more about your
rights and options.

Shareholders are encouraged to contact the firm free of charge to
discuss their legal rights and options. Please call Daniel Sadeh or
Zachary Halper at (212) 763-0060 or email sadeh@halpersadeh.com or
zhalper@halpersadeh.com.

Halper Sadeh LLC represents investors all over the world who have
fallen victim to securities fraud and corporate misconduct. Our
attorneys have been instrumental in implementing corporate reforms
and recovering millions of dollars on behalf of defrauded
investors.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact Information:

Halper Sadeh LLC
Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
Zachary Halper, Esq.
(212) 763-0060
sadeh@halpersadeh.com
zhalper@halpersadeh.com [GN]

AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Pre-Motion to Dismiss Letter Filed in Gru Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that
defendants in the case captioned Gru v. Axsome Therapeutics, Inc.,
et. al. filed a pre-motion to dismiss letter with the Court on
November 4, 2022.

On May 13, 2022, Evy Gru filed a putative class action complaint
captioned Gru v. Axsome Therapeutics, Inc., et. al., in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and one
director (the "Securities Class Action").

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false statements and omissions concerning the
Company's Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls practices, and its
New Drug Application with the FDA, with respect to one of its
product candidates, AXS-07.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, fees, interest, and costs.  

On August 11, 2022, the Court appointed lead Plaintiffs in the Gru
action.  

On October 7, 2022, the Gru plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.


On November 4, 2022, Defendants filed a pre-motion to dismiss
letter with the Court.  

Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company. The
Company is developing novel therapies for central nervous system
(CNS) disorders for which there are limited treatment options.

B.P. EXPLORATION: Wins Summary Judgment Bid; Zayzay Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FREDDIE BAWOO ZAYZAY v. B.P. EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL. SECTION "R" (1), Civil Action No. 17-4637 (E.D. La.),
Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana:

   a. grants the motion for summary judgment filed by BP
      Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Co.,
      and BP p.l.c.; and

   b. dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic
chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico. He alleges that while participating in response efforts, he
was subjected to continuous exposure to crude oil and dispersants
in and around beaches of Bay St Louis, Waveland and decon site in
Pascagoula, Mississippi. He asserts that this exposure has resulted
in a number of conditions including: rashes, skin lesions, boils,
abdominal cramps and pain, eye irritation, cough, shortness of
breath, fatigue, headache, hypertension, dizziness, and joint
pain.

Zayzay's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation
("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. His case was severed
from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs who either
opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. Zayzay is a plaintiff
who opted out of the settlement.

After the Plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to this
Court. On July 28, 2021, the Court issued a scheduling order that
established, among other deadlines, that the Plaintiff's expert
disclosures had to be "obtained and delivered" to defense counsel
by no later than July 8, 2022.

The Defendants now move for summary judgment, arguing that, because
the Plaintiff has not identified any expert testimony, he is unable
to carry his burden on causation. The Plaintiff has not filed an
opposition to the Defendants' motion.

Judge Vance explains that to prevail in a toxic tort case, a
plaintiff must show both general causation and specific causation.
Expert testimony is required to establish general causation. Courts
have also required expert testimony as to specific causation when
the symptoms are not within the common knowledge of laypersons and
not classified as transient or temporary.

In the instant case, the Plaintiff has not pointed to any
admissible expert opinions on either general or specific causation,
nor has he offered any other type of admissible causation evidence
as to any of his medical conditions. Because the Plaintiff is
unable to sustain his burden on causation, Judge Vance grants
summary judgment. The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/25yvaymt from Leagle.com.


BBQVC FOOD: Houston Seeks Servers' Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, ARTISHA HOUSTON, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BBQVC FOOD GROUP LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02780-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn., November 10, 2022)
challenges the Defendant's alleged unlawful pay policies and
practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked as a server at the Defendant's Cordova,
Tennessee location with the last three years.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant of taking advantage of the tip
credit by paying her and other similarly situated servers less than
the minimum wage per hour although they were required to spend a
substantial amount of time performing non-tip producing side work.
Specifically, throughout their employment with the Defendant, the
Defendant compensated them at the tipped minimum wage rate (or a
lower amount) rather than at the full hourly minimum wage rate as
required by the FLSA.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated servers, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to recover
unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages equal in amount to the
unpaid wages owed within the three years of the violation, as well
as pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees,
costs, and disbursements, and other relief as the Court deems just
and proper.

BBQVC Food Group LLC owns and operates restaurants in several
states under the trade name Corky's BBQ. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert C. Bigelow, Esq.
          BIGELOW LEGAL PLLC
          4235 Hillsboro Pike, Ste. 301
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Tel: (615) 829-8986
          E-mail: rbigelow@bigelowlegal.com

BED BATH: Cohen Milstein Won't Get to Lead Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that a shareholder
class action accusing billionaire investor Ryan Cohen of
orchestrating a pump-and-dump scheme to salvage his big stake in
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc is a vivid example of the vagaries of the
lead plaintiff process in securities fraud litigation.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, as I'll explain, essentially rescued
the case, which was initiated by an immigration lawyer who was
representing himself as a Bed Bath & Beyond investor. A week ago,
the shareholder firm filed a 100-page amended complaint that
reflected untold hours of research on Bed Bath and Ryan Cohen, the
co-founder of pet products retailer Chewy Inc and a guiding light
for so-called meme stock traders.

But when lead plaintiff motions rolled in to U.S. District Judge
Trevor McFadden of Washington, D.C., Cohen Milstein had no client
in the running. At best, the firm will get to serve as liaison
counsel if McFadden names a Belgian investment firm, Bratya SPRL,
to head the case. Lead counsel for Bratya, which claims to have
lost more than $4.3 million from its investment in Bed Bath &
Beyond, are Pomerantz and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman. (Jeremy
Lieberman of Pomerantz declined to comment.)

Cohen Milstein name partner Steven Toll was philosophical about
being shut out of leadership after filing a 100-page complaint. "A
number of investors reached out to us," he said. "But you never
know who is reaching out to other law firms."

Once it became clear that none of Cohen Milstein's prospective lead
plaintiff candidates could match Bratya's losses, Toll said, the
firm opted against filing a motion to head the case.

None of the defendants has yet entered an appearance in the class
action. Bed Bath & Beyond did not respond to an email query about
the claims. A spokesperson for Ryan Cohen's RC Ventures LLC sent an
email statement: "RC Ventures believes this is a meritless lawsuit
built on unsubstantiated claims. We will seek the dismissal of the
plaintiff's suit."

The original 24-page complaint against Bed Bath, RC Ventures, Ryan
Cohen and other defendants was filed in August by Pengcheng Si, a
lawyer and Virginia resident who said he had lost more than
$106,000 from his Bed Bath investment. (The initial complaint also
named Bed Bath & Beyond CFO Gustavo Arnal, although the filing
misidentified him as Arnal Gustavo. Gustavo died in an apparent
suicide on Sept. 6. His estate is not a defendant in the amended
complaint.)

Si said in an email that he is "evaluating the situation and ...
considering our options." He did not immediately respond to a
follow-up query about Cohen Milstein's overhaul of the original
complaint or about his background. Based on the phone number he
listed on the Bed Bath complaint, he appears to be a Chinese native
practicing immigration law at a Washington, D.C., firm called DWS
Law Group.

Si's original complaint acknowledged that he is not "seasoned and
sophisticated in class and securities litigation." He said in that
filing that he planned to bring in more experienced shareholder
lawyers. He did not publish a notice of his shareholder suit after
he filed it, as is required by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act, but other shareholder firms, including Pomerantz, began
advertising the suit and inviting shareholders to contact them.

Soon after filing his complaint, Si contacted Cohen Milstein. The
firm was interested, but, according to Toll, quickly realized that
it could not sign on to Si's original complaint. "We were not
comfortable with the allegations," Toll said. "We thought it should
be fortified and the class period should be shortened."

A redlined version of Cohen Milstein's amended complaint shows that
the firm basically started from scratch, ditching nearly every word
of Si's filing, including his assertion of collusion between Ryan
Cohen and Bed Bath CFO Arnal.

The amended complaint's theory is that over five days in August
2022, Ryan Cohen leveraged the hero-worship of an army of meme
stock traders to drive up Bed Bath's share price so that he could
dump his 10% stake in a failing company. He ended up making about
$60 million when he cashed out, according to Reuters. But the
company's share price tanked when he sold, allegedly costing other
Bed Bath investors hundreds of millions of dollars.

The amended complaint, I should note, does not allege that Ryan
Cohen specifically lied to investors to induce them to buy Bed Bath
shares during the class period. It instead asserts that his public
filings failed to disclose his plans to sell off his stake and that
during the class period, he put out an enigmatic tweet he knew his
loyal followers would interpret as an encouragement to raise their
holdings.

Cohen Milstein issued shareholder alerts after it appeared in the
case as Si's counsel, inviting Bed Bath investors to contact the
firm. Loads of other plaintiffs firm put out similar alerts, as is
typical in shareholder class action.

Pomerantz and Bronstein Gewirtz emerged from the scramble with the
candidate that claims the largest losses and is therefore the
presumptive lead. The only competing lead plaintiff motion was
filed by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer for an individual investor who
alleges a loss of about $300,000.

Those are the breaks in shareholder class action litigation. One
day, you're filing a 100-page complaint that reflects untold hours
of work. A week later, you're hoping to be appointed liaison
counsel. It's a tough business. [GN]

BIG LOTS: Faces Class Action Over SoundBody's Lidocaine Patches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that discount
retailer Big Lots faces a proposed class action that claims the
efficacy of its SoundBody-brand regular and menthol adhesive
lidocaine patches is falsely advertised.

According to the 13-page lawsuit, the claim that SoundBody's
lidocaine patches can provide "long lasting" and "maximum strength"
pain relief is deceptive because the patches systematically peel
off the skin within three to four hours, or even within minutes,
after being applied. Moreover, the promise that the menthol patches
deliver "Targeted Immediate Pain Relief" by "Desensitiz[ing]
Aggravated Nerves" is misleading to consumers because the
statements imply that they provides treatment beyond the
capabilities of a non-FDA-approved, over-the-counter product, the
suit contends.

Although the labels of both products direct consumers not to "use
more than 2 patches in 24 hours unless, directed by a doctor,"
which seemingly insinuates that the patches can adhere for 12
hours, the lidocaine patches regularly fail to stick to the body
after being applied, the case alleges.

"Moreover, the implication the Products will adhere for twelve
hours is inconsistent with the 'Uses' disclosed on the Drug Facts
which indicates they can only 'Temporarily relieve[s] minor pain,'
which consumers will understand as for a short time, not twelve
hours," the filing contends.

The complaint relays that the products' alleged defect is
consistent with a 2018 report from the FDA Adverse Events Reporting
System, which found that approximately 70 percent of concerns
stemming from lidocaine patches involve their poor adhesion.
Similarly, a 2021 study in the Journal of Pain Research discovered
that "approximately half of lidocaine patches promising adhesion
for eight hours failed to completely adhere to the participant's
skin for the entire time," the complaint states.

Despite the existence of lidocaine patch technology that can
maintain adhesion for at least eight hours under regular conditions
like walking, stretching and sleeping, SoundBody's product uses the
same outdated and defective adhesion technology as the lidocaine
patches tested in the 2021 study, the case claims.

The suit contends that because the patches fail to adhere to the
skin for 12 hours, SoundBody's product cannot deliver the "maximum
strength" amount of lidocaine as advertised. This representation
gives consumers the false impression that SoundBody regular and
menthol patches are "superior or equivalent in efficacy and
results" to other over-the-counter and prescription-strength
lidocaine patches that properly adhere to the skin, the complaint
contends.

"According to the FDA, when a patch delivering lidocaine becomes
'partially detached,' its efficacy of delivery and absorption of
the active ingredient is greatly reduced," the suit reads. "Since
'[a]dequate adhesion is a critical quality attribute for topical
delivery systems,' if the patches lift or detach during wear such
as walking, sleeping or exercising, dosing will be compromised."

Finally, the case asserts that the menthol patch's promise to
deliver "Targeted Immediate Pain Relief" by "Desensitiz[ing]
Aggravated Nerves" is misleading given that consumers will falsely
assume the patch is fit to perform medical treatments associated
with prescribed, FDA-approved products, even though SoundBody
menthol patches possess neither qualifications. The statement also
wrongly implies that the patch can "completely block and numbs
nerves and pain receptors, eliminate responses to painful stimuli,
and . . . treat neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain, including
back and spinal pain," the filing argues.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in New York, Idaho, North
Carolina, Nebraska, Kansas, Mississippi, Utah, Oklahoma, Wyoming,
Tennessee, South Dakota, Virginia, Louisiana and West Virginia who
purchased SoundBody regular and menthol adhesive lidocaine patches
during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]

BLUE CROSS: Refuses to Cover Transgenders' Health Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a lawsuit
accusing Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois of violating an
anti-discrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act by
refusing to cover a transgender teenager's gender-affirming care
through an employer plan it administers can go forward as a class
action, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Robert Bryan in Tacoma, Washington found on
Nov. 9 that Patricia and Nolle Pritchard and their son, identified
as C.P., could represent a class of transgender beneficiaries of
health plans administered by the insurer.

The judge rejected Blue Cross' argument that differences between
different plans and patients' circumstances prevented them from
being part of a single lawsuit, saying Blue Cross' conduct was
common to all potential class members. The order means that, if the
Pritchards win a court order against Blue Cross, it would apply to
the entire class.

"We're gratified by the court's decision," said Omar Gonzalez-Pagan
of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a lawyer for the
Pritchards.

A lawyer for Blue Cross did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.

According to the November 2020 lawsuit, Patricia Pritchard and her
family, who live in Bremerton, Washington, are covered through a
health insurance plan funded by her employer, health system
Catholic Health Initiatives, and administered by Blue Cross. The
lawsuit alleges that Blue Cross declined to cover a hormone therapy
implant and chest reconstruction surgery for C.P., who was 15 when
the lawsuit was filed, citing a blanket exclusion for services
related to gender transition in the plan.

The family alleged that violated Section 1557 of the Affordable
Care Act, former Democratic President Barack Obama's signature
healthcare law, which prohibits discrimination based on sex for
companies that receive federal funding.

Religious employers can assert an exemption from Section 1557
requirements, but Blue Cross is not a religious organization.
Gonzalez-Pagan said that it has an independent obligation to follow
Section 1557 even if it is administering a self-funded plan.

The Pritchards sought to represent a class of other people covered
by self-funded plans administered by the insurer with similar
exclusions for gender-affirming care. They said there were 378 such
plans and that the class could include as many as 1,740 members.

Blue Cross opposed class certification, saying that differences in
the particular language of the plans that it administered meant
that such claims could not be treated as a class. It said that it
had only actually denied coverage based on provisions in about 200
of the plans.

Bryan, however, said that all potential class members would be
challenging the insurers' "standard conduct" of denying claims
based on similar exclusions, despite some individual differences.

"Class members' individual medical services are not relevant to
this portion of their requested relief. The harm alleged -- Blue
Cross's alleged discriminatory conduct in the processing of their
claims -- is common to all the class members," he wrote.

The case is Pritchard v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, U.S.
District Court for the District of Washington, No. 3:20-cv-06145.

For plaintiff: Jennifer Pizer and Omar Gonzalez-Pagan of the Lambda
Legal Defense and Education Fund; and Eleanor Hamburger and Daniel
Gross of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger

For Blue Cross: Gwendolyn Payton of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
[GN]

BLUE CROSS: Transgender Discrimination Class Action Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Turner English, Esq., and Pascal Naples, Esq., of ArentFox
Schiff LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that
earlier this month, the US District Court for the Western District
of Washington certified a class of individuals who were denied
gender-affirming care by a third-party administrator, Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Illinois (BCBSIL). The class members are asserting
claims under the anti-discrimination provision of the Affordable
Care Act (ACA), 42 USC Section 18116.

The ACA's anti-discrimination provision prohibits the denial of the
benefits of, or discrimination under, a health plan governed by
ERISA, in a way that would violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In
2019, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in Bostock v.
Clayton County, that individuals who are transgender are entitled
to protection under the Civil Rights Act. As a result, the ACA
effectively prohibits discrimination against individuals who are
transgender in the administration of ERISA health plans.

In this case, the plaintiffs are comprised of a class of
individuals who meet two criteria. First, the class members have
been, are, or will be participants in an ERISA self-funded health
plan, which is both administered by BCBSIL and contains a
categorical exclusion for gender-affirming care. Second, the class
members were, are, or will be denied preauthorization or coverage
for excluded gender-affirming care because of BCBSIL's
administration of the exclusion.

After addressing some of BCBSIL's definitional objections to the
scope of the class, the Court turned to whether the class satisfied
Rule 23(a)'s prerequisites for class certification: numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Of these
prerequisites, the Court focused its discussion on commonality and
typicality.

Commonality generally requires that the class members have a common
claim. BCBSIL's claimed that the class lacked commonality for a
variety of reasons, none of which persuaded the Court. BCBSIL's
first objection was that variations in plan language defeated
commonality. But the Court pointed out that BCBSIL's own witness
testified that it administered the gender-affirming care exclusions
consistently. BCBSIL's next objection was that some employers also
offered plans without gender-affirming care exclusions. Here, the
Court noted that anti-discrimination law "does not permit
defendants to get a ‘free pass' on discrimination" merely because
the class members "could have obtained coverage elsewhere." BSBSIL
then argued that some of the plans had not actually denied the
claims at issue. But this, the Court explained, would be resolved
by limiting the class (consistent with the criterion above) to
those actually denied preauthorization or coverage. BCBSIL also
claimed that class treatment would require an individualized
assessment of each class member's medical treatment. On the
contrary, the Court observed, the harm at issue was the "alleged
discriminatory conduct in the processing of their claims," which
was "common to all the class members." Finally, BCBSIL asserted
that the plans had different possible defenses, pointing out that
some of the plans may have defenses under the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (RFRA). Initially, the Court noted its skepticism
as to the application of RFRA; but in any event, the Court held,
any defenses could "be raised if and when they are ripe for
decision" without impacting "commonality for class purposes."

With respect to typicality, the Court reached the same result.
Typicality means that the class representative's claim is typical
of the class members, e.g., has the same or similar injury, is
based on the same or similar conduct. BCBSIL again argued that
variation in the plan language and potential defenses defeated
typicality. Like with commonality, the Court rejected this
argument, emphasizing that the class representative suffered the
same harm (denial of coverage) from the same conduct (BCBSIL's
administration of the exclusion) as the other class members.

After ruling that the four prerequisites for certification had been
met, the Court held that the case justified class treatment under
Rule 23(b). The Court noted that multiple suits risked inconsistent
results and incompatible standards of conduct for BCBSIL, this suit
would be dispositive of the interests of other similarly situated
members who were not parties, and the class members generally
sought declaratory and injunctive relief against BCBSIL's practice
of exclusion (which would not require individualized inquiries).
Accordingly, the Court granted the motion for class certification.

Although this is a noteworthy result for the class, the case is far
from over. Initially, BCBSIL could try to appeal the Court's ruling
under Rule 23(f) -- although the Ninth Circuit would need to
exercise its discretion to hear the appeal. Alternatively, BCBSIL's
motion for summary judgment remains pending. Given the nature of
the issues in the case, all those in the managed care space
(including providers, plans, and administrators) would do well to
pay attention, as the result could very well signal ramifications
for cases arising in a variety of other contexts. [GN]

BOEING CO: Appeals Court Tosses 737 MAX 8 Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. appeals
court on Nov. 21 threw out class-action lawsuits accusing Boeing Co
and Southwest Airlines Co (LUV.N) of covering up a fatal flaw in
the design of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 plane, and ordered that the
litigation be dismissed.

In a 3-0 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
Orleans said four classes of passengers who claimed they were
overcharged on nearly 200 million Southwest and American Airlines
(AAL.O) tickets over 18 months could not prove they were harmed,
depriving federal courts of jurisdiction.

Brian Dunne, whose law firm represented the plaintiffs, declined to
comment. Boeing and Southwest did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

The 737 MAX was grounded worldwide after 346 people died in the
October 2018 crash of Lion Air Flight 610 in Indonesia and March
2019 crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in Ethiopia.

Passengers accused Southwest, Boeing's launch customer for the MAX
8, of pressuring Boeing into deceiving Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) officials during the testing and certification
process, ostensibly to lower pilot training costs.

They also alleged that the companies misled the FAA about a Boeing
aircraft stability system that took control of both planes and
improperly pushed their noses down.

Passengers said they overpaid for tickets on Southwest and
American, which also flew the MAX 8, because demand and prices on
the plane's routes would have fallen if the truth had been known.

Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham, however, said the plaintiffs at most
complained of a "past risk of physical injury to which they were
allegedly exposed because of defendants' fraud," and lacked
standing because that risk never materialized.

He also said "if anything, plaintiffs are likely better off
financially" because they would have to pay more on other flights
had the MAX 8 been taken out of service sooner.

In January 2021, Boeing agreed to pay $2.5 billion to resolve a
U.S. Department of Justice criminal probe into the 737 MAX
crashes.

The case is Earl et al v Boeing Co et al, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, No. 21-40720. [GN]

BRAEMAR HOTELS: Discovery Continuing in Workers Suit in Cal Sup. Ct
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that a
class action lawsuit filed against one of the Company's hotel
management companies in the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Contra Costa is the subject of
continuing discovery.

On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one
of the Company's hotel management companies in the Superior Court
of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa
alleging violations of certain California employment laws, which
class action affects two hotels owned by subsidiaries of the
Company.

The court has entered an order granting class certification with
respect to: (1) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of our
manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of
our manager's previous written policy requiring its employees to
stay on premises during rest breaks; and (2) a derivative class of
non-exempt former employees of our manager who were not paid for
allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment. Notices to
potential class members were sent out on February 2, 2021.

Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of the
class; however, the total number of employees in the class has not
been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing
discovery.

While the Company believes it is reasonably possible that the
Company may incur a loss associated with this litigation, because
there remains uncertainty under California law with respect to a
significant legal issue, discovery relating to class members
continues, and the trial judge retains discretion to award lower
penalties than set forth in the applicable California employment
laws, the Company does not believe any potential loss to the
Company is reasonably estimable at this time.

As of September 30, 2022, no amounts have been accrued.

Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. operates as a real estate investment
company. The Company acquires and invests in luxury hotels and
resorts. Braemar Hotels & Resorts serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Dallas, Texas.

CALIFORNIA: Court Grants Craig's Bid to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California grants the Plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis in the lawsuit entitled NORMAN JOHN
CRAIG, Plaintiff v. VERNON R. PIERSON, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-0708 DB P (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff, a detainee at Napa State Hospital, proceeds without
counsel and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. This matter
was referred to Judge Barnes by Local Rule 302. The Plaintiff's
complaint filed on April 25, 2022 is before the court for
screening. Judge Barnes holds that the complaint's allegations fail
to state a claim. Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an
amended complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. His declaration
makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a). The motion
is granted.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee
of a governmental entity. The Court must dismiss a complaint or
portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
"frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief.

The complaint's allegations address competency proceedings under
California Penal Code Section 1370 and the resulting conditions of
confinement for mentally incompetent defendants at state hospitals.
The Plaintiff alleges state prosecutors routinely classify
vulnerable criminal defendants, such as those who cannot afford
bail or private counsel, and those who receive public assistance,
into a category qualifying them for suspension of due process and
bail. The Plaintiff alleges psychiatrists at state mental hospitals
maliciously prescribe psychotropic drug prescriptions as a form of
extra-judicial punishment.

The Plaintiff alleges hospital staff improperly form opinions and
make treatment decisions based on discovery documents, such as
police reports, which contain unproven criminal allegations and
arrest histories without the context of the outcome of those prior
arrests. The Plaintiff alleges the treatment of mentally
incompetent defendants constitutes class discrimination and
violates due process. He further alleges it constitutes kidnaping
and false imprisonment by the government, and causes defamation of
character, slander and libelous damage to occur.

The Plaintiff names as defendants El Dorado County District
Attorney Vern Pierson, El Dorado County Sheriff John D'Agostini,
State of California Governor Gavin Newsom, and State of California
Attorney General Rob Bonta. The Plaintiff seeks compensation for
victims and injunctive relief.

To the extent the Plaintiff attempts to bring claims on behalf of
other individuals as a class, Judge Barnes holds the complaint
fails to state a claim. The Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, is
limited to asserting claims for violations of his own rights and
may not litigate claims on behalf of others. The Plaintiff's
privilege to appear in propria persona is a privilege personal to
him.

Judge Barnes points out that the Plaintiff lacks authority to
prosecute claims for persons other than himself.

Judge Barnes finds the complaint does not allege any violations of
the Plaintiff's own rights and therefore does not state any
cognizable claims. To the extent the Plaintiff wishes to pursue any
individual claims based on the complaint's allegations, the
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. If he
chooses to file an amended complaint, it should be titled "first
amended complaint" and must state what each named defendant did
that led to the deprivation of his own constitutional rights.

In the alternative, the Plaintiff may notify the Court he wishes to
stand on the complaint as it is currently pleaded. If he chooses
this option, then Judge Barnes will issue findings and
recommendations to dismiss the complaint without further leave to
amend, after which he will be granted an opportunity to file
objections, and a district judge will determine whether the
complaint states a cognizable claim. In the further alternative, if
he does not wish to pursue his claims further, he may file a notice
of voluntary dismissal, which will terminate this action by
operation of law.

Judge Barnes notes that this opportunity to amend is not for the
purpose of adding new claims. Instead, the Plaintiff should focus
efforts on identifying how his own rights have been violated and
how each named individual defendant is personally responsible for
the alleged violations.

An amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint, and must be
"complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded
pleading," E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once the Plaintiff files an
amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any
function in the case. Therefore, in any amended complaint, he must
sufficiently allege each claim and the involvement of each
Defendant.

In accordance with the foregoing, Judge Barnes rules that:

   1. The Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
      granted;

   2. The Clerk's Office will send the Plaintiff a blank civil
      rights complaint form;

   3. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order,
      the Plaintiff must file one of the following:

      a. An amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified
         in this order;

      b. A notice of election to stand on the complaint as filed;
         or

      c. A notice of voluntary dismissal; and

   4. Failure to respond to this order will result in a
      recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to
      obey a court order and failure to prosecute.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yezva85f from Leagle.com.


CANADA: Courts Lift Stays of Proceedings in Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA),1 Canadian
courts have broad discretion to order, extend or lift stays of
proceedings. In a recent decision,2 the Superior Court of Quebec
extended an existing stay despite an attempt by the applicants in a
securities class action to limit its scope.

                                Background

Xebec Adsorption Inc. (Xebec) is a global provider of sustainable
gas solutions used in energy, mobility, and industry applications.
In March 2021, an application for authorization to institute a
securities class action was filed in Quebec against Xebec,
underwriters and five of Xebec's directors, on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Xebec
securities within a certain timeframe (the Class Action).3 A notice
of action seeking the certification of a class action in Ontario
based on the same allegations was also filed, but has not been
served on the defendants.

On September 29, 2022, Xebec and certain subsidiaries (the Debtors)
were granted protection under the CCAA and Deloitte Restructuring
Inc. was appointed as monitor. The resulting Initial Order
contained a stay of proceedings, pursuant to which no proceeding
could be commenced or continued against the Debtors and their
directors and officers (the Stay).

On October 20, 2022, at the come-back hearing in the CCAA
proceedings, the Debtors sought the issuance of an Amended Restated
Initial Order (the ARIO), including the extension of the Stay until
November 28, 2022. The applicants in the Class Action (the
Applicants), opposed the extension and sought an order excluding
the Class Action from the scope of the Stay for the purposes of
proceeding with an authorization hearing on the Class Action. The
authorization hearing was scheduled to be heard by the Superior
Court of Quebec on December 6, 2022.

                        Applicable Criteria

There is no statutory test under the CCAA to guide the Court in
deciding whether to limit the scope or to lift a stay of
proceedings.4 Generally speaking, the Court should consider whether
there are sound reasons for lifting a stay consistent with the
objectives of the CCAA.5 In order to do so, the Court will assess
the relative prejudice to parties, the balance of convenience and,
where relevant, the chances of success of the stayed action.6 Case
law has further identified a number of situations in which courts
may be justified to lift stay orders.7

                              Decision

Justice Christian Immer found that there was no benefit in allowing
the Class Action to move forward at this time.

The Applicants argued that it was necessary for them to attempt to
be granted representative status to advance the interests of the
proposed class, which could only be achieved if the Stay was
partially lifted to allow the authorization hearing to take place.
In particular, the Applicants argued that it would allow them to
make representations regarding the fairness of an eventual plan of
compromise or arrangement in relation to the equity claims8 that
potentially could be asserted by the members of the class.

For Justice Immer, the Applicants' argument did not constitute a
sound reason to lift the Stay or to restrict its scope, nor did it
demonstrate that the Applicants would suffer a significant
prejudice by not being allowed to pursue the authorization, given
that, at the time of the hearing, it was "highly speculative, if
not unlikely, that there would be sufficient proceeds for a
compromise or arrangement to generate funds to satisfy all the
secured and unsecured creditors". It was therefore also unlikely
that equity claims would be paid, as they rank behind all debt
claims.9 Accordingly, the Applicants would not be in a position to
make representations on the fairness of an eventual plan of
compromise or arrangement even if they had passed the authorization
stage of the Class Action. The Court further noted that pursuant to
section 6(1) of the CCAA, unless a court orders otherwise, class
members holding equity claims may not vote on any plan of proposal
or arrangement.

The Applicants also argued that Xebec would suffer no prejudice if
the Stay was partially lifted, because the authorization hearing
was scheduled for only a day and required no evidence. The Court
disagreed, pointing out that even though the authorization hearing
would proceed on the face of the record (without testimony),
executives would be required to assist defence counsel in the
proceedings. Moreover, the Court noted that a significant amount of
procedural wrangling was expected to result from the authorization
hearing.

In his reasoning, Justice Immer relied on the reasons of Justice
Stephen Hamilton in Wabush, that established that a stay should
only be lifted in circumstances where to do so would be consistent
with the goals of the stay, and the impact of the proceedings on
the CCAA process generally.10 Ultimately, Justice Immer concluded
that at the date of the hearing, Xebec's efforts would be better
served by focusing on the restructuring process than on litigating
the Class Action. This was also consistent with the objectives of
the CCAA. There was no benefit to be gained from allowing the Class
Action to move forward for authorization. The Court granted the
extension of the Stay, along with the ARIO and dismissed the
Applicants' objection.

                             Key Takeaway

Class action proceedings do not differ from other types of
litigation when it comes to limiting the scope or lifting stays of
proceedings pursuant to the CCAA. The courts will generally
consider whether there are sound reasons to do so consistent with
the objectives of the CCAA. The outcome will depend in large part
on the facts of the case, including any practical impact of the
litigation on the ongoing restructuring process.

Footnotes

1. RSC 1985, c C-36.

2. Arrangement relatif ŕ Xebec Adsorption Inc., 2022 QCCS 3888.

3. See Davarinia v Xebec Adsorption Inc., 2022 QCCS 1785.

4. Lloyd W Houlden, Geoffrey B Morawetz & Dr Janis P Sarra,
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law of Canada, 4th ed (Toronto: Carswell,
2009) (Electronic Loose-Leaf) at para 22.30.

5. Wabush Iron Co. Ltd. (Arrangement relatif ŕ), 2016 QCCS 6061 at
para 30 [Wabush]; Canwest Global Communications Corp. (Re), 2009
CanLII 70508 (ON SC) at para 32 [Canwest].

6. Sino-Forest Corporation (Re), 2012 ONSC 4377 at para 16;
Timminco Limited (Re), 2012 ONSC 2515 at para 17; Canwest, supra
note 5, at para 32.

7. There are nine situations in which courts may be justified to
lift stay orders. See Wabush, supra note 5, at para 30; Canwest,
supra note 5, at para 33.

8. Section 2(1) of the CCAA defines an equity claim as a "claim
that is in respect of an equity interest, including a claim for,
among others, (a) a dividend or similar payment, (b) a return of
capital, (c) a redemption or retraction obligation, (d) a monetary
loss resulting from the ownership, purchase or sale of an equity
interest or from the rescission, or, in Quebec, the annulment, of a
purchase or sale of an equity interest, or (e) contribution or
indemnity in respect of a claim referred to in any of paragraphs
(a) to (d)".

9. Pursuant to section 6(8) of the CCAA, which provides that "no
compromise or arrangement that provides for the payment of an
equity claim is to be sanctioned by the court unless it provides
that all claims that are not equity claims are to be paid in full
before the equity claim is to be paid".

10. Wabush, supra note 5, at paras 28, 35.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]

CARTHAGE OPCO: Jaco Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Jason Jaco, Individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CARTHAGE OPCO LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00045 (M.D. Tenn.,
Sept. 29, 2022r), is brought seeking to recover overtime
compensation as well as other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and the putative class typically worked at or in
excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods. However, the
Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and the putative class at a
rate equal to at least and one-half their regular hourly rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 per week. Defendant violated the
FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff at a rate equal to at least
one and one-half their regular hourly rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as a full-time kitchen-employee.

The Defendant operates Smith County Health and Rehabilitation,
located in Carthage, Tennessee providing "short-term rehabilitation
and long term skilled nursing care in a calm and relaxing
atmosphere."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Phone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com


CBS CORP: $3.7MM in Attys.' Fees Awarded in Laborers Pension Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the motion of Lead Counsel for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses and an award to Lead Plaintiff in
the lawsuit titled CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, GENE SAMIT and JOHN LANTZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CBS CORPORATION and
LESLIE MOONVES, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-7796 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.).

Judge Caproni notes that this Order incorporates by reference the
definitions in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
April 15, 2022, and all capitalized terms used, but not defined
herein, will have the same meanings as set forth in the
Stipulation.

The Court awards Lead Counsel $3,665,337.73 in attorneys' fees and
$354,821.57 in expenses, together with the interest earned on both
amounts for the same time period and at the same rate as that
earned on the Settlement Fund until paid. For the reasons stated at
the Nov. 3, 2022 hearing, the Court does not award The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., $102.42 in expenses for online legal and document
retrieval fees, and does not award attorneys' fees or expenses to
Johnson Fistel, LLP, which has not appeared as counsel to any
Plaintiff in this case or the related action Lantz v. CBS Corp. et
al., No. 18-CV-8978 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 1, 2018). The Court
finds that the amount of fees awarded is fair, reasonable, and
appropriate under the "percentage-of-recovery" method.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4), the Court awards $2,250
to Lead Plaintiff Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern
California for the time its Administrator Robert Glaza spent
representing the Settlement Class. For the reasons stated at the
Nov. 3, 2022 hearing, the Court declines to award $20,005.46 in
legal fees for its outside counsel.

Any appeal or any challenge affecting this Court's approval
regarding the Fee Motion will in no way disturb or affect the
finality of the Judgment entered with respect to the Settlement.

In the event that the Settlement is terminated or does not become
Final or the Effective Date does not occur in accordance with the
terms of the Stipulation, this Order will be rendered null and void
to the extent provided in the Stipulation and will be vacated in
accordance with the Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yvu9reej from Leagle.com.


CBS CORP: Final Judgment Issued in Laborers Pension Trust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
with Prejudice in the lawsuit styled CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION
TRUST FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, GENE SAMIT and JOHN LANTZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CBS CORPORATION and LESLIE MOONVES, Defendants, Case
No. 18-CV-7796 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.).

The matter came before the Court pursuant to the Order
Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice
("Notice Order") dated May 13, 2022, on the application of the
parties for approval of the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement dated April 15, 2022.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court affirms its determination in the Order Preliminarily
Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice and finally
certifies, for purposes of the Settlement only, a Settlement Class
defined as: all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired CBS
common stock from Nov. 29, 2017, through July 27, 2018, inclusive
(the "Settlement Class Period").

Notwithstanding the foregoing, any CBS employee retirement,
savings, or benefit plan will not be deemed an affiliate of any
Defendant or Former Defendant, except that any Claim submitted on
behalf of any CBS employee retirement, savings, or benefit plan
will be pro-rated to exclude the proportion owned by the Defendants
or Former Defendants and other specifically excluded persons or
entities.

Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court approves the Settlement set forth in
the Stipulation.

Any Plan of Allocation submitted by Lead Counsel or any order
entered regarding any Fee and Expense Application will in no way
disturb or affect this Judgment and will be considered separate
from this Judgment.

Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, the
Court retains continuing jurisdiction over: (a) implementation and
enforcement of the terms of this Settlement, inter alia, entering
orders providing for any Fee and Expense Award, the approval of the
Plan of Allocation and enforcing the terms of the Settlement; (b)
disposition of the Settlement Fund; and (c) all parties herein for
the purpose of construing, enforcing, and administering the
Stipulation.

The Court finds that during the course of this Action, the Settling
Parties and their respective counsel at all times complied with the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

In the event that the Settlement does not become effective in
accordance with the terms of the Stipulation, or the Effective Date
does not occur, or in the event that the Settlement Fund, or any
portion thereof, is returned to CBS, then this Judgment will be
rendered null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance
with the Stipulation and will be vacated and, in such event, all
orders entered and releases delivered in connection herewith will
be null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with
the Stipulation, and the Settling Parties will revert to their
respective positions in this Action as of Jan. 10, 2022, as
provided in the Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order dated Nov.
7, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3j46hhv6 from
Leagle.com.


CEDAR REALTY TRUST: Krasner Suit Removed to N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jonathan Krasner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CEDAR REALTY TRUST, INC., BRUCE J.
SCHANZER, GREGG A. GONSALVES, ABRAHAM EISENSTAT, STEVEN G. ROGERS,
SABRINA L. KANNER, DARCY D. MORRIS, RICHARD H. ROSS, SHARON STERN,
and WHEELER REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, INC., Case No.
613985/2022 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Nassau, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on Nov. 14, 2022, and assigned Case No.
1:22-cv-06945.

The Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract against Cedar
and the Former Cedar Directors (Count I), breach of fiduciary duty
against the Former Cedar Directors (Count II), and tortious
interference with contract and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty against Wheeler (Counts III and IV) in connection
with two transactions pursuant to which Cedar first sold a
portfolio of properties to a non-party and, thereafter, merged with
Wheeler. Plaintiff asserts that the proposed transaction violates
(1) his contractual right to a liquidation preference or a
purported conversion right, and (2) the standard of conduct
allegedly owed to preferred shareholders by directors of a Maryland
corporation. Plaintiff seeks an award of compensatory damages.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth G. Clark, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, Esq.
          90 Park Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10016-1387
          Phone: (212) 210-9400
          Fax: (212) 210-9444
          Email: Elizabeth.Clark@alston.com

               - and -

          Douglas H. Flaum, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          The New York Times Building
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (212) 813-8884
          Email: dflaum@goodwinlaw.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Burns Luz, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          100 Northern Avenue
          Boston, MA 02210
          Phone: (617) 570-1764
          Fax: (617) 801-8607
          Email: JLuz@goodwinlaw.com

               - and -

          Jerrold A. Thorpe, Esq.
          GORDON FEINBLATT LLC
          1001 Fleet Street, Suite 700
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone/Fax: (410) 576-4295
          Email: jthrope@gfrlaw.com


CERIDA INVESTMENTS: Saunders Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cerida Investments
Corp., et al. case is styled as Larhonda Saunders, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cerida Investments
Corp., a Pennsylvania Corporation with its principal place of
business in Pennsylvania, Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No.
34-2022-00327578-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept.
30, 2022).

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

Cerida Investment Corp. was founded in 2005. The Company's line of
business includes providing various business services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D. Potter, Esq.
          POTTER HANDY, LLP
          8033 Linda Vista Rd., Ste. 200
          San Diego, CA 92111-5119
          Phone: 858-375-7385
          Fax: 888-422-5191


COAST DENTAL SERVICES: Sejpal Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Manhar Sejpal, Defendant, on behalf of himself
and a putative class of similarly-situated persons v. COAST DENTAL
SERVICES, LLC., Case No. 2022-CA-002025 was removed from the Sixth
Judicial Circuit Court in and for Pasco County, Florida, to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
Nov. 9, 2022, and assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-02553.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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


CONFLUENCE HEALTH: Class Suit Over Wrongful Termination Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terra Sokol, writing for KPQ, reports that Douglas County Superior
Court Judge Brian Huber dismissed the class action lawsuit against
Confluence Health with prejudice on Nov. 18.

Dismissing a case with prejudice means that this case can't be
brought back to Douglas County Superior Court.

Back in April, a total of 92 Confluence former employees filed a
class action suit against their employer for wrongful termination
for not taking the COVID-19 vaccine.

Plaintiffs were represented by East Wenatchee Attorney Steve C.
Lacy.

Lacey argued that Confluence Health failed to accommodate the
plaintiffs' religious beliefs and their "natural immunity" to
COVID-19.

Judge Huber writes that the plaintiffs' failed to identify a clear
public policy that supports their claim of wrongful discharge, or
that Confluence neglected their religious and medical exemptions.

Judge Huber also determined that the plaintiffs do not have an
inherent disability for their perceived natural immunity to
COVID-19, and that they would need to prove that being unvaccinated
causes a mental or physical impairment.

Further on, Judge Huber states that having a perceived superior
immunity/trait does not qualify as an impairment, since it does not
negatively affect their body.

Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions was also denied. [GN]

COOK COUNTY, IL: Seventh Circuit Reverses Ruling in ADA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Seventh Circuit reversed its decision in the case Preston
Bennett v. Thomas Dart.

Class Action - Certification
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Preston Bennett v. Thomas Dart

Case No.: 22-8016

Officials: Easterbrook, Rovner, and Wood, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Class Action - Certification

Bennett contends that Division 10 of Cook County Jail does not
satisfy the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation
Act because it lacks the grab bars and other fixtures that disabled
inmates may need in order to use showers and toilets safely. When
seeking certification of a class action, Bennett tried to simplify
the case by relying on a regulation providing that "as of March 7,
1988 . . . construction[] or alteration of buildings" must comply
with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS or the
Standards). 28 C.F.R. Sec. 42.522(b)(1). The Standards require
accessible toilets to have grab bars nearby, UFAS Sec. 4.17.6, and
accessible showers to have mounted seats, UFAS Sec. 4.21.3.
Division 10 was constructed in 1992 and so, Bennett insists, must
comply with these standards.

The district court declined to certify the requested class in 2020,
ruling that to do so would entail a premature adjudication of the
merits, which the judge equated to one-way intervention. This court
reversed and remanded holding that class certification would not
entail resolution of the merits.

The Seventh Circuit again reversed. The 2020 decision identified an
issue relevant to every Division 10 detainee. Class certification
under Rule 23(c)(4) resolves the issue, not the whole case.

Reversed

Decided 11/14/22 [GN]

CORE SCIENTIFIC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on Nov. 21 disclosed that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
or acquired the securities of Core Scientific, Inc. ("Core
Scientific" or the "Company") CORZ between January 3, 2022 and
October 26, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Texas and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Core Scientific is a blockchain computing data center provider and
digital asset mining company. The Company mines digital assets for
its own account and provides hosting services for other large-scale
miners. Core Scientific became a public company via business
combination with Power & Digital Infrastructure Acquisition Corp.
("XPDI"), which was consummated on January 19, 2022 (the "Business
Combination").

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements throughout the Class Period. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) due
in part to the expiration of a favorable pricing agreement, the
Company was experiencing increasing power costs; (2) the Company's
largest customer, Gryphon, lacked the financial resources to
purchase the necessary miner rigs for Core Scientific to host; (3)
the Company was not providing hosting services to Celsius Network
LLC ("Celsius"), as required by their contract; (4) the Company had
implemented an improper surcharge to pass through power costs to
Celsius; (5) as a result of the foregoing alleged breaches of
contract, the Company was reasonably likely to incur liability and
have to defend itself against Celsius; (6) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's profitability would be adversely impacted;
and (7) as a result, there was likely substantial doubt as to the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern.

On March 3, 2022, Culper Research published a report about Core
Scientific alleging, among other things, that the Company had
overstated its profitability and that the Company's largest
customer lacked the financial resources to deliver the rigs
pursuant to its contract. On this news, Core Scientific's stock
fell $0.72, or 9.4%, to close at $6.98 on March 3, 2022.

Then, on September 28, 2022, Celsius and related entities filed a
motion to enforce an automatic stay and for civil contempt in
Celsius' bankruptcy proceedings, alleging that Core Scientific "has
knowingly and repeatedly violated the automatic stay provisions" by
refusing to perform its contractual obligations, threatening to
terminate the companies' agreement, and adding improper surcharges.
On this news, Core Scientific's stock price fell $0.15, or 10.3%,
to close at $1.30 on September 29, 2022.

Finally, on October 27, 2022, before the market opened, Core
Scientific disclosed that "given the uncertainty regarding the
Company's financial condition, substantial doubt exists about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern," and that it was
exploring alternatives to its capital structure. The Company also
disclosed that it held 24 bitcoins, compared to 1,051 bitcoins as
of September 30, 2022.

On this news, Core Scientific's stock fell $0.789, or 78.1%, to
close at $0.221 per share on October 27, 2022.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 13, 2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased or acquired Core Scientific securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
Core Scientific, Inc. Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact
Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact Information:

Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]

COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Yamido Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Arceli Yamido, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COURTYARD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION dba
THE CLANCY AUTOGRAPH COLLECTION; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL; MARRIOTT
HOTEL SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CGC-22-601366 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of San Francisco, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
Nov. 9, 2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-07023.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts 5 causes of action: failure to
pay wages including overtime; failure to pay timely final wages;
failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; failure to
indemnify necessary business expenses; and violation of the unfair
competition law.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          GREG S. LABATE, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
          Phone: 714.513.5100
          Facsimile: 714.513.5130
          Email: glabate@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Hilary A Habib, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
          Phone: 213.620.1780
          Facsimile: 213.620.1398
          Email: hhabib@sheppardmullin.com


CRICKET WIRELESS: Order Compelling Bodie to Arbitration Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARCUS BODIE, Appellant v. CRICKET WIRELESS, LLC,
Appellee, Case No. 2D22-64 (Fla. Dist. App.), Judge Edward C.
LaRose of the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Second
District concurs in the per curiam affirmance of the trial court's
nonfinal order compelling arbitration.

Mr. Bodie sued his cellular phone company, Cricket, under the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Sections
501.201-.213, Fla. Stat. (2020). In a nutshell, he alleged that
Cricket engaged in a bait-and-switch scheme; Cricket misleadingly
advertised BridgePay, its late-payment billing option, resulting in
overcharges to his account. The trial court granted Cricket's
motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the parties were
bound by the arbitration agreement contained in the "Terms and
Conditions of Service" signed by Mr. Bodie.

The arbitration agreement contains a class-action waiver, as well
as prohibition on representative actions. On appeal, Mr. Bodie
claims that the prohibition on representative actions on behalf of
the consuming public violates public policy and, therefore, is
unenforceable.

Mr. Bodie contends that limiting injunctive and declaratory relief
solely to the aggrieved individual suing under FDUTPA prevents him
from pursuing and securing relief on behalf of the larger consuming
public. Consequently, he maintains, the arbitration agreement
stymies FDUTPA's remedial purpose.

The District Court of Appeal opines that Mr. Bodie identifies no
provision of FDUTPA giving him the right to seek "public"
injunctive relief. Nor does he cite any authority showing that the
arbitration agreement's prohibition on representative actions
violates FDUTPA's remedial purpose. In addition, the statute's
plain language does not authorize an individual to bring a FDUTPA
action on behalf of another. Hence, Mr. Bodie may not maintain a
FDUTPA claim on behalf of the consuming public at large; the
prohibition on representative actions precludes it.

Moreover, he certainly is not an "enforcing authority." As
important, the parties' arbitration agreement does not prohibit an
action by an enforcing authority to benefit the consuming public.
Indeed, no enforcing authority is a party to, or bound by, the
agreement. Additionally, because FDUTPA permits an enforcing
authority to bring an action on behalf of consumers, the statutory
purpose in "protecting the consuming public" is served.

In sum, the arbitration provision prohibiting representative
actions for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of
nonparties is enforceable. The waiver does not undermine FDUTPA's
remedial purpose. Mr. Bodie may not seek "public injunctive relief"
under FDUTPA.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mt2837uf from Leagle.com.

Allison J. Davis -- adavis@silberdavis.com -- of Silber & Davis,
West Palm Beach, for the Appellant.

John A. Schifino -- jschifino@gunster.com -- of Gunster, Tampa, for
the Appellee.


CUSTOM WOOD: Hunsaker Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RICKEY HUNSAKER, on behalf of himself individually and
all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. CUSTOM WOOD
PRODUCTS, INC. d/b/a PROFILE CABINET & DESIGN, Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00740-WBG (W.D. Mo., November 10, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged improper and unlawful payment of wages in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum
Wage Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt employee from January 2022 through April 2022.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has utilized a
methodology of counting time by rounding its employees' time to the
next ten-minute increment at the end of a shift. Specifically, if
the Plaintiff clocked out at 2:57 p.m., the Defendant rounded his
time down as if he had left at 2:50 p.m., instead of rounding his
time up to 3:00 p.m. In addition, the Defendant automatically
deducted a 30-minute lunch break from its employees' time each day,
even if they did not take a meal or lunch or other break of that
duration. As a result, despite working more than 40 hours per week,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not
properly paid minimum wages and overtime compensation at the rate
of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit.

Moreover, the Defendant unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff's
employment. This happened when he suffered a foot injury while
working for the Defendant in early April 2022 after an
approximately 150-pound cabinet fell on his foot. When the
Plaintiff advised the Defendant that he could not return to full
duty a week later after as advised by the Defendant's workers'
compensation doctor because he was still in pain from the injury
and unable to put his weight on the injured foot, the Defendant
fired him from his position. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered
damages, the suit added.

Custom Wood Products, Inc. d/b/a Profile Cabinet & Design produces
American Made custom cabinetry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brad K. Thoenen, Esq.
          John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
          Kevin A. Todd, Esq.
          Ethan A. Crockett, Esq.
          HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
          1501 Westport Road
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Tel: (816) 875-9339
          E-mail: bthoenen@hkm.com
                  jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
                  ktodd@hkm.com
                  ecrockett@hkm.com

DANONE NORTH: Cappalli Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sheri Polster Chappel of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, dismisses the
case, IRENE CAPPALLI, Plaintiff v. DANONE NORTH AMERICA PUBLIC
BENEFIT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-716-SPC-KCD (M.D.
Fla.).

Cappalli sues the Defendant on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated individuals for allegedly deceptive labeling, marketing,
and selling of almond milk. The Complaint cites diversity
jurisdiction as the basis for the Court's subject matter
jurisdiction.

Judge Chappel explains that a federal court is obligated to inquire
into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be
lacking" and should do so "at the earliest possible stage in the
proceedings. A plaintiff who asserts diversity jurisdiction must
prove that diversity jurisdiction exists. For class actions,
diversity jurisdiction requires any member of the class of
plaintiffs to be a citizen of a state different from any defendant
and an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million, exclusive of
interest and costs.

Diversity is uncertain in the present case because Cappalli has not
sufficiently pled her own citizenship or that of any other class
member, Judge Chappel finds. She says Cappalli pleads that she is a
resident of Florida and resides in Rotonda West, Florida. However,
residency is not enough. Cappalli's domicile is not identified. Nor
does Cappalli identify the domicile of any other class member. So,
Cappalli has not met her burden of showing diversity jurisdiction
exists.

Accordingly, Judge Chappel dismisses the Complaint without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff
may file an amended complaint by Nov. 30, 2022. Failure to do so
will cause the Court to close the case without further notice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/t9xza3au from Leagle.com.


DECISION GAMES: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Decision Games. The
case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Decision Games, Case No. 1:22-cv-09688
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2022).

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

Decision Games -- https://decisiongames.com/wpsite/ -- is a
wargaming company founded by Christopher Cummins that publishes
Strategy & Tactics magazine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


DHALIWAL LABS: Hit With Privacy Class Action Suit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter at classaction.org reports that a proposed class
action alleges Dhaliwal Labs North has illegally used a biometric
time clock system to collect and disclose employees' fingerprints
without consent at its Bedford Park, Illinois, manufacturing
plant.

The 15-page case claims the personal care and medical device
manufacturing company has run afoul of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by collecting, without express
permission, employees' fingerprints, which they must scan to clock
in and out at its facility. The lawsuit, filed by two former
employees, also alleges Dhaliwal Labs North failed to secure
permission before disseminating workers' biometric data to Paycom,
a payroll service.

Under the BIPA, private entities must obtain consent in the form of
a written release before collecting, using, modifying, selling or
storing individuals' biometric identifiers, which include "a retina
or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face
geometry," the complaint explains. Additionally, the suit states
that companies must publish a publicly available written retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying consumers'
biometric data, and inform Illinois residents in writing of the
specific purpose and length of time for which their biometric
information is being collected, stored or used.

Enacted in 2008, the BIPA protects Illinois citizens' right to
privacy and control over their unchangeable biometric information.

"[U]nlike other so-called personal identifiers, such as Social
Security numbers, biometrics are biologically unique to each
individual and cannot be altered or changed once compromised, such
that, once this sensitive data is compromised, an individual is at
heightened risk for identity theft," the case stresses.

The lawsuit looks to represent all current and former employees of
Dhaliwal Labs North who had their biometric data captured and/or
otherwise obtained by the company's use of fingerprint and/or
thumbprint technology without informed written consent.[GN]

DIGNITY COLLECT: Patterson Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dignity Collect LLC.
The case is styled as Erica Patterson, also known as: Erica
Perkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dignity Collect LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-01068-JKP (W.D.
Tex., Sept. 29, 2022).

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

Dignity Collect -- https://www.dignitycollect.com/ -- is a
collection agency that provides debt collection and consulting
services for clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

DJULA USA LLC: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Djula USA, LLC. The
case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Djula USA, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06931
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2022).

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

Djula -- https://djula.fr/ -- is a jewelry house born in the 90s in
Paris with the unbridled ambition to break the traditions of this
market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


DOLGEN MIDWEST: Husar Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned Norman Husar, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. DOLGEN MIDWEST, LLC d/b/a DOLLAR GENERAL,
Case No. 22-cv-207195 was removed from the Lorain County Court of
Common Pleas, Lorain County, Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio on Nov. 14, 2022, and assigned Case
No. 1:22-cv-02044-JG.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was charged for the discrepancy
"between the prices of the merchandise advertised on the shelves
and what he was charged at the checkout." The Plaintiff asserts
that Dollar General "charges higher prices at the register for
merchandise than the price advertised on the unit price labels for
the same merchandise on the shelves in DG's Ohio stores." The
Plaintiff brings a class action alleging that it is DG's "policy
and practice" to charge this surplus. The Plaintiff brought Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act ("CSPA") and unjust enrichment
putative class claims as well as an individual CSPA claim.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth B. Wright, Esq.
          Brenna Fasko, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE LLP
          3900 Key Center
          127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1291
          Phone: (216) 566-5500
          Fax: (216) 566-5800
          Email: Elizabeth.Wright@ThompsonHine.com
                 Brenna.Fasko@ThompsonHine.com

               - and -

          R. Trent Taylor, Esq.
          Travis C. Gunn, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS
          800 East Canal Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Phone: (804)775-7622
          Fax: (804) 698-2039
          Email: rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com
                 tgunn@mcguirewoods.com


EAGLE FAMILY: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Popcorn Indiana Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that food
manufacturer Eagle Family Foods Group faces a proposed class action
that claims its Popcorn Indiana product is deceptively named since
the snack is neither from nor made in Indiana.

The 12-page case alleges that Eagle Family Foods Group has taken
advantage of consumers' demand for authenticity by naming Popcorn
Indiana after a state known for its history and expertise in
popcorn production, even though the snack has no real connection to
the region beyond the raw materials used.

Per the complaint, Indiana is known as the birthplace of popcorn
and a modern hot spot for its production. Indiana's official snack
supports local communities as they contribute to the industry's
entire value chain, from growing corn to popping the kernels, the
filing explains.

The suit argues that based on its name, consumers expect that the
snack is made entirely in Indiana, especially since Popcorn Indiana
refers to a specific town in Perry County, known for its history of
popcorn production.

"The Product's earlier labels, which stated, 'Welcome to Popcorn
Indiana. Population 42,' were effective in causing consumers to
believe the popcorn was not only grown but also popped in Indiana,"
the complaint says.

Although the "Welcome to" label has been replaced, the case
contends that "many consumers know that state names are preceded by
names of cities, and may surmise that 'Popcorn' in 'Popcorn
Indiana' refers to a city where the company is from and the Product
is made, from start to finish."

Despite Popcorn Indiana's allegedly misleading front label, Eagle
Family Foods Group admits on its website that the product is
manufactured in Waukegan, Illinois, the complaint relays.

As the case tells it, Eagle Family Foods Group has capitalized on
consumers' willingness to pay more for products they believe are
authentically connected to a specific place.

The filing explains that this consumer behavior is based on "an
expectation that a product made in the location where it was first
developed will be of higher quality and value due to expertise and
local knowledge developed in that location" and "a desire to
support and maintain local traditions and cultures at the expense
of commoditized products."

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Indiana, North Dakota,
North Carolina, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, West Virginia, or Montana who
purchased Popcorn Indiana during the applicable statute of
limitations period. [GN]

EASY PICKINS: Caba et al. File Suit Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE CABA and JOFENY DURAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EASY PICKINS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-09626 (S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2022) is
a collective and class action complaint brought against the
Defendant to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Plaintiff Caba began working for the Defendant around November 2019
until the end of her employment in May 2022 at their Easy Pickins
store location at 125 East 170th Street, Bronx, New York 10452. She
initially worked part time for the Defendant while she was in high
school as a sales associate and then was promoted to assistant
manager.

Plaintiff Duran has worked for the Defendant at one of its retail
store locations at 304 East Fordham Road, Bronx, New York 10458 as
a Sales Associate. She worked part time for the Defendant from
around August or September 2020 to around August or September
2021.

Throughout their employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiffs
worked at least one shift or split-shift in spanning more than 10
hours in a single day but were not paid the required spread of
hours premium. Allegedly, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees were deprived of their lawfully earned pay
because of the Defendant's improper compensation policies,
including overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek. In addition, the Defendant failed to provide them
with an accurate wage statement with every payment of wages,
listing gross wages, deductions and net wages as required by NYLL,
says the suit.

Thus, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring the
Defendant to pay all statutorily required wages pursuant to the
FLSA and NYL, specifically unpaid minimum wage, spread of hours pay
and unpaid overtime compensation. The Plaintiffs also seek
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, and
other relief as the Court determines to be just and proper.

Easy Pickins, Inc. is a clothing retailer selling on-trend apparel,
accessories & footwear aimed at young women. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com

EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Lifshitz Law Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Embark Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: EMBK)

Lifshitz Law PLLC on Nov. 19 disclosed that a class action
complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders of Embark alleging
that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had
performed inadequate due diligence into its business combination
with Embark Trucks, Inc. ("Legacy Embark"); (ii) Legacy Embark and
the Company following the Business Combination held no patents and
an insignificant amount of test trucks; (iii) accordingly, the
Company had overstated its operational and technological
capabilities; (iv) as a result of all the foregoing, the Company
had overstated the business and financial prospects of the Company
post-Business Combination; and (v) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

If you are an Embark investor, and would like additional
information about our investigation, please complete the
Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by
telephone at (516)493-9780 or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

Everbridge, Inc. (NASDAQ: EVBG)

Lifshitz Law PLLC announces that a class action complaint was filed
on behalf of shareholders of Everbridge alleging that Defendants
misled investors by: (i) failing to disclose that Everbridge was
experiencing integration problems with respect to acquisitions;
(ii) using the revenues from these acquisitions to mask
increasingly stagnant organic growth; and (iii) failing to disclose
that the COVID pandemic was having a material impact on the size of
the deals that Everbridge was able to obtain, with a negative
effect on the Company's revenue growth.

If you are an Everbridge investor, and would like additional
information about our investigation, please complete the
Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by
telephone at (516)493-9780 or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

PLAYSTUDIOS, Inc. (NASDAQ: MYPS)

Lifshitz Law PLLC announces that a class action complaint was filed
on behalf of shareholders of PLAYSTUDIOS alleging that Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) PLAYSTUDIOS was having significant problems with its
flagship game, Kingdom Boss; (ii) PLAYSTUDIOS would not be
releasing Kingdom Boss as expected; (iii) PLAYSTUDIOS had not
revised its financial projections to account for the problems it
had encountered with Kingdom Boss; (iv) as a result, Defendants'
statements about PLAYSTUDIOS' business, operations, and prospects
lacked a reasonable basis; and (v) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

If you are a PLAYSTUDIOS investor, and would like additional
information about our investigation, please complete the
Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by
telephone at (516)493-9780 or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG)

Lifshitz Law PLLC announces that a class action complaint was filed
on behalf of shareholders of Stronghold alleging that the
Registration Statement in connection with Stronghold's initial
public offering was materially false and misleading and omitted to
state: (1) that contracted suppliers were reasonably likely to miss
anticipated delivery quantities and deadlines; (2) that, due to
strong demand and pre-sold supply of mining equipment in the
industry, Stronghold would experience difficulties obtaining miners
outside of confirmed purchase orders; (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, there was a significant risk that Stronghold could not
expand its mining capacity as expected; (4) that, as a result,
Stronghold would likely experience significant losses; and (5) as a
result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you are a Stronghold investor, and would like additional
information about our investigation, please complete the
Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by
telephone at (516)493-9780 or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

Contact:

Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
Lifshitz Law PLLC
Phone: 516-493-9780
Facsimile: 516-280-7376
Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com [GN]

ENERGY TRANSFER: Securities Suit Moved From New York to N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York transfers to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas the lawsuit captioned IN RE
ENERGY TRANSFER SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 22 Civ. 4614 (AKH)
(S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff commenced this federal securities putative class
action in June 2022, alleging that Defendant Energy Transfer and
its directors and officers made materially false and misleading
statements and omissions that artificially inflated Energy
Transfer's stock price. The Complaint seeks relief on behalf of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Energy
Transfer between April 13, 2017, and Dec. 20, 2021, under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange
Act), as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (the "PSLRA").

On Oct. 7, 2022, the Defendants moved to transfer this case to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division.

The parties do not dispute that this suit could have been brought
in the Northern District of Texas. When, as here, suits are brought
under the Securities Exchange Act, venue is proper wherever "the
defendant is found or is an inhabitant or transacts business."

Judge Hellerstein finds the Northern District of Texas is a proper
venue within the meaning of the federal securities laws because the
Defendant is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and the individual
Defendants either reside or work there. Accordingly, this Court
must consider whether the factors of convenience weigh in favor of
transferring venue to the Northern District of Texas, or allowing
it to remain in the Southern District of New York.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' choice of forum should be
given little to no deference here because the Lead Plaintiffs
intend to represent a nationwide class of "geographically
dispersed" shareholders. The Defendants further claim that the
Plaintiffs' choice should be granted less deference because the
Lead Plaintiffs are themselves not New York residents.

The Plaintiffs, in turn, argue that the Lead Plaintiffs have a
fiduciary duty to determine the most advantageous forum,
considering factors such as strategy and convenience, and that
their determination should be granted deference regardless of their
residency or the geographical distribution of the class.

The Defendants are correct that the deference generally afforded to
the Lead Plaintiffs' choice of forum should be diminished in this
case, Judge Hellerstein holds. However, as the Plaintiffs note,
affording less deference to representative plaintiffs does not mean
they are deprived of all deference in their choice of forum.

On balance, Judge Hellerstein finds that while this factor weighs
against transfer, the deference generally granted to the
Plaintiffs' choice of forum is significantly diminished.

The Defendants also argue that most of the likely witnesses are
located in or near the Northern District of Texas, including the
directors and officers named as individual Defendants; members of
Energy Transfer's investor relations department; most witnesses
aside from the individual Defendant who would have knowledge as to
Energy Transfer's public statements and disclosures; and other
executives and high-ranking employees of Energy Transfer. The
Defendants also note that the representatives of the Lead
Plaintiffs and individuals likely to be called as third-party
witnesses do not reside in either forum, and therefore, will be
required to travel regardless of venue.

The Plaintiffs advance three arguments in opposition. First, the
Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants' motion is procedurally
flawed, because movants relying on this factor are required to
identify witnesses and the probable subject matter of their
testimony. Second, the Plaintiffs argue that the potential
witnesses for this case are located across the country, including
securities analysts in New York; individuals working for the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Washington, D.C.; and
employees and investigators of the Ohio EPA. Finally, the
Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants' witnesses located in Texas
would be subject to only minor inconvenience, given the
affordability of travel and the widespread use of
videoconferencing.

While the Plaintiffs may be correct that certain witnesses outside
of the Northern District of Texas will be identified, Judge
Hellerstein finds it is clear that many key witnesses are located
in or near Dallas. Accordingly, he finds that the convenience of
witnesses favors transfer.

The Defendants contend that it would be more convenient for them to
litigate in Texas, where Energy Transfer is headquartered and where
the individual Defendants work or reside. They further claim that,
because the individual Defendants are current officer and
executives of Energy Transfer, trial proceedings in New York might
lead to disruption of Energy Transfer's operations.

Judge Hellerstein notes that the Plaintiffs do not offer a
convincing counterargument. While the Plaintiffs state quite
clearly that the current forum is more convenient than Texas, they
offer very little regarding why it is more convenient. Indeed, the
Lead Plaintiffs do not reside in New York or Texas and will,
therefore, be required to travel regardless of forum. Judge
Hellerstein, therefore, finds that this factor favors transfer.

The Defendant contends that the locus of operative facts favors
transfer because the allegedly false and misleading statements were
made in the Northern District of Texas. Judge Hellerstein agrees
with the Defendants.

With respect to judicial efficiency and the interests of justice,
for the reasons already discussed, Judge Hellerstein finds that the
interests of justice will be served by transfer.

Having considered the relevant factors, Judge Hellerstein finds
that a transfer of venue to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas is appropriate. The conference scheduled
for Nov. 18, 2022, is cancelled.

The Clerk will transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, terminate the open motion, and close
this docket.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ucmx7ez from Leagle.com.


EVEREVE INC: Approval of Settlement in Shanley FLSA Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LESLIE SHANLEY and ERIN EIZELMAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EVEREVE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-CV-0319 (PJS/JFD) (D. Minn.), Chief
District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota denies the parties' renewed joint motion
to approve their settlement of this Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action.

Shanley and Eizelman worked for Evereve as assistant store
managers. They allege that they and other assistant store managers
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week but that Evereve did
not pay them the full amount of their FLSA-mandated overtime pay.
Instead, they contend, Evereve improperly classified them and other
assistant store managers as exempt from the FLSA's overtime-pay
requirements.

Following two mediation sessions and extensive negotiations, the
parties executed a settlement agreement in January 2022 Conditioned
on the Court's approval, the settlement agreement would create a
common settlement fund of $200,000, to be paid by Evereve. From
that common fund, one-third (approximately $66,667) would be paid
to the Plaintiffs' counsel as attorney's fees, and about $2,930
would be used to reimburse counsel's out-of-pocket litigation
costs. The fund's administrator would receive $11,500 in fees, and
the two named plaintiffs would each receive a $5,000 service
payment. The remainder of the fund (about $108,903) would then be
apportioned among Shanley, Eizelman, and any other qualifying
assistant store managers who opted into the action according to a
formula based on the number of weeks that each assistant store
manager worked during the time period at issue. In exchange for
these payments, the named and opt-in plaintiffs would release all
claims against Evereve related to the alleged FLSA violations.

The Court held a hearing on the parties' joint motion to approve
the settlement agreement. At the hearing, it expressed concern that
the parties had not discussed recent Eighth Circuit cases that
directly addressed two issues implicated by their motion: first,
whether the Court has authority to review and approve FLSA
settlements, and second, if that authority exists, whether the
Court may approve an FLSA settlement in which the parties agreed
that the attorney's-fees claim would be settled by giving the
attorneys a percentage of the overall amount paid by the defendant
to settle the case. Pending briefing on these questions, the Court
denied without prejudice the parties' motion to approve the
settlement agreement.

The parties have now renewed their motion and filed a joint
supplemental brief addressing the two issues identified by the
Court.

After reviewing that briefing and conducting a significant amount
of independent research, Judge Schiltz denies the parties' renewed
joint motion to approve the settlement agreement. He concludes that
(1) the Court has authority to determine whether the settlement of
the Plaintiffs' claim for unpaid wages should be approved as fair
and reasonable; (2) the Court does not have authority to review the
settlement of the Plaintiffs' claim for attorney's fees; and (3) he
must reject the settlement of the Plaintiffs' claim for unpaid
wages because the settlement of that claim was not negotiated
separately from the settlement of the attorney's-fees claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr2kxprs from Leagle.com.

Michael Palitz -- mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com -- SHAVITZ LAW GROUP,
P.A.; Adam W. Hansen -- adam@apollo-law.com -- APOLLO LAW LLC, for
the Plaintiffs.

Rodolfo Gomez -- rgomez@fordharrison.com -- Charles A. Roach --
croach@fordharrison.com -- and Steven Reardon --
sreardon@fordharrison.com -- FORDHARRISON LLP, for the Defendant.


FINANCIAL EDUCATION: Cofer Sues Over Breach of Agency Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Cofer, Keedric M. Cofer, Cortez Jenkins, Tameisha Jenkins,
Marlon Hester, Sr., Geraldine Andre, Djvenino Andre, and Monika
Griffin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FINANCIAL EDUCATION SERVICES, INC. dba United Wealth
Education; and UNITED WEALTH SERVICES, INC.  dba United Wealth
Education, Case No. 2:22-cv-12759-MFL-KGA (E.D. Mich., Nov. 14,
2022), is brought against the Defendants for breach of agency
agreement in violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and
breach of contract.

To market their credit repair services, Defendants recruited
individuals who were themselves customers of Defendants to act as
sale agents. Those sales agents could then recruit others to work
for the Defendants as part of a multi-level marketing program. Each
agent was required to pay an annual fee to Defendants to retain
their status as agent. They were also required to pay a regular
monthly membership fee. The Defendants represented to Plaintiffs
that agents could make substantially more from the marketing plan
than it cost to participate as an agent. The agents would then be
paid based upon his or her sales, as well as upon the sales of
those he or she recruited into the program.

Each named Plaintiff was engaged as an agent of one or both
Defendants as agents and were marketing Defendants' services in
early 2022. The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants was
governed by an Independent Sales Representative Agreement
("Agreement"). The individual Agreements are not attached hereto
because Plaintiffs were not provided copies of the Agreement they
signed when engaged by Defendants. Also, the Agreements contain a
confidentiality provision which may bar public disclosure of their
content.

In May 2022 the Federal Trade Commission filed suit against
Defendants, among others, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 2:22-cv-11120-BAF-APP
alleging a variety of violations of federal law ("FTC Action"). As
part of the FTC Action, the district court issued a temporary
restraining order on May 24, 2022 (the "TRO"), shutting down all
Defendants' operations, freezing their assets, and appointing a
receiver.

Upon the issuance of the TRO, Defendants informed their
higher-ranking agents, including some of Plaintiffs, that they did
not expect Defendants would be permitted to recommence their
business operations and encouraged the agents to seek work
elsewhere, including with competing companies. Those Plaintiffs
whom Defendants did not directly inform about the companies'
apparent demise were notified by persons who were directly
informed. As a result of the TRO, the Defendants' statements, and
the cessation of Defendants' operations, virtually all of
Defendants sales agents sought employment elsewhere. Many went to
work for companies directly competing with Defendants, such as MWR
Financial, Novae, Real Rise, Credit Repair Cloud, and Credit
Cleanse. Those who had teams of sales agents beneath them, often
took those teams with them to their new company.

The multi-level marketing plan operated by Defendants constitutes a
"business opportunity" within the meaning of the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act because it enabled the Plaintiffs to derive income
from the program that exceeded the price paid for the business
opportunity. As part of the compensation structure for agents,
Defendants represented that they would waive monthly or annual fees
charged to agents if those agents recruited a certain number of new
agents into the program. Defendants also offered promotions,
contests, and incentives to agents for their production. The
Defendants' multi-level marketing program violates the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act. As a result of Defendants' violation of
law, Plaintiffs and the Class members are entitled to damages
pursuant to, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants.

The Defendants marketed and sold credit repair services and
investment opportunities throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer Paillon, Esq.
          BLUE LOTUS LEGAL
          30790 Valley Dr.
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Phone: 734-904-9522
          Email: BlueLotusLegal@gmail.com

               - and -

          Marc E Dann, Esq.
          ADVOCATE ATTORNEYS LLP
          15000 Madison Avenue
          Lakewood, OH 44107
          Phone: (202) 935-6991
          Email: mdann@advocateattorneys.com



FIRST STUDENT: Stewart Wins Bid to Transfer Class Suit to N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiffs' request to transfer
venue in the lawsuit captioned ROBERT STEWART, REBECCA HOWARD AND
PHILIP McCALL, Plaintiffs v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 20-2556 (E.D. Pa.).

Pending are competing motions to transfer venue pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Both parties agree that the case should be
transferred to a federal district court in Ohio--but not on which
one. The Defendant seeks to have the matter transferred to the
Southern District of Ohio; the Plaintiffs request the Northern
District of Ohio-Eastern Division (Northern District).

The lawsuit is a multi-state collective and class action brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), inter alia, in which the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant violated FLSA by maintaining scheduling, timekeeping, and
compensation policies and practices that enabled it to avoid paying
the Plaintiffs overtime wages.

The Defendant's timekeeping system--Zonar Systems Fleet Management
("Zonar")--only allows the Plaintiffs to clock-in and out through
the Zonar tracking devices on the Defendant's buses. As such, they
are not permitted to log any pre-shift work--including receiving
bus keys and starting the buses--or post-shift work--including
inspecting and cleaning the buses, completing and submitting
paperwork, and returning keys. This allegedly forced the Plaintiffs
to complete pre-shift and post-shift work without compensation. The
Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendant failed to adequately pay
them for attending mandatory safety meetings, visiting the auto
repair shop and post office, and other required appointments.

The case was stayed pending the Third Circuit's decision of Fischer
v. Federal Express Corp., another FLSA collective action; Fischer
v. Fed. Express Corp., 42 F.4th 366 (3d Cir. 2022). There the Third
Circuit held that FLSA opt-in plaintiffs with no connection to the
forum state must either forfeit their claims or seek transfer to "a
court that can exercise general personal jurisdiction over their
employer."

Judge Beetlestone notes that when deciding motions to transfer,
courts in the Third Circuit consider private and public interest
factors which stretch beyond those enumerated in Section 1404(a),
citing Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir.
1995).

Private interests include: [1] plaintiff's forum preference as
manifested in the original choice, [2] the defendant's preference,
[3] whether the claim arose elsewhere, [4] the convenience of the
parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial
condition, [5] the convenience of the witnesses—but only to the
extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in
one of the fora, and [6] the location of books and records
(similarly limited to the extent that the files could not be
produced in the alternative forum).

Public interests include: [1] [T]he enforceability of the judgment;
[2] practical considerations that could make the trial easy,
expeditious, or inexpensive [judicial economy]; [3] the relative
administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court
congestion; [4] the local interest in deciding local controversies
at home; [5] the public policies of the fora; and [6] the
familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in
diversity cases.

At least one principal Plaintiff and dozens of opt-in plaintiffs
live and work in the Northern District of Ohio. The Defendant is
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, the Southern District. The
alleged FLSA violation--failure to pay overtime wages--occurred
both in the Northern District, where the Plaintiffs worked, and in
the Southern District, where the Defendant is headquartered and
would have established policies giving rise to the FLSA violation.
Under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2), venue would,
therefore, be proper in either the Northern District or the
Southern District.

Turning to consideration of the Jumara factors, Judge Beetlestone
finds on balance, the Jumara factors favor transfer to the
Plaintiffs' preferred Northern District of Ohio-Eastern Division,
Judge Beetlestone opines. The Northern District is more convenient
for the dozens of resident plaintiffs to litigate there than in the
Southern District, significantly less congested, and already
hearing a related case, Woods.

Judge Beetlestone notes that the only argument in support of the
Defendant's motion to transfer to the Southern District is that the
Southern District would be more convenient for it because it is
headquartered there. Because at least one of the private interest
factors--convenience of parties--and two of the public interest
factors--court congestion and judicial economy--favor transfer to
the Northern District, and none strongly favors transfer to the
Southern District, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer this matter
to the Northern District of Ohio-Eastern Division is granted and
the Defendant's Motion will be denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2kcxpfm from Leagle.com.


FIRSTENERGY: PFP Partly Compelled to Show Docs in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE FIRSTENERGY CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, This
document relates to ALL ACTIONS, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-3785
(S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
grants in part the Joint Motion of the Plaintiffs and Defendant
Michael J. Dowling to Compel Production of Documents from Non-Party
Partners for Progress.

The case is a consolidated class action brought on behalf of all
purchasers of securities in FirstEnergy between Feb. 21, 2017 and
July 21, 2020. The Plaintiffs seek relief under the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
FirstEnergy, certain of its current and former employees, and "the
investment banks which underwrote two FirstEnergy debt offerings
during the Class Period." The Plaintiffs and Defendant Dowling
bring the instant Motion to compel proper subpoena production from
the Partners for Progress ("PFP").

On May 4, 2022, Dowling -- who is a Defendant in this case in part
because of his alleged involvement with PFP -- issued a subpoena to
PFP. The subpoena included document requests involving: "(1) the
formation and operation of PFP; (2) PFP internal communications and
documents relating to its receipt and expenditures of funds; (3)
PFP communications with specific third-party individuals and
entities; and (4) documents that PFP produced in response to any
subpoenas issued to PFP by a regulatory or law enforcement
organization." It further requested that withheld documents be
recorded in a privilege log.

PFP responded with objections to the subpoena on May 18, 2022,
claiming that: (1) the document requests were unduly burdensome;
and (2) some of the requests could be construed to seek information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, including documents
related to the formation of PFP, as well as the attorney work
product doctrine, statutes and rules applying to grand jury
proceedings, or any other applicable statutory or common law
privilege, prohibition, limitation or immunity from disclosure. It
also provided a limited production of documents, including
documents related to its incorporation, communications with the
IRS, tax documents, and bank statements.

The Plaintiffs also issued a subpoena to PFP, on May 25, 2022.
Their requests were substantially similar to Dowling's, with the
addition of specific requests concerning PFP's role as described in
the DPA and its communications with relevant witnesses, such as
individuals and entities alleged to have participated or been
implicated in FirstEnergy's scheme. As with Dowling's subpoena, PFP
responded with general objections to the Plaintiffs' subpoena,
asserting undue burden, duplication with FirstEnergy's production,
and attorney-client privilege.

Weeks of conferral followed, with PFP producing some additional
material which was largely duplicative of its earlier production or
else substantially redacted. No corresponding privilege log was
produced, but PFP instead provided vague descriptions of three
broad categories of documents over which PFP maintained a claim of
attorney-client privilege. On July 18, 2022, PFP produced other
documents, which it represented as its final supplementation.

The Plaintiffs then addressed PFP's failure to provide sufficient
information about the assertion of the attorney-client privilege,
and noted that PFP had refused to conduct a sufficiently thorough
search for documents. Namely, PFP had searched for files related to
only one of its directors, Michael VanBuren -- who is also an
attorney and partner at Calfee Halter & Griswold LLP, which
represents PFP. In other words, PFP had only searched for
VanBuren's documents maintained on Calfee's servers, but not
elsewhere, and not for any documents in the possession, custody,
and control of three of its current and former directors: Scott
Davis, Daniel McCarthy, and McKenzie Davis.

After months of conferral, the parties represented that they were
at an impasse regarding compliance with the subpoenas, and the
Court encouraged PFP to produce a privilege log. PFP did produce a
privilege log, but the Movants noted that the privilege log did not
provide sufficient information to allow the parties to assess PFP's
claims of attorney-client privilege and that PFP still refused to
search for documents other than those stored on Calfee's servers.
Accordingly, the Court set a briefing schedule for the Movants'
Motion to Compel. The Motion has been fully briefed.

Judge Jolson holds that despite its non-party status, PFP must
engage meaningfully in the discovery process. She grants in part
the Motion. Specifically, PFP must do three things by Dec. 7, 2022.
First, PFP will conduct a diligent search for all responsive
documents to the subpoenas. The search must cover any and all
documents within PFP's possession, custody, or control. Second,
non-privileged documents must be produced. Third, all documents
withheld on the basis of privilege must be logged.

The remainder of the Motion is held in abeyance. Judge Jolson finds
that it is too soon for the Court to decide questions of privilege
and waiver given that this matter is still in its relative infancy.
After the above production is complete, if disputes remain, the
parties will attempt to resolve their disputes extrajudicially as
follows:

      a. The Plaintiffs and Dowling will notify PFP of concerns by
Dec. 17, 2022;

      b. The Movants and PFP will attempt to resolve disputes up
and until Jan. 6; and

      c. If disputes remain, the Movants and PFP may file
supplemental briefs (not to exceed 15 pages) by Jan. 13.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3bpmrmbw from Leagle.com.


FTX TRADING: Celebrities Among Defendants in Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Shuvo, writing for Sports Zion, reports that after the
failure of the FTX bitcoin exchange website, a number of famous
sportsmen and celebrities found themselves designated as defendants
in a class-action lawsuit. It was reported by TMZ that a class
action lawsuit had been launched in Florida, demanding damages from
a number of celebrities who had marketed the defunct site.

Among others mentioned in the case are Curry, Brady, and his
ex-wife Gisele Bundchen, Shaquille O'Neal, David Ortiz, Trevor
Lawrence, Shohei Ohtani, Larry David, and Kevin O'Leary.

As stated in the complaint, FTX, created by Sam Bankman-Fried, was
"intended to take advantage of naïve investors throughout the
nation" by engaging in fraudulent bitcoin activity. The complaint
claims that Brady and Curry, among others, colluded with
Bankman-Fried to deceive the company's investors.

It was a startling turn of events when the platform, which was
valued at $32 billion earlier this year, went bankrupt in November.
Investors are now demanding compensation.

The class action complaint makes reference to a commercial for FTX
in which Brady and Gisele endorsed the service. In the ad, Brady
and Gisele sign up for FTX and wind up recruiting their whole
social circle.

Steph Curry filmed a video promoting FTX in which he emphasized the
hashtag #NotAnExpert, presumably to show users that they didn't
require prior knowledge of the platform. [GN]

FTX TRADING: Crypto Policies Explored Following Ponzi Scheme Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carla Mozee, writing for Business Insider, reports that the
implosion of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange has left observers
wondering if tighter regulations could have headed off the eventual
collapse of Sam Bankman-Fried's empire, which may leave up to 1
million of its creditors exposed to losses.

Legal experts told Insider the answer is murky, but Washington has
a responsibility to shore up oversight aimed at protecting
investors. A potential class-action lawsuit alleged that
Bankman-Fried and a slate of celebrity FTX endorsers were
encouraged to invest in "what was ultimately a Ponzi scheme." No
criminal charges or formal allegations of criminal wrongdoing
related to the FTX breakdown have been filed by authorities.

With that said, some big questions have come up about the present
and future state of crypto oversight, who's running the show, and
whether it is even possible to sufficiently regulate the market.

Here are some of the biggest:

So, who's even in charge of crypto regulation to begin with?

Oversight is fragmented, without a comprehensive strategy even
after the Biden administration earlier this year ordered federal
agencies to craft a unified approach to regulation.

"The government itself has as much difficulty as ordinary leaders
do of understanding what cryptocurrency is and … depending on
which definition prevails, you have different regulatory schemes
that can be enacted, each of them with different consequences,"
Gerard Filitti, senior counsel at The Lawfare Project, an
international non-profit legal think tank and litigation fund based
in New York City, told Insider.

"You have the SEC which considers crypto to be a security. You have
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission which sees it as a
commodity, and you have the Treasury Department which calls it a
currency," he said. "So until the government agrees to what
cryptocurrency is, it's very difficult to put in any meaningful
regulation that makes sense," said Filitti.

The crew cleaning up the mess at FTX said they have found, among
other things, software that concealed the misuse of customer funds
and a lack of appropriate security controls or record keeping. The
bankruptcy cleanup is led by FTX's new CEO John Ray III, who
oversaw Enron's bankruptcy.

"If FTX had been a regulated entity under our regulatory umbrella,
customer bonds would've been protected, there would've been
liquidity reserve requirements in place [and] there would've been
monitoring and surveillance that is not immediately available,"
CFTC Commissioner Kristin Johnson told CoinDesk.

Better Markets, a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy group promoting
safety measures for financial markets, has said it is the CFTC that
"failed to properly regulate or supervise" FTX.

So regulation is fragmented, but there is still the overarching
question:

Is there something that would have prevented this?

"I'll start with a slightly cynical answer," said Filliti at The
Lawfare Project. "There's a lot that the government can do but the
markets run themselves. We've seen repeatedly in centuries of
experience that any market, whatever stopgap measures you put in
place, whatever regulations are put in place, the market itself can
blow right through them."

Christopher LaVigne, head of the US litigations teams at law firm
Withersworldwide, said financial history is rife with examples of
systemic blowups despite regulations and authorities have put rules
put in place after major issues emerge. "There has been a similar
catastrophic meltdown essentially every decade in recent memory --
Savings and Loan (crisis), Enron, subprime mortgages, Bernie
Madoff," he said.

"My pessimistic view is as long as there is money in a capitalist
system, there are people who are going to want to take advantage of
that. I think it's constantly a game of catch-up between
regulations and the next evolution of runaway greed."

Better Markets, which traces its roots to the 2008 global financial
crisis, pushed back on the idea that more legislation to oversee
the crypto industry is required in the wake of FTX's fall.

"We don't need more legislation. We need more money and support for
regulators to go after what is fundamentally a lawless industry,"
said Dennis Kelleher, the CEO of Better Markets, according to the
Washington Post. "We need elected officials to prioritize the
public interest rather than campaign contributors and lobbyists."

Kelleher said in a press statement the SEC is "spread thin" from
policing capital markets. "Those elected officials who are supposed
to promote the public interest need to surge resources to the SEC
and banking regulators so that they can enforce existing laws and
rules."

Will unified regulation ever emerge?

"I think, unfortunately, regulation is going to have to come from
what now appears to be a divided Congress, but I'm somewhat
optimistic they can figure that out," LaVigne said. "There has been
traditionally some bipartisan support for some regulation in this
space."

LaVigne pointed to bipartisan work on the Lummis-Gillibrand
Responsible Financial Innovation Act. The bill sought to delineate
jurisdiction over digital assets held by the SEC and the CFTC.

"I think the place that regulations need to come from is consensus
basis through legislation as opposed to sort of fiat, by way of
some agency, because otherwise, we're just going to be in the same
scenario where there are three different agencies trying to
regulate the same space."

SBF seemingly saw some public-facing value in having regulatory
attachment to his business. Reuters reported on Nov. 18 that
documents show FTX saw its regulatory status as a way of bringing
in new capital from major investors. [GN]

FTX TRADING: Golden State Warriors Among Defendants in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reigle, writing for Outkick, reports that FTX's cataclysmic
collapse has affected a lot of A-listers from Tom Brady and Gisele
Bündchen to Larry David. Now the entire Golden State Warriors are
getting sued.

Elliott Lam, a Canadian citizen who resides in Hong Kong, lost
$750,000 that he had invested in the floundering crypto exchange.
He wants to do something about it and filed a class action suit in
San Francisco.

The Warriors named FTX their official cryptocurrency platform back
in December 2021. At the time, it was heralded as a
first-of-its-kind partnership. Now, in light of FTX's complete
collapse, they probably wish it wasn't.

Lam's suit also names FTX's embattled founder Sam Bankman-Fried and
Caroline Ellison who was in charge of overseeing Bankman-Fried's
trading firm Alameda Research.

The class-action suit alleges that the Warriors promoted FTX as a
"viable and safe way to invest in crypto." As we now know, it
wasn't.

At least not long-term.

If this was the only FTX-related class-action suit the Warriors
were facing that would be annoying enough, but it isn't.

The team is also named in another class-action suit. this one was
filed in Miami. That one also names Steph Curry, Shaq, Trevor
Lawrence, and Shohei Ohtani as defendants.

The Warriors announced the end of their partnership with FTX.

The Miami Heat also had ties with FTX but announced earlier this
month that the crypto exchange's name would be removed from their
arena. [GN]

FUJIFILM HOLDINGS: Sued Over Defective X-Pro3 Ribbon Connectors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jaron Schneider, writing for PetaPixel, reports that Fujifilm is
the subject of a class-action lawsuit that alleges the company
falsely advertises its X-Pro3 as having "reliable durability"
despite using "defective ribbon connector cables."

Photographer Jethro Inong has filed the class-action complaint in
New York and alleges that the Fujifilm X-Pro3 is not "durable,
capable of functioning reliably and remaining in proper working
condition for years to come" as the company claims in its
marketing.

The X-Pro3 was originally announced in 2019 and was advertised as a
rangefinder-styled mirrorless camera made with street photographers
and photojournalists in mind. The camera is still available to
purchase new today for $1,800.

The complaint says that despite multiple lines of advertising
language that Fujifilm uses to promise "outstanding durability" for
years, the camera instead does not function reliably and is not
free of flaws, damage, or deficiencies due mainly to the camera's
use of defective ribbon connector cables that loosened or
disconnected on their own after what is described as normal and
intended use.

"This defect in turn caused the viewfinder(s) and/or the LCD
touchscreen to glitch or stop working altogether, affecting the
function and capabilities of the device," the lawsuit claims.

"Most consumers have encountered this defect and the related issues
without warning. In fact, many experienced the defect unexpectedly,
once loosening or disconnection occurred. However, the defect was
present and continuously evolving much sooner than noticed or
experienced. This is because the ribbon connector cable mechanism
is too weak to withstand normal use, frequent opening-and-closing,
and switching between view modes."

A brief search does bring up multiple threads and stories that note
this LCD issue, so it does not appear that Inong's complaints are
without merit. Inong's complaint also includes other screenshots
and references to additional complaints from other users.

"Consumers expect a camera represented -- directly or indirectly --
as durable, capable of functioning reliably and remaining in proper
working condition for years to come, especially when it is marketed
to have 'outstanding durability' and 'revolutionary hybrid OVF/EVF
and hidden LCD touchscreen,' to function reliably and remain free
of flaws, damage, and deficiencies," the complaint continues.

The lawsuit accuses Fujifilm of unjust enrichment and for violating
New York state consumer fraud acts, namely the Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act and the New York General Business Law. Inong is
seeking monetary, statutory, and/or punitive damages and interest
as well as the costs and expenses associated with filing the
lawsuit.

Fujifilm did not immediately respond to PetaPixel's request for
comment. [GN]

FUND FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK: Jones Sues Over Sexual Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Jones, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. FUND FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK, FUND FOR THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, INC., FOUNDATION FOR COURT INNOVATION INC., CENTER FOR COURT
INNOVATION, MARK GOULD, individually, COLETA WALKER, individually,
JULIE TAYLOR, individually, GLADYS BROOKS, individually, JAMES
REDDICK, individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-09711 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14,
2022), is brought seeking declaratory and injunctive, relief and
damages to redress the injuries that Plaintiff has suffered as a
result of sexual harassment, sexual assault, discrimination,
hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge
on the basis of her sex/gender, sexual orientation, race, for
making complaints about such unlawful acts by Defendants as well as
assault, battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Defendant GOULD was Plaintiff's direct supervisor. Defendant GOULD
was aware of Plaintiff's sexual orientation. Throughout the
entirety of Plaintiff's employment, Defendant GOULD repeatedly
subjected Plaintiff to extreme sexual harassment, assault, and
discrimination on the basis of her sex/gender, race, and sexual
orientation. Between August 16, 2021, and April 14, 2022, Defendant
GOULD made sexually explicit comments about Plaintiff's sexual
orientation. By way of example only, Defendant GOULD told Plaintiff
that "he would love to see her go down on a female" and how he
would like to see friends of Plaintiff's that were bisexual like
her.

Defendant GOULD discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her
sex/gender by telling Plaintiff that she should wear a v-neck top
to show her breasts, that Plaintiff's shoulders were built like a
linebacker, and ridiculed the way Plaintiff's uniform or clothing
fit her body. Shortly after Plaintiff started working for
Defendants, Plaintiff learned about a former employee named "L."
After "L" made a sexual harassment complaint against Defendant
GOULD was no longer employed by Defendants. Defendants were aware
of Defendant GOULD's discriminatory conduct and failed to take any
remedial actions. Instead, Defendants' perpetuated a hostile work
environment filled with sexual harassment and discrimination.

Around late February 2022, Defendant GOULD sexually assaulted
Plaintiff. Defendant GOULD forced Plaintiff to kiss his penis and
threatened Plaintiff that if she did not kiss his penis Plaintiff
would no longer have a job like "L." Around January 10, 2022,
Plaintiff informed GOULD that Plaintiff was unable to work because
Plaintiff's son tested positive for COVID-19. GOULD told Plaintiff
that if she wanted to care for her son and not lose her job
Plaintiff had to purchase GOULD a liquor bottle. GOULD used his
position of authority to threaten, discriminate, intimidate, and
sexually assault and abuse Plaintiff.

The Defendants were aware of GOULD's discriminatory unlawful
conduct and failed to take any remedial measures. The Defendants
perpetuated a toxic, hostile work environment filled with sexual
harassment and discriminatory treatment on the basis of sex/gender.
After Plaintiff received the new position, GOULD's sexual assault
and discriminatory animus towards Plaintiff escalated.

Around April 14, 2022, GOULD told Plaintiff that Plaintiff needed
to report to the storage unit to get uniforms with Plaintiff's new
coworker "E." After Plaintiff and GOULD walked into the storage
unit, GOULD closed the storage unit door up to calf/ankle level and
moved Plaintiff towards a chair. GOULD told Plaintiff "you know
what I want, you owe me." GOULD pulled down his pants and with his
penis in his hand said you better do a good job if not my friends
would make sure you did a good job and you can kiss your new job
goodbye." GOULD forced his penis into Plaintiff's mouth and called
Plaintiff his "work bitch" and "not to cross him." GOULD perversely
forced Plaintiff to pinch his nipples while performing oral sex on
him.

Between April 15, 2022, and April 21, 2022, although Plaintiff made
any and every attempt to distance herself from GOULD, GOULD
continued to harass Plaintiff and have Plaintiff work under his
supervision. Plaintiff felt fearful and forced to comply with
GOULD's commands or else risk losing her job. Plaintiff complained
to her supervisor BROOKS and JULIE TAYLOR that Plaintiff was upset
by the handling of Defendant GOULD's assault on Plaintiff and that
Defendant GOULD previously sexually assaulted Plaintiff.

Defendants failed to take any corrective action against GOULD.
Thereafter, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in
a protected activity by telling Plaintiff that she could use her
sick and vacation days while Defendants investigated Plaintiff's
complaints. Defendants also had Plaintiff work remotely while GOULD
continued working in the office and has since been promoted, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a black, bisexual, female that resides in Bronx
County, New York.

FUND FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK is a nonprofit organization duly
existing by the virtue and laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Mendoza, Esq.
          DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 4905
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: (212) 587-0760


G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS: Fadel Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Baraa Fadel, Flakima Attelhadj, Karon Coleman, Matthew Greene, and
Joseph McGunigle on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA), INC., UNIVERSAL PROTECTION
SERVICES, LLC, and ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 22-228A (Mass. Commonwealth Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Sept. 28,
2022), is brought to seek recovery of wages they have not received
to which they are entitled and time-and-a-half for overtime wages.

The Defendant have a policy and practice of requiring officers to
report at least approximately ten minutes before the start of their
shift and to work during this time, but the Defendants do not
compensate the officers for this time. During this uncompensated
time, officers are required to be at the work site performing work,
including but not limited to debriefing officers who they are
relieving, checking the work site, and performing general duties to
begin their shifts. The Defendants have violated Massachusetts wage
laws by failing to pay officers for all hours worked and by failing
to pay time-and-a-half for hours worked in excess of forty per
week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as security
officers.

G4S Secure Solutions (USA) is a company that employed security
officers to guard commercial properties throughout Massachusetts,
including the General Electric Company's headquarters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Osvaldo Vazquez, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Phone: (617) 607-3260
          Web: www.fairworklaw.com
          Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com
                 oz@fairworklaw.com

               - and -

          Alan D. Meyerson, BBO #682515
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN DAVID MEYERSON
          100 State Street, Suite 900
          Boston, MA
          Phone: (617) 444-9525
          Email: alan@alandavidmeyerson.com


GAIA INC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Business Info
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Gaia, Inc. (NASDAQ: GAIA) resulting from
allegations that Gaia may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Gaia securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9917 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On November 7, 2022, Gaia revealed "an
investigation by the staff of the Denver Regional Office (the
'Staff') of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
'SEC')" which began in June 2020. According to the Company, "[i]n
September 2022, Gaia and Gaia's Chief Financial Officer ('CFO')
reached an agreement in principle with the Staff on a framework for
a complete resolution of the investigation." Further, according to
the Company, "[t]he agreement in principle contemplates that Gaia
would consent, without admitting or denying any findings, to the
entry of an administrative order: (1) finding that Gaia (a)
misstated in its April 29, 2019 earnings release and earnings call
the number of paying subscribers for the period ending March 31,
2019, … and (b) failed to comply with SEC whistleblower
protection requirements with respect to the termination of one
employee and the language used in severance agreements for other
employees; and (2) requiring Gaia to pay a total civil monetary
penalty of $2,000[,000] over a one-year period for these
violations. At the same time, the CFO would consent, without
admitting or denying any findings, to the entry of an
administrative order: (1) finding that the CFO caused Gaia's
misstatements in the April 29, 2019 earnings release and earnings
call that is described above; and (2) requiring the CFO to pay a
civil monetary penalty of $50[,000]." The Company also stated
"[t]here can be no assurance that the contemplated settlement will
be finalized and approved."

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

GEICO CASUALTY: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Day Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEICO Casualty Company, et al., filed an appeal from a court order
dated October 31, 2022 granting a class a certification motion
filed in the lawsuit entitled ESSICA DAY v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY,
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 5:21-cv-02103-BLF, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose.

The complaint seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of unfairly
profiting from the global COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the complaint, while many companies, industries, and
individuals have suffered financially as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic, auto insurers like GEICO have scored a windfall. Not
surprisingly, as a result of state-wide social distancing and
stay-at-home measures, there has been a dramatic reduction in
driving, and an attendant reduction in driving-related accidents.
This decrease in driving and accidents has significantly reduced
the number of claims that auto insurers like GEICO have paid,
resulting in a drastic and unfair increase in GEICO's profits at
the expense of its customers, added the suit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 3, 2022, the
Plaintiff asked the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "All California residents who purchased personal
      automobile, motorcycle, or RV insurance from GEICO
      covering any portion of the time period from March 1, 2020
      to the present" with respect to Counts I and III of the
      Amended  Complaint;

   2. Appointing Named Plaintiff Jessica Day as class
      representative; and

   3. Appointing Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Stephan Zouras, LLP, and
      Poulin | Willey | Anastopoulo, LLC as class counsel.

On October 31, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

The appellate case is captioned as Jessica Day v. GEICO Casualty
Company, et al., Case No. 22-80134, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Nov. 14, 2022.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO INDEMNITY
COMPANY, and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by:

          Daniel B. Heidtke, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5450
          Telephone: (213) 689-7400

               - and -

          Robert M. Palumbos, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS, LLP
          30 S. 17th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
          Telephone: (215) 979-1111

Plaintiff-Respondent JESSICA DAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 277-7235

               - and -

          Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
          Nichols Kaster, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center
          80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3243

               - and -

          Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
          ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM
          2170 Ashley Phosphate Road, 3rd Floor
          North Charleston, SC 29418
          Telephone: (843) 614-8888

GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Action Suit Alleges Toxic Workplace for Women
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. paid out well
over $12 million to a veteran executive who complained internally
about a toxic workplace for women in the highest echelons of Wall
Street's most prestigious firm.

The bank settled with the departing partner two years ago, in a
deal that kept secret her detailed account of senior executives
making vulgar and dismissive comments about women, according to
people with knowledge of the matter. The upper rungs of the firm
were rattled by the remarks she described and the roster of people
allegedly behind them, including Chief Executive Officer David
Solomon.

The confidential payment is likely among the largest of its kind on
Wall Street, where firms use their deep pockets to prevent
accusations of troubling behavior from becoming public. The partner
portrayed a leadership culture that favors men, mistreats women and
pays them less, the people said, asking not to be named discussing
a private matter.

As for Solomon, the complaint alleged that he once bragged to a
gathering of male colleagues that he was probably the only one
present who received oral sex the night before, the people said.
Three executives -- who either heard the remark or heard of it at
the time -- said they were surprised because it was so out of
character for the CEO. None was aware that it later became part of
a complaint to the bank.

Solomon, 60, wasn't the main focus of the complaint, which sought
to sketch out an institutional problem, the people said. It
provided examples of pay disparities, aiming to show the firm
awards smaller packages to women. And there were more incidents of
dismissive remarks by other managers, such as former head of
investment research Steven Strongin, the people said.

The potential for embarrassment for Goldman Sachs drove its
decision to settle, they said, especially at a time when its new
CEO, who took over in October 2018, was publicly touting the bank's
efforts to improve diversity.

Most of the incidents described occurred in 2018 and 2019. It's
unclear how the settlement was structured.

"Anyone who works with David knows his respect for women, and his
long record of creating an inclusive and supportive environment for
women," Kathy Ruemmler, the firm's general counsel, said in a
statement. "Bloomberg's reporting contains factual errors, and we
dispute this story," she said. Goldman did not elaborate further.
Strongin didn't respond to requests for comment.

The partner's complaint of improper behavior stirred up resentment
among some former colleagues. Bloomberg is not naming her in part
because she never went public with her accusations and now works at
another firm. She declined requests for comment.
The issues echo what Wall Street women have been saying for years
about life inside the industry. At Goldman, firsthand accounts have
been woven into a class-action lawsuit focusing on pay and a recent
memoir by a former managing director, Jamie Fiore Higgins.

But it's practically unheard of for women who gain entry to levels
as high as Goldman's partnership to air their ugliest experiences.
Even complaining in front of colleagues about the slow progress in
improving workplace equality has been seen as a kind of betrayal.

At an internal event in 2019, the partner who later complained
asked women on the bank's board about diversity. She joked that it
appeared executives had to be White and bald to run the firm, an
apparent reference to Solomon and predecessors. The management team
was furious with the remarks, people said.

The partner was no stranger to bank leadership. She worked in posts
around the C-suite, met with top executives and held senior
positions in one of the firm's divisions. In her final months, she
was passed over for a promotion that would have given her a more
visible perch in the industry.

People with knowledge of the complaint said that it recounted male
executives critiquing the appearance of women at the bank,
including weight and necklines. Some managers allegedly told them
how they could look better, suggesting fitness regimens. It
described men asking senior-ranking women to do menial tasks, such
as fetching coffee, and in one instance likening women to flight
crew in a meeting to discuss gender issues.

Such behavior may not shock industry veterans inured to such talk.
Yet the sum the firm paid puts a rare number on the going price of
secrecy.

'Boys' Club'
Her portrayal of the firm would have clashed with Solomon's public
pledges to advance women and improve diversity and inclusivity. In
April 2019, he told Congress that "a core part of my tenure as CEO
will be defined by our progress" in improving diversity.

He's pushed the bank's recruiters to make women at least 50% of new
hires. This month, Goldman's latest partnership class included a
record number of women.

But visible progress at the very top of the bank and its
revenue-generating divisions has proved elusive and a point of
consternation for colleagues.

The class-action lawsuit against the bank, filed by Cristina
Chen-Oster, is the industry's most prominent over gender. It
focuses on pay and promotions. Attorneys suing the firm also tried
to bring a claim that it has a "boys' club" atmosphere, but the
court said that would require "individualized inquiries" into
incidents and didn't qualify for class treatment. The bank has
denied the allegations in the lawsuit.

Some executives in the bank's legal team recently pushed to open
settlement talks with the class-action plaintiffs, a person with
knowledge of the matter said. Resolving that case would defuse the
risk that a trial could inflict further embarrassment. It's unclear
whether Solomon has granted approval to negotiate. [GN]

HABIB RESTAURANT: Traylor Sues Over Illegal Retention of Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNEA TRAYLOR, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HABIB RESTAURANT FOOD GROUP, LLC, a Michigan
Limited Liability Corporation, H&B RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, a
Michigan Limited Liability Corporation, BELAL RESTAURANT VENTURES,
LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Corporation and HABIB BAYDOUN, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-12717-LJM-JJCG (E.D.
Mich., November 10, 2022) is a collective action complaint brought
by the Plaintiff against the Defendants to recover unpaid wages and
to seek all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server at their
Romulus Lefty's Cheesesteak restaurant within the past two years.

The Plaintiff asserts that she and other similarly situated servers
routinely received more than $30.00 per month in tips. However, the
Defendant illegally retained a portion of the hourly employees'
tips to finance various business operations or for the personal
economic gain of the restaurant ownership. Although the Defendants
issued paychecks for its servers' hourly wages on a bi-weekly
basis, but it did not reflect the receipt of any tips. Also, the
personal checks issued by the Defendant to its servers for tips
received during the pay period did not show federal or state income
withholdings, as well as the full amount of tips actually received.


The Plaintiff added that the Defendants maintained an unlawful
rounding policy that rounded the employees time backwards to the
nearest hour, but never forward to the nearest hour. As a result,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated servers were not
properly compensated for all hours they have worked. Moreover, the
Defendants allegedly failed to properly maintain payroll records.

The Plaintiff further claims that the Defendants systematically
breached their contractual obligations with her and other similarly
situated servers by failing to pay them the agreed upon hourly wage
for the work they performed each shift. The Defendants were also
unjustly enriched by failing to compensate them the agreed upon
hourly wage for the off-the-clock work they performed each shift,
and by the retention of monies received pursuant to its servers'
services.

The Corporate Defendants operate restaurants under the name
Lefty's. Habib Baydoun is the owner, organizer, operator, and
registered agent of Lefty's Romulus, Lefty's Flat Rock, and Lefty's
Plymouth. The Corporate Defendants maintain a unified operation
with common ownership and control of each restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald D. Wahl, Esq.
          STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C.
          33 Bloomfield Hills Pkwy, Ste. 205
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-2913
          Tel: (248) 633-8916
          E-mail: gwahl@sterlingattorneys.com

                - and -

          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          ASH LAW, PLLC
          402 W. Liberty St.
          Ann Arbor, MI 48178
          Tel: (734) 234-5583
          E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com

HONDA CANADA: Court Approves Settlement in Defective Vehicles' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Hoareau, writing for MTLBlog, reports that the Superior
Court of Quebec has approved a settlement following a class action
lawsuit against Honda Canada. Consequently, current and former
owners of 2006-2013 Honda Civics and 2006-2011 Acura CSXs purchased
in the province can now claim compensation if they experienced
early paint degradation on their vehicle.

Eligible drivers have four different options.

First, they can choose a $2,550 compensation payment to have their
car repainted "at an authorized auto body shop."

Alternatively, they can opt for cash and get a maximum of $1,530 or
60% of the amount drivers would receive to have their cars
professionally repainted.

If they already had their vehicle repainted due to premature pain
degradation, they can get reimbursed up to $2,550.

Last but not least, eligible drivers can claim as much as $1,530 if
they had to sell their cars at loss because of deteriorating
paint.

The law firms in charge of publicizing the settlement, CBL &
Associes and Cabinet BG Avocat inc., say that conditions apply in
all cases and the maximum amount that a class member can obtain is
$2,675.

The six-month claim period runs from September 30, 2022, until
March 31, 2023.

You can submit a claim request on the website drivewithstyle.ca,
which also lists the supporting documents required to get
compensation and includes explicit examples of early paint
degradation.

You can also call this phone number for more information about the
class action: 1 (800) 270-7047. [GN]

HONDA OF MANHATTAN: Court Certifies Two Classes in TCPA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra N. Krasovec, Esq., and Madelaine A. Newcomb, Esq., of
Manatt, disclosed that certifying two classes in a Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action, a New York federal
court found that questions of individualized consent did not
predominate and that the plaintiffs did not need to demonstrate
that they personally registered their numbers on the National Do
Not Call Registry.

In January 2017, the car dealership Honda of Manhattan (HOM)
closed. HOM agreed with its sister dealership, Manhattan Luxury
Automobiles (MLA), that MLA would offer service to HOM customers.

HOM sent its customers emails and text messages notifying them that
MLA could service their vehicles, along with an option to opt out
of future communications.

Some HOM customers who had purchased or leased vehicles from HOM
had signed contracts purportedly agreeing that HOM could contact
them and share certain personal information with certain third
parties.

MLA then sent text messages offering vehicle maintenance, service
and inspections to HOM customers who did not affirmatively opt out
of communications. Many HOM customers received more than one
message.

Five individuals filed suit under the TCPA, alleging that MLA
violated the statute by sending unsolicited text messages. The
plaintiffs moved to certify three classes, including the automatic
telephone dialing system (ATDS) class consisting of all HOM
customers who received a text message from MLA to a nonbusiness
cellphone using a specified platform with certain content.

The second proposed class, or National Do Not Call Registry (NDNCR)
class, consisted of all members of the ATDS class who received at
least two such text messages in a 12-month period when their phone
numbers had been registered on the NDNCR.

Finally, the third proposed class was comprised of all members of
the ATDS class who received messages while MLA failed to institute
procedures to maintain a list of persons who requested not to
receive telemarketing calls—the Internal Do-Not-Call List (IDNC)
class.

MLA objected to certification of all three classes. It raised two
primary defenses to certification of the classes: that
individualized inquiries would be required to determine whether
each class member consented to receive text messages and whether
each class member registered his or her phone number on the NDNCR.

U.S. District Court Judge Lorna G. Schofield disagreed.

Considering consent, the court found the issues could be resolved
with classwide evidence.

Although MLA argued that certain class members signed two forms
when they purportedly consented to receive texts (a contact
authorization form and a privacy notice and acknowledgment),
because every class member signed the same forms, "the legal issue
of whether those signatures support a consent defense and whether
that consent can be transferred to [MLA] can be adjudicated with
common proof," the court said.

Alternatively, MLA pointed to the opportunity for HOM customers to
opt out of future communications, asserting that it only sent
messages to those customers who did not opt out.

"The legal issues of whether failure to opt out constitutes consent
again can be litigated on a common basis because every class member
received the same opportunity to opt out," Judge Schofield
explained.

Turning to the NDNCR class, Judge Schofield rejected MLA's position
that only a person who registered his or her own number on the
NDNCR can assert a claim under the TCPA and that class members
might have inherited a phone number that is registered on the NDNCR
by a prior user of that number.

Judge Schofield reasoned, "Whether each class member registered
their number on the NDNCR is irrelevant, so that issue cannot
predominate over common issues." She further stated, "The NDNCR
regulation provides that, once a phone number is registered, it
remains protected until it is affirmatively removed from the
registry."

47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(c)(2) provides that do-not-call
registrations "must be honored indefinitely, or until the
registration is cancelled by the consumer or the telephone number
is removed by the database administrator."

"That provision anticipates the issue [MLA] raises, that as phone
numbers change hands, the NDNCR may not always perfectly reflect
which consumers requested to be included," the court said. "To
resolve the potential ambiguity about who is protected from
unwanted calls, the regulation provides that numbers remain
protected until they are removed, regardless of whether they
‘should' still be on the list. "

Judge Schofield granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification for the ATDS and NDNCR classes but dismissed the IDNC
class for lack of standing. None of the named plaintiffs ever
requested not to receive messages from MLA prior to receiving a
message. "Thus, even if Defendant had complied perfectly with the
IDNC provision of the TCPA, Plaintiffs still would have received
those messages," the court held.

The case is Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc.

Why it matters: The New York court's decision provides a reminder
that some courts will not require plaintiffs to have personally
registered their number on the NDNCR in order to receive its
protections. In addition, the court was not persuaded that
individual questions of consent predominated, instead holding that
they could be determined on a classwide basis. The court's decision
to dismiss the IDNC class is in accord with several other courts'
holdings that a plaintiff must ask not to be called further to have
standing to assert an IDNC claim. [GN]

HOWARD COUNTY, MD: District Court Tosses Kim v. Board of Education
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LISA M.F. KIM, et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HOWARD
COUNTY, Civil Action No. DKC 21-0655 (D. MD.), Judge Deborah K.
Chasanow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland:

   a. grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
      complaint; and

   b. denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs Lisa M.F. Kim and William F. Holland filed the action
against the Board to challenge the selection process for the
Student Member of the Board. They claim that the process violates
the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the First
Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. Mr. Holland is an adult resident
of Howard County whose two children attend Howard County public
schools. Ms. Kim is also a Howard County resident; she is suing
both as an individual and on behalf of her middle-school-age son,
who attends a private Catholic school in the County.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class "of all persons in Howard
County who are in malapportioned school-board districts and who are
prevented from voting for the Student Member because they are not
students in the Howard County Public Schools System in grades
6-11."

Currently pending are the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' complaint and the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiffs' Equal Protection Clause claims fall into two
categories: (1) claims resting on the "one-person, one-vote"
principle and (2) claims resting on the Supreme Court's holding in
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).

Judge Chasanow holds that the Plaintiffs fail to state a plausible
Equal Protection Clause claim under either theory.

First, the one-person, one-vote does not apply because the Student
Member is not popularly elected: The two Student Member candidates
are chosen by delegates and the candidate who receives the most
votes from students in grades 6 through 11 enrolled in the public
schools becomes the Student Member. The Plaintiffs do not allege
that the elected school board members are chosen in a way that
violates one-person, one-vote.

Second, Bush v. Gore does not apply. That case involved "the
special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a
single state judicial officer" within a state whose electors would
decide a contested presidential election. In that unique context,
the Court reasoned that the Equal Protection Clause requires some
"rudimentary" "uniformity" in statewide "recount procedures."
Adopting the Plaintiffs' position would require extending Bush's
"uniformity" principle beyond its unique facts to a new context --
and that is exactly what the Court instructed lower courts not to
do when it "limited" its holding to that case's "special
circumstances." Thus, the Plaintiffs' claim based on Bush v. Gore
is dismissed.

The Plaintiffs then argue that the Student Member selection process
violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause because it bars
certain students from voting for the Student Member "solely because
they attend a religious school or are homeschooled for religious
reasons."

This claim will be dismissed because the Plaintiffs have not
plausibly alleged that the Student Member statute burdens
religion-- and even if it did, the law is neutral and generally
applicable, Judge Chasanow opines. At its core, the Plaintiffs'
claim seems to rest on the assertion that the Free Exercise Clause
bars a state from opening a program to public schools and not
private ones because doing so discriminates against "religious
choices in education." But the Supreme Court has never said that a
state must treat public and private schools identically, or that
the Free Exercise Clause bars a state from differentiating between
the two.

In light of the foregoing, because the Student Member is not
popularly elected, and because the Student Member statute is
neutral and generally applicable, all of the Plaintiffs' claims
fail and the motion to dismiss is granted. The motion for class
certification is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 18, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4849ktm5 from Leagle.com.


INTERJET SA: Ordered to Pay $7.2 Million in Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Riviera Maya News reports that the Federal Consumer Attorney's
Office (Profeco) says it has won the class action lawsuit filed
against Mexican airline, Interjet. The class action suit that
involved 7,317 consumers were for complaints against the airline
between 2018 and 2020 that ranged from flight cancellations, missed
flights, connections and delays, among others.

"After exhausting all the procedural stages, on October 3, 2022, a
final judgment was issued condemning the airline to pay damages to
the consumers affected by the breach of the passenger air transport
service provision contract, plus 20 percent as a discount on the
cost of the ticket, as well as 9 percent of the legal interest on
the amounts generated," Profeco stated.

The agency detailed that the amount claimed with the bonus amounted
to 144 million pesos or around $7.2 million USD.

Other complaints against Interjet were unilateral undue charges,
change of itinerary without prior notice and refusal to provide the
service. [GN]


ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Status Conference for Suit Set for Dec. 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iterum Therapeutics PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2022, that the next status
conference for the putative securities class suit filed by
shareholders is set for December 7, 2022.

On August 5, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. The complaint purports to be brought
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's securities
between November 30, 2020 and July 26, 2021.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making purportedly
material misstatements or omissions concerning the Company's
submission of its New Drug Application (NDA) to the FDA for
marketing approval of oral sulopenem for the treatment of uUTIs in
patients with a quinolone non-susceptible pathogen and the
likelihood of such approval. The complaint seeks, among other
things, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other
costs.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel on November 3, 2021.

On January 26, 2022, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which
includes allegations similar to those made in the original
complaint and seeks similar relief.

On April 8, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss with the
court seeking dismissal of all claims asserted. Oral argument on
the motion to dismiss occurred on August 17, 2022.

The next status conference is scheduled for December 7, 2022.

The Company denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and
believes the defendants have valid defenses against these claims
and, therefore, intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.

Iterum Therapeutics plc is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company
dedicated to developing and commercializing sulopenem to be
potentially the first oral branded penem available in the United
States and the first and only oral and intravenous (IV) branded
penem available globally. The company is based in Dublin, Ireland.


JBS USA: Faces Wage Price-Fixing Class Action in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Wood, writing for BizWest, reports that a group of the
largest red-meat producers in the United States -- companies that
collectively make up about 80% of the market -- faces a
class-action lawsuit from workers claiming that since 2014, the
companies have colluded and conspired to fix and depress wages and
salaries.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, alleges that executives from the companies -- including
Greeley-based JBS USA -- shared compensation data with each other,
held secret meetings to determine future raises for all their
employees, agreed not to recruit each other's workers and more.

"Defendant Processors engaged in the conspiracy to increase their
profits by reducing labor costs, which comprise a substantial share
of each Defendant Processor's total operating costs," the lawsuit
reads. "The intended and actual effect of Defendants' conspiracy to
fix compensation has been to reduce and suppress the wages,
salaries, and benefits paid to Class Members since January 2014 to
levels materially lower than they would have been in a competitive
market."

The lawsuit alleges that, in doing so, the defendants violated
federal antitrust law, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

The list of defendants in the lawsuit includes a veritable who's
who of red meat production giants:

Agri Beef Co., based in Boise, Idaho.
American Foods Group LLC, based in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Cargill Inc., based in Minneapolis.
Hormel Foods Corp., based in Austin, Minnesota.
JBS USA Food Co., based in Greeley.
National Beef Packing Co. LLC, based in Kansas City, Mo.
Perdue Farms LLC, based in Salisbury, Maryland.
Seaboard Foods LLC, based in Merriam, Kansas.
Smithfield Foods Inc., based in Smithfield, Virginia.
Triumph Foods Inc., based in St. Joseph, Missouri.
Tyson Foods Inc., based in Springdale, Arkansas.
The lawsuit compares these defendants to a "cartel."

The red meat industry in the U.S. produced 12.6 million metric tons
of beef and 12.5 million metric tons of pork in 2021. Together,
those defendants accounted for about 80% of that production. They
operate 140 plants throughout the continental U.S.

The defendants bring in huge amounts of revenue. JBS made nearly
$30 billion from red-meat sales in 2020.

Meanwhile, according to the complaint, the difference between
average hourly wages paid to meatpacking workers across various
plants operated by the defendants shrunk substantially after 2014:
from 53 cents to 1 cent at neighboring National Beef and Cargill
plants in Kansas; from 63 cents to 4 cents among three plants in
Nebraska; from 22 cents to 7 cents at three plants in Texas and
Oklahoma.

In addition to allegations that they gathered compensation data and
secretly met to exchange that data, the defendants also are accused
of entering into illegal agreements with each other to not recruit
each other's employees.

Two data and consulting companies, Fort Wayne, Indiana-based Agri
Stats Inc. and Pottstown, Pennsylvania-headquartered Webber, Meng,
Sahl & Co. Inc., were also named as defendants in the lawsuit for
allegedly helping the meat producers conspire and collude.

The case has three lead plaintiffs:

Ron Brown, an Iowa employee of Smithfield Farms.
Minka Garmon, a Georgia employee of National Beef.
Jessie Croft, an Iowa employee of Iowa Premium LLC, a subsidiary of
National Beef.
They represent about 150,000 people who are collectively employed
by the defendants in the continental U.S. According to the
complaint, about 90% of those employees are hourly workers who work
on the production lines or perform maintenance on the machines.
About 10% are salaried employees who work as supervisors, buyers,
human resources or quality assurance workers.

Between 70% and 80% of workers employed by the defendants are
represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers International
union.

Neither attorneys for the plaintiffs nor representatives of any of
the defendants responded to requests for comment by press time.

Meatpacking workers are largely impoverished and vulnerable

Most of the production plants owned by the defendants are located
in the South and Midwest within close geographic proximity. Every
defendant has at least one plant that is within 80 miles of a plant
owned by another defendant, the complaint states.

Additionally, the processes and standards at plants owned by
different defendants are quite similar.

"Because Defendant Processors, their subsidiaries, and related
entities slaughter and process commodity red meat products in a
similarly efficient manner, their red meat processing facilities
were and are characterized by highly similar operations and thus
highly similar labor requirements," the complaint reads.

Meatpacking is one of the most dangerous industries in the U.S.,
according to the complaint, with a nonfatal injury rate of around
20%. Meatpacking workers are seven times more likely to suffer
repetitive strain injuries. Hazards include high noise levels,
dangerous equipment, slippery floors, musculoskeletal disorders and
hazardous chemicals.

Because of these dangers and the low compensation in the industry,
many Americans are unwilling to work meatpacking jobs, the
complaint states. Because of this, "Defendant Processors, their
subsidiaries, and related entities often recruit hourly-paid
workers who have limited alternative options for employment. Many
of the hourly-paid workers recruited and hired by Defendant
Processors, their subsidiaries, and related entities are migrant
workers, refugees, asylum seekers, prison laborers, or participants
in court-ordered substance-abuse programs."

Many of these people don't speak English and lack a formal
education. About 45% of hourly meatpacking employees live below the
poverty line and lack health insurance.

Because of all these vulnerabilities, the complaint states,
meatpacking workers are unlikely to report abuse or injuries. They
don't complain or ask for breaks or raises. They don't file for
workers comp. They just keep working harder.

"The depressed compensation provided to hourly-paid workers in red
meat processing plants owned by Defendant Processors, their
subsidiaries, and related entities left many of those workers in
poverty," the complaint states.

Labor makes up between 60% and 70% of the operating costs for
red-meat processors.

Secret surveys

According to the complaint, compensation decisions at the defendant
companies were made in a formulaic way across the country at the
highest executive levels, with executives determining compensation
schedules for their own company, then comparing them with those at
other companies.

"Those schedules were aligned with compensation schedules that
other Defendant Processors had established for the same positions,"
the complaint states. "The fact that they did so at the corporate
level reflects the significance of labor costs to their overall
profitability. That centralization materially facilitated the
formation and implementation of the compensation-fixing conspiracy
alleged herein."

It started with surveys, the complaint alleges. Beginning in 2014,
executives at the defendant companies designed a "Red Meat Industry
Compensation Survey" that allowed them to compare compensation data
for numerous positions from company to company.

In addition to salary and wage data, the survey allowed executives
to compare compensation such as pension and retirement plan
contributions, amount of life insurance coverage, provision of sick
leave days, number of annual holidays and vacation days, health
care costs per employee, medical insurance deductibles and more.

The survey also included detailed data on all future compensation
increases "despite knowing that doing so fell outside the Safe
Harbor Guidelines and violated the antitrust laws," the complaint
alleges.  

Conspiratorial meetings alleged

Every year after the survey was completed, executives from the
defendant companies met in secret to discuss the results, beginning
with a 2014 meeting at the Kansas City Airport Sheraton, according
to the complaint.

At these meetings, the defendants engaged the consulting company
Webber, Meng, Sahl & Co. Inc. to present the surveys, according to
the complaint, with WMS representatives often being asked to leave
the meetings after presenting their data, at which time the
meat-processing executives would discuss, determine and agree on
salaries, wages, bonuses and benefits. Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants would agree upon plans for salary and wage increases
going forward.

"Specifically, the executives of the Defendant Processors agreed
upon and suppressed the wages, salaries, bonuses, and benefits that
they would provide to employees at red meat processing plants in
the continental United States," the complaint alleges. "[They] also
specifically discussed, and agreed upon, plans for salary raises
and bonus budgets for the upcoming year. These discussions and
agreements had the predictable effect of limiting raises and
bonuses paid to employees at red meat processing facilities owned
by Defendant Processors, their subsidiaries, and related
entities."

Executives also colluded and conspired at dinners and other events
outside the meetings, the complaint alleges.

According to the complaint, the surveys stopped in 2020 when the
defendants became worried about antitrust violations but resumed in
2021.

"In the absence of injunctive relief from this Court, it is clear
that Defendants will continue to engage in collusive activities
with the purpose and intent of suppressing compensation to Class
Members," the complaint states.

Allegations of hidden data-sharing

The defendants allegedly used the subscription service Agri Stats
Inc. to compare and share compensation data on a monthly basis. The
complaint describes Agri Stats as a "secret clearinghouse of
information for the protein industry to aid companies in maximizing
their profit margins at the expense of consumers, and in this case,
workers."

Agri Stats provided detailed, plant-level data for comparison from
company to company on a give-data-to-get-data basis, which the
complaint alleges was used to maintain the secrecy of exchanges
between large producers.

Agri Stats also provided weekly and monthly profit information to
defendants so they could "monitor the profitability of all cartel
members, and to punish any participant who deviated from their
agreement."

The data exchanged through Agri Stats "bears all the hallmarks of
an enforcement mechanism for an anticompetitive compensation scheme
. . . Agri Stats's collection and dissemination of such
competitively sensitive compensation data allowed the Defendants to
compare and coordinate their compensation decisions and police each
other to detect any violations of the conspiracy as they
occurred."

Human-resources and compensation executives at the various
defendant companies would also engage in direct, secret
communications with each other regarding employee compensation, the
complaint states.

"[They] often requested and obtained the pay ranges for both
hourly-paid workers and salaried workers employed by those
competing pork processors at their pork processing plants . . . to
align its own hourly and salaried workers' compensation schedules
with the compensation schedules of competing processors . . . to
reduce and eliminate competition with those competing processors
for labor and thereby reduce worker turnover," the complaint says.

Companies also illegally conspired to not hire each other's
employees, the complaint alleges. For example, JBS and Iowa Premium
operated plants just 23 miles from each other that would frequently
see employees move from one to the other for higher compensation.
In 2016, the companies "agreed to severely limit their competition
for processing plant workers . . . Defendants' no-poaching
agreement was not made for any legitimate business purpose.
Instead, the purpose and effect of Defendants' no-poaching
agreement was to stop competing for a limited pool of valuable
workers and to stagnate and depress those workers' compensation."

What's next?

The plaintiffs in the case are asking for a recovery of damages to
be determined later, and that the amount of damages be tripled.
They are also asking for the defendants to be permanently enjoined
from engaging in the alleged conduct again, and they demanded a
jury trial.

The defendants have yet to respond to the complaint.

Plaintiffs are being represented by the law firms Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP and Berger
Montague PC.

The case is Ron Brown, Minka Garmon, and Jessie Croft, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JBS USA Food Co.;
Cargill Inc., Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.; Hormel Foods Corp.;
American Foods Group LLC; Triumph Foods LLC; Seaboard Foods LLC;
National Beef Packing Co. LLC; Iowa Premium LLC; Smithfield Foods
Inc.; Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp.; Agri Beef Co.; Washington
Beef LLC; Perdue Farms Inc.; Agri Stats Inc.; and Webber, Meng,
Sahl, and Co. Inc. d/b/a WMS & Co. Inc. [GN]

JOHNSON COUNTY, IN: Court Denies Boling's Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis, Division,
denies the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the
lawsuit styled JAMES S. BOLING, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUANE BURGESS, in his
official capacity as Sheriff of Johnson County, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02208-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind.).

Mr. Boling initiated this action against Defendant Burgess --the
Sheriff of Johnson County, Indiana--challenging the
constitutionality of a policy requiring payment of medical debt
prior to release of pretrial detainees at the Johnson County Jail.
Sheriff Burgess argues class certification should be denied because
Boling failed to allege a constitutional violation, failed to
adequately define a proposed class, and failed to put forth
evidence supporting the Motion and, as such, Boling cannot satisfy
his burden under either Rule 23(a) or 23(b). For the reasons set
forth, the Court denies Boling's Motion but grants him leave to
file an Amended Motion for Class Certification with supporting
evidence.

Indiana law authorizes the county sheriff to require that inmates
make co-payment for certain medical services. The medical
co-payment may not exceed $15 per service. Prior to March 9, 2020,
an employee of the Jail was responsible for collecting cash bond
payments at the Jail. On March 9, 2020, Sheriff Burgess, along with
the Johnson County Commissioners, hired Stellar Services, LLC to
exclusively manage certain inmate cash transactions, including
collection of cash bond payments. Stellar placed a "Stellar Lobby
Kiosk" in the Jail to facilitate these transactions. The Stellar
Lobby Kiosk was programmed to direct all deposits to an inmate's
general account and did not provide the option to only pay an
inmate's cash bond.

In October 2020, a warrant was issued for Boling's arrest. Upon his
arrest he was housed at the Jail and Boling's bond was set at
$1,000 cash and $2,500 surety. The surety bond was promptly posted,
so all that remained to be paid before Boling could be released
from the Jail was the $1,000 cash bond.

Approximately two weeks after his arrest, someone acting on
Boling's behalf and intending to pay Boling's cash bond, appeared
at the Jail and deposited funds equivalent to the full cash bond
amount on the Stellar Lobby Kiosk. Unbeknown to that individual or
Boling, the Stellar Lobby Kiosk automatically deducted $90 in
previously incurred medical co-payment fees from the cash bond
payment amount. This resulted in a balance insufficient to cover
the full cash bond amount and, as a result, Boling was not released
from custody. The next day, additional funds were deposited on the
Stellar Lobby Kiosk to satisfy the balance of Boling's cash bond
and he was then released from the Jail.

On Aug. 9, 2021, Boling initiated this action on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, against Sheriff Burgess in his
official capacity as Sheriff of Johnson County, seeking damages
and, declaratory and injunctive relief. He alleges his detention at
the Jail was prolonged because Sheriff Burgess requires pre-trial
detainees to pay medical co-payment fees prior to being released
from the Jail and his medical co-payment fees were automatically
deducted from funds intended to pay his cash bond.

The Case Management Plan required that Boling file a motion for
class certification by Oct. 25, 2021. This deadline was extended
multiple times with an eventual deadline of Feb. 28, 2022. After
the deadline had passed, Boling moved for leave to file a motion
for class certification on March 16, 2022. On April 20, 2022, the
Court entered an Order granting Boling leave to file his motion for
class certification, and later that day Boling filed the instant
Motion. Thereafter, Sheriff Burgess filed a response in opposition
to class certification.

Mr. Boling alleges that Sheriff Burgess' policy of requiring
pre-trial detainees to pay medical co-payment fees prior to being
released on bond violates the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments
and he seeks class certification pursuant to Rules 23(a), and
23(b)(1)(B), or 23(b)(2), or 23(b)(3).

The Court must first determine whether Boling has satisfied the
four prerequisite requirements under Rule 23(a)--numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy--before it can address his
Rule 23(b) arguments. Sheriff Burgess argues that Boling cannot
satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) because he failed to
describe a constitutional violation, failed to adequately define
the class, and failed to put forth evidence identifying member(s)
of the proposed class and, as such, he also cannot satisfy any of
the Rule 23(b) requirements.

Without deciding whether Boling plainly alleged a constitutional
violation, the Court finds he has not demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that certification is appropriate
pursuant to Rule 23(a).

Here, Boling argues the proposed class is defined by objective
criteria:

     (i) all persons who were held at the Johnson County Jail in
     lieu of a cash bond; (ii) from whom the Sheriff collected a
     medical copayment or other debt from monies otherwise
     intended to pay the confined person's bond; (iii) on or
     after a date two (2) years prior to the filing of this suit.

Sheriff Burgess argues the proposed class is defined by a
subjective criterion--monies otherwise intended to pay the confined
person's bond--and, as such, fails the objectivity test.

The Court agrees with Sheriff Burgess. The phrase "monies otherwise
intended to pay the confined person's bond" does not meet the
objectivity standard because it relies on the state of mind of
individuals depositing monies on the Stellar Lobby Kiosk. Judge
Pratt holds that this subjective belief may lead to people
improperly being included in the proposed class.

The Court notes that Boling has not sought to amend the definition
of the proposed class. It, therefore, concludes Boling has failed
to objectively define the proposed class. Even if Boling had
objectively defined the proposed class, class certification is not
appropriate because he has not satisfied all the requirements under
Rule 23(a).

Sheriff Burgess asserts that Boling has not satisfied the
numerosity requirement because he failed to put forth any evidence
supporting the size of the proposed class.

The Court agrees. Boling has not identified a single member of the
proposed class other than his client nor put forth any evidence
(e.g., declarations, affidavits, or inmate grievances) that would
lead this Court to reasonably conclude the proposed class is large
enough to make joinder impracticable. It requires evidence to make
such a finding.

Judge Pratt also finds that Boling has failed to prove numerosity
by a preponderance of the evidence and has not met his burden under
Rule 23(a). The Court agrees with Sheriff Burgess that the
commonality requirement is not met in this case because Boling has
failed to identify any other class member so as to establish a
common question, legal or factual, that is capable of classwide
resolution.

By failing to present evidence concerning other proposed class
members, Judge Pratt holds that Boling has failed to prove
commonality by a preponderance of the evidence and has not met his
burden under Rule 23(a). Boling has also failed to prove typicality
by a preponderance of the evidence and has not met his burden under
Rule 23(a).

For these reasons, Judge Pratt rules that the Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification is denied. On or before Nov. 28, 2022,
Boling may file an amended motion for class certification and
include evidence supporting the motion. In the event Boling fails
to meet the deadline, he may proceed against Sheriff Burgess
individually.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7fbwhz from Leagle.com.


KHAYLIE HAZEL: Court Directs Martin to File Supplemental Brief
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ANDREW MARTIN ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. KHAYLIE HAZEL YEARNING LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-CV-176-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss.), Magistrate
Judge Jane M. Virden of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Mississippi, Oxford Division, directs the Plaintiff to
file supplemental brief in support of his motion for leave to
conduct class certification and damages discovery.

The complaint in this proposed class action was filed on Aug. 18,
2022. In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts two claims under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, on behalf
of himself and other similarly situated consumers. According to the
summons, the Defendant was served on Sept. 19, 2022. Defendant
Khaylie Hazel Yearning LLC has failed to appear in this action, and
the clerk has entered default against it.

The Plaintiff asserts that discovery is necessary to obtain the
information required to seek class certification under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23. Specifically, he alleges that "factual evidence on the
numerosity element is needed for the Court, as it directly impacts
both class certification and the corresponding measure of damages."
The Plaintiff requests (i) this Court grants leave to conduct class
certification and damages related discovery, including third-party
discovery, as necessary and (ii) leave to conduct damages
discovery.

Having considered the motion and the applicable law, the Court
finds that supplemental briefing is necessary. The Plaintiff has
specified that if he is allowed to proceed with class certification
discovery, he intends to seek the Defendant's (or its third-party
agent's) call log identifying the members in the proposed class.
However, no other details as to what discovery the Plaintiff
intends to seek have been provided.

In order for the Court to satisfy itself that the discovery sought
complies with the strictures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), the Court
finds that the Plaintiff will be required to file a supplemental
brief in support of its motion for discovery. Therein, the
Plaintiff is directed to provide the Court with an outline of the
proposed discovery that it intends to seek from the Defendant
and/or its third-party agent on the issues of numerosity and
damages.

The Plaintiff is also directed to provide a timeline for discovery
and the filing of any anticipated motions for class certification
and default judgment. The Plaintiff will have ten (10) days from
the date of entry of this Order to file his supplemental brief in
support of the motion for leave to conduct class certification and
damages discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4dpz3wm3 from Leagle.com.


KRISPY KREME: Settles Overtime Lawsuit for $1.2 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Business Journal reports that Krispy Kreme Inc. has
agreed to pay almost $1.2 million in backpay and damages to 516
assistant managers who the U.S. Department of Labor says were
improperly denied overtime payments from 2019 to 2021.

Krispy Kreme will pay almost $594,000 in previously withheld
overtime and a similar amount in damages to the affected employees.
The consent order settles a suit filed by the labor department on
Nov. 7 in U.S. District Court in Louisville, Kentucky.

The company does not admit liability in the consent order. [GN]


L'OREAL USA: Faces Class Action Over Dark & Lovely Hair Relaxers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that amid
growing concerns of hair relaxers and uterine cancer, a group of
women from Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey and Texas have filed a
class action lawsuit over Dark & Lovely, indicating that
manufacturers of the hair relaxer failed to disclose that toxic
chemicals in Dark & Lovely may increase the risk of uterine cancer,
fibroids and endometriosis.

Dark & Lovely is a widely used chemical hair straightener or
relaxer, which has been marketed as safe and effective for Black
women to use for decades. However, recent studies have found that
products contain a number of toxic endocrine disrupting chemicals,
which are known to pose a number of long-term side effects, which
were never disclosed by the manufacturer.

The complaint was brought by Evelyn Williams, Tabatha Taggart,
Tameka M. Meadows, Deborah Taylor and Daphne Valentine in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on November 3,
seeking class action status to pursue damages for themselves and
similarly situated consumers.

Each of the women indicate that they purchased Dark & Lovely hair
relaxer, unaware it may be adulterated with toxic endocrine
disrupting chemicals, and maintain that they never would have paid
for the product if they had been warned about the potential health
risks. None of the plaintiffs indicate they have been diagnosed
with a specific injury, but claim that the manufacturer should be
required to pay for medical monitoring and other damages.

Chemicals in Dark & Lovely May Cause Cancer, Fibroids and
Endometriosis
The Dark & Lovely class action lawsuit was filed against L'Oreal
USA and Softsheen-Carson, Inc., who also face a growing number of
similar hair relaxer lawsuits now being filed by women who have
been diagnosed with uterine cancer, breast cancer, uterine
fibroids, endometriosis and other injuries following regular use of
the products. Similar claims have also been brought against the
makers of competing products, including Just for Me, Optimum,
Motions, Olive Oil Girls and other popular relaxers or perms.

In this new class action lawsuit over Dark & Lovely, plaintiffs
indicate that the manufacturers have made false and misleading
statements about the safety of hair relaxers, leading consumers to
spend money on a product they would not have otherwise purchased.
Many of the women have used the products for years, often starting
when they were children.

"Hair products such as relaxers contain hormonally active and
carcinogenic compounds, such as phthalates, known to cause
endocrine disruption, are not listed separately as ingredients but,
instead, are often broadly lumped into the 'fragrance' or 'perfume'
categories," the lawsuit states. "Relaxer habits usually begin in
formative childhood years, and adolescence is likely a period of
enhanced susceptibility to debilitating conditions resulting from
exposure to these chemicals."

The lawsuit seeks to establish a multi-state class action for any
consumer who purchased any of the defendants' hair straighteners or
relaxers in the U.S. from May 25, 2017, to the present. In addition
to medical monitoring, the Dark & Lovely lawsuit seeks a full
refund of the purchase price consumers paid for the hair relaxer,
and an injunction which would prevent the defendants from
continuing to sell products which may be adulterated due to the
presence of toxic chemicals.

Hair Relaxer Cancer Risks
In recent years, studies have been published that make a connection
between use of hair relaxer and cancer, raising concerns about the
wide spread use of the products by Black and other minority women
throughout the U.S.

In October, researchers published findings in the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute, which warned that ingredients used in
the chemical hair relaxers may cause uterine cancer. Researchers
found that the rate of uterine cancer was nearly three times
greater among women who frequently used hair relaxer chemicals,
compared to women who never used the products.

A 2019 study published in the International Journal of Cancer (IJC)
issued similar findings, indicating women who reported regularly
using straighteners and permanent hair dyes were 9% more likely to
develop breast cancer than non-users.

Over an eight year period, researchers identified 2,794 cases of
breast cancer after chemical hair straighteners use. The study
revealed those who frequently used hair straightener products were
at a significantly increased risk of breast cancer, finding women
using hair straighteners at least every five to eight weeks, had a
30% increased risk of developing breast cancer.

Researchers warned that African American women who reported using
permanent hair dyes regularly were associated with a 60% increase
of breast cancer diagnosis, compared to an 8% increased risk for
Caucasian women.

Uterine fibroids and endometriosis have been associated with
phthalate metabolites used in hair relaxers.

For women actually diagnosed uterine cancer, breast cancer or
uterine fibroids, product liability lawyers are reviewing
individual Dark & Lovely lawsuits to pursue settlement benefits for
the actual medical damages and pain and suffering caused by the
hair relaxers. Those claims will be handled separately from any
potential class action lawsuits brought against the manufacturers,
seeking refunds and medical monitoring. [GN]

LABETTE HEALTH: Lane Suit Removed to D. Kansas
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cynthia Lane, D. H., individually and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Labette Health
Foundation, Inc., Case No. LBP-2022-CV-000031, was removed from the
Labette County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas on Sept. 29, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02392-JAR-KGG to
the proceeding.

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

Labette Health Foundation, Inc. -- https://www.labettehealth.com/
-- provides health care services. The Company offers general
medical and surgical hospital services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lucy McShane, Esq.
          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          McShane & Brady, LLC
          1656 Washington Street, Suite 120
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 888-8010
          Email: lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
                 mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kyle Klucas, Esq.
          Spencer Fane, LLP - KC
          1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Phone: (785) 221-9080
          Email: kklucas@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Cole, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE, LLP - OVERLAND PARK
          6201 College Blvd., Suite 500
          Overland Park, KS 66211
          Phone: (913) 327-5108
          Fax: (913) 345-0736
          Email: mcole@spencerfane.com


LIGHTRICKS US INC: Boyd Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Anna Boyd, as Guardian and Next Friend of O.G.;
Bridget Lawrence, as Guardian and Next Friend of C.L.; Latoya
Lawrence, as Guardian and Next Friend of J.C.; individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lightricks US, Inc.,
Case No. 2022-CH-09769, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Nov. 14, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-06362 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Lightricks -- https://www.lightricks.com/ -- develops creativity
tools that enable its users to craft and share visual content on
mobile devices.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew David Provance, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 S. Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 701-8598
          Email: mprovance@mayerbrown.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Suit Over Arrestees' Illegal Bail Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
knock-la.com reports that last year, the California Supreme Court
ruled that "the common practice of conditioning freedom solely on
whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional." Although
it did not ban the use of cash bail, it held that courts must
consider an arrestee's ability to pay instead of simply selecting
the corresponding dollar amount from a county's uniform "bail
schedule."

Despite that landmark ruling, Los Angeles County and the City of
Los Angeles continue to jail hundreds of people at any given time
based solely on their inability to pay bail. On November 14, Public
Justice's Debtors' Prison Project, in partnership with Civil Rights
Corps; Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP; Schonbrun Seplow Harris
Hoffman & Zeldes LLP; and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, filed a class
action lawsuit against the County and City of Los Angeles, the Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD), the sheriff of Los
Angeles County, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), and the
chief of the LAPD, challenging their policy of jailing arrested
individuals who are unable to pay the monetary amounts set by the
county's uniform bail schedules.

The lawsuit represents six class members, or plaintiffs, who were
all in custody when the suit was filed.

The first hearing for the lawsuit took place on Tuesday morning. A
Los Angeles Superior Court judge ordered the forthwith release of
one plaintiff because there hadn't been any individualized
assessment of his ability to afford bail. But Civil Rights Corps
litigation support fellow Micah Clark Moody says that in spite of
the order for immediate release, the individual remains in
custody.

This all came to a head five days after the plaintiff was first
arrested. In fact, when the lawsuit was filed, each of the six
plaintiffs had been jailed for at least five days, without ever
seeing a judge or being appointed an attorney.

An initial bail amount is set by the arresting agency and based on
the uniform bail schedule, not on any particular circumstances
related to the alleged offense. And since arrests don't always
result in criminal charges, a person can be asked to pay tens of
thousands of dollars in bail, left in custody for days, and then
released without ever being formally charged with a crime.

That's exactly what happened to another one of the six plaintiffs,
whose bail was set at $75,000 when she was arrested on November 9.
She waited five days in jail for her arraignment because she had no
way to pay even a fraction of the bail amount. During that time,
she was unable to shower and was kept in a cold, windowless cell.
But when her court date finally came, the LA district attorney's
office declined to file charges.

Civil Rights Corps attorney Salil Dudani says that the decision was
made around 11:00 AM, but the plaintiff wasn't released until after
9:30 PM. In other words, she lost five days of freedom solely
because she was unable to pay $75,000, all for a case that was
ultimately never even filed.

If the plaintiff and her family had managed to scrape together 10%
of the bail amount to secure a bail bond -- the most common way to
make bail since the full amounts are so high -- they would have
likely never gotten that money back. Bail bonds companies often
consider this amount their premium or fee and don't refund it, even
if the individual arrested makes all court appearances or is never
formally charged.

However, she isn't the only plaintiff whose case was rejected by
the DA's office. Another plaintiff was arrested for vandalism on
November 9 and held on a $25,000 bail that he couldn't afford to
pay. In his handwritten declaration filed with the lawsuit, he
explains how he called the Bail Deviation Program on November 11 to
see if he was eligible for reduced or zero cash bail.

He only knew about this program because an attorney from Public
Justice, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs,
referred him to it. When he called, he learned that the DA was
declining to charge him, and that he was supposed to be released.
That release didn't happen until days later, even though there was
no longer any reason to jail him.

Five days in custody takes more from those affected than just time,
or safety, or freedom.

For one plaintiff, it meant missing an important job interview.
Another plaintiff did not have access to his medications and was
separated from his girlfriend. One plaintiff was in the process of
finding a shelter placement before she was arrested and was unable
to see her children while she was jailed.

Another plaintiff needed to recertify her benefits, her sole source
of income, but lost five days to a $20,000 bail that she had no
means of paying. On November 14, the court ordered that she be
released on her own recognizance, without paying bail. But the
county failed to process her paperwork on time, leaving her to
spend another night in jail. She will have waited at least a week
behind bars by the time she's released.

The six class action plaintiffs in this case were all kept in
custody because of their inability to pay, not because of any
alleged risk to the community. But their cases have another
commonality: All six plaintiffs are unhoused.

Civil Rights Corps attorney Shirley LaVarco says this is no
coincidence. "The City and the County clearly have an abundance of
resources to lock our clients in jail for five days before they can
even see a judge. But there are far fewer resources to help get
them housed in their communities. One of our clients, who has been
sleeping in his friend's car, tried to get into a shelter a few
weeks ago. He was immediately turned away because there were no
available beds."

Proponents of the cash bail system argue it ensures people show up
to court and keeps communities safe. But studies show that secured
bail does nothing to increase court appearances.

"Jailing people simply because their families can't afford to pay
cash bail destabilizes their lives and subjects them to inhumane
conditions for no good reason," said Debtors' Prison Project
Director Leslie Bailey. "Under LA County's system, a person
arrested for a less serious crime is locked up solely because she
can't pay, while another person arrested for a more serious crime
is set free because he can afford bail. This is the definition of
wealth discrimination, and it has no place in our society or our
legal system."

At the time of publication, the next hearing is scheduled for
December 19, 2022. This hearing will address the preliminary
injunction asked for in the lawsuit, which would prevent the city,
county, LASD, and LAPD from detaining individuals who cannot afford
to pay cash bail as a condition of pre-arraignment release. It
would also bar the use of taxpayer dollars to fund the enforcement
of the bail schedule and the spending of forfeited bail funds
collected under the unlawful bail schedule.

In the meantime, Los Angeles will continue to incarcerate people
who haven't even been formally charged with a crime, much less
convicted of one. They wait, in cold, crowded, and filthy jail
cells, without an attorney to call -- not because they are too
dangerous to be released, but because they are too poor.[GN]

MANITOBA: Adult, Youth Inmates Affected by Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Were You Incarcerated in a Provincial Adult or Youth Jail between
September 12, 2006 and May 4, 2022?

A Class Action Lawsuit may affect you. Please read this carefully.

The Manitoba Court of King's Bench has decided that a class action
on behalf of people who were inmates in adult and youth provincial
jails in Manitoba and who:

Were placed in solitary confinement for prolonged periods of time
(15 or more consecutive days) between September 12, 2012 and May 4,
2022;

Were placed in solitary confinement for any length of time as youth
between September 12, 2006 and May 4, 2022; or

Were placed in solitary confinement for any length of time and who
were diagnosed with a Serious Mental Illness (with some exclusions)
between September 12, 2012 and May 4, 2022.

You have a choice of whether or not to stay in the Class.

To stay in the Class, you do not have to do anything. If money or
benefits are obtained in the class action, you will be notified
about how to make a claim. You will be legally bound by all orders
and judgments, and you will not be able to sue Manitoba about the
legal claims in this case.

If you want to remove yourself from the class action, you must
submit an opt out form by February 16, 2023. Opt Out Forms are
available here: www.ManitobaSegregationClassAction.ca. If you
remove yourself, you cannot get money or benefits from this lawsuit
if any are awarded.

The Court has appointed Koskie Minsky LLP ("Class Counsel") to
represent the Class. You don't have to pay Class Counsel to
participate. If they get money or benefits for the Class, they may
ask for lawyers' fees and costs which would be deducted from any
money obtained or to be paid separately by Manitoba.

For more information about your rights, go to
www.ManitobaSegregationClassAction.ca, call toll-free
1-855-458-0290 (TTY: 1-877-627-7027) or write to Epiq Class Action
Services Canada Inc., Attention: Manitoba Segregation Class Action
Administrator, PO Box 507 STN B, Ottawa ON K1P 5P6, or by email at:
info@ManitobaSegregationClassAction.ca. [GN]

MASSACHUSETTS NATURAL: Burt Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Michele Burt, Christopher Cerasuolo, Nancy
Donovan, and Lauren Ladue, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. MASSACHUSETTS NATURAL FERTILIZER COMPANY;
OTTER FARM; SEAMAN PAPER COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC.; GREIF,
INC.; CARAUSTAR INDUSTRIES, INC.; THE NEWARK GROUP, INC.; 3M
COMPANY; AND JOE DOE COMPANIES, Case No. 22-00922 was removed from
the Superior Court in the County of Worcester, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on Nov. 14, 2022, and assigned Case No.
1:22-cv-11937.

The Complaint alleges that the punitive class includes all
Massachusetts residents owned, leased, or resided within a
"Contamination Zone" from 1987 to the present, which zone includes
all properties within the Town of Westminster, MA and surrounding
area. The Complaint seeks "both equitable and legal remedies,
including but not limited to monetary damages for property damage
and nuisance as well as the equitable relief of establishment of
medical surveillance program for early detection of illnesses
related to their exposure to PFAS and PFAS-contaminated
water."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          John P. Gardella, Esq.
          Bryna Rosen Misiura, Esq.
          CMBG3 LAW, LLC
          265 Franklin Street, Suite 601
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 279-8200
          Email: jgardella@cmbg3.com


MASSACHUSETTS: NCLA Files Class Action v. DPH Over COVID Spyware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Silvia, writing for NewBedfordGuide.com, reports that the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) worked with Google
to auto-install spyware on the smartphones of more than one million
Commonwealth residents, without their knowledge or consent, in a
misguided effort to combat Covid-19. Such brazen disregard for
civil liberties violates the United States and Massachusetts
Constitutions and cannot stand. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a
nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group, has filed a class-action
lawsuit, Wright v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, et
al., challenging DPH's covert installation of a Covid tracing app
that tracks and records the movement and personal contacts of
Android mobile device users without owners' permission or
awareness.

Plaintiffs Robert Wright and Johnny Kula own and use Android mobile
devices and live or work in Massachusetts. Since June 15, 2021, DPH
has worked with Google to secretly install the app onto over one
million Android mobile devices located in Massachusetts without
obtaining any search warrants, in violation of the device owners'
constitutional and common-law rights to privacy and property.
Plaintiffs have constitutionally protected liberty interests in not
having their whereabouts and contacts surveilled, recorded, and
broadcasted, and in preventing unauthorized and unconsented access
to their personal smartphones by government agencies.

Once "automatically installed," DPH's contact tracing app does not
appear alongside other apps on the Android device's home screen.
The app can be found only by opening "settings" and using the "view
all apps" feature. Thus, the typical device owner remains unaware
of its presence. DPH apparently decided to secretly install the
contact tracing app onto over one million Android devices because
few Massachusetts citizens were downloading its initial version,
which required voluntary adoption. DPH decided to mass-install the
app without device owners' knowledge or consent. When smartphone
owners delete the app, DPH simply re-installs it. Plaintiffs'
class-action lawsuit contains nine counts against DPH, including
violations of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights under the
U.S. Constitution, and violations of Articles X and XIV of the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

No statutory authority supports DPH's conduct, which serves no
public health purpose, especially since Massachusetts has ended its
statewide contact-tracing program. No law or regulation authorizes
DPH to secretly install any type of software -- let alone what
amounts to spyware designed specifically to obtain private location
and health information -- onto the Android devices of Massachusetts
residents. The U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts should grant injunctive relief, along with nominal
damages, to the class. NCLA is unaware at this time of other states
that engaged in a similar surreptitious strategy of auto-installing
contact-tracing apps. It appears Massachusetts iPhone users had to
consent before a similar app installed on their devices.

NCLA released the following statements:

"Many states and foreign countries have successfully deployed
contact tracing apps by obtaining the consent of their citizens
before downloading software onto their smartphones. Persuading the
public to voluntarily adopt such apps may be difficult, but it is
also necessary in a free society. The government may not secretly
install surveillance devices on your personal property without a
warrant -- even for a laudable purpose. For the same reason, it may
not install surveillance software on your smartphone without your
awareness and permission." -- Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

"The Massachusetts DPH, like any other government actor, is bound
by state and federal constitutional and legal constraints on its
conduct. This ‘android attack,' deliberately designed to override
the constitutional and legal rights of citizens to be free from
government intrusions upon their privacy without their consent,
reads like dystopian science fiction—and must be swiftly
invalidated by the court." -- Peggy Little, Senior Litigation
Counsel, NCLA

ABOUT NCLA
NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by
prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional
freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA's
public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to
tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster
a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans'
fundamental rights." [GN]

MAYFIELD CONSUMER: Workers Sue Over Unfair Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that former workers at a Kentucky
candle factory struck by a tornado last year are alleging that the
company retaliated against them for cooperating with federal safety
inspectors.

An attorney said on Nov. 18 that he has filed a charge on behalf of
20 workers with the National Labor Relations Board that accuses
Mayfield Consumer Products of unfair labor practices.

The filing alleges the company is "denying, abridging, and/or
obstructing workers' compensation benefits" because the workers
participated in an Occupational Safety and Health Administration
investigation, according to a media release from Amos Jones, a
Washington attorney representing some former workers.

The company was fined $40,000 by OSHA for violations of federal
labor law.

Jones filed a class-action lawsuit against the company in December.
Jones said some former workers have also been contacted by a
collection agency for medical bills the company and its insurer
have not paid.

Six employees were killed as the Dec. 10 tornado struck the
building. The storms killed 81 people across the state.

An attorney for the company did not respond on Nov. 18 to a request
for comment. [GN]

MDL 2924: Dismissal of CTPPCC in Zantac Liability Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION 630
WELFARE FUND, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC,
GLAXOSMITHKLINE (AMERICA) INC., GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC, BOEHRINGER
INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants-Appellees, PAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 21-10335 (11th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed in part, reversed in part and
affirmed in part the dismissal of the Consolidated Third-Party
Payor Class Complaint.

The appeal involves the dismissal of one of the master complaints
in In re Zantac (Ranitidine), MDL No. 2924. That complaint was
described as the Consolidated Third-Party Payor Class Complaint
(CTPPCC).

Three plaintiffs--Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 630, the
NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, and the Indiana Laborers Welfare
Fund--filed the CTPPCC.

Asserting a number of claims, the CTPPCC Plaintiffs sued a number
of Defendants on behalf of numerous purported nationwide and state
classes. They alleged that they provide eligible members with
health and welfare benefits, including the payment of and
reimbursement for prescription drugs on behalf of their members
(and their dependents). Those members filled prescriptions
requiring reimbursement for Zantac and ranitidine products in
several states.

The CTPPCC divided the Defendants into two main groups: (a) the
brand-name manufacturer defendants (who manufactured and sold
Zantac); and (b) the generic manufacturer defendants (who
manufactured and sold generic versions of Zantac containing
ranitidine as an active ingredient). The CTPPCC contained nine
claims: Count 1, a claim under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act, was asserted against the brand-name
manufacturer defendants on behalf of nationwide and state classes.
Counts 2-9 (claims for breach of express warranties, breach of
implied warranties, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
fraud, negligent misrepresentation and omission, violations of
state consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, and negligence)
were asserted against the generic manufacturer defendants and
GlaxoSmithKline on behalf of a nationwide class.

A number of Defendants moved to dismiss the CTPPCC. One of the
grounds they asserted for dismissal was that the CTPPCC constituted
an impermissible shotgun pleading under Eleventh Circuit law. The
district court agreed with the Defendants on this point, ruled that
the CTPPCC was indeed a shotgun pleading, and dismissed it without
prejudice and with leave to amend. It dismissed without prejudice
Counts 2, 3, and 5-9 of the CTPPCC to the extent they were brought
under the laws of certain states.

In separate orders, the district court granted the motions of
several groups of Defendants to dismiss certain claims (including
those asserted in the CTPPCC) on the basis of federal preemption.
Some of the dismissals on this ground were with prejudice, but
others were without prejudice and with leave to amend.

All three of the CTPPCC Plaintiffs declined to amend their
complaint. Of the three, only Plumbers filed a notice of appeal.

More than three weeks before Plumbers filed its initial brief, the
Appellees (who were the Defendants) moved to dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. Focusing on the orders and issues identified
in the notice of appeal, they argued that the appeal was moot
because Plumbers apparently did not seek to appeal one of the
district court's independent grounds for dismissal of the
CTPPCC--that it constituted a shotgun pleading. Because that ground
was apparently not going to be challenged, the Appellees asserted
that nothing that the Court of Appeals could do on appeal could
revive the CTPPCC.

In its initial brief, Plumbers challenged the dismissal of the
CTPPCC only with respect to the district court's standing and
preemption rulings. On the same day that it filed its initial
brief, it responded to the Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction.

Plumbers explained that it had chosen not to amend the CTPPCC as
permitted by the district court, and as a result under Eleventh
Circuit law the dismissal without prejudice became final at the end
of the amendment period, thereby, permitting it to appeal. It also
maintained that the shotgun pleading ruling made no difference to
appealability because it was barred from amending certain claims
(e.g., those that relied on a misbranding theory).

A threshold issue is whether Plumbers has standing to pursue its
claims. Article III standing has three components: (1) the
plaintiff must have "suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly
traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendants, and (3) that
is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision,"
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016).

In sum, the Court of Appeals concludes that Plumbers had Article
III standing to bring its claims against the Defendants, who
allegedly sold ranitidine products to its members and for which it
provided exemplar reimbursements. For class representation
purposes, the claims that the Plaintiffs made on behalf of class
members, who reimbursed purchases of ranitidine products in other
states, need not be stricken or disregarded, as those claims "may
be considered" when determining the appropriateness of class
certification under Rule 23. The district court erred in ruling
otherwise, the Court of Appeals points out.

That said, the Court of Appeals says the district court's ruling
that the CTPPCC constituted a shotgun pleading was an independent
basis for dismissal. To recap, the district court concluded that
the CTPPCC lumped over 60 related and unrelated Defendants across
two groups, thereby, creating confusion and failing to provide a
factual basis for distinguishing the conduct of Individual
Defendants. Moreover, each count of the CTPPCC incorporated the
same preceding 519 background and factual paragraphs, making it
virtually impossible to know which factual allegations are intended
to support which claim for relief.

As noted, Plumbers has not challenged the shotgun pleading ruling
in any way on appeal.
By not attacking the shotgun pleading ruling, Plumbers has left the
Court of Appeals with no choice but to affirm the dismissal of the
CTPPCC.

Because Plumbers has allegedly been injured by some of the
Defendants and those injuries are redressable by a favorable
decision, it has Article III standing to pursue some of its claims,
the Court of Appeals finds. Its ability (or inability) to sue under
the laws of states where it never reimbursed purchases of
ranitidine by unnamed class members does not implicate Article III
standing, and the district court's conclusion to the contrary was
mistaken.

But Plumbers was put on notice, before it filed its initial brief,
that a failure to challenge the district court's shotgun pleading
ruling could be problematic. By not contesting that ruling,
Plumbers has given the Court of Appeals no choice but to affirm the
dismissal of the CTPPCC.

Dismissed in part, reversed in part, and affirmed in part.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2xpebfyf from Leagle.com.


MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Faces $1-Bil. Compensation Bill Over Cyberattack
------------------------------------------------------------------
Simone Fox Koob and Colin Kruger, writing for Sydney Morning
Herald, report that Medibank could face a $1 billion compensation
bill from the damaging cyberattack that has affected 10 million
customers, as hackers targeting the company released the biggest
tranche of sensitive data yet in another attempt to pressure it
into paying a ransom.

The ASX-listed private health insurer confirmed on Nov. 20 that
another 1500 customer records containing sensitive health
information had been released on the dark web -- the largest
release of health data so far in the incident.

Hackers demanding a $10 million ransom have drip-fed sensitive
health information about Medibank customers on the dark web over
the past week. The hackers also stole data on Medibank employees,
including mobile and work device numbers.

Medibank has said it will not pay the ransom, in line with
government policy. The company has said the incident will cost it
up to $35 million, but this figure excludes the potential costs of
litigation which could increase the hit to shareholders
significantly

Bloomberg Intelligence analysts have estimated that the hack could
ultimately cost Medibank $700 million if customers sue for damages.
And this figure could hit $960 million if 10 per cent of affected
customers join either of the class-actions and are paid the maximum
$20,000 in damages, it said.

Medibank said it would not speculate on potential litigation, or
what it might cost. "We are aware that several law firms are
investigating a potential class action in relation to the recent
cybercrime event. While one of those law firms has made preliminary
contact regarding investigation into a potential class action,
Medibank has not been served with any class action proceedings."

"The cybercrime event continues to evolve and at this stage, we are
unable to predict with certainty the impact of any litigation
related costs. We will continue to keep shareholders informed, as
appropriate, consistent with our continuous disclosure
obligations."

The company is facing at least two class actions, one from
Bannister Law Class Actions and Centennial Lawyers and another from
Maurice Blackburn, which has confirmed it was reviewing whether
customers affected by the hack could be entitled to compensation.

Medibank on Nov. 20 said four new files containing 1,496 records
were released on the dark web over the weekend, of which 123
records had already been released. The company is analysing the
material to determine its accuracy, as previous files released by
the hackers have not matched its records.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers described the hackers as "complete grubs" on
Nov. 20 and said recent cyber attacks had been a wake-up call for
both the government and the private sector.

"These people are complete grubs -- pure and simple. It is
despicable that people are prepared to release the sorts of
information that we've seen released in recent days," he said. "It
is well beyond the pale to see this kind of private, sensitive
information released into the public domain."

"We need to rebuild our buffers against these kinds of grubby acts,
these kinds of despicable acts. The government is prepared to do
its bit. I'm confident the private sector is prepared to do its bit
as well. We've all got an interest in stamping out this despicable,
despicable, grubby act of the kind that we've seen overnight."

The hack is the worst in Australian corporate history.

At the company's annual general meeting, Medibank chief executive
David Koczkar insisted the insurer was not going to change its
decision to reject the ransom demand.

"There is no doubt that rejecting the ransom demand was the right
thing to do," he told investors.

Koczkar said on Nov. 20 those who had been impacted were being
offered support. The company has increased its customer support
team by more than 300 people.

Medibank has also stressed that those named in the data may not
necessarily be the person who received the treatment, but may be
the policyholder.

The cyberattack was triggered when hackers gained access to the
company's internal systems by stealing the login credentials of an
employee or contractor.

The Australian Federal Police has named Russia as the home of the
hacking group. Authorities believe the notorious REvil group was
involved.

Medibank chairman Mike Wilkins said the company's cyber processes
were "robust, although clearly not robust enough in this
circumstance".

At the AGM shareholders did not protest the company's remuneration
report and all directors up for re-election were endorsed, in line
with advice given by proxy groups. [GN]

MEDINA COUNTY, OH: Judgment on Pleadings in Gault Suit Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled NATHAN GAULT, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CLERK,
MEDINA COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, et al., Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 21 CA 0082-M (Ohio App.), the Court of Appeals of Ohio,
Ninth District, Medina County, reverses and remands the trial
court's decision granting the Appellees' motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

The Appellant appeals the Nov. 5, 2021 decision issued by the
Medina County Court of Common Pleas granting the Appellees' motion
for judgment on the pleadings. The Appellant's class-action
complaint contends Appellees the Medina County Common Pleas Clerk
of Courts, the Medina County Treasurer, and the Medina County Board
of Commissioners misconstrued certain sections of the Ohio Revised
Code and overcharged litigants court costs and fees consistent with
their misconstruction.

The Appellant, for himself and others similarly situated, filed a
class-action complaint in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas
in October 2020. As Defendants, he named the Medina County Common
Pleas Clerk of Courts, the Medina County Treasurer, and the Medina
County Board of Commissioners (collectively hereafter, Appellees).

The Appellant identified three causes of actions claiming he was
overcharged for unauthorized fees and costs in his separate divorce
proceeding, like other individuals similarly situated, based on
Appellees' misconstruction of several sections of Ohio Revised Code
Chapter 2303.

First, the Appellant's complaint alleged the overall charges for
computerization of the clerk's office is in excess of its statutory
authority. For count two, the Appellant contends the Appellees
charged him a clerk computer operation fee in excess of the
permissible one dollar. Last, the Appellant asserted an unjust
enrichment claim contending the Appellees overcharged him, and
other proposed class members, and the Appellees were unjustly
enriched as a result of the overcharging.

In response, the Appellees filed an answer and moved for judgment
on the pleadings raising several alternative arguments.

The Appellant filed his first amended class action complaint in
October 2021 per the trial court's directive. It identifies the
same three claims for relief. In addition, the Appellant contended
the clerk of courts charged him more than $500 in improper fees and
surmised the clerk overcharged the other potential class members
collective charges in excess of $500,000.

The Appellant's demand for judgment sought in part reimbursement
the amount of money he paid in excess of what was allowed by law
based on the Appellees' misconstruction of the applicable statutes
and overcharging. The exhibits to the complaint consist of three
bills of costs from his divorce case, Case Number 14DR0527. The
first Bill of Costs is dated Oct. 23, 2015. The second Bill of
Costs is dated Oct. 12, 2017. And the third Bill of Costs is dated
Oct. 7, 2019.

The trial court granted the Appellees' motion for judgment on the
pleadings. It found the imposition of costs and fees and the
responsibility for the payment of these fees and costs is the
responsibility of the trial court when entering the judgment.
Consequently, it held to challenge the imposition of these costs,
one must appeal from the final order or judgment in that action.
And since the Appellant failed to appeal the final order in his
underlying case ordering him to pay costs, he was precluded from
doing so in separate proceedings. Thus, the trial court entered
judgment in favor of the Appellees.

The Appellant raises one assignment of error on appeal. The
Appellant's sole assignment of error asserts:

     "The trial court erred in granting defendant-appellees'
     motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of res
     judicata where the court costs were not journalized for
     purposes of appeal."

The Appellant contends his claim does not fail as a matter of law
for two reasons. First, the prior action in which the disputed
costs were imposed was between him and his ex-wife and did not
involve the Medina County Clerk of Courts. Thus, there was a lack
of privity.

Second, the Appellant challenges whether the Appellees lawfully
determined the fees and costs in accordance with governing laws,
and because the amount and their tabulation were not incorporated
via a final judgment or rendered within the time to appeal the
domestic relations court's judgment imposing these fees and costs,
the Appellant should not be precluded from disputing them now.

In concluding the Appellant's claims are barred by res judicata,
the trial court found in part that because the issue of costs and
fees could have been litigated in the prior litigation, the
Appellant was precluded from addressing these issues in a
subsequent lawsuit based on the doctrine of res judicata.

The Appellate Court disagrees with the trial court's conclusion.
Upon taking the allegations in the Appellant's complaint as true
and construing all reasonable inferences drawn from those
allegations in favor of him, Judge Robb finds it does not appear
beyond a doubt that he can prove no set of facts entitling him to
the relief requested. Given the liberal pleading standard that
applies when addressing a motion to dismiss, the trial court erred
by dismissing the Appellant's complaint, Judge Robb holds.

Neither the total amount the Appellant owed nor the Appellees'
methodology for determining the amount he owed were ascertainable
via the domestic relations' final judgment, Judge Robb notes. And
the Appellees were not parties to the prior proceedings and not in
privity with them.

Consequently, the Appellate Court finds res judicata does not
apply, and the trial court erred by granting the Appellees' motion
for judgment on the pleadings.

The Appellate Court reverses and vacates the trial court's Nov. 5,
2021 decision and remands for further proceedings.

Waite, J., concurs. D'Apolito, J., concurs.

Carol Ann Robb, Cheryl L. Waite, David A. D'Apolito, Judges of the
Seventh District Court of Appeals, Sitting by Assignment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Judgment Entry dated
Nov. 7, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4e6xf3ck from
Leagle.com.

Atty. Nicole T. Fiorelli -- nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com -- Atty. Frank
A. Bartela -- fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- Atty. Patrick J. Perotti
-- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., 60
South Park Place, in Painesville, Ohio 44077, for the
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Atty. Terence L. Williams -- twilliams@mrrlaw.com -- Atty. John T.
McLandrich -- jmclandrich@mrrlaw.com -- Atty. Frank H. Scialdone --
fscialdone@mrrlaw.com -- Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A., 100
Franklin's Row, 34305 Solon Road, in Cleveland, Ohio 44139, for the
Defendants-Appellees.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces Class Action in Australia Over Cheat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Dornin, writing for Australian Associated Press, reports that a
class action against car company Mercedes-Benz is seeking hundreds
of millions of dollars in damages over the alleged use of "cheat
devices" to manipulate diesel emissions.

The action, filed in the Victorian Supreme Court on Nov. 22, covers
thousands of vehicles sold in Australia over a 10-year period.

Compensation law firm Gerard Malouf and Partners will argue the
devices manipulated diesel engine emission levels of harmful gases,
including nitrogen oxide, to pass regulatory testing.

The company says past or present owners of affected Mercedes-Benz
diesel vehicles, either new or second-hand, manufactured between
January 2008 and December 2018 may be entitled to significant
damages which could include a portion of the purchase price.

It has entered into an information-sharing arrangement with US
class action law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro after it recently
settled a similar action against Mercedes-Benz there for about $1.3
billion.

"This information-sharing arrangement is a great step forward
towards achieving just compensation for those consumers in
Australia which have been affected," GMP chairman Gerard Malouf
said in a statement.

"Based upon the findings from the numerous international court
proceedings as well as government investigations, we strongly
believe Mercedes has been a serious case to answer."

"We intend to stand up for the rights of all consumers to protect
their health, financial interests and the environment."

The class action will seek compensation for the loss of value of
the affected vehicles along with punitive damages.

Mercedes-Benz has been contacted for comment. [GN]

MONROE OPERATIONS: Chung Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Wilson Chung and Lisa Burton, individuals, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. MONROE OPERATIONS, LLC, a Limited Liability Company;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
30-2022-01268754-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Los Angeles
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Sept. 29, 2022, and assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-07090 to the proceeding.

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: unfair
competition in violation of California Business and Professions
Code; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages;
failure to provide required meal periods; failure to provide
required rest periods; failure to provide accurate itemized
statements; failure to reimburse employees for required expenses;
failure to provide wages when due; and failure to pay sick pay
wages. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees and various
penalties under the California Labor Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gene Ryu, Esq.
          Penny Chen Fox, Esq.
          Paul Suh, Esq.
          PENNY CHEN FOX, (SBN 280706)
          10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 310.553.5000
          Fax: 310.553.5001
          Email: Gene.Ryu@klgates.com
                 Penny.Chen@klgates.com
                 Paul.Suh@klgates.com


MORRIS COUNTY GOLF: Yanez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Yanez, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. MORRIS COUNTY GOLF CLUB, Case No.
MRS-L-001693-22 (N.J. Super. Ct., Morris Cty., Sept. 28, 2022), is
brought alleging that the Defendant willfully violated the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law, as amended by the New Jersey Wage Theft
Act, by failing to pay the minimum wage and failing to pay overtime
premium pay.

The Defendant does not pay the Golf Caddies any hourly rate. The
Defendant does not pay the Golf Caddies any compensation. The
Defendant does not pay the Golf Caddies any hourly rate. When the
Golf Caddies work more than 40 hours in a week, The Defendant does
not pay them overtime premium pay: 1.5 times their hourly rate.
The only compensation that the Golf Caddies receive comes from the
golfers.

Golfers often, but not always, tip the Golf Caddies. The Defendant
never notified, verbally or in writing, it considers the Golf
Caddies to be tipped employees and that it was claiming a tip
credit against the minimum wage. No agreement exists between The
Defendant and the Golf Caddies that the bag fees or gratuities
would count towards The Defendant's obligation to pay them a
minimum wage and overtime., says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for The Defendant as a Golf Caddy.

Morris County Golf Club is a private golf club.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: 212.392.4772
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
                 chris@lipskylowe.com


MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA: RV Suit Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 15, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain View Voice reports that a final approval hearing date for
the settlement reached between oversized vehicle dweller plaintiffs
and the City of Mountain View has been set for February next year,
according to a notice sent to the class action lawsuit's members
and released by the city on Nov. 8.

The notice was sent to all class members in the Navarro v. City of
Mountain View case, who are defined as anyone who resided in an
oversized vehicle within the city beginning from Dec. 18, 2020
through the conclusion of the four-year effective period of the
settlement agreement. According to city officials, the effective
period begins on the date final judgment is entered by the court
and ends four years later.

"Final judgment will be entered by formal court order sometime
after final approval of the settlement agreement and resolution of
any other outstanding matters such as fees and costs," said Lenka
Wright, city chief communications officer.

Available in both English and Spanish, the notice outlines the
terms of the settlement, most notably that Mountain View "will
ensure at least three miles of streets are available for oversized
vehicles to park without overnight restrictions, without any limits
on time that is less than 72 hours, and without narrow street or
bike lane (ordinance) restrictions," the notice states.

The settlement also requires the city to distribute a map that
shows the streets where oversized vehicles can park. The map is
available at City Hall, the Mountain View public library, and on
the city's website.

Among the stipulations of the settlement, the notice adds that
there's no monetary settlement as part of the agreement.

"This case was about protecting the rights of people living in
oversized vehicles," the notice states. "Additionally, since the
city had not been enforcing the ordinances prior to or throughout
the lawsuit, class members could not claim monetary damages under
the law."

The final approval hearing for the settlement is currently set for
Feb. 15, 2023 at 1 p.m. by Zoom conference.

"Please note the date and time of the hearing is subject to change
without further notice, which means you may not be notified of
changes to the date and time," the notice said.[GN]

MYPATIENTCALENDAR INC: Katz Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MyPatientCalendar,
Inc. The case is styled as Bruce Katz, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. MyPatientCalendar, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-06936 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2022).

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

Mypatientcalendar Inc is a business entity registered with the
State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          275 Seventh Avenue, 7th Floor
          10001, Suite 410
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Email: ross@kazlg.com


NATERA INC: Lifshitz Law Announces Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lifshitz Law PLLC on Nov. 19 disclosed that a class action
complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders of Natera alleging
that Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company's Panorama Non-Invasive Prenatal Test was not reliable
and resulted in high rates of false positives; (ii) its Prospera
test did not have superior precision compared to competing tests;
(iii) as a result of Defendants' false and misleading claims about
Natera's technology, the Company was exposed to substantial legal
and regulatory risks; (iv) Natera relied upon deceptive sales and
billing practices to drive its revenue growth; and (v) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the company's
business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

If you are a Natera investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

Butterfly Network, Inc. (NYSE: BFLY)

Lifshitz Law PLLC announces that a class action complaint was filed
on behalf of shareholders of Butterfly Network alleging that the
Company's Proxy Statement in connection with its merger with
Longview was negligently prepared, and as a result contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading. Additionally,
the complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Butterfly had
overstated its post-Merger business and financial prospects; (ii)
notwithstanding the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Butterfly's
financial projections failed to take into account the pandemic's
broad consequences, which included healthcare logistical
challenges, and medical personnel fatigue; (iii) accordingly,
Butterfly's gross margin levels and revenue projections were less
sustainable than the Company had represented; (iv) all the
foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on Butterfly's business and financial condition; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you are a Butterfly Network investor, and would like additional
information about our investigation, please complete the
Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by
telephone at (516)493-9780 or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

Pulse Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: PLSE)

Lifshitz Law PLLC announces that a class action complaint was filed
on behalf of shareholders of Pulse Biosciences alleging that
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that the Company's
IDE study evaluating the use of the CellFX System to treat
sebaceous hyperplasia lesions failed to meet its primary endpoints;
(ii) that, as a result, there was a substantial risk that the FDA
would reject Pulse's 510(k) submission seeking to expand the label
for the CellFX System to treat sebaceous hyperplasia lesions; and
(iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you are a Pulse Biosciences investor, and would like additional
information about our investigation, please complete the
Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by
telephone at (516)493-9780 or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

SunPower Corporation (NASDAQ: SPWR)

Lifshitz Law PLLC announces that a class action complaint was filed
on behalf of shareholders of SunPower alleging that Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (i) that certain connectors used by SunPower
suffered from cracking issues; (ii) that, as a result, the Company
was reasonably likely to incur costs to remediate the faulty
connectors; (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, SunPower's
financial results would be adversely impacted; and (iv) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you are a SunPower investor, and would like additional
information about our investigation, please complete the
Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by
telephone at (516)493-9780 or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

Contact:

Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
Lifshitz Law PLLC
Phone: 516-493-9780
Facsimile: 516-280-7376
Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com [GN]

NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Court Dismisses Horti's 3rd Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint filed in the lawsuit captioned
BRUCE HORTI, et al., Plaintiffs v. NESTLE HEALTHCARE NUTRITION,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-09812-PJH (N.D. Cal.).

The lawsuit is a putative consumer class action regarding
advertising of nutritional drinks. The Plaintiffs are two
California residents and one New York resident.

Nestle is a Delaware Corporation with a headquarters in
Bridgewater, New Jersey. The Defendant sells the Boost Glucose
Control and Boost Glucose Control High Protein products in
packaging that prominently display and advertise that the products
"help manage blood sugar," and are "designed for people with
diabetes."

The Plaintiffs allege these claims misled them and other consumers
because the statements imply that the products control glucose --
the Plaintiffs understood the statements to mean that the products
would have some affirmatively therapeutic impact on their blood
glucose levels or otherwise mitigate, treat, or prevent
pre-diabetes or diabetes. The Plaintiffs aver, however, that any
representation that the products control or manage glucose levels
is false.

The Plaintiffs add that the marketing of diabetes-related products
is receiving new attention. In 2021, the Federal Trade Commission
("FTC") and Food & Drug Administration ("FDA") sent several
cease-and-desist letters to companies suspected of advertising
unproven treatments or cures for diabetes.

In their Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), the Plaintiffs also
allege that Nestle markets the Boost products as specifically
"designed for people with diabetes" in order to charge a price
premium for their products (noting that the Defendant charges more
for their Boost Contract products than other competing nutritional
drinks). They provide a list comparing the price per fluid ounce
for the Boost products and five other nutritional drinks on the
market to demonstrate that the Boost Glucose Control drinks are
more expensive. The Plaintiffs contend they relied on the
Defendant's glucose- and diabetes-related misrepresentations and
were injured by paying more for the products.

The Plaintiffs filed the original complaint in this matter on Dec.
20, 2021, and they filed the first amended complaint on the same
day. The parties then sought leave of court to permit plaintiffs to
file a second amended complaint, and leave was granted. The
Defendant moved to dismiss that second amended complaint. Following
briefing and a hearing, the Court granted dismissal with leave to
amend.

The Plaintiffs filed the now-operative TAC at the beginning of
August, bringing claims on behalf of California and New York
subclasses of all persons in those states who purchased the drinks
for personal use and not for resale. The Plaintiffs assert the
following claims against Nestle: (1) Count I: violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (2) Count II: violation
of California's False Advertising Law (FAL); (3) Count III:
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (4)
Counts IV and V: violations of New York General Business Law
Sections 349 and 350 (together, GBL); and (5) Count VI: unjust
enrichment.

In the instant motion, the Defendant charges that the TAC doesn't
change enough from the earlier pleading. The Defendant asks the
court to dismiss the case for (1) failure to state a claim and (2)
lack of standing.

The Court again finds that a reasonable consumer would not find the
Boost Glucose Control product label to be misleading. It opines
that the clear designations of the nutritional contents on the
front of the label, along with the description as nutritional
drinks, demonstrate that the products are a food that will
necessarily impact glucose levels, not a health supplement or a
drug that would treat the chronic disease. The Plaintiffs, thus,
fail to show that members of the public are likely to be deceived
by the Defendant's product labels. The Court finds this is
particularly true for the targeted consumer group, persons with
diabetes or prediabetes, who are aware of the relation between
consuming sugar and blood glucose levels.

The Court previously held that the pleading fell short because the
Boost product labels would not lead reasonable consumers to believe
that the over-the-counter drink would treat or cure diabetes, a
chronic disease for which there is no known cure. To address this
deficiency, the Plaintiffs added allegations in the TAC about (1)
the context in which the products are marketed and sold -- they are
included among diabetes medicines and supplies on retail store
shelves, not among bread and cereal; (2) a 2021 effort by the FTC
and FDA to issue cease-and-desist letters to companies advertising
unproven diabetes treatments; and (3) the individual Plaintiffs'
conditions and their beliefs about the potential impact of the
Boost drinks based on the labels.

Judge Hamilton holds that the Plaintiffs previously failed to
establish that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the Boost
labels, and the TAC's additional allegations do not lead to a
different outcome. He finds that the Plaintiffs still fail to
establish that the Boost labels contain a misrepresentation that
would mislead a reasonable consumer of the target group.

Moreover, in the Court's order dismissing the SAC, it determined
that the Plaintiffs failed to allege a cognizable injury to support
standing. The Defendant now argues that the Plaintiffs still lack
Article III standing because, while they have added some
allegations about a "price premium," they still haven't described
how much they paid for the Boost drinks or how much they would have
paid absent the alleged deception.

Here, the Plaintiffs allege generally that Nestle sells Boost
Glucose Control drinks at a 19.3% premium over Boost Original
drinks, and that the Boost Glucose Control drinks are more
expensive per ounce than other nutritional drinks.

The allegations that these disparities exist on the Defendant's own
website demonstrates that there exists some semblance of a price
premium beyond the Plaintiffs' bare recitation of the term, Judge
Hamilton notes.

However, the Plaintiffs still do not allege facts that relate to
their particular purchases. Judge Hamilton finds they simply do not
provide enough detail beyond the barest of descriptions of their
injury to support standing. He also dismisses the TAC on this
basis.

Nestle requests that the Court dismisses the TAC without leave to
amend. Given that the Plaintiffs were already afforded an
opportunity to amend their pleading, the Court finds that further
amendment would be futile. The Court denies leave to file a fourth
amended complaint.

For the reasons stated, the Court grants the Defendant's motion.
The TAC is dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4r5mkky3 from Leagle.com.


NVIDIA CORP: Faces Suit in New York Over Melting Graphics Card
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Goodman, writing for Research Snipers, reports that pressure
is mounting on graphics card manufacturer Nvidia over issues with
the new 12VHPWR connector on its latest GeForce RTX GPUs. Now one
of the customers whose connector melted has filed a class action
lawsuit against Nvidia.

As the portal Tom's Hardware found, an Nvidia customer from the US
state of New York has filed a class action lawsuit against the
graphics card manufacturer. The lawsuit alleges that the company
violated warranty laws, wrongful enrichment, and other New York
state laws, in addition to fraud.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed in a US federal court in
California on November 11, Nvidia marketed a defective and
dangerous combination of power cable and associated connector with
the GeForce RTX 4090, which can not only render consumer graphics
cards unusable but also a serious risk of electrocution and
flammability for any purchaser.

The plaintiff wants the affected graphics card installed
professionally
According to the plaintiff himself, he is affected by the problem,
but other buyers of the high-end version of Nvidia's new graphics
cards can also join. The man allegedly bought his RTX 4090 for
$1,600 from a major American electronics retailer.

The GPU was installed in a PC by himself using the usual methods,
whereby the plaintiff claims to have sufficient experience in
dealing with graphics cards and other PC components. After
installation, he noticed after use that the problematic 16-pin
12VHPWR connection had melted, according to the plaintiff.

So far, almost 30 cases have been publicly documented in which
damage to the new power connector can occur when using a variant of
the new Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090. The class action lawsuit therefore
also cites various entries on Reddit in which the customers
concerned have documented their cases. For its part, Nvidia has
launched an investigation into the problem but has not yet
announced any results. However, the company and its add-in board
partners assured that they want to offer the affected quick help.
[GN]

OAK BEND MEDICAL: Awazi Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oak Bend Medical
Center. The case is styled as Felicia Awazi, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff or Petitioner v. Oak
Bend Medical Center, Defendant or Respondent, Case No.
22-DCV-298764 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Fort Bend Cty., Nov. 14, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Contract."

OakBend Medical Center -- https://www.oakbendmedcenter.org/ -- is a
general medical and surgical facility in Richmond, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff or Petitioner is represented by:

          Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
          STECKLER WAYNE COCHRAN CHERRY PLLC
          12720 Hillcrest Rd Ste 1045
          Dallas, TX 75230-2079
          Phone: 972-387-4040


OAK BEND MEDICAL: Somer Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oak Bend Medical
Center. The case is styled as Kimberly Somer, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff or Petitioner v. Oak
Bend Medical Center, Defendant or Respondent, Case No.
22-DCV-298770 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Fort Bend Cty., Nov. 14, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Injury or Damage."

OakBend Medical Center -- https://www.oakbendmedcenter.org/ -- is a
general medical and surgical facility in Richmond, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cory S. Fein, Esq.
          CORY FEIN LAW FIRM
          712 Main St., Suite 800
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: 713-730-5001


OAK STREET: Awaits Dismissal Bid Ruling in Allison Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Oak Street Health, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that it is
awaiting the court's ruling on a motion to dismiss the case
captioned Reginald T. Allison, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated against the Company, Michael Pykosz, and
Timothy Cook (Case No. 1:22-cv-00149).

On January 10, 2022, Reginald T. Allison, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Company, Michael Pykosz, and Timothy
Cook in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois (Case No. 1:22-cv-00149).

On March 25, 2022, Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund –
Defined Benefit Plan, Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund
– Retirement Income Plan 1987, and Boston Retirement System's
(collectively, the "Northeast Pension Funds") were appointed as the
lead plaintiffs in the case.

On May 25, 2022, the Northeast Pension Funds along with an
additional named plaintiff, the City of Dearborn Police & Fire
Revised Retirement System, filed their consolidated amended and
restated complaint (the "Amended Complaint").

Plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain of its executive
officers made false and/or misleading statements about patient
acquisition tactics that purportedly violated the False Claims Act
and federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and are purportedly the subject
of the CID discussed above. The Amended Complaint includes two
categories of claims: (1) claims under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 based on allegedly misleading public statements throughout
the class period of August 6, 2020 through November 8, 2021 (the
"Exchange Act Claims"), and (2) claims under the Securities Act of
1933 based on allegedly misleading statements in the registration
statements and prospectuses accompanying Oak Street Health, Inc.'s
initial public offering and secondary public offerings (the
"Securities Act Claims"). The Exchange Act claims are asserted
against Oak Street Health, Inc., Michael Pykosz, our CEO and
Timothy Cook, our CFO, and also against certain stockholders of as
"control persons." The Securities Act Claims are asserted against
the same defendants as well as the underwriters of the Company's
public offerings, and the Oak Street Health, Inc. directors who
signed the registration statements. The Amended Complaint seeks
damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees and other unspecified
equitable relief.

On July 25, 2022, the defendants filed a consolidated motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On September 26, 2022, the plaintiffs' opposition to that motion to
dismiss was filed, and the defendants reply to that opposition was
filed on October 26, 2022.

The court will now consider the motion in due course.

In the event that the defendants's motion to dismiss is not
granted, the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this
matter.

Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the
case, and the legal standards that must be met for success on the
merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss that may result from this action.

Oak Street Health, Inc. is a health care network of primary care
centers for older adults on Medicare. It is based in Chicago,
Illinois.


OCEAN SPRAY: Faces Desmarais Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY DESMARAIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-11904 (D. Mass., November 10, 2022) is a
collective and class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff
alleging the Defendant of willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Massachusetts Overtime Act, and the
Massachusetts Wage Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid
production worker at the Defendant's Middleboro, Massachusetts
manufacturing facility from November 2021 to August 2022.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated production workers were not properly compensated by the
Defendant for all hours they have worked for the benefits of the
Defendant. They were required to perform donning and doffing of
their personal protective equipment (PPE) before and after their
work shifts in their designated locations at the Defendant's
manufacturing facilities. However, the Defendant's timekeeping
system failed to account for all the substantial amount of time
they spent performing pre- and post-shift works, which is an
integral and indispensable part of their principal work activities.
Thus, by systemically failing to include all remuneration in the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' regular rates of
pay when computing their overtime pay, the Defendant allegedly
violated the FLSA's overtime provisions and the Massachusetts
Overtime Act. Moreover, the Defendant has systematically breached
its contracts with the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
production workers by not paying them the agreed upon hourly wage
for the work they performed each shift in connection with the
off-the-clock work they performed.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated production
workers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover the full amount of damages
and liquidated damages available by law, as well as reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in filing this action as
provided by statute, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other
relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. is a global producer, manufacturer,
supplier, and distributor of fruit ingredient products, namely,
cranberries, to over 10 countries worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq.
          STEFFANS LEGAL PLLC
          10 Wendell Ave. Ext. Ste. 208
          Pittsfield, MA 01201
          Tel: (413) 418-4176
          E-mail: bsteffans@steffanlegal.com

                - and –

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Tel: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  jyoung@sommerspc.com
                  aascuitto@sommerspc.com

OHIOHEALTH CORP: Underpays Licensed Practical Nurses, Hine Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SHELIA HINE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OHIOHEALTH CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-03969-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, November 10, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a full-time and
hourly-paid Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) at the Defendant's
patients' homes as well as its brick and mortar facilities in the
greater Columbus area and southern Ohio from approximately May 10,
2019 through approximately October 14, 2022.

The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated LPNs
routinely worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek.
However, the Defendant automatically deducts a 30-minute meal break
for each and every shift worked by them, regardless of whether they
were permitted to take a full thirty-minute meal break or they were
completely relieved from duty for 30 minutes. In addition,
immediately after its cloud-based software platform for its
timekeeping and payroll were hacked on or around December 11, 2021,
the Defendant's alternative timekeeping and payroll efforts were
ultimately deficient, thereby failing to keep accurate time
records. As a result, despite working more than 40 hours per week,
the Defendant failed to properly and timely pay the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated LPNs' minimum wages for all hours worked,
including overtime compensation at the rate of one and ne-half
times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of
40 per workweek.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class and collective
action against the Defendant, for herself and all other similarly
situated LPNs, to recover damages in the amounts of all unpaid
overtime wages, compensatory and liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, all treble damages, reasonable attorney
fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.

OhioHealth Corporation provides healthcare services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          SIMON LAW CO.
          5000 Rockside Road
          Liberty Plaza - Suite 520
          Independence, OH 44131
          Tel: (216) 816-8696
          E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com

                - and -

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Tel: (847) 986-5889
          Fax: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

OKTA INC: Lifshitz Law Announces Shareholder Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lifshitz Law PLLC on Nov. 19 disclosed that a class action
complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders of Okta alleging that
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Okta had inadequate
cybersecurity controls; (ii) as a result, Okta's systems were
vulnerable to data breaches; (iii) Okta ultimately did experience a
data breach caused by a hacking group, which potentially affected
hundreds of Okta customers; (iv) Okta initially did not disclose
and subsequently downplayed the severity of the data breach; (v)
all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a material
negative impact on Okta's business, financial condition, and
reputation; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you are an Okta investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

CorMedix, Inc. (NASDAQGM: CRMD)

Lifshitz Law PLLC announces that a class action complaint was filed
on behalf of shareholders of CorMedix alleging that Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants made material misrepresentations and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) deficiencies existed with respect to DefenCath's
manufacturing process and/or at the facility responsible for
manufacturing DefenCath; (ii) in light of the foregoing
deficiencies, the FDA was unlikely to approve the DefenCath NDA for
CRBSIs in its present form; (iii) Defendants had downplayed the
true scope of the deficiencies with DefenCath's manufacturing
process and/or at the facility responsible for manufacturing
DefenCath; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you are a CorMedix investor, and would like additional
information about our investigation, please complete the
Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by
telephone at (516)493-9780 or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLR)

Lifshitz Law PLLC announces that a class action complaint was filed
on behalf of shareholders of First Solar alleging that Defendants
made repeated misrepresentations to investors regarding the
development of its newest Series 6 solar module, the cost per unit
it could achieve with that module, and the impact the changeover to
this new product would have on the viability of its other business
segments. As a result of Defendants' alleged misrepresentations,
First Solar common stock traded at artificially inflated prices.

If you are a First Solar investor, and would like additional
information about our investigation, please complete the
Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by
telephone at (516)493-9780 or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

Bright Health Group, Inc. (NYSE: BHG)

Lifshitz Law PLLC announces that a class action complaint was filed
on behalf of shareholders of Bright Health alleging that the
documents in connection with the Company's initial public offering
(the "Offering Documents") were negligently prepared and, as a
result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to
state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and
regulations governing their preparation. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents and Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Bright Health had overstated its post-IPO business and
financial prospects; (ii) the Company was ill-equipped to handle
the impact of COVID-19-related costs; (iii) the Company was
experiencing a decline in premium revenue because of a failure to
capture risk adjustment on newly added lives; (iv) all the
foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on Bright Health's business and financial condition; and (v) as a
result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements
were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein.

If you are a Bright Health investor, and would like additional
information about our investigation, please complete the
Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by
telephone at (516)493-9780 or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

Contact:

Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
Lifshitz Law PLLC
Phone: 516-493-9780
Facsimile: 516-280-7376
Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com [GN]

PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Seeks Suit Lead Counsel Role
------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that attorneys
representing California's public pension want to lead a shareholder
class action lawsuit against Palantir Technologies, an intelligence
community software company that suffered a stock drop in May.

Robbins Geller filed a motion to consolidate similar cases and to
be appointed lead counsel on Nov. 14 in Colorado federal court,
pointing to its "extensive experience and proven track record."

Robbins Geller is representing the California Public Employees'
Retirement System, which suffered more than $55 million in losses.

"To the best of its counsel's knowledge, there are no other
plaintiffs with a larger financial interest," the motion says.

The Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System is a plaintiff in
one of the other class actions against Palantir. Its case says
Palantir builds and deploys software platforms for the U.S.
intelligence community for counter-terrorism investigations and
operations.

The plaintiffs claim that between February 2021 and May 2022, the
defendants consistently claimed "geopolitical instability" such as
armed conflicts, economic crises and the COVID-19 pandemic "as
tailwinds for its business."

They allege the defendants made false and misleading statements
about the company's operations and prospects including its
investments in marketable securities and overstated its government
segment growth and revenues. The plaintiffs further allege that the
defendants artificially inflated the market price of Palantir
securities, which led its stock price to fall 21.3% and close at
$7.46 per share on May 9.

They also allege an article in The Motley Fool published on May 9
stated the company's stock drop "was a surprise to investors"
because the company was expected to see higher demand for its
defense-focused data services because of the war in Ukraine. They
claim the defendants' actions caused them to suffer significant
losses and damages. [GN]

PANASONIC CORP: Final Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, In re: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL FRANK
BEDNARZ, Objector-Appellant v. PANASONIC CORPORATION; PANASONIC
CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA; SANYO ELECTRIC CO, LTD; SANYO NORTH
AMERICA CORPORATION; HITACHI, LTD.; HITACHI MAXWELL, LTD.; MAXWELL
CORPORATION OF AMERICA; TOSHIBA CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA
ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.; NEC CORPORATION; SAMSUNG SDI CO. LTD.;
SAMSUNG SDI AMERICA, INC.; SONY CORPORATION; SONY ENERGY DEVICES
CORPORATION; SONY ELECTRONICS, INC.; NEC TOKIN CORPORATION; LG
CHEM, LTD.; LG CHEM AMERICA, INC., Defendants-Appellees. In re:
LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, INDIRECT PURCHASER
PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. STEVEN FRANKLYN HELFAND; MICHAEL
FRANK BEDNARZ; CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS, Objectors-Appellees, v.
PANASONIC CORPORATION; PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA;
SANYO ELECTRIC CO, LTD; SANYO NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; HITACHI,
LTD.; HITACHI MAXWELL, LTD.; MAXWELL CORPORATION OF AMERICA;
TOSHIBA CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, INC.;
NEC CORPORATION; SAMSUNG SDI CO. LTD.; SAMSUNG SDI AMERICA, INC.;
SONY CORPORATION; SONY ENERGY DEVICES CORPORATION; SONY
ELECTRONICS, INC.; NEC TOKIN CORPORATION; LG CHEM, LTD.; LG CHEM
AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case Nos. 21-15120, 21-15200 (9th Cir.),
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district
court's order:

   a. granting the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' ("IPPs")
      motions for final approval of the class-action settlement
      and for attorney's fees; and

   b. partially granting Bednarz's motion for attorney's fees.

On Dec. 10, 2020, the district court granted IPPs' motions for
final approval of the class-action settlement and for attorney's
fees. It also partially granted objector Frank Bednarz's motion for
attorney's fees.

Bednarz appeals the Settlement Order, arguing that the district
court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees in two
respects: (1) by failing to consider a bid submitted by Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP to be the lead class counsel as a baseline
and (2) by not reducing the class counsel's fee award based on the
conflict of interest present in representing the Plaintiffs from
both Illinois Brick repealer and non-repealer states. He also
appeals the Fee Order, arguing that the district court erred by not
granting his fee request in full.

IPPs cross-appeal the Fee Order, arguing that the district court
erred in awarding Bednarz fees at all.

The Ninth Circuit reviews a district court's award of attorney's
fees and its chosen method of calculation for abuse of discretion.
It affirms.

First, it finds that the district court properly declined to use
the Hagens Berman bid as a baseline in awarding attorney's fees to
class counsel. It has previously held that when class counsel
secures appointment as interim lead counsel by proposing a fee
structure in a competitive bidding process, that bid becomes the
starting point for determining a reasonable fee. In this case,
however, the district court determined that a three-firm co-lead
interim counsel structure was preferable to a sole lead counsel
structure. Consequently, Hagens Berman's bid to be sole interim
counsel was not relevant to the district court's assessment of the
reasonableness of the class counsel's fee request because the firm
did not "secure appointment as the interim lead counsel by
proposing a fee structure in a competitive bidding process. Hence,
the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the
bid from its calculations.

Second, the Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in rejecting Bednarz's objection based on the
potential representational conflict faced by the class counsel in
representing both repealer-state class members and
non-repealer-state class members. Although Bednarz argues that the
district court concluded that there was no conflict simply on the
grounds that "class counsel 'achieved an excellent result for all
class members,'" the district court did more. As such, it did not
abuse its discretion in declining to reduce the class counsel's
award because of an alleged representational conflict.

Lastly, the district court did not err in partially granting
Bednarz's motion for attorney's fees. Because Bednarz generated an
extra $10 million benefit for repealer-state class members by
successfully objecting to the original distribution plan for the
second round settlements, he is entitled to attorney's fees for
conferring a material benefit to a portion of the class. However,
because the benefit represented a transfer from non-repealer-state
class members to repealer-state class members, it is difficult to
quantify the benefit to the class as a whole. The Ninth Circuit has
held that the district court has "discretion to award fees based on
how much time counsel spent and the value of that time" in
situations where it is difficult to quantify the benefit to the
class. In this case, the district court did precisely that.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4vxuz2cv from Leagle.com.


PATRIOT HOME: Williams Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff SHAMEDA MADIA WILLIAMS filed an appeal from a court
ruling dismissing her lawsuit entitled SHAMEDA MADIA WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PATRIOT
HOME CARE, INC. and PATRIOT HOME CARE HOLDING COMPANY, Case No.
2:22-cv-00404-JFC, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 14, 2022, the
complaint seeks overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the common law doctrine of
restitution/unjust enrichment.

The FLSA and PMWA mandate that employers pay employees who work
overtime -- that is, over 40 hours in a workweek -- at least "one
and one-half times" their "regular rate" of pay. The Plaintiff
brings this action to challenge Defendants' policy and practice of
reducing their employees' regular hourly pay rates if those
employees work overtime in order to avoid paying employees the full
compensation to which they are entitled by law.

On June 27, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On July 1, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction which the Court granted in part and denied in part
on Oct. 13, 2022. The Court further ordered that leave to amend is
DENIED and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.

A Judgment was also entered on Oct. 13, 2022 pursuant to Rule 58 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in favor of the Defendant and
against Plaintiff Williams.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Shameda Williams v. Patriot Home
Care LLC, Case No. 22-3134, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, filed on Nov. 14, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SHAMEDA MADIA WILLIAMS, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Edward J. Feinstein, Esq.
          Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400

Defendant-Appellee PATRIOT HOME CARE LLC, FKA Patriot Home Care
Inc. is represented by:

          Jennifer P. Snyder, Esq.
          DILWORTH PAXSON
          1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 575-7077

PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Green Wins Conditional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado grants the Plaintiffs' opposed motion for
conditional certification in the lawsuit styled LANCE GREEN, and
ANDERSON KHALID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PERRY'S RESTAURANTS LTD, PERRY'S STEAKHOUSE
OF COLORADO, LLC, collectively d/b/a PERRY'S STEAKHOUSE AND GRILLE,
and CHRISTOPHER V. PERRY, individually, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-0023-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.).

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Conditional
Certification and Court Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b). The Defendants filed a response, and the Plaintiffs
filed a reply.

The Court draws the case summary from the Plaintiffs' First Amended
Class Action and Collective Action Complaint ("Complaint").

On Feb. 16, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the Complaint against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., as amended ("FLSA"), the Colorado
Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), and Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay
Standards Order (COMPS ORDER) #36, 7 CCR 1103-1 (together,
"Colorado Wage Laws").

The lawsuit is a class and collective action brought by the
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and under 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b). The putative class and collective members
are all individuals employed by the Defendants as servers in
Colorado, Alabama, North Carolina, or Florida, who were paid a
direct cash subminimum hourly wage. The Plaintiffs and the other
similarly situated individuals they seek to represent are current
and former servers, who are tipped employees under the FLSA and
Colorado Wage Laws.

Perry's Restaurants Ltd., more commonly known as Perry's Steakhouse
and Grille, are referred to jointly as "Perry's." Perry's owns and
operates the Perry's Steakhouse and Grille, which has locations in
Texas, Alabama, Illinois, Tennessee, Colorado, Florida, and North
Carolina. The Plaintiffs and the Collective Members were employed
by Perry's as servers at one or more of Perry's restaurant
locations within the three years preceding the filing of this
lawsuit. All servers, regardless of the Perry's restaurant
location, are subject to the same compensation structure and pay
policies, maintain identical job titles, job positions, and are all
required to perform the same or similar job duties (including side
work duties), and are required to contribute tips to a mandatory
tip pool.

The proposed collective of similarly situated employees (the "FLSA
Collective") sought to be certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), is defined as:

     All individuals who worked as servers for Defendants at any
     of their restaurants located in Colorado, Alabama, North
     Carolina, or Florida, at any time during the three (3) year
     period preceding the filing of this lawsuit, and who were
     paid a direct cash subminimum hourly wage.

Khalid seeks to represent a class of similarly situated tipped
employees--servers--under Colorado Wage Laws and pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The Colorado Class sought to be certified is defined as:

     All of Defendants' current and former employees who worked
     as servers in at least one week in Colorado within the three
     (3) years preceding the filing of this lawsuit and who were
     paid a subminimum hourly wage pursuant to Colorado Wage Law.

The Plaintiffs propose that the Court conditionally certify the
collective action, approve their proposed form of notice, and
approve their proposed notice plan. The Defendants object to
conditional certification on substantive grounds, and alternatively
object to portions of the proposed notice and notice plan.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' declarations are not
based on their personal knowledge and contain conclusory and
hearsay allegations that should not be considered.

Despite this assertion, at the notice stage, the Court finds that
the Plaintiffs have made allegations sufficient to withstand the
Defendants' objections. The Plaintiffs' declarations are based on
their personal knowledge, obtained during employment with Perry's
and discussions with other co-workers about Perry's policies. The
Court considers the Plaintiffs' declarations, despite the hearsay
contained therein.

The Defendants argue that PRL's level of involvement does not rise
to the level of employer status. To the extent the Defendants
dispute their involvement or employer status, under the foregoing
Tenth Circuit case law, this analysis is premature at the notice
stage, and the Court will not further address it here.

In light of the Defendants' arguments and the passage of time since
the Motion was filed, the Court permitted the Plaintiffs the
opportunity to supplement the Motion with declarations from
putative plaintiffs from North Carolina and Florida. The Plaintiffs
did so.

The Court also permitted the Defendants to file a response to any
such supplement that addresses the impact of the declarations on
their argument that the Plaintiffs cannot establish allegations of
common practice or policy in North Carolina or Florida. The
Defendants did not file any response. Therefore, the Court
considers the Defendants' lack of response a concession that their
arguments on this issue are moot in light of the supplemental
declarations from putative plaintiffs, who worked at the North
Carolina and Florida restaurants.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claims concerning tip
pool, side work, and uniforms require individualized determinations
not appropriate for a collective action. In response to the
Defendants' arguments, the Plaintiffs argue that such arguments are
premature at the conditional certification stage.

The Court agrees. Judge Martinez points out that the Plaintiffs
have made substantial allegations that the putative class members
were together the victims of a single decision, policy or plan,
which is all they must do at this, the conditional certification,
stage, citing Renfro v. Spartan Comput. Servs., Inc., 243 F.R.D.
431, 432 (D. Kan. 2007). Therefore, the Court rejects this basis
for denying conditional certification.

The Plaintiffs request that the Court: (1) approve their proposed
Notice and Consent Form and their proposed e-mail and text message
notice; (2) authorize the proposed methods for transmitting notice
to putative collective members; (3) order Perry's to produce
contact information for all Putative Collective Members within
fourteen days; and (4) authorize a 90-day opt-in period to join
this collective action.

The Plaintiffs request that Perry's be ordered to produce within 14
days of the granting of the Motion a list in electronic format of
"all potential collective action members, which shall include each
such employee's or former employee's name, position, dates of
employment, last known mailing address, last known e-mail address,
and last known telephone number." The Plaintiffs request to send
the proposed Notice and Consent form by mail, and the proposed
notice via e-mail and text message to putative collective members.
They request leave for their counsel to be permitted to maintain a
website limited to posting the approved Notice and Consent Form.
They also request that putative collective members be afforded the
opportunity to electronically sign their consent forms.

The Plaintiffs request a 90 day opt-in period from the initial date
of transmitting the notice and consent forms. After the passage of
30 days, the Plaintiffs request permission to send a reminder
notice to putative collective members who have not yet responded to
the initial notice and consent form.

The Defendants list their objections to the proposed notice and
scope of collective action without explaining the basis for their
objections or citing any legal authority in support.

Upon review, the Court overrules these objections and finds no need
to conduct a hearing, as the Defendants requested, to discuss them.
The Defendants failed to provide a basis for their objections in
the brief, and nonetheless, the Court finds them to be without
merit.

For the reasons set forth, the Court orders as follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Conditional
      Certification and Court Authorized Notice Pursuant to
      29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) is granted;

   2. The Court approves the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and
      Consent Form and the Plaintiffs' proposed e-mail and text
      message notice;

   3. The Defendants are directed to produce, by Nov. 21, 2022, a
      list in electronic format (i.e., an Excel (.xls) file) of
      all potential collective action members, which will
      include each such employee's or former employee's name,
      position, dates of employment, last known mailing address,
      last known e-mail address, and last known telephone number;

   4. The Plaintiffs are authorized to send the proposed Notice
      and Consent Form by mail and the proposed notice via e-mail
      and text message to putative collective action members;

   5. The Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to maintain a website
      limited to posting the approved Notice and Consent Form;

   6. Putative collective action members may electronically sign
      their consent forms;

   7. The opt-in period will begin on the initial date of
      transmitting the Notice and Consent Forms and will run for
      90 consecutive days; and

   8. After the passage of 30 days, the Plaintiffs may send a
      reminder notice to putative collective action members who
      have not yet responded to the initial Notice and Consent
      Form.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3xtb3mam from Leagle.com.


PILOT CORPORATION: Burns Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Burns, and Normajean Bowden, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PILOT CORPORATION and PILOT TRAVEL
CENTERS LLC, d/b/a PILOT TRAVEL CENTER and PILOT FLYING J, Case No.
3:22-cv-00397 (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 9, 2022), is brought against the
Defendants' willful failure to pay overtime wages to all hourly
paid, non-exempt employees working under 24 or more job titles by
several common and unlawful pay practices which amount to a scheme
to avoid their obligations to pay their employees overtime premiums
as obligated and mandated under the nations wage law, the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs have worked more than 40 hours in numerous workweeks
throughout their terms of their employment with Defendant, but were
not paid time and one half for all these hours over 40 in each and
every workweek (overtime). The Defendants required Plaintiffs to
work either 5 8-hour day shifts, or 4, ten-hour r day shifts, with
the opportunity to take up to a 30-minute meal break.

Based upon: the Defendants' policy or practice of regularly making
deductions for purported meal breaks despite the Plaintiff and the
others similarly situated employees not actually taking bona fide
meal breaks; and/or the Plaintiff and/or the other similarly
situated employees performing off the clock work for the
Defendants; and the Defendants' practice of editing and shaving off
hour, the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated persons properly for all overtime hours worked.
The Defendants' failure to compensate the Plaintiff and the
similarly situated current and former employees in the Asserted
Class constitutes a willful violation of the FLSA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.

The Defendants operate under several fictitious business names
including Flying J and Pilot Travel Center, operating 790 locations
in 44 of 50 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan G. Crone, TN Bar No. 014285
          Philip Oliphant, TN Bar No. 025990
          THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
          88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Voice: 800.403.7868
          Voice: 901.737.7740
          Fax: 901.474.7926
          Email: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
                 poliphant@cronelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mitchell L. Feldman
          Mitchell L. Feldman, FL Bar No. 0080349
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6916 West Linebaugh Avenue, Suite 101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Phone: (813) 639-9366
          Fax: (813) 639-9376
          Email: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
          Secondary: mail@feldmanlegal.us


POLITBURO OF THE CHINESE: Zhao Appeals Rulings in Conspiracy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YAN ZHAO, et al., filed an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit
entitled Yan Zhao, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Keqiang Li, in his official
capacity of The Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03138-TJK, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against the Defendants for
alleged conspiracy with the Chinese government to illegally
expropriate their hotel properties by declaring the arbitration
agreement formed under the Delaware Rapid Arbitration Act
fraudulent and the arbitration awards invalid.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants moved to
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, which the Court granted
through an Order entered by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on October 11,
2022. Judge Kelly dismissed the case with prejudice. The Court
found that the Plaintiffs have violated Rule 11(b)(1) by submitting
filings for the improper purpose of harassing others and have
violated Rule 11(b)(2) by advancing frivolous legal contentions in
their filings. The Plaintiffs asserted that their actions were
legally defensible and were done in good faith, but they provided
no authority to show or even suggest as much. And their repeated
and ongoing misconduct, in this Court and elsewhere, shows that
they have acted vexatiously. The Court also held that a sanction
against the Plaintiffs themselves is warranted.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of Court orders including, among other
things, a Memorandum & Opinion, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order
on Motion to Dismiss Case as Frivolous, Order on Motion to
Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction dated August 27, 2021; Memorandum &
Opinion, Order on Motion for Recusal dated October 11, 2021; and
Order on Motion to Reopen Case, Order on Motion for Order to Show
Cause, Order on Motion to Appoint Receiver dated September 30,
2022.

The appellate case is captioned Yan Zhao, et al. v. Keqiang Li, et
al., Case No. 22-7152, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on October 13, 2022. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants YAN ZHAO, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Ning Ye, Esq.
            LAW OFFICE OF NING YE
            36-26A Union Street, Suite 3F
            Flushing, NY 11354
            Telephone: (718) 321-9899

Defendants-Appellees Keqiang Li, in his official capacity of The
Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), et al., are
represented by:

            Elizabeth Petrela Papez, Esq.
            GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
            1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
            Washington, DC 20036
            Telephone: (202) 955-8500

                   - and -

            Allison J. McCowan, Esq.
            DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
            820 N. French Street
            Wilmington, DE 19801
            Telephone: (302) 577-8600

                   - and -

            Benjamin Nicholas Hazelwood, Esq.
            WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
            680 Maine Avenue, SW
            Washington, DC 20024
            Telephone: (202) 434-5000

PREMIER VALLEY: Order Sustaining Demurrer to Whitlach Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES R. WHITLACH, Plaintiff and Appellant v. PREMIER
VALLEY, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. F082322
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District,
affirms the trial court's order sustaining the Defendants' demurrer
to the operative complaint without leave to amend.

Whitlach pursued a claim under the Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, Section 2698 et seq.) against
Defendants Premier Valley, Inc. (doing business as Century 21 MM)
and Century 21 Real Estate LLC, to enforce civil penalties for
violations of the Labor Code. Whitlach is a former real estate
agent who was affiliated with Premier Valley, a real estate
brokerage firm located in Oakdale. Premier Valley is a franchisee
of co-defendant Century 21, a Delaware Corporation with its
principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey.

On Dec. 20, 2018, Whitlach filed a class action complaint in this
matter, alleging multiple violations of the Labor Code, among other
claims. The complaint alleged he was bringing the class action "on
behalf of similarly situated real estate agents who were
misclassified as independent contractors when they should have been
considered employees, and as a result were not properly paid all
wages due and owing, were subjected t unlawful deductions, and were
not reimbursed for reasonable and necessary business expenses."

On Feb. 15, 2019, Whitlach filed a first amended complaint (FAC).
The FAC added a representative claim under the Labor Code Private
Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA). It alleged Whitlach was an
"aggrieved employee" for purposes of his PAGA claim. It further
alleged that Whitlach's PAGA claim was brought "on behalf of
himself and other current and former real estate agents" affiliated
with Premier Valley, to seek civil penalties for Labor Code
violations committed by Premier Valley and Century 21. On June 5,
2019, Whitlach's class claims were dismissed upon the trial court's
adoption of a stipulated order to this effect, leaving at issue
only the PAGA claim.

On Nov. 15, 2019, Premier Valley and Century 21 demurred to the FAC
on the ground that Whitlach was precluded from asserting a PAGA
claim (or any derivative Labor Code claim) because he was an
independent contractor, not an employee.

The trial court heard the demurrer on June 12, 2020. Applying the
Unemployment Insurance Code section 650 test, the trial court ruled
that Whitlach was an independent contractor as a matter of law and
dismissed the FAC with leave to amend.

On June 30, 2020, Whitlach filed a second amended complaint (SAC),
which is the operative complaint in this case. The SAC again
asserted a single PAGA cause of action, premised on alleged
misclassification of real estate agents as independent contractors
rather than employees, and attendant Labor Code violations, by
Premier Valley. In addition, the SAC contained multiple new
allegations directed to the trial court's rationale for dismissing
the FAC (i.e., that Whitlach was an independent contractor as a
matter of law).

On Aug. 6, 2020, Premier Valley and Century 21 demurred to the SAC,
arguing that Whitlach was an independent contractor as a matter of
law; they further argued that Labor Code section 2778(c)(1) was not
unconstitutional, the independent contractor agreement between
Whitlach and Premier Valley was not unconscionable, and the
separate contract Whitlach had with Premier Valley for his work as
a sales manager was irrelevant for purposes of his representative
claims. The trial court heard the demurrer on Nov. 10, 2020; the
court sustained the Defendants' demurrer and dismissed the SAC
without leave to amend.

Whitlach appeals the trial court's ruling sustaining the demurrer
to the SAC and the subsequent judgment of dismissal. He contends
the trial court applied the wrong test for determining whether he
was an independent contractor or employee of Premier Valley for
purposes of his PAGA cause of action and derivative Labor Code
claims. In the alternative, he argues Labor Code section 2778(c)(1)
is unconstitutional, his independent contractor agreement with
Premier Valley is unconscionable and unenforceable, and there is a
question of fact as to whether the management employment contract
for his sales manager position constitutes the operative agreement
for purposes of evaluating his status as an employee or independent
contractor with regard to his representative claims.

The Court of Appeals opines that the appeal involves issues of
statutory interpretation with regard to the following question:
What is the applicable test or governing standard for determining
whether a real estate salesperson is an "employee" or an
"independent contractor" for purposes of the Labor Code's wage and
hour provisions. Resolution of this question turns on interpreting
recently enacted Labor Code section 2778, subdivision (c)(1), and
other provisions incorporated therein.

The Court of Appeals concludes the applicable test for the purpose
at hand is the test set forth in Unemployment Insurance Code
sections 650 and 13004.1, as incorporated in Business and
Professions Code section 10032, subdivision (b), which is itself
incorporated in Labor Code section 2778, subdivision (c)(1). The
trial court reached the same conclusion and applied the correct
test in ruling on the Defendants' demurrer. It properly sustained
the demurrer to the SAC.

Hence, the Court of Appeals affirms the judgment. Premier Valley
and Century 21 are awarded their respective costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 18, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/fycb8t2f from Leagle.com.

Clapp & Lauinger, James F. Clapp -- Marita Lauinger -- and Marita
Lauinger -- mlauinger@clapplegal.com; Wynne Law Firm and Edward J.
Wynne -- EWynne@wynnelawfirm.com; Altshuler Berzon and Michael
Rubin -- mrubin@altber.com -- for the Plaintiff and Appellant.

Arena Hoffman, Ronald D. Arena -- rarena@arenahoffman.com -- Conor
D. Mack -- Michael Moore -- and Michael Moore, for Defendant and
Respondent Premier Valley, Inc.

O'Melveny & Myers, Apalla U. Chopra -- ACHOPRA@OMM.COM -- Adam J.
Karr -- AKARR@OMM.COM -- Andrew Lichtenstein --
ALICHTENSTEIN@OMM.COM -- Jason Zarrow -- jzarrow@omm.com -- and
Anton Metlitsky -- ametlitsky@omm.com -- for Defendant and
Respondent Century 21 Real Estate LLC.

June Babiracki Barlow, Neil Kalin -- neilk@car.org -- and Jenny Li
for California Association of Realtors as Amicus Curiae on behalf
of Defendant and Respondent.


PSP GROUP: Adams Sues Over Surreptitious Interception in Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PSP GROUP, LLC d/b/a PET SUPPLIES PLUS, Case No.
4:22-cv-01210 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 14, 2022), is brought against the
Defendant for surreptitiously intercepting the electronic
communications of visitors to its website, www.petsuppliesplus.com,
in violation of the Missouri Wiretap Act, the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), and
constitutes an invasion of the privacy rights of website visitors
and a trespass to chattels.

Pet Supplies Plus directs third-party vendors, such as Microsoft
Corporation, to embed snippets of JavaScript computer code
("Session Replay Code") on Pet Supplies Plus's website, which then
deploys on each website visitor's internet browser for the purpose
intercepting and recording the website visitor's electronic
communications with the Pet Supplies Plus's website, including
their mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes (such as text being
entered into an information field or text box), URLs of web pages
visited, and/or other electronic communications in real-time
("Website Communications"). These third party vendors
(collectively, "Session Replay Providers") create and deploy the
Session Replay Code at Pet Supplies Plus's request.

After intercepting and capturing the Website Communications, Pet
Supplies Plus and the Session Replay Providers use those Website
Communications to recreate website visitors' entire visit to
www.petsuppliesplus.com. The Session Replay Providers create a
video replay of the user's behavior on the website and provide it
to Pet Supplies Plus for analysis. Pet Supplies Plus's directive to
the Session Replay Providers to secretly deploy the Session Replay
Code results in the electronic equivalent of "looking over the
shoulder" of each visitor to the Pet Supplies Plus's website for
the entire duration of their website interaction.

While visiting Pet Supplies Plus's website, Plaintiff fell victim
to Defendant's unlawful monitoring, recording, and collection of
Plaintiff's Website Communications with www.petsuppliesplus.com.
Unknown to Plaintiff, Pet Supplies Plus procures and embeds Session
Replay Code on its website. During her website visits, Plaintiff,
through her device, transmitted electronic communications in the
form of instructions to Defendant's computer servers utilized to
operate the website. The commands were sent as messages instructing
Defendant what content was being viewed, clicked on, requested,
and/or input by Plaintiff. During the website visits, Plaintiff's
Website Communications were watched in real-time and captured by
Session Replay Code and sent to various Session Replay Providers,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has visited www.petsuppliesplus.com on her device
while in Missouri.

Pet Supplies Plus operates the website www.petsuppliesplus.com and
offers pet-related products through its website such as dog beds,
cat toys, fish food, and the like.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany Marko Yiatras, Esq.
          CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
          308 Hutchinson Road
          Ellisville, MO 63011-2029
          Phone: 314-541-0317
          Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Maureen Kane Berg, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          Email: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
                 khriebel@locklaw.com


PTT EXPLORATION: Concludes Out of Court Oil Spill Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Voice reports that Thailand's PTT Exploration & Production
(PTTEP) has concluded an out of court settlement with Indonesian
seaweed farmers after agreeing to pay A$192.5 million (US$127.4
million) in compensation for the oil spill that resulted from the
2009 Montara blowout offshore Australia.

The oil spill started on August 21, 2009, following an explosion
and uncontrollable oil spill in the Timor Sea, off the northern
coast of Western Australia, that lasted 74 days, until a relief
well was drilled that stopped the leak. PTTEP operated the Montara
field in Australian waters at the time of the accident, which
occurred 250 kms southeast of Indonesia's Rote Island and
reportedly affected thousands of Indonesian seaweed farmers.

Last year an Australian court ruled in favour of the Indonesian
seaweed farmers whose livelihoods were affected by the oil spill.
But PTTEP appealed against the ruling.

Montara is now operated by Singapore-based Jadestone Energy, after
it acquired the Montara asset from PTTEP in 2018. [GN]

RAISING CANE'S USA: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Caya Rodriguez, an individual and on behalf all
others similarly situated v. RAISING CANE'S USA, L.L.C., a
California limited liability company; RAISING CANE'S RESTAURANTS,
L.L.C., a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV27956 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Nov. 14,
2022, and assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-08296.

The Complaint seeks damages, penalties, and injunctive relief on
behalf of a putative class for: failure to pay overtime wages;
failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods;
failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties for failure
to pay all wages due upon termination; failure to provide accurate
wage statements; failure to timely pay wages during employment;
failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair competition in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Business
and Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
          David J. Rashe, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
          Phone: +1.714.830.0600
          Fax: +1.714.830.0700
          Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
                 david.rashe@morganlewis.com


RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Bajjuri Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Pranay K. Bajjuri, et al., Plaintiffs v. Raytheon
Technologies Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No.
CV-20-00468-TUC-JCH (D. Ariz.), Judge John C. Hinderaker of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona grants the
Defendants':

   a. Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint
      ("Motion I"); and

   b. Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion I
      ("Motion II").

On Oct. 30, 2020, Bajjuri brought a federal securities class action
suit against Raytheon and the Officers. The suit claimed Raytheon
and the Officers made false and misleading statements through
Raytheon's financial statements and by certifying Raytheon's
financial controls were effective.

In July 2021, the Court consolidated Bajjuri's case with a related
case, retained Bajjuri as the lead case, and the newly consolidated
Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint ("the Complaint").

The Complaint alleges that Raytheon repeatedly and intentionally
defrauded the U.S. government, Raytheon's largest customer, by
overcharging contracts and violating numerous statutes and
processes designed to control government costs. It alleges this
misconduct was so pervasive it affected almost all contracts and
divisions at Raytheon, was conducted in conspiracy with many of
Raytheon's subcontractors, and extends back even before the Class
Period (Feb. 10, 2016, to Oct. 27, 2020).

The Complaint also alleges that Raytheon repeatedly and
intentionally defrauded investors by representing its internal
controls over financial reporting were effective, and by filing
financial statements overstating Raytheon's most important
financial metrics, like revenue and net income. Finally, Raytheon's
misconduct culminated in a criminal subpoena from the Department of
Justice ("DOJ") that, when disclosed, resulted in a "precipitous"
drop in Raytheon's stock price and the CEO's confession of
wrongdoing.

The Plaintiffs' claims arise under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("SEA") Sections 10(b) (Count I) and 20(a) (Count II), and
under the Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.

In March 2022, Raytheon filed Motion I and Motion II. On Oct. 4,
2022, the Court heard oral argument on these Motions.

Judge Hinderaker begins with Motion II. In Motion II, Raytheon asks
the Court to notice materials attached to Motion I as Exhibits
1-10. The Plaintiffs raised no objection at oral argument. Exhibits
1-4, 5, 8, and 10 are public SEC filings referenced repeatedly in
the Complaint, Exhibits 6 and 9 are transcripts of earnings calls
preceding Raytheon's October 2020 and April 2021 quarterly reports,
and Exhibit 7 is a history of Raytheon's stock price from April 3,
2020, to March 18, 2022.

Judge Hinderaker states that a document is incorporated if a
complaint refers to it extensively. The Court may also take
judicial notice of publicly available financial documents, such as
SEC filings, earnings call transcripts, and a company's reported
stock price history. Judge Hiberaker therefore grants Motion II and
takes judicial notice of ECF Docs. 41-2 through 41-11.

Motion I asserts three independent grounds under Section 10(b) for
granting Count I: (1) the Complaint fails to plead a materially
false or misleading statement with particularity; (2) the Complaint
fails to plead scienter; and (3) the Complaint fails to plead loss
causation.

Judge Hinderaker finds that the Plaintiffs do not carry their
burden under the heightened securities fraud standard. He finds
that, without more, the Plaintiffs' allegations do not sufficiently
allege "materially" false or misleading statements "with
particularity" under the PLSRA's heightened pleading standards.

As for scienter, Judge Hinderaker finds that the Plaintiffs allege
too little because those few of the Complaint's many allegations
that are at least implicitly connected undermine their other
allegations and their argument for scienter. They also allege too
much because their theory of widespread or rampant fraud is not
supported by their allegations. And either way, they do not advance
an inference at least as compelling as Defendants' inference. Judge
Hinderaker therefore finds the Plaintiffs' allegations do not give
rise to a strong inference of the Officers' scienter.

With respect to loss causation, Judge Hinderaker finds that the
Plaintiffs' allegations do not give rise to a strong inference of
loss causation. Both independently and together with their failure
to plausibly allege a strong inference of falsity and scienter, he
finds ample reason to grant Motion I on Count I and dismiss the
case without prejudice.

Finally, the Plaintiffs' Count I failed to state a claim that
Raytheon violated federal securities law. Hence, Motion I is also
granted on Count II.

For these reasons, Judge Hinderaker grants Motion I without
prejudice. The Plaintiffs have leave to amend their Complaint no
later than Dec. 19, 2022. The Defendants will respond to any
amended complaint no later than Jan. 19, 2023. If the Plaintiffs
choose to amend, they are instructed to provide chambers and
opposing counsel with a redline copy of the Complaint clearly
identifying the changes made to it by the amended complaint. The
redline copy may be emailed in Microsoft Word format to chambers
when the amended complaint is filed, at "hinderaker_chambers
@azd.uscourts.gov."

Judge Hinderaker further grants Motion II. He takes judicial notice
of ECF Docs. 41-2 through 41-11.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ysjrec44 from Leagle.com.


REALPAGE INC: Bohn Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Housing Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Bohn, Cameron Pond, and Destinee Sanders, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REALPAGE, INC.;
GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; LINCOLN PROPERTY CO.; FPI
MANAGEMENT, INC.; MIDAMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC.; AVENUE5
RESIDENTIAL, LLC; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; ESSEX
PROPERTY TRUST, INC; THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC; SECURITY
PROPERTIES INC.; B/T WASHINGTON, LLC d/b/a BLANTON TURNER; and
INDEPENDENCE REALTY TRUST, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-06349 (N.D. Ill.,
Nov. 14, 2022), is brought arising from the Defendants' conspiracy
to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize rental housing prices.

The Defendants are RealPage, Inc. ("RealPage"), the developer of a
software platform called "AI Revenue Management" (previously known
as "YieldStar"), and several managers of large-scale residential
apartment buildings that used RealPage's software platform to
coordinate and agree upon rental housing pricing, among other
things, throughout the United States.

AI Revenue Management works by collecting vast amounts of
non-public data from its client property managers regarding lease
transactions, rent prices, occupancy levels, and virtually every
other possible data point relevant to rent prices. This data is fed
into an algorithm, along with additional data collected from
RealPage's myriad other data analytics and rental management
software products. The algorithm then generates a rental price for
each of RealPage's client's available units, which is updated
daily.

RealPage makes sure all of its clients know that to maximize
revenues, they must accept the software's rental price at least
80-90 percent of the time, and RealPage's "Revenue Management
Advisors" monitor clients to ensure compliance. As the allegations
and evidence demonstrate, RealPage and the property managers who
use its revenue management services constitute a price fixing
cartel, and the revenue growth they have achieved is possible only
through coordinated price setting.

With the assurance that other cartel members are setting prices
using the same algorithm, property managers can allow a larger
share of their units to remain vacant while maintaining higher
rental prices across their properties, and thereby obtain greater
revenue. This strategy is only effective because of the pricing
coordination among competing property managers enabled by this
cartel, which is why RealPage repeatedly and explicitly emphasizes
that for the software to work properly, everyone needs to accept
its suggested price at least 80-90 percent of the time.

The Defendants' price fixing conspiracy is a per se unlawful
restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It has
resulted in artificially inflated rent prices and a diminished
supply of affordable rental units. Plaintiffs and the Class, who
rent in residential markets throughout the United States from
property managers that use RealPage's software, paid significant
overcharges on rent and suffered harm from the reduced availability
of rental units they could reasonably afford, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs rented residential units in a property managed by
the Defendants.

RealPage provides software and services to managers of residential
rental apartments.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT, LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 214-7900
          Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
                 bhogan@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq.
          Veronica M. Bosco, Esq.
          Johnny M. Shaw, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT, LLC
          485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (646) 933-1000
          Email: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com
                 kgarvey@dicellolevitt.com
                 jcrever@dicellolevitt.com
                 vbosco@dicellolevitt.com
                 jshaw@dicellolevitt.com

RECON OILFIELD: McDaniel & Klees Suits Combined for Deal Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, CORY McDANIEL, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RECON OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., et
al., Defendants. KALEN KLEES, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RECON OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case Nos. 2:20-cv-04497, 2:22-cv-01895 (S.D.
Ohio), Judge James L. Graham of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the parties'
Joint Motion to Consolidate Cases for Purposes of Settlement
Approval and Referring Settlement Proceedings to Magistrate Judge
Chelsey M. Vascura.

On Aug. 31, 2020, McDaniel filed a Complaint in this action against
Defendants Recon and Triple J Oilfield Services LLC on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated. In the Complaint, the
Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants failed to pay employees
overtime wages. The Plaintiff sought all available relief through a
Collective and Class Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq.; the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C. 4111.03; the Ohio Prompt Pay Act
("OPPA"), Ohio Rev. Code Section 4113.15; and Ohio's Recordkeeping
laws, Ohio Rev. Code Section 4111.08, 4111.14(G) & (H), and Article
II, Section 34a of the Ohio Constitution.

On Jan. 13, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Motion for FLSA
Conditional Collective Action Certification (McDaniel), which the
Court granted on April 5, 2021. On April 6, 2022, Representative
Plaintiff Klees, who previously opted into and then opted out of
the McDaniel lawsuit, filed a related case against the Defendants.

Shortly thereafter, the Representative Plaintiffs from both
lawsuits and the Defendants agreed to mediate jointly both cases.

On Aug. 2, 2022, the parties in Klees filed a Joint Motion to Stay
the litigation pending mediation of both cases, which the Court
granted on Aug. 3, 2022. The parties in both cases successfully
reached an agreement at mediation on Oct. 11, 2022.

The parties to both McDaniel and Klees now jointly seek to have the
cases consolidated solely for the purposes of seeking and obtaining
Court approval of the global settlement reached. They also consent
to Magistrate Judge Vascura's jurisdiction for the limited purpose
of deciding any motions connected to and/or related to the
settlement of these two cases.

Judge Graham holds that the Complaints filed in both cases allege
failure to pay employees overtime wages and seek all available
relief under the same federal and state laws. The facts of each
case involve the same employees seeking damages, and Klees was
previously a named Plaintiff in the McDaniel action who had opted
into the lawsuit. As all parties maintain that a global settlement
has been reached, Judge Graham finds that consolidating these
matters for the purposes of final settlement approval has the
combined effect of efficiently using the Court's resources,
providing justice to the parties, and avoiding prejudice.

Judge Graham notes that it is well settled that pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 626(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73(a),
the parties in a civil action in federal district court have the
option of consenting to have their case handled by a United States
magistrate judge. Here, both parties consented to Magistrate Judge
Vascura's jurisdiction over the pending settlement agreement.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Graham grants the Joint Motion and
consolidates McDaniel and Klees for purposes of the parties moving
for settlement approval. He directs the Clerk to close the later
filed case and orders the parties to file all documents in the
earliest filed case, No. 2:20-cv-4497. He also grants the parties'
request for referral to Magistrate Judge Vascura's jurisdiction for
all motions related to the settlement of the consolidated cases.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mus8r547 from Leagle.com.


REX DIRECT: Faces Reimer Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
RUHI REIMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REX DIRECT NET, INC. d/b/a DENTAL SERVICES
US; FUTUREDONTICS, LLC d/b/a 1-800-DENTIST; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-06554 (D. New Jersey,
November 10, 2022) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Virginia Telephone Privacy Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants placed numerous
automated telephone calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -3122 beginning on or around February 8, 2022 in
an attempt to promote its marketing and dental referral services.
The Defendants did not obtain the Plaintiff's prior express written
consent to place solicitation calls using an artificial or
prerecorded voice. Also, the Plaintiff was not a customer of the
Defendants and did not have any prior business relationship with
the Defendants. In addition, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number has been registered on the National Do-Not-Call List since
2008, the suit says.

As a result of the Defendants' unsolicited telephone calls, the
Plaintiff has suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest
in privacy. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks actual or statutory
damages for each and every negligent violation of the Defendants,
and an injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendants' unlawful
conduct. The Plaintiff also respectfully requests an award of
litigation costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems
necessary, just, and proper.

Rex Direct Net, Inc. d/b/a Dental Services US and Futuredontics,
LLC are marketing agencies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
          3000 Atrium Way, Suite 200
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Tel: (732) 588-8688
          E-mail: ross@kazlg.com

                - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
          LAW OFFICE OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Tel: (323) 306-4234
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

RUNWAY INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 13, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Rent the Runway, Inc. ("Rent
the Runway" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RENT) and certain of its top
executives and directors, as well as the IPO's underwriters on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased, or otherwise
acquired Rent the Runway Class A common stock in or traceable to
Rent the Runway's October 27, 2021 initial public offering (the
"IPO"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting
the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/rent.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC(PRNewswire)
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges that the IPO's offering documents failed to
disclose the following material facts: (1) Rent the Runway was
continuing to face extraordinary business headwinds, such as
transportation headwinds and labor wage rate increases, from the
COVID-19 pandemic; (2) Rent the Runway's active subscriber
enrollments had sharply decelerated from the growth trajectory
represented in the offering documents and, as a result, Rent the
Runway was several months away from approaching its pre-pandemic
levels of active subscriptions; (3) Rent the Runway needed to
substantially increase marketing and advertising costs from
historical figures in order to attempt to grow its active
subscriber network; (4) Rent the Runway was suffering from
ballooning fulfillment and transportation costs; and (5) as a
result, Rent the Runway was suffering accelerating operational
losses at the time of the IPO and was far less likely to achieve
profitability in the near term, if ever, than represented.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/rent or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Rent the Runway you have until January 13, 2023 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in
securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits.
The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Simon Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joshua Simon, David Barber, Diana Block,
Community Resource Initiative, Josue Bonilla, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. City and County of San
Francisco, Paul Miyamoto, in his official capacity as San Francisco
Sheriff, Case No. CGC-22-601686, was removed from the San Francisco
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Sept. 28, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-05541-JST to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

San Francisco -- https://sf.gov/ -- officially the City and County
of San Francisco, is the commercial, financial, and cultural center
of Northern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq.
          Colleen Bal, Esq.
          John Paul Flynn, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
          One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 947-2000
          Fax: (415) 947-2099
          Email: jsessions@wsgr.com
                 cbal@wsgr.com
                 jflynn@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Ana Alicia Sontag, Esq.
          Dylan Grace Savage, Esq.
          Malavika F. Lobo, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: (650) 493-9300
          Email: asontag@wsgr.com
                 dsavage@wsgr.com
                 mlobo@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Avram Frey, Esq.
          Emi Young, Esq.
          Hannah Meredith Kieschnick, Esq.
          Shilpi Agarwal, Esq.
          ACLU OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 316-0400
          Fax: (415) 255-1478
          Email: afrey@aclunc.org
                 eyoung@aclunc.org
                 hkieschnick@aclunc.org
                 sagarwal@aclunc.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexander Justin Holtzman, Esq.
          Kaitlyn M. Murphy, Esq.
          San Francisco City Attorney's Office
          1390 Market Street, Ste. 7th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Phone: (415) 554-3800
          Fax: (415) 437-4644
          Email: alexander.holtzman@sfcityatty.org
                 kaitlyn.murphy@sfcityatty.org


SANDRIDGE EXPLORATION: Colton Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sandridge Exploration
and Production LLC. The case is styled as Gregg B. Colton, on
behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons v. Sandridge Exploration and Production LLC, Case No.
5:22-cv-00986-JD (W.D. Okla., Nov. 14, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. -- https://sandridgeenergy.com/ -- is an
independent oil and gas company engaged in the development and
acquisition of oil and gas properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hicks, Esq.
          MORREL & MORREL PC
          3501 S Yale Ave
          Tulsa, OK 74135-8014
          Phone: (918) 664-0800
          Fax: (918) 663-1383
          Email: jhicks@barrowgrimm.com

               - and -

          Trevor R. Henson, Esq.
          BARROW & GRIMM PC
          110 W Seventh St., Suite 900
          Tulsa, OK 74119-1044
          Phone: (918) 584-1600
          Fax: (918) 585-2444
          Email: t.henson@barrowgrimm.com


SEED LEAF: Fasih Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kaveh Fasih, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SEED LEAF, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
37-2022-00036617-CU-MT-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Diego, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on Nov. 9,
2022, and assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01759-JLS-KSC.

The claims against Seed Leaf arise out of Plaintiff's purchase of
an automatically renewing coffee delivery subscription from Seed
Leaf via its website, https://www.drinktrade.com/. The Complaint
asserts the following causes of action: violation of Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code § 17200
et seq.; violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California
Civil Code; and declaratory relief.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
          Phone: 310.228.3700
          Facsimile: 310.228.3701
          Email: jramsey@sheppardmullin.com


SEZZLE INC: Court Refuses to Remand Sliwa Suit to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL SLIWA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEZZLE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. CV 22-06093 DSF(MAAx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dale S. Fischer
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California:

   (1) denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand; and

   (2) grants the Plaintiff's motion to continue and motion to
       compel discovery.

Sezzle removed the case on the basis of federal jurisdiction
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). It, then,
moved to compel arbitration. Sliwa moved for remand, and filed a
separate motion requesting a continuance of the motion to compel
arbitration hearing and requesting that this Court compel the
deposition of Joshua Bohde, Sezzle's Chief Technology Officer.
Sezzle opposes remand, and opposes the continuance and compelling
of Bohde's deposition.

Sezzle is a service that allows consumers to pay for purchases at a
later date. It is a "point-of-sale-loan" application. Sezzle "touts
itself as a free service" and allows consumers to pay for purchases
in installments with no interest. If, however, a user is unable to
pay for an installment, Sezzle will cancel the account. Users must
pay a ten-dollar reactivation fee to make a new purchase. Sezzle
warns users that if it is not able to process a payment, a fee will
be added to the payment after a grace period.

Sezzle does not, however, warn that automatic installment charges
may result in users incurring overdraft and insufficient funds fees
(NSF fees) from their banks. When a payment does not go through,
Sezzle will sometimes try to re-process payments, which results in
multiple NSF fees for users.

On May 6, 2022, Sliwa filed a putative class action against Sezzle
in this Court. On June 2, the parties met and conferred about
Sezzle's intent to file a motion to compel arbitration. After the
meet and confer, Sezzle provided Sliwa with a four-page letter
describing why the arbitration clause bound him and how users
agreed to the terms of service. Sliwa voluntarily dismissed the
lawsuit (Sliwa v. Sezzle Inc., No. 2:22-cv-03055-DSF-MAA).

On July 21, 2022, Sliwa, individually and on behalf of a class of
California consumers, re-filed the complaint in state court. The
new complaint alleges that Sezzle violated California's Unfair
Competition Law and California's False Advertising Law. The relief
demanded includes compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement,
punitive and exemplary damages, pre-judgment interest, and fees and
costs. Sezzle removed the action on Aug. 26, 2022.

The Plaintiff moves for remand, arguing that removal is improper
because Sezzle has failed to proffer calculations of the actual
amount in controversy. When Sezzle removed the case, it claimed
that the amount of revenue it generated in late fees from
California customers from July 26, 2019, to July 26, 2022, is
greater than $5 million and the total amount of fee revenue
Defendant generated from California customers from July 26, 2019,
to July 26, 2022, is greater than $5 million and these amounts
"individually and together, satisfy CAFA's $5 million
amount-in-controversy requirement."

Judge Fischer finds that Sezzle has met its burden to show by a
preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds
the CAFA threshold. Sezzle provided a declaration attesting to a
search run on all California customers "who linked their Sezzle
account to either a bank demand deposit account or debit card" and
missed a payment for more than two days, and then paid a $10 fee to
reactivate their account to make another purchase.

Sliwa also argues that including all individuals whose automatic
charges to bank or debit cards did not go through improperly
assumes a one-hundred percent violation rate.

This is unconvincing, Judge Fischer says. Sliwa provided no
evidence in his briefing that would better clarify the frequency of
the violations. Sezzle's reasonable inferences support that the
amount in controversy is met, Judge Fischer holds. Hence, the Court
denies Sliwa's motion to remand.

Mr. Sliwa did not oppose Sezzle's motion to compel arbitration but
he did move to continue the hearing on the motion until a date
after the Court resolved the jurisdictional issue. Nevertheless,
the Court will allow Sliwa to file an opposition. The parties are
to advise the Court when the Bohde deposition has been taken. An
opposition must be filed no later than two weeks after that date.
If Sliwa fails to file a timely opposition, the Court will deem the
lack of opposition to be consent to the motion.

In moving for a continuance, Sliwa asked the Court to compel
Bohde's deposition. Sliwa alleges that there are factual gaps in
Bohde's declaration that go to whether Sliwa agreed to arbitration.
The Court grants Sliwa's motion to compel Bohde's deposition. Sliwa
may depose Bohde about his declaration, as this goes to the heart
of whether an agreement was made.

Judge Fischer finds Sliwa's complete disregard for the Local Rules
unacceptable. The conference will take place at least seven days
prior to the filing of the motion.

Mr. Sliwa filed two motions and neither complied with this rule.
Sliwa's motion for remand contains no representation that the
conference occurred and Sezzle informs the Court that no conference
took place. In addition to failing to meet and confer, Sliwa missed
three filing deadlines.

The Court has -- for these motions -- looked past these repeated
failures in order to address the merits of the issues and move the
case along. But it will not do so in the future. Moreover, the
conduct of Sliwa's counsel, thus far, causes the Court to have
grave doubts about the adequacy of counsel to represent a class. At
the very least, the Court is likely to find any future failures to
comply with the Local Rules to be willfully disobedient and such
failures will result in sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 83-7.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4udbe8rj from Leagle.com.


SHASHI INC: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shashi, Inc. The case
is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Shashi, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-09703
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2022).

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

Shashi, Inc. -- https://shopshashi.com/ -- offers a curated
collection of vintage enamel jewelry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


SLEEP NUMBER: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Registration Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifshitz Law PLLC on Nov. 19 disclosed that a class action
complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders of Sleep Number
alleging that Defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (i) Sleep Number had suffered a severe
disruption in its supply chain for foam as a result of Winter Storm
Uri; (ii) Sleep Number did not have in place the supply chain
flexibility, redundancies, and fail-safes, as had been represented
to investors, sufficient to offset the foam supply disruption
caused by Winter Storm Uri; (iii) because foam was a necessary
component for Sleep Number's production of its primary mattress
products, Sleep Number's ability to timely fulfill customer orders
had been materially impaired; (iv) thus, Sleep Number was unable to
meet surging customer demand for Sleep Number's products; and (v)
that, as a result, Sleep Number had been forced to delay mattress
shipments to end consumers, pushing millions of dollars' worth of
sales into subsequent quarters and negatively impacting Sleep
Number's financial results.

If you are a Sleep Number investor, and would like additional
information about our investigation, please complete the
Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by
telephone at (516)493-9780 or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

Organogenesis Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: ORGO)

Lifshitz Law PLLC announces that a class action complaint was filed
on behalf of shareholders of Organogenesis alleging that Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Organogenesis improperly billed the federal
government for its Affinity and PuraPly XT products by, among other
things, setting the price for those products multiple times higher
than similar products; (ii) the Company improperly induced doctors
to use its Affinity and PuraPly XT products through lucrative
reimbursements; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, the
Company's revenue and profits derived from its Affinity and PuraPly
XT products were at least in substantial part unsustainable; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you are an Organogenesis investor, and would like additional
information about our investigation, please complete the
Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by
telephone at (516)493-9780 or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

Netflix Inc. (NASDAQ: NFLX)

Lifshitz Law PLLC announces that a class action complaint was filed
on behalf of shareholders of Netflix alleging that Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Netflix was
exhibiting slower acquisition growth due to, among other things,
account sharing by customers and increased competition from other
streaming services; (2) that the Company was experiencing
difficulties retaining customers; (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company was losing subscribers on a net basis; (4)
that, as a result, the Company's financial results were being
adversely affected; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you are a Netflix investor, and would like additional
information about our investigation, please complete the
Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by
telephone at (516)493-9780 or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

Mullen Automotive, Inc. (NASDAQ: MULN)

Lifshitz Law PLLC announces that a class action complaint was filed
on behalf of shareholders of Mullen alleging that Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1)
Mullen overstated its ability and timeline regarding production;
(2) Mullen overstated its deals with business partners, including
Qiantu Motors; (3) Mullen overstated its battery technology and
capabilities; (4) Mullen overstated its ability to sell its branded
products; (5) Net Element did not conduct proper due diligence into
Mullen Technologies; (6) the Dragonfly K50 was not (solely) delayed
due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (7) as a result, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.

If you are a Mullen investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or email at info@jlclasslaw.com.

Contact:
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
Lifshitz Law PLLC
Phone: 516-493-9780
Facsimile: 516-280-7376
Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com [GN]

SOCIETY INSURANCE: Bid to Stay Discovery in Solly Class Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Solly Ringo's LLC, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant v. Society
Insurance, a Mutual Company, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Case No.
3:22-cv-50054 (N.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Lisa A. Jensen of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western
Division, denies the Defendant's motion to stay discovery.

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action against the
Defendant, seeking breach of contract damages and a declaratory
judgment based on allegations that the Defendant improperly
withheld future labor costs when paying out certain structural
damage claims. The Defendant answered the damages claim, moved to
dismiss the declaratory judgment claim as duplicative of the
damages claim, and filed a counterclaim seeking confirmation of an
appraisal award valuing the Plaintiff's loss. The Plaintiff
answered the Defendant's counterclaim on July 6, 2022.

After an initial meet and confer on July 21, 2022, the Plaintiff
and the Defendant jointly proposed staying merits discovery and
conducting class discovery for approximately nine months because
they hoped to avoid fees, costs and expenses associated with
preparing for a class action trial before knowing whether the Court
will be inclined to certify a class in the first instance.

The Court held a status hearing on Aug. 2, 2022, to discuss whether
this schedule would unduly delay a ruling on class certification.
At the hearing, the parties both continued to request a bifurcated
discovery schedule, so the Court ordered the parties to meet and
confer to jointly propose a shortened class discovery period. It
approved the parties' bifurcated discovery schedule on August 5.
According to the parties' most recent joint status report on Sept.
27, 2022, they have exchanged some written discovery and continue
to meet and confer regarding their pending discovery requests.

On Sept. 20, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, asserting that certain admissions in the Plaintiff's
answer to the counterclaim entitle the Defendant to judgment on its
counterclaim and dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims with
prejudice. Three days later, the Defendant moved to stay class
discovery until the District Judge rules on its motion for judgment
on the pleadings. The Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition, and
the Defendant filed a reply.

First, the Defendant argues that there is little to no risk of
prejudice if a discovery stay is entered because discovery recently
began, and the bulk of the Plaintiff's discovery requests concern
the Defendant's policyholder claims files and those files are
secure. The Plaintiff argues that the stay motion "is untimely and
disruptive to the current proceedings." Although the Defendant
maintains that it could not have moved for a stay of class
discovery any earlier, it does not rebut the Plaintiff's argument
that a stay would disrupt the current proceedings.

Judge Jensen opines that while the prejudice to the Plaintiff may
be slight, there is nevertheless a fair possibility that a stay
will prejudice the Plaintiff in light of the parties' ongoing meet
and confer efforts. Accordingly, she finds that this factor weighs
in favor of a stay.

Next, the Defendant argues that the time, cost and energy
associated with responding any further to written discovery, namely
three of Plaintiff's document requests, is significant and
outweighs the benefits of proceeding with class discovery. The
Plaintiff responds that the Defendant has mischaracterized "the
scope of the present discovery in this litigation."

Judge Jensen opines that the Defendant has not sufficiently shown
that a stay of discovery would reduce the burden on the parties or
the Court. She recognizes that class actions have the potential to
entail burdensome discovery. However, the Defendant has not shown
that a complete stay of class discovery is required. Accordingly,
this factor also weighs in favor of a stay.

Finally, the Defendant asserts that a stay will simplify the issues
in the case because its motion for judgment on the pleadings, if
granted, will resolve the case in its entirety. The Plaintiff
responds in kind, speculating with equal confidence that the motion
will be denied.

Judge Jensen declines, like other court, to engage in any summary
review of the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings when
deciding the motion to stay discovery. The Defendant has already
obtained a stay of merits discovery; going further and staying
class discovery solely because the Defendant's motion will
purportedly resolve the entire case "would allow the exception to
swallow the rule." Accordingly, this factor weighs against a stay
of discovery.

After weighing the relevant factors, Judge Jensen finds that the
Defendant has not shown good cause for a stay of all class
discovery. However, it is not foreclosed from requesting narrower
relief after making a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute.
For these reasons, the Defendant's motion to stay discovery is
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s4zz9rv from
Leagle.com.


SPERL INC: Court OK's Neubauer's Class Action Settlement Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TAYLOR NEUBAUER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPERL INC.,
d/b/a Subway and MICHELLE L. SPERL, Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-236-slc (W.D. Wis.), Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
approves the parties' revised Notice of Class Action Settlement and
the Consent Form for distribution to all putative members.

In an order entered on Oct. 21, 2022, Judge Crocker preliminarily
approved the settlement agreement reached by the parties, certified
a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and a
Wisconsin state law class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
and appointed Plaintiff Taylor Neubauer as the class representative
and Hawks Quindel as class counsel.

Judge Crocker also asked class counsel to revise the notice to
putative class members to address three concerns that Judge Crocker
had related to the identification of class counsel, the reporting
of unpaid wages to the IRS, and the release of claims. Class
counsel has submitted a revised notice that addresses these
concerns and otherwise satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).

Accordingly, Judge Crocker rules that the parties' revised Notice
of Class Action Settlement and the Consent Form are approved for
distribution to all putative members of the Wisconsin class and the
FLSA collective class by United States Mail, which the court finds
to be valid, due, and sufficient notice to members of the
previously-certified classes.

The Defendants will provide the most recent mailing addresses for
putative class members to the class counsel within seven days of
the date of this order.

Class counsel will mail the approved notice and consent form to
putative class members within 14 days of receiving the most recent
mailing addresses from the Defendants.

Any member of the FLSA collective class who wishes to participate
in the parties' settlement of the FLSA claims as alleged in the
First Amended Complaint, and who has not already done so, will
return a consent form within 30 days of class counsel mailing the
notice, as described in the parties' settlement agreement.

Any member of the Wisconsin class, who wishes to exclude themselves
from the parties' settlement of Wisconsin law claims as alleged in
the First Amended Complaint, will exclude themselves per the
instructions set forth in the Notice within 30 days of the mailing
of the notice.

Any member of the Wisconsin class, who does not exclude themselves
accordingly, will be bound by the Court's final approval of the
settlement agreement.

Any member of the Wisconsin class, who wishes to object in any way
to the proposed settlement agreement, will file and serve such
written objections per the instructions set forth in the notice no
later than 30 days after the mailing of the notice, together with
copies of all papers in support of their position.

Class counsel will file a motion for approval of attorneys' fees
and costs by not later than 21 days before the date of the fairness
hearing.

The clerk of court is directed to schedule a fairness hearing on a
date no earlier than 75 days from date of this order to determine
whether to finally approve the parties' settlement and in what
amount attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses
should be awarded to class counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/42apuvys from Leagle.com.


TERRAFORM LABS: Court Refuses to Move Albright Suit to California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Matthew Albright, Plaintiff v. Terraform Labs, Pte.
Ltd., et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-07281 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York enters an Opinion and Order setting forth
reasons for denying the Defendants' motion to transfer venue.

Defendants Terraform and Jump Trading, LLC, moved to transfer the
lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California for consolidation with a class action filed in that
district, Patterson v. Terraform Labs, Pte. Ltd., No. 3:22-cv-03600
(N.D. Cal. filed June 17, 2022).

On Aug. 25, 2022, Albright, brought this putative class action
against the Defendants on behalf of anyone who purchased TerraUS
coins between May 1, 2019 and June 15, 2022. The TerraUS coin is a
kind of cryptocurrency known as a "stablecoin," in which the price
of the coin is pegged to another asset, most commonly fiat
currency, exchange-traded commodities, or other cryptocurrencies.
Each TerraUS coin, for instance, was algorithmically pegged to the
U.S. dollar and could be purchased and sold for exactly $1.

Albright claims that the Defendants misled investors of TerraUS
coins into believing that the coins were stable and had the
potential to generate high annual returns, while simultaneously
engaging in a scheme to artificially inflate their value. When that
illusory demand inevitably evaporated, the $60 billion market for
the coins crashed, allegedly generating billions of dollars in
losses for members of the putative class.Meanwhile, the Defendants
allegedly siphoned billions of dollars earned through TerraUS coin
sales to private cryptocurrency wallets that they owned. Their
actions, according to the Plaintiff, violated the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO" Act) and federal
laws regarding money laundering and mail and wire fraud.

About two months before the filing of the suit, on June 17, 2022,
another plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit in the Northern
District of California against all but one of the Defendants in
this case -- Patterson Complait. The Patterson complaint, though it
recites many of the same facts, alleges that the Defendants
infringed federal securities law and California state law in
addition to the RICO Act.

On Oct. 21, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to transfer venue
to the District Court for the Northern District of California for
consolidation with Patterson. By order rendered orally during the
initial pre-trial conference on Oct. 31, 2022, Judge Rakoff denied
that motion. In the present Opinion and Order, Judge Rakoff sets
forth the reasons for that decision.

The Defendants argue for transfer to the Northern District of
California on two grounds: First, that the first-filed principle
dictates that this case be consolidated with Patterson, which,
according to the Defendants, features effectively the same facts
and issues and was filed nearly two months before this case.
Second, and in the alternative, that the balance of conveniences
counsels for transferring the case under the change of venue
statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1404.

Judge Rakoff declines to transfer the case under the first-filed
principle. He finds that though Patterson was unquestionably filed
before this case and was brought against nearly all of the same
Defendants, that case does not involve "substantially or
effectively the same issues," and therefore, the first-filed
principle does not apply.

The Defendants' argument that the interests of trial efficiency and
justice would be better served by transfer because it would avoid
"potentially inconsistent determinations on the same questions of
law and fact" are, in light of the foregoing, unpersuasive. Judge
Rakoff opines that the Court has already explained why the issues
involved in this case and Patterson are emphatically not the same.
And, in any event, the interest in avoiding inconsistent judgments
does not outweigh the even more weighty interest in avoiding delay
and reducing the burden placed on class litigants.

Because two of the factors weigh heavily against transfer and none
in favor, Judge Rakoff declines to transfer the Albright case,
either under the first-filed principle or 28 U.S.C. Section 1404.
Accordingly, he reaffirms the bench order on Oct. 31, 2022 denying
the Defendants' motion to transfer. The Clerk is directed to close
the motion (item 27) on the docket.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 15, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bde8sxu4 from Leagle.com.


TOM'S OF MAINE: Faces Class Action Over All-Natural Toothpaste
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Haydock, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Tom's of
Maine, a producer of all-natural health and beauty products, is
facing a consumer class-action lawsuit that claims its all-natural
toothpaste actually contains synthetic ingredients.

John Daly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
filed a complaint on Nov. 14 in Cook County Circuit Court against
Tom's of Maine claiming a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The plaintiffs allege in their class-action lawsuit that Tom's is
intentionally misleading consumers by labeling their toothpaste
with false ingredients.

The suit claims multiple flavors of Tom's toothpaste labeled as
all-natural, lists ingredients such as as Luminous White Clean
Mint, Activated Charcoal Peppermint, Toddler Training Mild Fruit,
and Antiplaque and Whitening Spearmint, that are actually
synthetically produced ingredients, hydrated silica, glycerin,
sorbitol, xylitol, and sodium lauryl sulfate.

The lawsuit claims fraudulent labeling mislead consumers into
paying a premium price for a product they believed to be
all-natural, receiving instead, a non-premium product.

The plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial. They are seeking a court
order requiring Tom's of Maine to notify consumers of the alleged
unlawful, unfair, and deceptive conduct, as well as refund the
purchase price, plus pay attorneys' fees and other costs.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Steven G. Perry, of the Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman P.C. [GN]

TORRID HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Nov. 19
disclosed that purchasers of Torrid Holdings Inc. (NYSE: CURV)
common stock in or traceable to Torrid Holding's July 1, 2021
initial public offering (the "IPO") have until January 17, 2023 to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Torrid Holdings class
action lawsuit. Captioned Waswick v. Torrid Holdings Inc., No.
22-cv-08375 (C.D. Cal.), the Torrid Holdings class action lawsuit
charges Torrid Holdings, certain of its top executives and
directors, the IPO's underwriters, as well as others with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Torrid Holdings class action lawsuit, please
provide your information here:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-torrid-holdings-inc-class-action-lawsuit-curv.html

You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Torrid Holdings is a direct-to-consumer brand of
women's plus-size apparel and intimates. Via its IPO, Torrid
Holdings sold more than 12 million shares at $21 per share,
generating over $265 million in gross offering proceeds. Notably,
all of the shares sold were by Torrid Holdings insiders.

Leading up to the IPO, Torrid Holdings claimed to be experiencing
rapid sales growth and an impressive recovery following a temporary
downturn in the face of the initial phases of the COVID-19
pandemic, which began in March 2020. However, as the Torrid
Holdings class action lawsuit alleges, the IPO's registration
statement failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) in
the first half of 2021, Torrid Holdings had experienced a temporary
surge in demand as a result of changed consumer behaviors in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic and government stimulus and that
such ephemeral demand trends had dissipated and were not internally
projected to continue following the IPO; (ii) Torrid Holdings was
suffering from severe supply chain disruptions caused by the
emergence of the Delta variant of COVID-19, which had first emerged
in May 2021; (iii) Torrid Holdings was running materially below
historical inventory levels as a result of supply chain
disruptions; (iv) thus, Torrid Holdings did not have sufficient
inventory to meet expected consumer demand for its fiscal third
quarter of 2021; (v) consequently, late inventory arrival had
materially impaired Torrid Holdings from effectively matching
consumer buying trends, creating an undisclosed risk of increased
markdowns and promotional activities necessary to sell undesirable
inventory; (vi) Torrid Holdings' CFO, defendant George Wehlitz,
planned to retire shortly after the IPO; and (vii) as a result, the
IPO's registration statement's representations regarding Torrid
Holding's historical financial and operational metrics and
purported market opportunities did not accurately reflect the
actual business, operations, financial results, and trajectory of
Torrid Holdings at the time of the IPO, and were materially false
and misleading and lacked a reasonable factual basis.

At the time of the filing of the Torrid Holdings class action
lawsuit, the price of Torrid Holdings common stock remained
significantly below the IPO price.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Torrid
Holdings common stock in or traceable to the IPO to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the Torrid Holdings class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Torrid Holdings class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Torrid Holdings
class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff of the Torrid Holdings class action lawsuit.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for
investors last year alone - more than triple the amount recovered
by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the
world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in
In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for
more information:

https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html

Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Contact:

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

TOUCH OF CLASS: Campbell Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Touch of Class, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Brandi Campbell, individually and on
Behalf of all others similarly situated v. Touch of Class, Inc.
James D. McCollum, Joe Downing, Case No. 1:22-cv-01918-SEB-TAB
(S.D. Ind., Sept. 28, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Touch of Class -- https://www.touchofclass.com/ -- is a retail
company offering home decor, bedspreads, and comforters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Richard Dehem, Esq.
          DEHEM LAW, LLC
          P.O. Box 125
          Noblesville, IN 46061
          Phone: (317) 428-8333
          Email: brian@dehemlaw.com

The Defendants appear pro se.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Judgment Entered in Martin Suit After Deal Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James V. Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California enters judgment in the case, WILLIAM MARTIN
and LORI MITCHELL, each individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION,
a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No.:
2:20-cv-10518-JVS-MRW (C.D. Cal.).

Judge Selna dismisses all the claims against the Defendants with
prejudice for the reasons set forth in the Court's Order granting
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Nationwide Class
Action Settlement and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Costs and Incentive Award.

The Clerk is directed to enter the Judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 16, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3zu8y89k from Leagle.com.

JASON M. FRANK --  jfrank@lawfss.com -- ANDREW D. STOLPER, SCOTT H.
SIMS, FRANK SIMS & STOLPER LLP, Irvine, CA.

FRANKLIN D. AZAR, (pro hac vice) FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES,
P.C., Aurora, CO, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, the Proposed Class
and Subclasses.


UNILEVER UNITED: Hit With Class Action Over Benzene in Dry Shampoos
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The London-based conglomerate Unilever is facing a class action
lawsuit over dry shampoo products contaminated with high levels of
benzene, a chemical compound known to cause cancer.

The class action lawsuit follows an October 2022 recall of several
brands of dry shampoo aerosol sprays that Unilever owns, including:


The recalled dry shampoo products sold under these brands were
produced prior to October 2021. The first Unilever dry shampoo
lawsuit was filed Nov. 1 by plaintiff Robert Rullo in the United
States District Court District of New Jersey.

Unilever is also facing a lawsuit over its recalled Suave
antiperspirant products, which was sparked by the discovery of high
levels of benzene detected in Nov. 2021 by the online independent
pharmacy and laboratory-testing company, Valisure. Rullo alleges in
his complaint that Unilever knew that its other aerosol products
could have high levels of benzene and that the company should have
issued a warning rather than wait a whole year before issuing a
recall in order to maximize profits.

This allegedly intentional withholding of information by Unilever
put consumers at risk of developing cancer, Rullo's complaint says.


Unilever and other consumer goods manufacturers face several
benzene lawsuits over other aerosol products, including sunscreens,
deodorants and other antiperspirants.

Benzene in dry shampoo products places consumers at risk because
the product is applied directly on the scalp, where benzene can
cross the blood-brain barrier and enter the circulatory system.
Rullo's complaint alleges that Unilever did not adequately test its
products to ensure that levels of benzene were safe. The company
also allegedly failed to disclose the risks of benzene in aerosol
products.

For a full list of the recalled dry shampoo products produced prior
to October 2021 and consumer UPC codes for those products, the FDA
has provided this online resource. [GN]

UNILEVER: Barnette Sues Over High Levels of Carcinogenic Chemical
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Billie Barnette, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-01236-HES-JBT (M.D. Fla., Nov. 9, 2022), is brought on
behalf of all purchasers of aerosol dry shampoo products
manufactured and sold by Unilever under its brands: Dove, Nexxus,
Suave, TIGI, and TRESemme, that contain dangerously high levels of
a known carcinogenic chemical called benzene that numerous studies
have proven to be linked to various forms of cancer including
leukemia ("Products").

The Defendant manufactured the Products including the addition of
benzene to them. As such, prior to placing them into the stream of
commerce and consumers' households for regular use, Defendant at
all times relevant hereto knew (let alone should have known) that
the Products contained dangerously high levels of benzene that
poses a grave threat to consumers' health and safety. Despite that
knowledge, however, the Defendant misrepresented, omitted, and
concealed the inclusion of benzene in the Products, at dangerously
high levels, to consumers such as Plaintiff and Class Members by,
inter alia, knowingly and intentionally failing to list benzene on
the Products' labels or otherwise warning consumers about its
presence therein.

The Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant's representations--and
omissions on the Products' labels and elsewhere--that the Products
were safe, unadulterated, and free of any carcinogens not listed on
the label when purchasing and using the Products, thereby exposing
themselves to dangerous levels of benzene. By paying for the
Products containing dangerous levels of benzene, the Plaintiff did
not receive the benefit of their bargain and, instead, received
worthless Products because they contain harmful and dangerous
cancer-causing benzene. Indeed, benzene is an unavoidable
ingredient in the Products and their manufacturing process such
that the presence of benzene renders the products adulterated,
misbranded, and illegal to sell to consumers such as the
Plaintiff.

Because the Defendant represented the Products did not contain
benzene and/or failed to disclose the presence of benzene in the
Products, and the Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products
or would have paid less for the Products had they known the
Products contained or risked containing benzene, As a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's conduct and the sale of
benzene-containing Products, the Plaintiff and Class members have
suffered injury in fact, incurred damages, and have otherwise been
harmed by the Defendant's conduct, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has regularly purchased two of the Products.

Unilever oversees the production, promotion, distribution, and sale
of various consumer products, including the Products throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Phone: (888) 711-9975
          Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
          Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
                 mbd@sstriallawyers.com


UNITED STATES: Bradley Sues Over Privacy Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Bradley, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03442 (D.D.C., Nov. 9, 2022), is brought seeking to
enforce the Privacy Act of 1974, "Privacy Act"), which "establishes
a code of fair information practices that governs the collection,
maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about
individuals that is  maintained in systems of records by federal
agencies," and to seek actual damages for the Department's willful
and intentional violations of the Privacy Act.

Despite the serious economic consequences of student loans, it is
remarkably easy to obtain one or obligate another individual as a
co-signer. Often all that is required is to simply fill out an
application online with some personal details about the borrower
and any co-signer, even without the borrower and co-signer's
knowledge or consent. Consequently, thousands of Americans have
been shocked to discover the federal government claims they are
personally responsible on student loans they know nothing about and
to which they never agreed.

The Department maintains records for all such federal student
loans, including the original application information. The
Department does not even require information to be submitted
directly from the obligor on a student loan, as simply anyone can
fill out the requisite formsas long as they have the right
information available. Because most Americans have "experienced or
been notified of a significant data breach pertaining to their
personal data or accounts," fraudsters find it easy to secure bogus
student loans from the Department with stolen personal identifiable
information (PII).

As evidenced by the tens of thousands reports of identity theft
with student loans, Defendant has failed to maintain a system with
accurate records and adequate identity verification protocols,
resulting in financial stress and confusion and pecuniary harm for
countless Americans. Congress intended to protect individuals like
Plaintiff and the class members when it passed the Privacy Act, as
the Department falsely accuses them of owing debts to the federal
government which resulted from fraud. The Department enabled this
fraud through its knowing failure to ensure the integrity and
accuracy of information collected, stored, maintained, and
disseminated about Plaintiff and the class members, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and a citizen of the United
States.

The Department is an agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          EMERSON BRADLEY
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Phone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Drew D. Sarrett, Esq.
          Kevin a. Dillon, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          626 East Broad Street, Suite 300
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Phone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          Email: drew@clalegal.com
                 kevin@clalegal.com


UNITED STATES: ICDC Lawsuit Over Gynecological Procedures Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Felton Johnson, writing for Cobb County Courier, reports that
members of the U.S. Senate on an investigation panel grilled
federal immigration officials about a bipartisan report that
detailed how migrant women at an immigration detention center in
Georgia underwent questionable gynecological procedures.

The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Permanent Investigations released
an 18-month bipartisan report that found migrant women who were
detained at Irwin County Detention Center, known as ICDC, in
Georgia were subjected to "excessive, invasive, and often
unnecessary gynecological procedures," and many of the women did
not consent or understand the procedures they underwent.

Following the release of the report, the panel held a hearing to
question Assistant Director Stewart D. Smith of U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Health Service Corps at the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security and Pamela Hearn, the medical director at
LaSalle Corrections, which has federal contracts to operate
detention centers across the country, including one at ICDC.

The report focused on one doctor contracted to treat detainees, Dr.
Mahendra Amin, who performed "high rates" of unauthorized
hysterectomies on ICDC detainees.

"It's hard for me to think of anything that is worse than the
federal government subjugating incarcerated women to unnecessary
gynecological surgery," Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who
chairs the panel, said.

Dr. Margaret G. Mueller, an associate professor of obstetrics and
gynecology at Northwestern Medicine who testified before senators,
said that the women at the detention center underwent aggressive,
unnecessary procedures. She said there were instances in which Amin
failed to obtain consent.

"This cannot be allowed to happen again," she said.

Witness tells of mistreatment
One of the witnesses, Karina Cisneros Preciado, detailed to
senators how while she was getting a Pap smear at the medical
center, Amin diagnosed her with an ovarian cyst. The treatment he
conducted included a Depo-Provera injection, which is a type of
contraception that suppresses ovulation.

Cisneros Preciado said she had no idea she was given a
contraceptive, and said she would have refused because many of the
women in her family have had bad reactions to certain types of
birth control.

The PSI report found that another doctor who treated Cisneros
Preciado did not find any evidence of a cyst.

U.S. Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire said she was
disturbed that Cisneros Preciado said she never gave consent during
her treatment. Hassan asked Cisneros Preciado if Amin had asked
about her family medical history before prescribing the shot.

Cisneros Preciado said he never did.

"To this day, I am extremely scared to go to any doctor for myself
and for my kids," she said.

Cisneros Preciado said she was brought into the United States when
she was eight. She told senators when she got married at 18, her
relationship became abusive and when she called the police to stop
one of her children from being abused, she was arrested.

While the charges were dropped, because of her immigration status,
she was sent to the detention center, shortly after giving birth to
her daughter.

Cisneros Preciado, said she was still breastfeeding when she was
sent to the detention center. She said she was away from her
daughter for seven months, and when she finally was released, her
daughter "was already walking, she didn't know who I was. She was
scared of me."

In December 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed by former ICDC
detainees against ICDC, ICE, Amin, Irwin County Hospital, and other
federal and non-federal parties alleging that patients had
undergone non-consensual and unnecessary gynecological procedures.

Cisneros Preciado is one of the plaintiffs in that class action
lawsuit.

The subcommittee for its report subpoenaed Amin to testify, but
through "his attorney he submitted an affidavit stating that he
declined to provide testimony pursuant to his Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination," the report noted.

Amin has no board certifications, and in 2013 the Department of
Justice and state of Georgia sued him, claiming that he committed
Medicaid fraud by ordering unnecessary and excessive medical
procedures. That lawsuit was settled in 2015, when Amin and his
co-defendants had to pay a $520,000 settlement to the federal
government while admitting no wrongdoing.

Ossoff grilled Smith, who is responsible for the health care of
those incarcerated, on how his agency allowed this to happen and
why there was no oversight over Amin.

"We weren't aware of these complaints," Smith said. "Until the
whistleblower complaints."

Ossoff continued to press Smith on how Amin was allowed to treat
those in custody, despite not being board certified and while he
was being sued by the government and state of Georgia for Medicaid
fraud.

"It is an abject failure," Ossoff said to Smith. "What we've heard
today is that there was no real vetting."

Whistleblower testifies
Congress was alerted in 2019 to the problems at the detention
center by a whistleblower, Dawn Wooten, a nurse who worked at the
Irwin County Detention Center.

The whistleblower, Dawn Wooten, was a nurse who worked at the Irwin
County Detention Center. She alleged women at the facility were
sent to an outside medical provider, Amin, who performed
gynecological procedures — including but not limited to
hysterectomies — without their informed consent.

Top U.S Democrats also launched their own investigations into the
facility following Wooten's allegations.

In May 2021, DHS directed ICE to end its contract with ICDC and as
of September 2021, all immigrant detainees were removed from that
facility and sent to other detention centers.

And as of October 2021, ICE ended its contract with LaSalle.
However, the federal government still has contracts with LaSalle to
run other detention centers throughout the U.S.

Hearn, representing LaSalle, clarified that LaSalle is not involved
in vetting off-site medical providers, like Amin, "nor could we
have done so under the contracts or regulations governing our
involvement at ICDC."

But ICDC is currently allowed to detain individuals under the
custody of the U.S. Marshals Service.

Bipartisan report
The nearly 100-page report includes interviews from more than 70
witnesses. Investigators reviewed more than 541,000 pages of
records from the detention center, the U.S. government, LaSalle
Corrections and Irwin County Hospital.

At the Irwin County Detention Center, roughly 4% of detainees
housed there were women, from the years 2017 to 2020. The report
found that Amin accounted for about 6.5% of all OB-GYN visits among
detainees during that period, and he performed more than 90% of key
OB-GYN procedures nationwide on women detainees.

"Dr. Amin was a clear outlier in both the number and types of
procedures he performed compared to other OB-GYNs that treated ICE
detainees," according to the report.

Of those procedures, he performed 44 laparoscopies to remove
lesions, which was 94% of all procedures conducted on all ICE
detainees; performed 102 Depo-Provera injections, or 93% of
injections provided by all OB-GYN specialists to ICE detainees;
performed 163 limited pelvic exams, or 92% of limited pelvic exams
conducted on all ICE detainees; and 53 dilation and curettage
procedures, or 82% of all D&C procedures conducted by all OB-GYN
specialists treating ICE detainees.

All the outside medical experts interviewed in the PSI report found
that Amin did not follow current medical guidelines for patient
care, and all the medical experts determined that "Dr. Amin
followed a pattern of treatment for almost all patients he treated
regardless of their specific diagnosis or condition."

Those medical experts the committee interviewed were part of a
medical team tapped by attorneys and advocacy groups involved with
the December 2020 suit to review the medical records for 19 ICDC
detainees that Amin treated.

"These experts concluded that Dr. Amin subjected women to
aggressive and unethical gynecological care," according to the
report. "They found that Dr. Amin quickly scheduled surgeries when
non-surgical options were available, misinterpreted test results,
performed unnecessary injections and treatments, and proceeded
without informed consent."

The report interviewed six women who were former detainees and
received treatment from Amin.

"These women described feeling confused, afraid, and violated after
their treatment by Dr. Amin," according to the report. "Several
reported that they still live with physical pain and uncertainty
regarding the effect of his treatments on their fertility."

The report found that those women were not told what procedures
they were undergoing and when they asked for more information, Amin
told them he "was not authorized" to give them more information.

The report detailed how a former licensed practical nurse who
worked with Amin observed patients signing consent forms as they
"were about to drift off to sleep" from anesthesia and "were just
coherent enough" to sign the medical forms. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Settlement in Suit v. Education Dep't Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Knott, writing for Inside Higher Ed, reports that a
federal judge approved a settlement in a class action lawsuit
against the U.S. Department of Education that argued the agency
ignored borrower defense to repayment claims.

Under the settlement, 200,000 borrowers who attended one of 153
institutions identified by the Education Department will see all
their federal student loans discharged, which totals about $6
billion for the group. Another 64,000 borrowers will receive final
decisions on their borrower-defense claims. Most of the
institutions listed are for-profit colleges or universities.

"This is a life-changing and long-awaited win for our clients who
have fought tirelessly in this case," said Eileen Connor, president
and director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending, which
filed the lawsuit in 2018. "It immediately delivers certainty and
relief to borrowers who have been waiting years for a fair
resolution of their borrower-defense claims. Throughout this case,
our clients exposed a fundamentally broken borrower-defense system
and the urgent need for reforms to hold predatory schools
accountable."

The borrower defense to repayment program allows borrowers to apply
for relief if their college or university misled them or violated
certain state laws. The program started in 1994 but wasn't widely
used for relief until May 2015, when for-profit Corinthian Colleges
closed. The Obama administration approved more than 90 percent of
borrower-defense claims, according to the settlement, but the pace
of approvals slowed during the Trump administration. The lawsuit
was aimed at forcing former education secretary Betsy DeVos to
resume granting or denying applications.

The settlement is not a successful or approved borrower-defense
claim, so the department won't be able to seek reimbursement for
the discharged loans. Additionally, the department did not make an
official determination of misconduct against the institutions
involved.

American National University, the Chicago School of Professional
Psychology, Everglades College Inc. and Lincoln Educational
Services Corporation sought to intervene in the lawsuit, taking
issuing with their inclusion on the list of 153 institutions,
"which they label a scarlet letter," the settlement states.

Career Education Colleges and Universities, which represents the
proprietary higher education sector, said in a statement that it
was disappointed by the settlement.

"The four intervenor schools made a compelling case that the Sweet
settlement represents an unlawful overreach by the Department of
Education and unfairly maligns over 150 institutions without any
opportunity to respond," CECU president Jason Altmire said in a
statement. "We are disappointed that Judge Alsup overlooked these
defects and approved the settlement. We expect that the Ninth
Circuit on appeal will recognize these fatal flaws and send the
parties back to the negotiating table."

Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement that the
administration was pleased with the settlement.

"Going forward, the Department of Education will continue to
strengthen oversight and enforcement for colleges that mislead
students and work to uphold the Biden-Harris administration's
commitment to helping students who have been harmed," Cardona said.
[GN]

UNITI GROUP: Final Order and Judgment Issued in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian S. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas issued a Final Order and Judgment in the
lawsuit entitled In re UNITI GROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This
Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Master File No. 4:19-cv-00756-BSM
(E.D. Ark.).

On June 17, 2022, Lead Plaintiffs Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Plan, Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, and David
McMurray, on behalf of himself and as sole beneficiary of the David
McMurray R/O IRA (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), and Zhengxu He,
Trustee for the He & Fang 2005 Revocable Living Trust, on behalf of
themselves and all other members of the proposed Settlement Class,
on the one hand, and Defendants Uniti Group Inc. f/k/a
Communications Sales & Leasing, Inc. ("Uniti"), Kenneth A.
Gunderman, and Mark A. Wallace (collectively with Uniti, the
"Defendants" and, collectively with Plaintiffs, the "Parties"), on
the other, entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
(the "Stipulation") in this litigation (the "Action").

The Court ordered that the Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses and a Proof of Claim and Release form be mailed by
first-class mail, postage prepaid, on or before 10 business days
after the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order (the
"Notice Date") to all potential Settlement Class Members, who could
be identified through reasonable effort, and that the Summary
Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses be published in The Wall
Street Journal and transmitted over PR Newswire within 14 calendar
days of the Notice Date.

The Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval
Order and finally certifies, for purposes of the Settlement only,
pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Settlement Class of all persons and entities who or
which, during the period from April 24, 2015, to June 24, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"): (1) purchased or otherwise
acquired; (a) the common stock of Uniti Group Inc. f/k/a
Communications Sales & Leasing, Inc.; (b) call options of Uniti; or
(c) the following bonds issued by Uniti and/or its subsidiaries:
(i) 6.00% Senior Secured Notes due April 15, 2023 (CUSIP No.
20341WAA3); (ii) 8.25% Senior Notes due October 15, 2023 (CUSIP No.
20341WAD7); or (iii) 7.125% Senior Unsecured Notes due December 15,
2024 (CUSIP No. 20341WAE5); or (2) sold put options of Uniti; and,
in each of the foregoing cases, were allegedly damaged thereby.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for
purposes of the Settlement only, the Court re-affirms its
determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally
certifies Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan, Wayne County
Employees' Retirement System, and David McMurray, on behalf of
himself and as sole beneficiary of the David McMurray R/O IRA as
Class Representatives for the Settlement Class; and finally
appoints the law firms of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as Co-Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

Michael Masciocchi, who has not established that he is a member of
the Settlement Class, has objected to the deadlines for objections
to the Settlement. He requests for exclusion from the Settlement
Class. His objection is overruled in all respects.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2), the Court approves the Settlement and
finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable,
and adequate to the Settlement Class. The Parties are directed to
implement, perform, and consummate the Settlement in accordance
with the terms and provisions contained in the Stipulation.

The Action and all of the claims asserted against the Defendants in
the Action are dismissed with prejudice in their entirety. The
Parties will bear their own costs and expenses, except as otherwise
expressly provided for in the Stipulation.

A separate order will be entered regarding Co-Lead Counsel's Fee
and Expense Application as allowed by the Court. A separate order
will be entered regarding the proposed Plan of Allocation for the
Net Settlement Fund.

Judge Miller holds that such orders will in no way disturb or
affect this Judgment and will be considered separate from this
Judgment. Such orders will in no way affect or delay the finality
of this Judgment and will not affect or delay the Effective Date of
the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Order and Judgment dated Nov.
7, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc29nue8 from
Leagle.com.


UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL: Three Title IX Suits Ongoing, Two Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Tomlinson, writing for NonDoc, reports that in the last 18
months, five lawsuits have been filed in federal court alleging
Title IX violations by the University of Central Oklahoma. Three
are still ongoing, while two others have been dismissed.

Most recently, in September, three members of the women's track and
field team filed a class action complaint alleging UCO violated
Title IX -- which prohibits sexual discrimination and sexual
harassment at any educational institution that receives federal
funding -- by "depriving them of treatment and benefits equal to
those provided to male varsity student-athletes at UCO."

In March, an international student filed an anonymous complaint
alleging that UCO administrators and officials failed to take
appropriate action after she was sexually assaulted in March 2020.

In May 2021, six UCO theatre students filed a complaint alleging
the university failed to protect them from sexual harassment by an
assistant dean in the Department of Theatre Arts.

NonDoc asked the university for comment on each of these cases.
Adrienne Nobles, UCO's vice president for communications and public
affairs, provided a statement: "At this time the university
declines comment on these cases."

Each of the plaintiffs' complaints and UCO's response briefs are
embedded at the bottom of each summary below, along with the case
name, docket number and district court the case is held within.

Robertson v. UCO: Female track athletes allege discrimination,
retaliation
The class action complaint filed by three members of the University
of Central Oklahoma women's track and field team in September
alleges UCO violated Title IX by failing to provide the same
benefits and treatment provided to male UCO athletes.

Additionally, the complaint alleges UCO retaliated against the
plaintiffs for speaking out by firing their head coach, Martha
Brennan. Her daughter, Eve Brennan, a thrower on the UCO women's
track and field team, is a plaintiff in the case.

The university, represented by Assistant Attorney General Dixie L.
Coffey, has denied the two Title IX allegations -- unequal
treatment and retaliation -- in a response brief filed Nov. 1.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Arthur Bryant, a Title IX attorney with
Bailey & Glasser, LLP, said the case is "about as blatant as they
come."

"This is an extremely disturbing example of unequal treatment and
retaliation," Bryant said in an interview.

Bryant said the plaintiffs are seeking a judge's order requiring
UCO to treat their male and female student-athletes equally -- in
accordance with Title IX -- and prohibiting the university from
retaliating against any other athletes "trying to stand up for
equality" in the future.

"It's also seeking to hold the school accountable for the
retaliation that it imposed upon these young women by firing the
coach," Bryant added.

The Attorney General's Office declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The class action complaint lists a number of benefits and
treatments provided to UCO men's sports teams, while UCO women's
sports teams are allegedly deprived of those same benefits.

Each of the men's varsity teams at UCO -- other than men's golf
-- are provided with locker rooms, designated practices areas on
campus and designated facilities to hold competitions, according to
the complaint.

However, many women's teams, like the track and field team, are not
provided their own locker room. The locker rooms, practice
facilities and competitive facilities that are provided to women's
teams are inferior to the men's facilities, the complaint states.

For instance, women's track and field team members are required to
practice at a local middle school during the outdoor season, and
some practice at a separate high school, according to the
complaint.

In its response, UCO denied that the women's track and field team
lacks a locker room or designated practice areas. However, the
brief states that the team practices at "collegiate competitive
level track facilities owned by Edmond Public Schools and
McGuinness High School."

UCO claims it provides competitive facilities for every varsity
team except men's golf, women's golf, women's rowing and women's
track and field, according to the response.

Numerous other inequities are alleged in the complaint, which also
states that Brennan, the former coach of the UCO women's track and
field team, "repeatedly informed" UCO's athletic administration of
the numerous ways the university was depriving its female student
athletes of benefits required by Title IX. The university "did
almost nothing to address the ongoing gender discrimination," the
plaintiffs wrote. UCO denied that allegation.

On Feb. 9, members of the UCO women's track and field team met with
UCO Athletic Director Stan Wagnon and UCO Director of Compliance
Sheridan Leake and asked them to comply with Title IX, according to
court documents. Wagnon allegedly told the UCO team that they were
dropped in 2000 but added back in 2010 to comply with Title IX,
even though they "weren't really wanted," according to the
complaint. UCO denies the allegation that Wagnon said the female
athletes were "not wanted."

According to the complaint, Wagnon told the team he would bring
someone in to assess the program in April and get back to them in
mid-May.

On May 16, plaintiffs' counsel emailed a letter to UCO President
Patti Neuhold-Ravikumar, notifying the university that counsel had
been retained by UCO women's student athletes to pursue a class
action lawsuit regarding unequal treatment in accordance with Title
IX.

On May 19, UCO general counsel Kendall Parrish responded, saying
that an investigation into the matter had begun and would take 30
days to complete.

On June 14, UCO emailed plaintiffs' counsel a letter asserting that
UCO was not violating Title IX, according to the complaint. On June
17, UCO fired Brennan, the head coach of the women's track and
field team. In August, UCO hired Gus Schmader coach the team.

"When the track and field and cross country athletes bring it to
the school, instead of fixing the problem, the school fires their
female coach, who is the mother of one of the athletes, and then
replaces her with a male?" Bryant said. "It's egregious."

UCO claims it terminated Brennan for cause and denies that her
termination was in retaliation for "non-coaching related concerns
raised by student athletes."

The case is Robertson, v. University of Central Oklahoma,
5:22-cv-00836, U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma. It has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Joe L.
Heaton. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH: Tuition Fee Suit Goes to Fla. Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Walsh, writing for Business Observer, reports that should
students be refunded fees that they (or their parents) paid for
on-campus services during COVID-19? That question is currently
working its way through Florida's court system, with a focus on a
University of South Florida (USF) student.

The lawsuit has also spurred a second question, one loaded with
more legalese but just as crucial: Can universities and colleges in
Florida successfully use sovereign immunity, a legal principle that
in some instances protects government entities from being sued, to
win COVID-19 fee lawsuits?

The USF student and plaintiff seeking the refunds, ValerieMarie
Moore, represented by attorneys from the Miami-based Moskowitz Law
Firm, has so far scored the case's biggest wins. In the most recent
salvo, USF attorneys have appealed to the Florida Supreme Court to
have the lawsuit dismissed.

The legal argument USF has used to dismiss the case, in multiple
filings, is that sovereign immunity, without "an express, written
contract obligating" the school to provide the services, "bars a
breach of contract claim." In other words: USF, its attorneys
argue, wasn't obligated under a written contract to provide these
services for Moore. Therefore, under sovereign immunity, the case
should be dismissed, the attorneys say.

In her lawsuit filed in March 2021, Moore contends USF -- the
official defendant is the University of South Florida Board of
Trustees -- is in breach of contract for collecting student fees
and then failing to offer on-campus services due to COVID-19. "USF
has not provided USF students refunds of their fees, even though
students are no longer able to use the services for which they
paid," the lawsuit argues. In addition to representing Moore, the
lawsuit is a class action against USF, arguing on behalf of all
students who paid the fees.

The lawsuit cites several examples of things and activities Moore
couldn't do, from checking out library books to using campus dining
services, from the first COVID-19 shutdown orders in April 2020
through the day the lawsuit was filed, covering nearly a year. The
lawsuit also contends Moore, despite paying for it in fees, wasn't
able to use the campus Wellness Center for at least those 11 months
-- quoting the school in its lawsuit as describing the center as a
facility "where students can pick up free health products and
resources, get a chair massage or grab a power snooze in one of our
futuristic nap pods."

While not specifying an amount, the lawsuit seeks a jury trial and
for USF to return any prorated fees paid from April 2020 through
the spring 2021 semester.  

In July 2021, 13th Judicial Circuit Judge Darren Farfante allowed
an amended version of the claim to proceed. Following Farfante's
ruling, USF attorneys asked Florida's Second District Court of
Appeal to dismiss the case, citing sovereign immunity. The appeals
court ruled against USF, allowing the case to proceed, again.
"We're very happy with the second DCA ruling," says Howard Bushman,
an attorney at Moskowitz representing Moore in the case. "To charge
these students fees for services that they didn't provide during a
pandemic is crazy."

The latest twist in the case came Oct. 31, when USF attorneys again
tried to have it thrown out, this time requesting the Florida
Supreme Court dismiss the case. In a brief filed with Florida's
highest court, an attorney for USF, Richard McCrea with Greenberg
Traurig, argues that "the question at issue in this case is of
'great public importance.' This is not the only case arising from a
Florida public university's alleged failure to provide on-campus
services during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it will not be the
last.

"Moreover, the question whether Florida public colleges are
entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity in
breach-of-contract actions is one of great public importance
because the issue has been -- and undoubtedly will continue to be
-- a central issue in numerous cases brought against public
colleges and universities in Florida."

The next steps in the case include a response to the Florida
Supreme Court from Moore's attorneys on USF's appeal. A USF
spokesperson, in response to questions from the Business Observer,
emailed that "it's not the practice of the University of South
Florida to comment on pending litigation." [GN]

VANDERLANDE INDUSTRIES: Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nelda Sanchez, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Vanderlande Industries, Inc., Kurt
Hatterle, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV26545, was
removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 28, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-07040-JFW-MAA to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights.

Vanderlande -- https://www.vanderlande.com/ -- is a market-leading,
global partner for future-proof logistic process automation in the
warehousing, airports and parcel sectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Barkev Payaslyan, Esq.
          David D Bibiyan, Esq.
          Diego F Aviles, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (818) 795-8640
          Fax: (310) 300-1705
          Email: robert@tomorrowlaw.com
                 david@tomorrowlaw.com
                 diego@tomorrowlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nicholas Lansdown, Esq.
          Adam J Fiss, Esq.
          Rachael Sarah Lavi, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          50 West San Fernando Street
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Phone: (408) 795-3442
          Fax: (408) 273-6694
          Email: nlansdown@littler.com
                 afiss@littler.com
                 rlavi@littler.com


VILLAGE PARTY STORE: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Village Party Store,
Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Village Party Store, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-06940-DLI-PK (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2022).

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

The Village Party Store Inc. -- https://partystorenewyork.net/ --
is the place to shop for affordable party goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: $80M Class Suit Settlement Gets Court's Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Shepardson, writing for Automotive News, reports that a U.S.
judge on Nov. 9 granted final approval to a class-action settlement
worth at least $80 million to resolve claims Volkswagen Group and
its Porsche unit skewed emissions and fuel economy data on 500,000
Porsche vehicles in the United States.

The settlement, first reported by Reuters in June, covers 2005
through 2020 model year Porsches. Owners accused the automaker of
physically altering test vehicles that affected emissions and fuel
economy results.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer also approved $24.5 million in
attorneys' fees and costs.

Owners of eligible vehicles will receive payments of $250 to $1,109
per vehicle.

Porsche said on Nov. 9 that it has "been working to develop a
solution and to ensure customers are appropriately compensated."

"We are committed to providing our customers with transparent fuel
economy and emissions data, and the agreement ensures that
customers are fairly reimbursed for any fuel economy changes," it
added.

Scrutiny of Volkswagen's vehicles grew after the German automaker
in 2015 disclosed it had used sophisticated software to evade
emissions requirements in nearly 11 million diesel vehicles
worldwide.

VW settled U.S. criminal and civil actions prompted by the cheating
scandal for more than $20 billion. The automaker pleaded guilty in
2017 to fraud, obstruction of justice and falsifying statements.

Under the settlement, owners of Porsche vehicles with "Sport+"
driving mode that exceeded emissions limits when driven in that
mode will get an additional $250 when they complete emissions
repair software updates that will reduce vehicle emissions.

The total U.S. settlement could be worth $85 million depending on
how many vehicle claims are submitted.

Lawyers for the owners said that as of Oct. 11, nearly 110,000
claims had been submitted covering about 100,000 vehicles and that
13,773 owners have already brought Sport+ vehicles to dealers for
updates. [GN]

VROOM INC: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in Vehicle Deficiency Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vroom, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 7, 2022, that the Company seeks to
compel arbitration of all claims in two putative class action
lawsuits alleging deficiencies in Vroom's titling and registration
of sold vehicles.

In July 2022 and August 2022, respectively, certain plaintiffs
filed two putative class action lawsuits in the District Court of
Cleveland County, Oklahoma and the New York State Supreme Court,
respectively, against Vroom, Inc., and Vroom Automotive LLC as
defendants, alleging, among other things, deficiencies in Vroom's
titling and registration of sold vehicles: Blake Sonne,
individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, v. Vroom
Automotive, LLC and Vroom, Inc., No. CJ-2022-822 and Emely Reyes
Martinez, on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Vroom
Automotive, LLC and Vroom Inc., No. 652684/2022.

The Company removed the cases to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma (Case No. 22-cv-761) and the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No.
22-cv-7631), respectively, and has filed or anticipates filing
motions to compel arbitration of all claims in both cases, and
briefing of these motions is ongoing.

Because these cases are at early stages and the outcome of any
complex legal proceeding is inherently unpredictable and subject to
significant uncertainties, the Company cannot determine at present
whether any potential liability would have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, cash flows, or results
of operations.

Vroom, Inc. is a New York City-based used car retailer and
e-commerce company that lets consumers buy, sell, and finance cars
online. It is based in Houston.

WALMART STORES: Lara Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------------
Devin Lara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WALMART STORES INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00437-GAP-PRL
(M.D. Fla., Oct. 2, 2022), is brought seeking damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading advertising
practices with flavored potato snack food products under the Great
Value Veggie Straws brand (the "Products") in violation of the
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).

The Products are advertised containing "No Artificial Flavors or
Preservatives," despite the fact the Products contain the chemical
preservative citric acid, and synthetic flavoring ingredient, malic
acid. Conscious of consumers' increased interest in more nutritious
products free of artificial additives, and willingness to pay more
for products perceived to meet this preference, the Defendant
misleadingly and deceptively seeks to capitalize on these consumer
health trends.

As a direct result of the Defendant's deceptive statements
concerning the nature of its Products, the Plaintiff and Class
Members paid a premium for the Products over other comparable
products that do not make the same representations. The Defendant's
false and misleading representations and omissions violate state
and federal law, including the FDUTPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has purchased one or more of the Great Value Veggie
Straws varieties during the Class period from Walmart retail stores
located in Citrus County, Florida.

The Defendant manufactures, labels, markets, and sells flavored
potato snack food products under the Great Value Veggie Straws
brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander J. Korolinsky, Esq.
          AJK LEGAL
          1001 Brickell Bay Dr Ste 2700
          Miami FL 33401
          Phone: (877) 448-8404
          Email: korolinsky@ajklegal.com

               - and -

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


WALT DISNEY: Sued Over Inflated YouTube TV Subscription Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McCann, writing for Yahoo!Sports, reports that four YouTube
TV subscribers sued Walt Disney Company in a case that challenges
the bundled model of channels long found in American cable,
satellite and now live streaming services. Biddle v. Walt Disney
Company, which could become a class action, argues that the
entertainment conglomerate has negotiated anti-competitive carriage
agreements for ESPN and its related channels, and wields too much
power over pricing for streaming live pay television (SLPTV)
providers.

The subscribers blame Disney for the "near doubling of their
subscription prices." The base package for YouTube TV, which is
controlled by Google, has increased from $35/month when it debuted
five years ago to $65/month. The subscribers also note that when
Google and Disney were unable to reach a new contract in late 2021,
Google briefly dropped Disney channels (including ABC, FX,
Freeform, Nat Geo, History and ESPN among others) and lowered the
price to a more affordable $50. (The two sides later reached a
deal, and the price was brought back to $65.)

Disney controls Hulu + Live TV, the second-largest competitor in
the SLPTV market after YouTube TV. It also owns 80% of ESPN, which
is said to be the most expensive channel on basic cable and
streaming plans; some estimates price it at $9 or more per month.

According to the complaint, Disney's carriage agreements mandate
that if an SLPTV provider carries ESPN, it must be included in the
lowest-priced bundles. Market-leading SLPTV services (YouTube TV,
Hulu + Live TV and DirecTV Stream) include ESPN. Consumers who
don't want to pay for ESPN, the complaint charges, have no option
to opt out. This generates a so-called "ESPN tax" that forces
subscribers who don't watch ESPN to pay for it nonetheless. That,
in turn, benefits Disney as well as subscribers who watch ESPN but
don't need to pay more for it in a premium package.

The plaintiffs contend that Disney has damaged consumer choice in
ways that run afoul of antitrust law. "Customers that left cable
and satellite TV in favor of an SLPTV product in order to escape
mandatory high-cost channels in their cable or satellite base
package are faced with the same inefficient and unwanted product in
the SLPTV Market," the complaint charges. Disney is accused of
using ESPN in deals with streaming live TV providers to "inflate
prices to pre-cord cutting, cable-TV levels."

The plaintiffs also maintain that the SLPTV market has many
barriers to entry, making it difficult for a new SLPTV service to
surface and leading to a less competitive marketplace for
consumers, particularly those that do not want ESPN.

Biddle v. Walt Disney Company also accuses Disney, including
through its Hulu, ABC and ESPN subsidiaries, of violating Section 1
of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly raising prices and/or
setting price floors for streaming live pay television. These moves
supposedly exert "upward pressure" on prices. In a more competitive
marketplace, the plaintiffs contend, Disney would not "use ESPN to
maintain minimum prices" or preclude "skinny bundles" where ESPN is
absent.

The plaintiffs have petitioned for their case to be certified as a
class action on behalf of "all persons, business associations,
entities, and corporations who paid for a YouTube TV monthly
subscription from the period beginning April 1, 2019, through the
present." Biddle v. Walt Disney Company was filed in San
Francisco's federal district court by attorneys from Bathaee Dunne.
Judge Edward J. Davila, who on Nov. 18 sentenced Elizabeth Holmes
to 11 years in prison for defrauding Theranos investors, is
presiding. Whether Davila certifies the case as a class action
would be decided in future proceedings.

Disney did not respond to a request for comment, but attorneys for
the company will answer the complaint in the coming weeks and seek
its dismissal. Expect Disney to assert factual claims in the
complaint are inaccurate or exaggerative.

The company will also maintain that it has not violated antitrust
law. Expect Disney to argue that its use of bundling reflects a
longstanding industry practice that complies with the law. Disney
could also assert that its pricing model simply reflects
substantial demand for its channels and content. It could further
point out that inflation has caused prices to rise in many
industries, including for TV services.

Further, Disney might suggest that if subscribers to a live
streaming service are unhappy with the price or content, they
should communicate that point to the service or shop around for
alternatives. Philo, for example, offers live TV and 60 channels
(not including ESPN or Disney) for plans starting at $25 a month.
[GN]

WASHINGTON: Court of Appeals Reverses Benson's DUI Conviction
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent v.
DWIGHT D. BENSON, Appellant, Case No. 83255-7-I (Wash. App.), the
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, reverses Benson's
conviction for a single felony count of driving while under the
influence.

After a stipulated facts bench trial, Dwight D. Benson was found
guilty of felony driving while under the influence (DUI). The
charge, which arose from an arrest in 2019 (2019 felony DUI), was
elevated to a felony based on Benson's prior conviction for felony
DUI in 2014 after entry of a guilty plea. The 2014 conviction was
based on an incident, which occurred in 2011 (2011 felony DUI). The
2011 felony DUI, in turn, was based on four prior misdemeanor DUI
convictions, which occurred within ten years of Benson's arrest on
the 2011 charge, as defined by former RCW 46.61.502(6).

The predicate misdemeanor DUI offenses the State relied upon to
elevate the 2011 DUI to a felony were: a 2009 conviction from
Seattle Municipal Court, a 2007 conviction from Seattle Municipal
Court, a 2007 conviction from Tacoma Municipal Court, and a 2006
conviction from Mount Vernon Municipal Court (MVM DUI).

Prior to trial in the 2019 case, Benson sought to exclude the 2011
felony DUI conviction as invalid to support the current charge,
asserting it was obtained in violation of his constitutional right
to effective counsel. In particular, he attacked the validity of
the 2011 felony DUI by challenging the underlying misdemeanor
convictions, but the motion was denied. The parties proceeded to a
bench trial after entering a stipulation of facts.

On Oct. 18, 2021, Benson was convicted of felony DUI, driving while
license revoked in the first degree, and reckless driving. Upon the
State's motion, the court dismissed the two misdemeanor counts.

The court imposed a high end sentence of 84 months in prison,
followed by 12 months of community custody supervision by the
Department of Corrections. Benson requested credit for the period
of time he served on pretrial electronic home monitoring (EHM)
which he had completed through a private company with the
permission of the court. The court denied that motion, but allowed
for reconsideration if defense was able to provide additional
documentation.

A different judge heard the renewed motion for credit for the
pretrial EHM a few months later and denied Benson's request based
on a determination that the evidence he provided was insufficient.
The judge also denied Benson's request for additional time to meet
the newly-articulated evidentiary standard and stated, "I think the
trial court here in this case, work is completed and I think the
proper venue may be for an appeal." Benson timely appealed.

Mr. Benson challenges the court's denial of his motion for credit
for pretrial time served on EHM and SCRAM2 monitoring, which was
twice authorized by the court in conjunction with a bond
requirement and several other detailed conditions of release. He
also assigns error to the imposition of community custody
supervision fees, despite the court's finding of indigency.

The State concedes error as to the second challenge and agrees to
remand for correction of the judgment and sentence in that regard.
Benson also filed a statement of additional grounds for review
(SAG) which asserts the court's denial of his pretrial motion to
exclude the 2011 felony DUI was erroneous, focusing on issues
related to his 2006 MVM DUI. Because the SAG issue is dispositive,
the Appellate Court need not analyze the other assignments of
error.

Prior to trial, Benson challenged the use of his conviction for the
2011 felony DUI as a predicate offense for the current felony DUI
charge. He argued in the trial court, and renews the argument in
his SAG, that he was denied his right to effective counsel because
his trial and appellate counsel for the 2011 felony DUI case failed
to investigate whether his misdemeanor predicate offenses could
validly support a felony charge.

Mr. Benson asserts both his trial and appellate counsel failed to
adequately investigate the constitutional validity of the
misdemeanor predicate offenses underlying the 2011 felony DUI and
were, therefore, deficient in assisting him in evaluating the
decision to plead guilty.

Mr. Benson initially proceeded to trial on the 2011 felony DUI
charge represented by Derek Smith. After he was convicted by a
jury, Oliver Davis represented Benson on the direct appeal. A panel
of this Court affirmed his conviction. He petitioned for review by
the Washington State Supreme Court, which accepted review based on
an alleged error under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct.
1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986). Prior to review by the Supreme Court,
Benson reached a plea deal with the King County Prosecutor's Office
wherein Benson admitted guilt to the 2011 felony DUI and agreed to
withdrawal of the appeal.

In the instant case, as part of Benson's motion in limine to
exclude the prior convictions, both Davis and Smith testified
before the trial court that, while they confirmed the facial
validity of all misdemeanor predicate offenses underlying the 2011
felony DUI, they did not believe it was possible to challenge the
constitutionality of the predicate offenses.

One of the misdemeanor DUIs Benson contends is invalid as a
predicate offense is the 2006 MVM DUI. Benson was represented by
John Kainen on that case and was convicted after a jury trial. He
appealed the conviction to Skagit County Superior Court under the
Rules for Appeal of Decisions of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction
(RALJ) and was appointed a public defender, Morgan Witt, for the
phase of litigation beginning on Sept. 14, 2007.

Morgan Witt remained attorney of record on Benson's RALJ appeal
until June 2012. Witt was one of the subjects of a 2011 federal
class action, Wilbur v. City of Mount Vernon 989 F.Supp.2d 1122
(W.D. Wash. 2013), alleging the cities of Mount Vernon and
Burlington systematically violated the constitutional rights of
indigent defendants by failing to provide effective representation.
The certified class was described as "all indigent persons who have
been or will be charged with one or more crimes in the municipal
courts of either Mount Vernon or Burlington, who have been or will
be appointed a public defender, and who continue to have or will
have a public defender appearing in their cases."

After the Wilbur trial, the federal court for the Western District
of Washington found that there is almost no evidence that attorneys
Sybrandy and Witt conducted investigations in any of their
thousands of cases, nor is there any suggestion that they did legal
analysis regarding the elements of the crime charged or possible
defenses.

Mr. Benson argues that the 2006 MVM DUI should be excluded due to a
structural error of constitutional magnitude predicated on the
findings by the federal court. He alleges there was a "complete
denial of counsel" and, therefore, he need not demonstrate
prejudice.

Mr. Benson is a member of the Wilbur class, as he was charged with
a crime in the Mount Vernon Municipal Court and was appointed a
public defender (one of the public defenders named in the class
action) to appear in his RALJ appeal to the superior court. Because
the federal court held that Witt's representation in his cases was
"little more than a formality," and that there was infrequent
adversarial testing of the State's case against criminal
defendants, Benson need not demonstrate prejudice.

Judge Cecily C. Hazelrigg, writing for the Panel, opines that
Benson was denied his constitutional right to effective
representation in appealing his MVM DUI conviction such that the
misdemeanor cannot support a felony DUI conviction.

Alternatively, Judge Hazelrigg finds Benson meets both prongs of
the test under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104
S.Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). Witt failed to designate a
report of proceedings from the trial. The City filed a transcript
of a CrRLJ 3.6 hearing, but Witt assigned error to sentencing
decisions, which were not included in the transcript of the 3.6
hearing. Further, Benson's RALJ appeal languished from November
2008, when Witt filed an opening brief, until November 2011, when
the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. A notice of
withdrawal and substitution of counsel was not filed until June
2012.

While the Appellate Court generally defers to decisions of defense
counsel and will not find deficient performance where counsel's
conduct can be characterized as legitimate trial strategy or
tactics, Judge Hazelrigg says there is no legitimate strategy in
failing to designate the record on appeal, failing to timely set a
case for argument, or failing to provide legal authority and
argument in support of errors in an appellate brief. Counsel's
performance was deficient, meeting the first prong of the
Strickland test, Judge Hazelrigg holds.

Next, Judge Hazelrigg finds Benson establishes that Witt's
deficient performance prejudiced him. Here, after consideration of
a brief that did not conform to the RALJ, and in the absence of a
trial record, Benson's MVM DUI conviction was affirmed by the
Skagit County Superior Court.

In ruling on Benson's motion to exclude the 2011 felony DUI, the
trial court in the 2019 felony DUI stated Benson failed to show
prejudice because the quality of briefing is not typically
determinative of an appeal, and an appellate judge will conduct
independent research rather than relying on citations provided by
the parties.

Judge Hazelrigg opines this reasoning defies the Appellate Court's
long-held case law providing that passing treatment of an issue,
lack of reasoned argument, or conclusory arguments without citation
to authority are not sufficient to merit judicial consideration,
and appellate courts will generally not consider assignments of
error with insufficient support. As such, the superior court, in
its appellate capacity, was not required to consider (and, in fact,
was discouraged from considering) Witt's arguments on appeal. The
RALJ court wrote only that "there are no errors of fact or law made
by the Mount Vernon Municipal Court."

Judge Hazelrigg adds, among other things, that Benson has met both
prongs of the test and demonstrated that his 2006 MVM DUI
conviction is not a constitutionally valid predicate offense to
support elevation of a charge to a felony, as he was denied his
right to effective representation during the appellate phase of
that case.

Judge Hazelrigg opines that the Panel's de novo review of the
challenged predicate offenses demonstrates that the 2006 MVM DUI is
constitutionally invalid for this purpose because of ineffective
assistance of counsel. On that basis, the 2011 felony DUI was also
constitutionally invalid as a predicate offense and should have
been excluded. The court erred in its ruling to allow the State to
use evidence of the 2011 felony DUI conviction to satisfy an
essential element of the 2019 felony DUI.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court reverses.

CHUNG, J. and SMITH, A.C.J., concurs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Nov. 7, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/vcu7u8rt from Leagle.com.

Koch & Grannis Pllc, Attorney at Law, The Denny Building, 2200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 1250, in Seattle, Washington 98121, Kevin
Andrew March -- MarchK@nwattorney.net -- Nielsen Koch & Grannis
PLLC, 2200 6th Ave., Suite 1250, in Seattle, Washington 98121-1820,
Counsel for the Appellant(s).

Prosecuting Atty., King County, King Co Pros/App Unit Supervisor,
W554 King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, in Seattle,
Washington 98104, Ian Ith, King County Prosecuting Attorney's
Office, 516 3rd Ave., in Seattle, Washington 98104-2385, Counsel
for the Respondent(s).


[*] Healthcare Provider Faces FCRA Suit Over Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
PreEMPLOY reports that a newly filed class action lawsuit against a
California healthcare and human services accused of violating the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to the case, the
employer failed to comply with the FCRA on several points. These
failures pertain to performing employee background checks as part
of its hiring process.

The complaint, filed by the US District for the Northern District
of California, claims that the employer performed background checks
on prospective, current, and former employees without providing
relevant disclosures and receiving authorization.

According to the complaint, the issue began when the plaintiff
applied for a position with the employer. As a result, the
plaintiff received a disclosure and authorization form to perform a
background check. However, the disclosure allegedly contained
extraneous material that prevented it from meeting the "clear and
conspicuous" requirements of the FCRA Section 1681b(b)(2)(A), which
also establishes it must be "in a document that consists only of
the disclosure."

According to the complaint, the disclosure did not qualify as a
clear, conspicuous, stand-alone document under the FCRA. The
plaintiffs cited several issues, including:

-- An extraneous paragraph, "investigative consumer reports," that
the defendant never attempted to acquire;
-- The term "acknowledged," as well as signature lines; and
-- The disclosure appeared in only a part of the employment
application, alongside additional sections.

The lawsuit also alleged that the employer's actions in violation
of the FCRA were willful. Allegedly, the defendants acted in a
"deliberate or reckless disregard" for their obligations.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs claimed the defendant disregarded the
rights of the prospective, current, and former employees, including
the plaintiff.

The lawsuit then cited the following as examples of the above
claims:

-- "Defendants' are large entities with access to legal advice;
-- Defendants' required a purported authorization to perform credit
and background checks;
-- in the process of employing the class members which, although
defective, evidence Defendants' awareness of and willful failure to
follow the governing laws concerning such authorizations;
-- The plain language of the statute unambiguously indicates that
the inclusion of extraneous information in a disclosure form
violates the disclosure and authorization requirements; and
-- Accordingly, Defendants willfully violated and continue to
violate the FCRA including, but not limited to, Sec.
1681b(b)(2)(A)."

The plaintiff intends to represent a class of all applicants and
employees who became subjects of background checks from the
employer. The involved timeframe for the affected includes the
prior five years but may extend until the courts make a final
judgment regarding the action.

As this lawsuit shows, employers must ensure compliance with FCRA,
state, and federal requirements. The best way to ensure compliance
is to work with a trusted and quality screening provider.[GN]


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***