/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/221212.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, December 12, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 241

                            Headlines

APRIO LLP: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply
ARCONIC INC: Initial Case Management Order Entered in Howard
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Dotson Must File Class Cert by Jan 16, 2023
AUDIBLE INC: Order on Class Cert Related Deadlines Entered
BLUE TRITON: Kim Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.

BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: Court Certifies Class in Rios-Gutierrez Suit
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid Reply
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Records $2M in Settlement Cost at September 30
CHAD WOLF: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Jan. 23, 2023
CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Order on Class Cert Deadlines Entered

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Case Management Plan Entered in Carlier
CHARTER FINANCIAL: Kotila Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Damages Class
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Rael Class Suit Pending in California
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Berg Dental Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Fifty First Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Gottlieb Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Hirschfield-Louik Appeals Dismissal Ruling
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Walborn Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
CNA AND VALLEY: Grant of Ungarean's Summary Judgment Bid Affirmed
CONTRACT LAND: Bid to Stay Denied as Moot in Weinmann Class Suit

CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Loses Bid for Production of Questionnaires
DENTON COUNTY, TX: Bid to Stay Class Cert Hearing Granted in Part
DETROIT, MI: Scheduling Order Entered in Howard Class Suit
DINGDONG LTD: McCormack's Appointment as Lead Plaintiff Nixed
EMORY UNIVERSITY: Court Corrects/Amends Sched Order in Schultz

ENERGY TRANSFER: ACERS Bid to Compel Documents Granted in Part
FCA US: Flynn Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial Over Costs Award
FLRISH INC: Calhoun Bid to File Documents Under Seal Partly OK'd
FORSTER & GARBUS: Final Approval of Class Settlement Deal Sought
GENERAL MOTORS: Pilgrim, et al., Seek to Certify 21 Classes

GEO GROUP: Appeals Summary Judgment in Menocal Labor Suit
GILEAD SCIENCES: Class Cert Notice Plan Approved in Staley Suit
H&K ENGINEERING: Case Management Order Entered in Ledet Class Suit
HISCOX INSURANCE: Scheduling Order Entered in Acosta Class Suit
INCOMM FINANCIAL: Clark Files Suit in C.D. California

INTERFACE INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched
ISRAMCO INC: Special Committee Defendants Dismissed From Ligos Suit
JENSEN-LEWIS CO: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Certifies Class of Consumers in Noohi
KOHL'S CORP: Continues to Defend Shanaphy Class Suit in Wisconsin

KPS AFFILIATES: Seeks More Time for Conditional Cert Bid Response
KRUGER FOODS: Ball Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KUNES AUTO GROUP: Fairchild Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
LAIRD SUPERFOOD: Loses Bid to Junk Gwinn Class Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Amended Sched Order Entered in COI Rate Suit

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Conestoga
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in LSH Suit
LITIGATION PRACTICE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due April 17, 2023
MAJSETIC STAR: Order on Class Cert. Deadlines Entered in Rodriguez
MARINOSCI LAW: Burke Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action

MELINDA MASTERS: Court Junks Longino Class Action
META PLATFORMS: Sued Over Breach of Contract
METROPOLITAN TOWER: Court Junks Pitt Bid for Class Certification
MIRAPATH INC: Liendo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Mills Seeks to Certify ERISA Class Action

NCINO INC: Continues to Defend Live Oak Class Suit
NESTLE PURINA: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Dec. 12
NETAPP INC: Securities Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
NETFLIX INC: Maple Heights Can't Enforce Ohio's FCCOA, Court Says
NEW JERSEY: Class Cert. Oral Argument Set for Jan. 4, 2023

NFL: Application to File Documents Under Seal Submitted
NIGHT TEETH INC: Zucker Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
NOMI HEALTH: Servidori Seeks Conditional FLSA Certification
NORTHWEST MICHIGAN SURGERY: Challender Seeks Conditional Status
NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: More Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought

OKTA INC: Continues to Defend O'Dell Shareholder Derivative Suit
OKTA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California
PARAMOUNT FLORIDA: Cerda Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
PENN CREDIT: Messinger Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Beadle Sues Over Unlawful Communication Time

PERATON INC: Ewers Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Paschal, et al., Seek to Certify Collective
PHH MORTGAGE: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
PIERRE FABRE: Bojko Sues Over Defective Products
PORSCHE AG: Grayson Files Suit in D. New Jersey

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Lapides Sues Over Incorrect Statements
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Pierni Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts
PRECISION OF NEW HAMPTON: Grainger Files Class Certification Bid
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Thurston Suit Removed to D. Maine
PROSPECT HOTEL: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in C.D. California

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Moreland Seeks to Certify Policy Owner Class
QUAID HARLEY: Denial of Bid for Arbitration in Hill Suit Affirmed
REALPAGE INC: Armas Sues Over Price Fixing Conspiracy
REALPAGE INC: Uses Software to Raise Rent Prices, Silverman Says
RED APPLE GROUP: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Discovery Deadline Extended in Ford Suit
RIDDLE'S GROUP INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAM DOWIES: Court Junks Hicks Class Action Status Bid
SAYBONE INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
SCOTT SEMPLE: Scheduling Order Entered in Vega Class Action

SENTINEL INSURANCE: Zunino Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
SEPM MARKETING INC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SEROOGY'S HOLIDAY HOUSE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHOREFRONT OPERATING: Chow Seeks to Certify Seagate Resident Class
SIDNEY FEDERAL CREDIT: Brasiel Files Suit in N.D. New York

SIRIUS XM RADIO: Campbell Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
SK TRADING: Amended Class Certification Schedule Entered
SORELLAS PIZZA: Cuahquensi Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Ganzfried Sues Over Deceptive Statements
SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORTS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SPINX GAMES: Class Action Settlement in Croft Gets Final Nod
SPLUNK INC: Response to Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 15, 2023
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Negreanu Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida
STUDENT LOAN: Shadrin, et al., Seek Final Approval of Settlement
STUDIO FOUR: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

SUTTER VALLEY: Wins Bid to Strike Tinnin Class Cert Bid
TCP HOT: Prelim Approval of Rider to Class Settlement Deal Sought
TOOTSIE ROLL: Order Sustaining Demurrer to Beasley Suit Affirmed
TRANS UNION: Scheduling Order Entered in Coffey Class Suit
UMITJON KAMOLOV: Kargar, et al., Seek to Proceed Collectively

VENICE HMA: Seeks to Stay Discovery & Class Cert Briefing
VF OUTDOOR: Court Junks Valencia Bid for Class Certification
VIESTE SPE: Crossfirst Bank Must File Class Cert Reply by Dec. 30
VITAMIN COTTAGE: Seeks Decertification of FLSA Class in Levine
WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Parties Must File Settlement Approval Bid

WALMART INC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint
WASHINGTON, DC: More Time to File Class Certification Bid Sought
WHITEFISH, MT: Beck, et al., File Class Certification Bid
ZYNGA INC: Class Action Settlement in Ferrando Gets Final Nod

                            *********

APRIO LLP: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW LECHTER; SYLVIA
THOMPSON; LAWSON F. THOMPSON; RUSSELL DALBA; and KATHRYN DALBA, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. APRIO,
LLP f/k/a HABIF, AROGETI & WYNNE, LLP; ROBERT GREENBERGER; SIROTE &
PERMUTT, P.C.; BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ,
P.C.; SMITH, LEWIS & HALEY, LLP; DAVID C. SMITH; FOREVER FORESTS
LLC; NANCY ZAK; JAMES JOWERS; LARGE & GILBERT, INC.; CLOWER KIRSCH
& ASSOCIATES, LLC; JIM R. CLOWER, SR.; TENNILLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.;
ATLANTIC COAST CONSERVANCY, INC.; ROBERT D. KELLER; and GEORGIA
ALABAMA LAND TRUST, INC. f/k/a GEORGIA LAND TRUST, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-01325-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Defendants file bid for leave to
file sur-reply in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Aprio further submits that the Sur-Reply is warranted as it will
aid the Court in evaluating the numerous claims and class
certification requirements involved in Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

Aprio filed its Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on October 6, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed their Reply
on November 18, 2022.

Aprio is a financial consulting and CPA firm.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iDlLrh at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          John E. Floyd, Esq.
          John H. Rains IV, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Peterson, Esq.
          BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
          3900 One Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-4100
          Facsimile: (404) 881-4111
          E-mail: floyd@bmelaw.com
                  rains@bmelaw.com
                  peterson@bmelaw.com

ARCONIC INC: Initial Case Management Order Entered in Howard
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN HOWARD,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
ARCONIC INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01057-MRH (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Mark R. Hornak entered an initial Case Management Order
as follows:

  --  Plaintiffs' Motion for Class        April 30, 2023
      Certification, Memorandum in
      Support, and all supporting
      evidence shall be filed on or
      before:

  --  Fact discovery shall be             September 30, 2023
      completed by:

  --  Any fact discovery propounded       March 31, 2023
      or taken by any party prior to:

  --  The Plaintiffs' expert reports and disclosures as to class
      certification matters shall be filed and exchanged not
      later than 21 days before the filing of Plaintiffs'
      Motion for Class Certification.

  --  The Defendants' expert reports and disclosures as to class
      certification matters shall be filed and exchanged not
      later than 21 days before the filing of Defendants'
      opposition brief as to class certification.

  --  Additional parties will be         January 12, 2023
      joined in this matter on
      or before:

  --  Leave to amend pleadings (other than to correct technical
      matters) shall be:

  --  Document Production shall be       March 31, 2023
      substantially completed on or
      before:

Arconic is an American industrial company specializing in
lightweight metals engineering and manufacturing.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h16XT1 at no extra charge.[CC]


ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Dotson Must File Class Cert by Jan 16, 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DOTSON,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-00923-SVW-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson
entered an order granting stipulation to extend the class
certification deadline

  Deadline for Plaintiff to File           January 16, 2023
  Motion for Class Certification

  Deadline for Defendant to File           April 17, 2023
  Opposition to Motion for Class
  Certification and to file any
  Daubert Motions

  Deadline for Plaintiff to File           May 7, 2023
  Reply Brief in Support of Class
  Certification Motion and Opposition
  to any Daubert Motions

  Deadline for Defendant to File           May 25, 2023
  Reply to Opposition to any Daubert
  Motion

Arizona Beverages is an American producer of many flavors of iced
tea, juice cocktails, and energy drinks.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iCr4as at no extra charge.[CC]

AUDIBLE INC: Order on Class Cert Related Deadlines Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOLDEN UNICORN
ENTERPRISES, INC. and BIG DOG BOOKS, LLC, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,v. AUDIBLE, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-07059-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman
entered an order on class certification related deadlines as
follows:

-- Fact discovery is closed, except
    as discussed on the record.

    The deadline for disclosure of           Dec. 9, 2022
    opening expert reports is:

    With the exception of the opening        Dec. 15, 2022
    report for Plaintiffs' damages
    expert, which will be due:

-- The deadline for rebuttal expert         Jan. 12, 2023
    reports is:

    With the exception of Defendant's        Jan. 19, 2023
    damages rebuttal report, which
    will be due:

-- The Plaintiffs' motion for               Dec. 21, 2022
    class certification is due:

-- The Defendant's opposition is due:       Jan. 26, 2023

-- The Plaintiffs' reply is due:            Feb. 9, 2023

Audible is an American online audiobook and podcast service that
allows users to purchase and stream audiobooks and other forms of
spoken word content.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OYUsUA at no extra charge.[CC]

BLUE TRITON: Kim Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff MIJEONG KIM filed an appeal from the District Court's
November 1, 2022 Order entered in the lawsuit entitled MIJEONG KIM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLUE
TRITON BRANDS, AMAZON.COM, INC., MOHAMMADREZ SHAHRBABKI, and DOES 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01907-JLS-KS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

This action, filed on March 23, 2022, deals with a water bottle
product manufactured, advertised, sold, or delivered, by
Defendants: ARROWHEAD 100% MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER. The TRITON
Product is a bottled water line that Defendant TRITON manufactures,
advertises, markets, and sells. The TRITON Product is a bottled
water line that Defendants AMAZON and SHAHRBABKI advertise, markets
and sell.

According to the complaint, based on the presentation in the front
label, the Plaintiff reasonably believed the TRITON Product was
from the springs in Arrowhead Mountain. The Plaintiff would not
have purchased the TRITON Product bottles had she known that the
spring water might not be from the arrowhead mountain. She would
not have purchased the TRITON Product absent the misrepresentation
depicted with the picture of the Arrowhead Mountain, says the
suit.

On November 1, 2022, Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order
granting Defendants' motions to dismiss dated May 18, 2022, May 27,
2022, and May 31, 2022. The Court has concluded that Kim's claims
do not satisfy the reasonable consumer standard as a matter of law,
and it does not appear that Kim can allege additional facts which
would alter the outcome of the case. Accordingly, Kim's claims were
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

The appellate case is captioned as MIJEONG KIM, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
BLUE TRITON BRANDS; AMAZON.COM, INC.; MOHAMMADREZ SHAHRBABKI,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-56063, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 17, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 25,
2022;

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
filed on January 17, 2023;

   -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
served on February 17, 2023; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief. Failure
of the appellant to comply with the time schedule order will result
in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]

BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: Court Certifies Class in Rios-Gutierrez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ROBERTO
RIOS-GUTIERREZ, et al., On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. BRIGGS TRADITIONAL TURF FARM, INC, et al.,
Case No. 4:21-cv-00374-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Fernando J.
Gaitan, Jr. entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
      and suggestions in support.

   2. appointing Daniel Werner, Mark Dugan, and Heather
      Schlozman as class counsel;

   3. appointing Plaintiffs Jose Roberto Rios-Gutierrez, Jose
      Juan Mendoza-Servin, Francisco Javier Martinez-Mendez,
      Jonathan Rodriguez-Anaya, and Cesar Edgardo Avendaño-
      Martinez as class representatives;

   4. directing the Plaintiffs to submit their proposed form of
      notice on or before December 19, 2022;

   5. directing the Defendants to file their objections, if any,
      on or before January 6, 2023; and

   6. directing the Plaintiffs to file any reply to the
      objections on or before January 17, 2023.

As the Court finds the plaintiffs' proposed classes should be
certified, the Court adopts the following class definition:

   "All individuals who, between May 28, 2018 and the present,
   (1) received wages from Defendant Briggs Traditional Turf
   Farm, Inc.; (2) performed work related to the installation,
   seeding, and/or maintenance of sod at locations off of the
   Defendants' farms in any workweek; (3) worked over 40 hours
   in any such workweek; and (4) were H-2A
   visa holders."

The Plaintiffs Jose Roberto Rios-Gutierrez, Jose Juan
Mendoza-Servin, Francisco Javier Martinez-Mendez, Jonathan
Rodriguez-Anaya, and Cesar Edgardo Avendaño-Martinez, are Mexican
nationals. The Plaintiffs worked forD efendants Briggs Traditional
Turf Farm, Inc., L.C. Briggs Turf Farm, LLC, Lawrence "Larry"
Briggs, Capen Briggs, Kenosha, LLC, and Naudi-D Investments, LLC
between 2018 and 2020.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and the other workers on whose
behalf they bring this action came to work in the United
States as guestworkers on H-2A visas. Under the H-2A visa program,
the visa holder is required to "perform agricultural labor or
services" as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.
section 3121(g) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
section 203(f).

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B0ifhd at no extra charge.[CC]

CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert Bid Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAIWAN DICKERSON and KIM
KING-MACON, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, and CENTENE
CORPORATION, Case No. 4:22-cv-00519-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order extending the their time to oppose
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification by one week, from
December 8 to December 15, 2022.

On July 27, 2022, the Court adopted the parties' Joint Scheduling
Plan. Under that two-phase plan, Phase One focuses "on conditional
certification, if any" and Phase Two focuses on "discovery related
to any opt-in Plaintiffs and expert witnesses, as well as a
potential motion for decertification and any dispositive motions.

The Court ordered that any motion for conditional certification
must be filed no later than November 10, 2022, the response must be
filed no later than December 8, 2022, and any reply brief may be
filed no later than December 15, 2022.

The Defendants' motion does not seek delay for any improper purpose
and is reasonable under the circumstances. Further, no party will
be prejudiced by the proposed change to the case management order.

Centene is a publicly traded managed care company.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3upTbME at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq.
          Patricia J. Martin, Esq.
          Eva C. Madison, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          One Union Square, 600 University Street, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-3300
          Facsimile: (206) 447-6965
          E-mail: bsmartell@littler.com
                  pmartin@littler.com
                  emadison@littler.com

CENTURY ALUMINUM: Records $2M in Settlement Cost at September 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Century Aluminum Company 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 as of
September 30, 2022, $2.0 million was recorded in other current
liabilities related to the approved settlement of the class action
complaint seeking a declaration of Century Aluminum of West
Virginia's rights to modify/terminate retiree medical benefits.

In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia ("CAWV") filed
a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union ("USW"),
the USW's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually and as
class representatives ("CAWV Retirees"), seeking a declaration of
CAWV's rights to modify/terminate retiree medical benefits.

Later in November 2009, the USW and representatives of a retiree
class filed a separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company,
Century Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does
with respect to the foregoing.  

On August 18, 2017, the District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia approved a settlement agreement in respect of these
actions, pursuant to which, CAWV agreed to make payments into a
trust for the benefit of the CAWV Retirees in the aggregate amount
of $23.0 million over the course of ten years.

Upon approval of the settlement, the Company paid $5.0 million to
the aforementioned trust in September 2017 and recognized a gain of
$5.5 million to arrive at the then-net present value of $12.5
million. CAWV has agreed to pay the remaining amounts under the
settlement agreement in annual increments of $2.0 million for nine
years.

As of September 30, 2022, $2.0 million is recorded in other current
liabilities and $4.7 million is recorded in other liabilities.

Century Aluminum Company is a US-based producer of primary
aluminium, with aluminum plants in Kentucky, South Carolina and
Iceland. It is the largest producer of primary aluminium in the
United States. The company is a publicly held corporation listed on
the NASDAQ. Its headquarters is at One South Wacker in Chicago.

CHAD WOLF: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Jan. 23, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Osny Sorto-Vasquez Kidd et
al. v. Chad T. Wolf et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03512-ODW-JPR (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order
continuing the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification to January 23, 2023 at 1:30 p.m.

The Plaintiffs' deadline for filing the Reply brief is not
continued and remains set as if the hearing were not continued, the
Court says.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ESEhDG at no extra charge.[CC]

CHANCELLOR SENIOR: Order on Class Cert Deadlines Entered
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY REUSCHEL as
Executrix of the Estate of Louise McGraw, deceased; and LORETTA
HOLCOMB as Executrix of the Estate of Charlotte Rogers, deceased;
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CHANCELLOR
SENIOR MANAGEMENT, LTD., Case No. 5:22-cv-00279 (S.D.W. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Frank W. Volk entered an order setting the deadlines
applicable to class certification as follows :

-- Deadline for written fact discovery      July 7, 2023
    related to class certification.

-- Deadline for fact witness depositions    August 7, 2023
    related to class certification.

-- Deadline for plaintiffs to serve         August 7, 2023
    expert reports supporting class
    certification

-- Deadline to serve motion for class       August 17, 2023
    certification

-- Amending the pleadings or joining        March 1, 2023
    parties

-- Last date to serve discovery requests    May 31, 2024

-- Opening Rule 26 expert disclosures       May 16, 2024

-- Responsive Rule 26 expert disclosures    June 17, 2024

-- Rebuttal Rule 26 expert disclosure       July 1, 2024

-- Discovery to close                       July 15, 2024

-- Dispositive motions deadline             August 5, 2024

Chancellor Senior develops, owns, and operates properties that
provide seniors with housing and health care options.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H5oLqR at no extra charge.[CC]

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Case Management Plan Entered in Carlier
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY CARLIER V. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00266-RNC (D. Conn.), the
Hon. Judge Robert N. Chatigny entered a scheduling order regarding
case management plan as follows:

-- All discovery, including all             Jan. 15, 2024
    discovery relating to expert
    witnesses, will be completed
    (not just propounded) by:

-- The Plaintiff will move for              Aug. 29, 2023
    Class Certification and submit
    certification expert report by:

-- Defendant will file its                  Oct. 30, 2023
    opposition to the motion for
    class certification and submit
    rebuttal to the certification
    expert report by:

-- Plaintiff will serve a damages           Jan. 15, 2024
    analysis on or before:

Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass
media company with services branded as Spectrum.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ForkTn at no extra charge.[CC]


CHARTER FINANCIAL: Kotila Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Damages Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW KOTILA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CHARTER FINANCIAL PUBLISHING NETWORK, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-00704-HYJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. granting certification of a damages class defined as
      follows:

      "All Michigan residents who, at any point during the
      relevant pre-July 31, 2016 time period, had their Private
      Reading Information disclosed to third parties by
      Defendant without consent;" and

   2. granting the Plaintiff leave to take discovery pursuant to
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).

Charter Financial operates as a publishing company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 2,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uGuigd
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: 248-841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com

                - and -

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com

                - and -

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305.357.2107
          Facsimile: 305.200.8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Rael Class Suit Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Children's Place Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 30, 2022, that the Rael class
action is pending at the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
California.

The Company is a defendant in Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc., a
purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California. In the initial complaint filed in
February 2016, the plaintiff alleged that the Company falsely
advertised discount prices in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in April 2016, adding
allegations of violations of other state consumer protection laws.


In August 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
adding an additional plaintiff and removing the other state law
claims. The plaintiffs' second amended complaint sought to
represent a class of California purchasers and sought, among other
items, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs in
December 2016 and April 2017.

The parties reached an agreement in principle in April 2017, and
signed a definitive settlement agreement in November 2017, to
settle the matter on a class basis with all individuals in the U.S.
who made a qualifying purchase at The Children's Place from
February 11, 2012 through January 28, 2020, the date of preliminary
approval by the court of the settlement.

The Company submitted its memorandum in support of final approval
of the class settlement on March 2, 2021. On March 29, 2021, the
court granted final approval of the class settlement and denied
plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, with the amount of
attorney's fees to be decided after the class recovery amount has
been determined.

The settlement provides merchandise vouchers for qualified class
members who submit valid claims, as well as payment of legal fees
and expenses and claims administration expenses.

The Children's Place, Inc. and subsidiaries is the largest
pure-play children's specialty apparel retailer in North America.
It provides apparel, footwear, accessories, and other items for
children and "tweens."

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Berg Dental Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Berg Dental Offices PC filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order dated October 24, 2022 entered in the
lawsuit entitled Berg Dental Offices PC, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Cincinnati
Insurance Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01261, in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint seeks
injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the
maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief for
breach of contract.

Berg Dental Offices is a licensed Pennsylvania dentist in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It purchased an all-risk commercial
property insurance policy from Cincinnati Insurance for protection
in the event of property loss and business interruption. But during
the COVID-19 pandemic, it was denied coverage despite the fact that
the policy does not contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or
virus-related losses.

On November 23, 2020, the Court consolidated five class actions
because it concluded that the actions raised sufficiently common
questions of law and that consolidation would further sound
administration of justice in those actions.

On October 24, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended
Complaint (CAC), Lead Case NO. 2:20-cv-816, and dismissing
Plaintiffs' CAC with prejudice. The Order applied to all Member
Cases as set forth in the caption of the Order.

The appellate case is captioned as Berg Dental Offices PC v.
Cincinnati Insurance Co, et al., Case No. 22-3146, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Nov. 17,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BERG DENTAL OFFICES PC, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243

Defendants-Appellees CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., CINCINNATI CASUALTY
CO., and CINCINNATI INDEMNITY CO. are represented by:

          Trisha A. Gill, Esq.
          LITCHFIELD CAVO
          603 Stanwix Street 10th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 291-8242

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Fifty First Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Fifty First Street LLC filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order dated October 24, 2022 entered in the
lawsuit entitled Fifty First Street, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Cincinnati Insurance
Company, The Cincinnati Casualty Company, The Cincinnati Indemnity
Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00386-MRH, in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint seeks
injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the
maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief for
breach of contract. The Plaintiff purchased an all-risk commercial
property insurance policy from Cincinnati Insurance for protection
in the event of property loss and business interruption. But during
the COVID-19 pandemic, it was denied coverage despite the fact that
the policy does not contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or
virus-related losses.

On November 23, 2020, the Court consolidated five class actions
because it concluded that the actions raised sufficiently common
questions of law and that consolidation would further sound
administration of justice in those actions.

On October 24, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended
Complaint (CAC), Lead Case NO. 2:20-cv-816, and dismissing
Plaintiffs' CAC with prejudice. The Order applied to all Member
Cases as set forth in the caption of the Order.

The appellate case is captioned as Fifty First Street LLC v.
Cincinnati Insurance Co, et al., Case No. 22-3149, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Nov. 17,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BERG DENTAL OFFICES PC, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243

Defendants-Appellees CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., CINCINNATI CASUALTY
CO., and CINCINNATI INDEMNITY CO. are represented by:

          Trisha A. Gill, Esq.
          LITCHFIELD CAVO
          603 Stanwix Street 10th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 291-8242

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Gottlieb Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Richard Gottlieb filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order dated October 24, 2022 entered in the
lawsuit entitled Dr Richard Gottlieb, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situatedv, Plaintiff v. The Cincinnati Insurance
Company, The Cincinnati Casualty Company and The Cincinnati
Indemnity Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01266-MRH in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint seeks
injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the
maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief for
breach of contract.

The Plaintiff purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance
policy from Cincinnati Insurance for protection in the event of
property loss and business interruption. But during the COVID-19
pandemic, he was denied coverage despite the fact that the policy
does not contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or virus-related
losses.

On November 23, 2020, the Court consolidated five class actions
because it concluded that the actions raised sufficiently common
questions of law and that consolidation would further sound
administration of justice in those actions.

On October 24, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended
Complaint (CAC), Lead Case NO. 2:20-cv-816, and dismissing
Plaintiffs' CAC with prejudice. The Order applied to all Member
Cases as set forth in the caption of the Order.

The appellate case is captioned as Richard Gottlieb v. Cincinnati
Insurance Co, et al., Case No. 22-3147, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Nov. 17, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DR RICHARD GOTTLIEB, Doctor, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243

Defendants-Appellees CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., CINCINNATI CASUALTY
CO., and CINCINNATI INDEMNITY CO. are represented by:

          Trisha A. Gill, Esq.
          LITCHFIELD CAVO
          603 Stanwix Street 10th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 291-8242

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Hirschfield-Louik Appeals Dismissal Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Betty Hirschfield-Louik filed an appeal from the District
Court's Opinion and Order dated October 24, 2022 entered in the
lawsuit entitled BETTY JO HIRSCHFIELD-LOUIK, DMD, t/a UPTOWN
DENTAL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, et
al., Plaintiffs v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Lead Case No. 2-20-cv-00816, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Mark R. Hornak of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
granted Cincinnati's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claims.

The Plaintiffs consist of dental practices, restaurants, minor
league baseball operations organizations, and a salon, all of whom
bring claims against their commercial property insurance carrier --
Cincinnati -- alleging that Cincinnati wrongfully denied them
coverage for claims stemming from the global coronavirus pandemic.

As the Court explained in its Opinion granting the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss in In re: Erie COVID-19 Business Interruption
Protection Insurance Litigation, Case No. 21-mc-1 (W.D. Pa. Oct.
14, 2022) -- a multidistrict litigation (MDL) consisting of over 30
cases brought by policyholders of Erie Insurance Group based on
nearly identical claims as the Plaintiffs' claims -- the types of
claims that the Plaintiffs assert are far from unique, as they
mirror those asserted by business owners in thousands of similar
cases nationwide.

The Plaintiffs allege that starting in March 2020, they began to
suffer significant financial consequences when they reduced their
business operations or temporarily closed their businesses
altogether following the outbreak of COVID-19, which has been one
of the most serious public health events in history with
devastating consequences across all aspects of life, including the
loss of life itself. They filed insurance claims for their business
losses with Cincinnati under the commercial property insurance
policies Plaintiffs had purchased from it. Cincinnati denied those
claims.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the order by Judge Hornak.

The appellate case is captioned as Betty Hirschfield-Louik v.
Cincinnati Insurance Co, et al., Case No. 22-3143, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Nov. 17,
2022.[BN]

BETTY JO HIRSCHFIELD-LOUIK, DMD, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated trading as UPTOWN DENTAL, is represented
by:

          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243

               - and -

          Howard M. Louik, Esq.
          ALLEGHENY COUNTY LAW DEPARTMENT
          300 Fort Pitt Commons
          445 Fort Pitt Boulevard
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219  

Defendants-Appellees CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., CINCINNATI CASUALTY
CO., and CINCINNATI INDEMNITY CO. are represented by:

          Michael K. Farrell, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER
          127 Public Square
          Key Tower, Suite 2000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 621-0200

               - and -

          Trisha A. Gill, Esq.
          LITCHFIELD CAVO
          603 Stanwix Street 10th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 291-8242

               - and -

          Daniel G. Litchfield, Esq.
          LITCHFIELD CAVO
          303 West Madison Street, Suite 303
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 781-6669

               - and -

          Lawrence M. Silverman, Esq.
          LITCHFIELD CAVO
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1220
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 557-0111

CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Walborn Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Teri Walborn filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion and Order dated October 24, 2022 entered in the lawsuit
entitled Teri Walborn doing business as: TERI'S PLACE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. THE CINCINNATI
INSURANCE COMPANY, THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY, THE CINCINNATI
INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00604-MRH, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint seeks
injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the
maximum rate, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief for
breach of contract.

The Plaintiff purchased an all-risk commercial property insurance
policy from Cincinnati Insurance for protection in the event of
property loss and business interruption. But during the COVID-19
pandemic, the Plaintiff was denied coverage despite the fact that
the policy does not contain an exclusion for pandemic and/or
virus-related losses.

On November 23, 2020, the Court consolidated five class actions
because it concluded that the actions raised sufficiently common
questions of law and that consolidation would further sound
administration of justice in those actions.

On October 24, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended
Complaint (CAC), Lead Case NO. 2:20-cv-816, and dismissing
Plaintiffs' CAC with prejudice. The Order applies to all Member
Cases as set forth in the caption of the Order.

The appellate case is captioned as Teri Walborn v. Cincinnati
Insurance Co, et al., Case No. 22-3150, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Nov. 17, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant TERI WALBORN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, doing business as Teri's Place, is
represented by:

          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243

Defendants-Appellees CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., CINCINNATI CASUALTY
CO., and CINCINNATI INDEMNITY CO. are represented by:

          Trisha A. Gill, Esq.
          LITCHFIELD CAVO
          603 Stanwix Street 10th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 291-8242

CNA AND VALLEY: Grant of Ungarean's Summary Judgment Bid Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, TIMOTHY A. UNGAREAN, DMD D/B/A SMILE SAVERS
DENTISTRY, PC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY
SITUATED PERSONS v. CNA AND VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellants. TIMOTHY A. UNGAREAN, DMD D/B/A SMILE SAVERS DENTISTRY,
PC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS v. CNA AND VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellants, Case
Nos. 490 WDA 2021, 948 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super.), Judge Jack Anthony
Panella of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirms the Allegheny
County Court of Common Pleas' order granting Ungarean's motion for
summary judgment and its declaration that Ungarean's direct
physical loss to his dental practice is covered by the CNA Policy.

Like so many other businesses, the dental practice of Timothy
Ungarean, DMD, d/b/a Smile Savers Dentistry, PC, suffered
significant losses when business was disrupted by the COVID-19
pandemic. Ungarean sought coverage for those losses under the
business interruption provisions of the business insurance policy
he had bought from CNA.

The bulk of the factual background leading to this appeal is
uncontroverted. Ungarean owns and operates a dental practice, with
an office in Pittsburgh and an office in Aliquippa. The practice of
dentistry necessarily requires close contact not only between the
dentist and his patients, but also between the patients and various
staff at the office.

To protect himself from unforeseen interruptions of his practice,
Ungarean procured an insurance policy from CNA that provided
coverage for certain losses associated with the dental practice
during the year from April 1, 2019, to April 1, 2020. In March
2020, the state of Pennsylvania was struck by the full force of the
COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 is a novel contagious virus that can
cause severe acute respiratory illness. In the first three months
of the pandemic, it killed thousands of Pennsylvanians, and over
100,000 people nationwide.

After consulting with public health experts, Governor Tom Wolf
issued several orders in March 2020 directing that all
non-essential businesses should close until further notice.
Further, the Governor issued an order directing the residents of
Allegheny County, which contains the city of Pittsburgh, to stay at
home.

In addition to these shutdown orders, public health officials
implemented masking and social distancing protocols. Even those
businesses that were deemed essential were required to modify their
business models by decreasing the number of people allowed in
buildings and requiring people to remain masked. Furthermore, in
these early months, enhanced cleaning protocols were implemented
due to fears that the virus could linger for days on hard
surfaces.

As a result of the pandemic, Ungarean was forced to close his
dental practice to the public except for emergency dental
procedures. He claims this caused a drastic loss in income from the
practice, causing him to furlough employees and suffer other
harmful consequences. As a result, Ungarean filed a claim with CNA
for these losses under the CNA Policy which provides coverage for,
inter alia, loss of business income due to the physical loss of or
damage to covered property. CNA denied coverage on the basis that
Ungarean's dental practice did not suffer physical damage.

Ungarean filed a class action complaint asserting one count of
relief under the Declaratory Judgments Act. In essence, he sought a
declaration that his pandemic-related business losses were covered
under the CNA Policy's Business Income, Extra Expense and Civil
Authority provisions. He subsequently filed a motion for summary
judgment, which the trial court granted on the basis that Ungarean
had, in fact, suffered a direct physical loss of his dental
practice and was therefore owed business insurance coverage under
the policy.

The trial court declared Ungarean was entitled to business
interruption coverage because COVID-19 and the related governmental
orders had caused Ungarean to suffer a direct physical loss of his
dental practice, which was within the ambit of coverage provided by
the CNA Policy. Moreover, the court found that the exclusions CNA
tried to invoke to deny coverage were not applicable to Ungarean's
claim.

CNA filed a timely notice of appeal and raises two issues:

     a. Whether Ungarean is entitled to business insurance coverage
under the CNA Policy as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and
associated orders issued by Governor Wolf where he did not suffer
direct physical loss of or damage to property and no order, issued
as a result of direct physical loss of or damage to property,
prohibited access to his property, which are required to trigger
coverage under the policy?

     b. Whether the Contamination, Consequential Loss, Fungi, Wet
Rot, Dry Rot, and Microbes, and Acts of Decisions, Ordinance or Law
exclusions in the CNA Policy bar coverage for Ungarean's alleged
losses related to the Covid-19 pandemic and associated orders
issued by Governor Wolf?

At the core, CNA challenges the trial court's declaration under the
Declaratory Judgments Act that Ungarean was entitled to coverage
under the CNA Policy.

Judge Panella reviews the trial court's decision "as he would a
decree in equity." As such, he defers to the factual findings of
the trial court unless they are unsupported in the record. In
contrast, he gives no such deference to the trial court's
application of the law.

Judge Panella explains that in his action, Ungarean sought to
settle whether the CNA Policy covered his losses arising from the
COVID-19 pandemic. This presents a question of law for review. In
conducting that review, Judge Panella is mindful that disputes over
coverage must be resolved only by reference to the provisions of
the policy itself. It is therefore imperative that he looks to the
text of the CNA Policy, because just as in every case in which an
insured claims business related losses caused by COVID-19, each
individual policy must be examined based solely on its own
language.

Judge Panella recognizes, as CNA has taken great pains to point
out, that this conclusion runs against the tide of cases finding an
insured was not owed COVID-related business interruption coverage
under their policy's provisions. However, his review must be
confined to the CNA policy purchased by Ungarean to determine
whether coverage has been triggered. He bases his finding that
coverage has indeed been triggered on the plain language of the CNA
policy, the guiding principle that ambiguities in insurance
policies such as the ones he identified in the CNA Policy must be
construed in favor of the insured, and the analysis and opinion of
the trial court.

Ultimately, Judge Panella is in full agreement with the court's
conclusions. He is also in full agreement with the court's
reasoning in support of those conclusions. Therefore, based
primarily on the trial court's thoughtful opinion, he affirms the
court's order granting summary judgment and declaring that coverage
is owed to Ungarean for his COVID-related business losses under the
specific terms of the CNA Policy.

Judges Lazarus, Kunselman, Nichols, and McLaughlin join the
Opinion.

Judge Stabile files a dissenting opinion in which President Judge
Emeritus Bender, and Judges Bowes and King join.

Judgment is entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/st4st8ma from Leagle.com.


CONTRACT LAND: Bid to Stay Denied as Moot in Weinmann Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WEINMANN v. CONTRACT LAND
STAFF, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01140 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order that the motion to stay
is denied as moot.

Turning to the other motions, the Court finds that it is premature
to decide the issue of conditional certification.

Accordingly, it is further ordered that the motion to certify class
and joint motion to set briefing schedule are denied without
prejudice as premature.

The suit states Fair Labor Standards Act involving denial of
overtime compensation.

Contract Land provides staffing services.[CC]

CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT: Loses Bid for Production of Questionnaires
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD COE, et al.,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CROSS-LINES RETIREMENT CENTER, INC., et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-02047-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel D. Mitchell
entered an order denying the defendants' motion to compel
production of all executed questionnaires.

In sum, the court finds that plaintiffs have supported their
privilege and work-product assertions over the Questionnaires.

Case law supports plaintiffs' position. Courts have persuasively
held that witness answers to questionnaires distributed by
attorneys in the context of imminent litigation are protected work
product.

The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit just two days after Sweet
returned the Questionnaire. Based on these facts, the court finds
that Sweet's executed Questionnaire is protected work product.
Although Rule 26(b)(3) permits discovery of protected work product
if the requesting party that it has a "substantial need" and
inability to obtain the equivalent without "undue hardship,"
defendants do not suggest that either of these circumstances apply
here.

This is a putative class action brought by elderly and disabled
residents of an apartment complex in Kansas City, Kansas, called
Cross-Lines Retirement Center.

The named plaintiffs, Donald Coe, Linda Smith, and Edward Yost, are
Cross-Lines residents who allege that the complex owner,
Cross-Lines Retirement Center Inc., and its property manager, Young
Management Corporation, failed to provide safe and sanitary
conditions.

Cross Lines is a Charitable Organization headquartered in Bucyrus,
Kansas.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VuIm8f at no extra charge.[CC]

DENTON COUNTY, TX: Bid to Stay Class Cert Hearing Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD "TREY" RING v.
DENTON COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., Case No.
4:21-cv-00917-SDJ (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Sean D. Jordan
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to
stay class certification hearing of Defendants Argyle Volunteer
Fire Department (AVFD), Denton County Emergency Services District
No. 1, and Troy Mac Hohenberger:

  -- The class certification hearing scheduled for December 8,
     2022, is canceled.

  -- The Plaintiff Harold "Trey" Ring and Defendants shall each
     file briefs of no more than five pages addressing the
     procedural effect of the criminal indictment of Defendant
     Troy Mac Hohenberger on this case, as well as any conflict
     of interest issues, by no later than Thursday, December 22,
     2022.

  -- The Court will reschedule the class certification hearing
     after it has received and reviewed the parties' briefing on
     the issue of the Defendant Troy Mac Hohenberger's criminal
     indictment.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VTArkJ at no extra charge.[CC]


DETROIT, MI: Scheduling Order Entered in Howard Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH HOWARD, et al., v.
CITY OF DETROIT, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10382-NGE-DRG (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Nancy G. Edmunds entered a scheduling order
as follows:

   -- Class Certification Discovery         February 15, 2023
      Cutoff:

   -- Briefs on Class Certification by:     March 15, 2023

Detroit is a city the midwestern state of Michigan.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XSyg2p at no extra charge.[CC]

DINGDONG LTD: McCormack's Appointment as Lead Plaintiff Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN MCCORMACK,v. DINGDONG
(CAYMAN) LTD., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-07273-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an order denying McCormack's
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of his choice
of lead counsel.

As previously ordered, within 21 days, the parties shall submit a
proposed schedule for the filing of any amended complaint and
subsequent response. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
terminate all open gavels.

McCormack essentially argues that he should be appointed lead
plaintiff because no other Dingdong shareholder has sought
appointment. McCormack filed the Complaint in this action, and
because no one else has come forward, he has the largest financial
stake by default.

However, "it is well settled that the Court is obligated to
evaluate the requirements of the PSLRA, even [if a movant's lead
plaintiff] motion is unopposed." Indeed, courts in this Circuit
have denied uncontested lead plaintiff motions where the movant
does not satisfy the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a).

Bosch, Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann ruled that a plaintiff did
not "preliminarily satisfy the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)"
where the plaintiff claimed only $621 in losses.

Judge Mann found that although the plaintiff "submitted a
declaration attesting to his understanding of the responsibilities
of a lead plaintiff under the PSLRA and his willingness to oversee
the litigation and counsel," he "nevertheless lacked a sufficient
financial interest in the outcome of the case to incentivize him to
monitor counsel's performance and control the litigation on behalf
of the putative class."

McCormack claims only $504.40 in losses. In the realm of securities
litigation, this is a token amount. Moreover, McCormack does not
claim that his losses are similar to, or larger than, the losses of
other class members. Additionally, McCormack has submitted only a
pro forma certification that includes no details about his
background, years of investing experience, or other indicia of
sophistication.

McCormack has "failed to persuade this Court that he has sufficient
interest in the litigation to 'vigorously' pursue the class claims
and adequately represent the interests of class members."

Furthermore, as a general matter, "losses that may have incurred
before a company's misconduct was ever disclosed to the public are
not recoverable, because those losses cannot be proximately linked
to the misconduct at issue in the litigation."

The Plaintiff McCormack brings this securities fraud action against
Dingdong and several of its officers and underwriters, alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act.

ingdong purports to be a leading and the fastest growing on-demand
e-commerce company in China."

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VPq41k at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Livezey Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT, L.L.P.
          New York, NY

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Osborn Solum, Esq.
          Kirkland & Ellis LLP
          New York, NY

                - and -

          Joanna Andrea Diakos, Esq.
          Priya Chadha, Esq.
          K&L Gates LLP
          New York, NY

EMORY UNIVERSITY: Court Corrects/Amends Sched Order in Schultz
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC SCHULTZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EMORY
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02002-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge
Thomas J. Thrash entered an order granting consent motion to
correct/amend the scheduling order as follows:

   a. The deadline for Emory to respond        Jan. 18, 2023
      to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification and to disclose any
      expert reports in support of same
      is:

   b. The deadline for the close of fact       Feb. 17, 2023
      discovery and expert discovery
      concerning Plaintiff's Motion for
      Class Certification is:

   c. The deadline for Plaintiff to file       Feb. 17, 2023
      a reply in support of class
      certification and any expert
      rebuttal reports in support of
      same is:

Emory University is a private research university in Atlanta,
Georgia.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VNdYFU at no extra charge.[CC]

ENERGY TRANSFER: ACERS Bid to Compel Documents Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLEGHENY COUNTY
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., v. ENERGY TRANSFER LP et al.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00200-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin
McHugh entered an order that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel will be
granted in part and denied in part.

In November 2017, Energy Transfer's drilling for the ME2 pipeline
caused a "frac-out" of underground drilling fluid, creating
sinkholes and causing property damage to homes on Lisa Drive in
Chester County. The sinkholes allegedly "garnered significant media
attention" and "spurred multiple lawsuits from Lisa Drive
residents."

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs move to compel any document
produced in "any litigation related to Energy Transfer's pipeline
projects brought by or on behalf of residents near the Lisa Drive
site. Yet Plaintiffs' Motion does not specifically explain why
documents from these cases are relevant to their claims. The
Plaintiffs also do not identify any specific cases filed by Lisa
Drive residents, beyond citing to a single paragraph of their
Amended Complaint that briefly discusses a class action filed in
March 2018."

The Plaintiffs in this securities class action move to compel all
documents produced by Defendants in previous legal actions and
investigations involving the Defendants' pipeline construction
activities. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants failed to produce
relevant documents contained in these prior productions, and that
Plaintiffs are entitled to the entire set of documents produced in
each of these prior actions and investigations.

This is a class action on behalf of investors in Energy Transfer
L.P., a pipeline company whose operations include developing the
Mariner East 1 and 2 ("ME1 and ME2") and Revolution pipelines in
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants issued a series of false or
misleading statements during the class period related to the
construction of these pipelines.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3UuIh2Z at no extra charge.[CC]

FCA US: Flynn Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial Over Costs Award
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Brian Flynn, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE BROWN, KELLY
BROWN, MICHAEL KEITH, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US LLC and HARMAN
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-855-SMY,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against FCA and
Harman, asserting consumer fraud claims related to an alleged
design defect in the Uconnect system manufactured by Harman and
installed in some of FCA's 2013-2015 model vehicles. After over
four years of litigation, the Court granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed
the case with prejudice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed on appeal but
modified the Judgment to reflect a dismissal for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction without leave to amend.

Following the mandate from the Seventh Circuit, the Court granted
in part FCA and Harmon's Bill of Costs and corresponding Motions
for Taxation of Costs and awarded FCA $86,086.81 in costs and
Harman $93,157.96 in costs.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 31, 2022, Judge
Staci M. Yandle of the Southern District of Illinois denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Taxation of Costs. Judge
Yandle held that while the Plaintiffs disagree with the Court's
order awarding costs, they failed to identify a manifest error of
law or fact committed by the Court in doing so. Accordingly, she
denied their motion.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE and KELLY
BROWN, and MICHAEL KEITH, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP
LLC and HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Defendants,
Case No. 22-3075, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, filed on Nov. 17, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE and KELLY BROWN, and
MICHAEL KEITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Thomas B. Weaver, Esq.
          Julie Fix Meyer, Esq.
          Christopher D. Baucom, Esq.
          Daniel R. O'Brien, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 18900
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 621-5070
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5065
          E-mail: tweaver@atllp.com
                  jfixmeyer@atllp.com
                  cbaucom@atllp.com
                  dobrien@atllp.com

               - and -

          IJay Palansky, Esq.
          Charles Steese, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          4643 S. Ulster, Suite 800
          Denver, CO 80237
          Telephone: (720) 200-0676
          Facsimile: (720) 200-0679
          E-mail: ipalansky@atllp.com
                  csteese@atllp.com

               - and -

          Christopher Cueto, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER CUETO, LTD.
          7110 W. Main Street
          Belleville, IL 62223
          Telephone: (618) 277-1554
          Facsimile: (618) 277-0962
          E-mail: ccueto@cuetolaw.com

FLRISH INC: Calhoun Bid to File Documents Under Seal Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIA CALHOUN, v. FLRISH,
INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-08212-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph
C. Spero entered an order granting in part and denying in part
administrative motions to consider whether documents should be
filed under seal.

The administrative motions are therefore denied as to all documents
at issue except the agreement and pricing proposal in Exhibit G and
the redacted references to Calhoun's cell phone 10 number, and the
parties shall file all such documents (including the remainder of
Exhibit G) in the public record no later than December 7, 2022.

Although Calhoun has not provided a declaration setting forth
specific reasons to seal her cell phone number, compelling reasons
to seal are apparent, and that request is granted.

In a response to Calhoun's motion, non-party Springbig, Inc. asks
that the Court allow sealing of a contract and pricing proposal
that the Court previously ordered filed under seal in connection
with a previous motion.

For the reasons stated in the May 4, 2020 declaration of Jeff
Harris, the Court finds compelling reasons to seal the contract and
pricing proposal submitted as parts of Exhibit G to the September
9, 2022 declaration of Avi Kaufman, which are identical to Exhibit
B to the April 30, 2020 declaration of Robert Ahdoot, which was
filed under seal. Calhoun's administrative motion is granted as to
those portions of Exhibit G, which will remain under seal.

Springbig does not oppose publicly filing the remainder of
Calhoun's motion and supporting materials, including the remaining
portion of Exhibit G, consisting of terms and statement of
non-opposition to public filing of the documents Calhoun filed
provisionally under seal based on FLRish's confidentiality
designations except for pricing information in Exhibit G that
Springbig also asks to seal.

Springbig filed a statement of non-opposition to public filing of
the documents FLRish filed provisionally under seal based on
Springbig's confidentiality designations. No other party or
non-party has filed a response setting forth reasons for sealing.

The Plaintiff Gia Calhoun and Defendant FLRish, Inc. each filed
motions to consider whether documents submitted in conjunction with
Calhoun's pending motion for class certification should be filed
under seal based on their opponent's or other non-party entities'
confidentiality interests.

The Plaintiff also moves in her own right to seal instances of her
cell phone number in two exhibits, which she has otherwise filed
publicly with the cell phone number redacted.

FLRish, Inc. manages the harborside medical cannabis dispensaries.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Haapp1 at no extra charge.[CC]

FORSTER & GARBUS: Final Approval of Class Settlement Deal Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADELINE FRANCOIS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FORSTER &
GARBUS, LLP, Case No. 3:21-cv-20664-RLS (D.N.J.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the case to proceed as a class action for
      settlement purposes; and

   2. granting final approval of the Parties' class settlement
      agreement.

Forster & Garbus is a New York debt collection law firm.

A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class action dated Nov.
30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3Utd6F9 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Wolf, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Deborah Isaacson, Esq.
          Rivkin Radler, Esq.
          477 Madison Avenue, Suite 410
          New York, NY York 10022
          Telephone: (212) 455-9549
          Facsimile: (212) 687 9044

GENERAL MOTORS: Pilgrim, et al., Seek to Certify 21 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTATE OF WILLIAM D.
PILGRIM, et al. individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-10562-TGB-DRG
(E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)(1)-(4) and (b)(3) on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated and appointing Counsel and Class Representatives
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

The  Plaintiffs propose certification of the following Classes
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):

   -- Nationwide Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, residents of the United States."

      The Nationwide Class seeks class certification of claims
      for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.
      Section 2301, et seq.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of S. Garrett Beck
      and Alan Pelletier as the class representatives for the
      Nationwide Class.

   -- Alabama Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Alabama residents."

      The Alabama Class seeks class certification of claims for
      violation of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
      Ala. Code section 8-19-1, et seq. and fraud by
      concealment.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Walter Goetzman
      and Chad Reese as the class representatives for the
      Alabama Class.

   -- Arizona Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Arizona residents.

      The Arizona Class seeks class certification of claims for
      violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, Arizona Rev.
      Stat. section 44-1521, et seq. and fraud by concealment.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Michael Lanz,
      Jack Woodall, Ahmed J. Cannon, Tuan Bui, Russell
      Christiansen, and the Estate of William D. Pilgrim as the
      class representatives for the Arizona Class.

   -- California Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, California residents.

      The California Class seeks class certification of claims
      for violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
      Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 1750 et seq. and fraud by
      concealment.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Valente Moreno
      as the class representative for the California Class.

   -- Florida Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Florida residents."

      The Florida Class seeks class certification of claims for
      violation of the Florida Unfair & Deceptive Trade
      Practices Act, Fla. Stat. section 501.201, et seq.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Christopher
      Constantine, Bradley Grant, and Robert L. Briggs as the
      class representatives for the Florida Class.

   -- Georgia Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Georgia residents."

      The Georgia Class seeks class certification of claims for
      violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, Ga.
      Code Ann. section 10-1-390 et seq. and fraud by
      concealment.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Roger L.
      Browning and Robert Edgar as the class representatives for
      the Georgia Class.

   -- Illinois Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Illinois residents."

      The Illinois Class seeks class certification of claims for
      violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud And Deceptive
      Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq. and 720
      ILCS 295/1A.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Lyle Dunahoo as
      the class representative for the Illinois Class.

   -- Indiana Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Indiana residents."

      The Indiana Class seeks class certification of claims for
      violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act,
      Ind. Code section 24-5-0.5-3 and fraud by concealment.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Aaron Clark as
      the class representative for the Indiana Class.

   -- Maryland Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Maryland residents."

      The Maryland Class seeks class certification of claims for
      fraud by concealment. Plaintiffs move for the appointment
      of David Penrod as the class representative for the
      Maryland Class.

   -- Massachusetts Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Massachusetts residents."

      The Massachusetts Class seeks class certification of
      claims for violation of Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93A, section
      1, et seq., fraud by concealment, and breach of the
      implied warranty of merchantability under Mass. Gen. Laws
      Ch. 106, section 2-314.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Alan Pelletier
      as the class representative for the Massachusetts Class.

   -- Michigan Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Michigan residents.

      The Michigan Class seeks class certification of claims
      for violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act,
      Mich. Comp. Laws section 445.903, et seq., fraud by
      concealment or silent fraud, and breach of the implied
      warranty of merchantability, Mich. Comp. Laws section
      440.2314.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Edwin William
      Krause, Frank Juzswik, and S. Garrett Beck as the class
      representatives for the Michigan Class.

   -- Montana Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Montana residents."

      The Montana Class seeks class certification of claims for
      violation of the Montana Unfair Trade Practices And
      Consumer Protection Act Of 1973, Mont. Code Ann. section
      30-14-101, et seq. and fraud by concealment.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of David Sheldon
      as the class representative for the Montana Class.

   -- Ohio Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who vare, and/or were at the time of their
      purchase or lease, Ohio residents."

      The Ohio Class seeks class certification of claims for
      violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio
      Rev. Code Ann. section 1345.01, et seq. and fraud by
      concealment.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Jared Kiley as
      the class representative for the Ohio Class.

   -- Oklahoma Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Oklahoma residents.

      The Oklahoma Class seeks class certification of claims for
      violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, 15
      Okl.Stat.Ann. section751, et seq. and fraud by
      concealment.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Jason Shepherd
      as the class representative for the Oklahoma Class.

   -- Pennsylvania Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Pennsylvania residents."

      The Pennsylvania Class seeks class certification of claims
      for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices     

      And Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Stat. section 201-1,
      et seq.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Jeff Kolodzi as
      the class representative for the Pennsylvania Class.

   -- South Dakota Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, South Dakota residents."

      The South Dakota Class seeks class certification of claims
      for violation of the South Dakota Deceptive Trade
      Practices & Consumer Protection Law, S.D. Codified Laws
      section 37-24-6 and fraud by concealment.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Derek Van Den
      Top as the class representative for the South Dakota
      Class.

   -- Tennessee Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Tennessee residents."

      The Tennessee Class seeks class certification of claims
      for violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act,
      Tenn. Code Ann. section 47-18-101, et seq. and fraud by
      concealment.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Morris Smith as
      the class representative for the Tennessee Class.

   -- Texas Class

      "All Texas residents that are current and former owners or
      lessees of a Class Vehicle who purchased a class vehicle
      in the state of Texas.

      The Texas Class seeks class certification of claims for
      violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices --
      Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code sections
      17.41, et seq. and fraud by concealment.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Andres Frey,
      Shawn Bain, Jeffrey M. Millslagle, Robert Geiss, and the
      Estate of John LeBar as the class representatives for the
      Texas Class.

   -- Utah Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Utah residents."

      The Utah Class seeks class certification of claims for
      violation of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, Utah
      Code Ann. section 13-11-1, et seq. and fraud by
      concealment.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Devry Todd
      Davis as the class representative for the Utah Class.

   -- Virginia Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Virginia residents."

      The Virginia Class seeks class certification of claims for
      violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, Va.
      Code Ann. 15 sections 59.1-196, et seq. and fraud by
      concealment.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of William Church
      and Edwin Rojas as the class representatives for the
      Virginia Class.

   -- Wisconsin Class

      "All current and former owners or lessees of a Class
      Vehicle who are, and/or were at the time of their purchase
      or lease, Wisconsin residents.

      The Wisconsin Class seeks class certification of claims
      for violation of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices
      Act, Wis. Stat. Section 110.18.

      The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of James Osheim as
      the class representative for the Wisconsin Class. The
      Plaintiffs have included sworn interrogatory responses for
      all plaintiffs that have not submitted a declaration in
      support of this Motion.

      The Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of Knapp,
      Petersen & Clarke as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23(g).

This action is brought by vehicle owners of high performance
Corvette Z06 or 427 and Camaro models with a 427 cubic inch LS7
engine manufactured and sold by General Motors during the model
years 2006 to 2013.

These automobiles suffer from a dangerous valve manufacturing
defect that first results in excessive engine valve noise, valve
guide wear, and then, in catastrophic engine failure, even on cars
with very few miles on the odometer.

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 2,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B76tS6
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:


          Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
          Michael D. Carr, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
                  mdc@kpclegal.com

                - and -

          David M. Honigman, Esq.
          Kenneth R. Chadwell, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Rd.
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          E-mail: dhonigman@manteselaw.com
                  kchadwell@manteselaw.com


GEO GROUP: Appeals Summary Judgment in Menocal Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Geo Group, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled ALEJANDRO MENOCAL, MARCOS BRAMBILA, GRISEL
XAHUENTITLA, HUGO HERNANDEZ, LOURDES ARGUETA, JESUS GAYTAN, OLGA
ALEXAKLINA, DAGOBERTO VIZGUERRA, and DEMETRIO VALEGRA, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE GEO
GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:14-cv-02887-JLK, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado.

The Plaintiffs in this case are former immigration detainees at the
Aurora Detention Facility in Aurora, Colorado, a private
immigration detention center owned by Defendant The GEO Group, Inc.
and operated pursuant to a contract with U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement. The parties have filed a handful of motions
related to the sufficiency and type of the evidence supporting
Plaintiffs' claims, GEO's status as a government contractor, and
ICE's role in the challenged conduct.

The Plaintiffs originally brought three claims on October 22, 2014
against GEO for: (1) noncompliance with the Colorado Minimum Wages
of Workers Act, Colo. Rev. Stat.; (2) violations of the forced
labor provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act; and (3)
unjust enrichment. GEO filed a motion to dismiss, and the Court
granted its motion as to the Colorado minimum wage claim. The
Plaintiffs remaining claims challenge two separate policies
implemented by GEO at the Aurora Detention Facility. First,
Plaintiffs assert that, by forcing detainees at the Facility to
clean up the common areas and after other detainees under the
threat of segregation, GEO has violated the TVPA. Second,
Plaintiffs claim that GEO has been unjustly enriched by paying
detainees only $1.00 per day for their participation in the
Facility's Voluntary Work Program.
  
The Defendant appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit from the Court's Order on the Parties' Cross Motions for
Summary Judgment and for Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for
Decertification of Class entered Oct. 18, 2022. In particular,
Defendant appeals the grant of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment on GEO's Affirmative Defenses dated April 29, 2020 and
denial of GEO's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment dated June 25,
2020.

The appellate case is captioned as Menocal et al. v. The GEO Group,
Inc., Case No. 22-1409, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, filed on Nov. 17, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant THE GEO GROUP, INC. is represented by:

          David G. Palmer, Esq.
          Naomi Beer, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1144 15th Street, Suite 3300
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 572-6500
          E-mail: palmerdg@gtlaw.com
                  beern@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott Schipma, Esq.
          Dominic Draye, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          2101 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20037  
          Telephone: (202) 331-3141
          E-mail: schipmas@gtlaw.com

GILEAD SCIENCES: Class Cert Notice Plan Approved in Staley Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Staley, et al., v. Gilead
Sciences, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02573-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order:

   1. granting motion to approve class certification Notice
      Plan, along with its supporting memorandum and exhibits,
      and the joint status report regarding class notice, along
      with its supporting exhibits;

   2. approving the proposed form and manner of notice and
      providing the following directives regarding
      implementation; and

   3. appointing KCC Class Action Services, LLC as the
      Class Certification Notice Administrator to disseminate
      notice to the Class and process and engage in follow-up
      communications.

Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Foster City, California.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FqkdKk at no extra charge.[CC]

H&K ENGINEERING: Case Management Order Entered in Ledet Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE LEDET, INDIVIDUALLY
AND FOR OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. H&K ENGINEERING, LLC, ORBITAL
ENGINEERING INC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01324-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy entered a case management order:

   1. All disclosures required by          December 2, 2022
      Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a) have been
      or will be made on or before:

   2. The parties shall complete           January 3, 2023
      phase I discovery related to
      conditional class certification
      by:

   3. Plaintiffs have already filed a      February 3, 2023
      Motion for Conditional
      Certification. After completing
      Phase I discovery,  Plaintiffs
      may file an Amended Motion for
      Conditional  Certification.
      If they choose to do so, they
      must do so by:

   4. In addition, Defendant Orbital       February 3, 2023
      Engineering, Inc. may file a
      motion for summary judgment by:

   5. Defendant's response to either       March 3, 2023
      the original motion or amended
      motion, and any responses to
      Orbital's Motion for Summary
      Judgment, shall be filed by:

   6. Reply briefs, if any, shall be      March 17, 2023
      filed by:

   7. Sur-reply briefs, if any,          March 31, 2023
      shall be filed by:

   8. Hearing and oral argument          April 19, 2023
      as to said motion(s) and
      briefing shall be held on:

   9. In the event this action is        June 30, 2023
      not conditionally certified
      as a collective action,
      merits discovery shall be
      completed by:

H&K provides professional engineering services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uocZAh at no extra charge.[CC]

HISCOX INSURANCE: Scheduling Order Entered in Acosta Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE H. ACOSTA, et al. v.
HISCOX INSURANCE COMPANY INC., et al. Case No.
8:22-cv-01812-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney
entered a scheduling order as follows:

  -- All discovery, including discovery       Aug. 3, 2023
     motions, shall be completed by:

  -- The parties shall have until             Oct. 2, 2023
     to file and have heard all
     other motions, including
     motions to join or amend the
     pleadings:

  -- A pretrial conference will be            Dec. 4, 2023
     held on:

  -- The case is set for a jury               Dec. 12, 2023
     trial:

  -- The parties shall have until             Aug. 17, 2023
     to conduct settlement
     proceedings:

  -- The Plaintiff shall have until           March 6, 2023
     to file and have heard any
     class certification motion:

Hiscox is a diversified international insurance group.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XWRsw8 at no extra charge.[CC]

INCOMM FINANCIAL: Clark Files Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Incomm Financial
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Carolyn Clark, Shelby Cooper,
Sharon Manier, Tarika Stewart, Aquilla Thompson, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Incomm Financial
Services, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-01839-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal., Oct. 18,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

InComm Payments -- https://www.incomm.com/ -- operates as a global
payments technology company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Graham B LippSmith, Esq.
          Jaclyn L Anderson, Esq.
          MaryBeth LippSmith, Esq.
          LIPPSMITH LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 4400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 344-1820
          Fax: (213) 513-2495
          Email: g@lippsmith.com
                 jla@lippsmith.com
                 mb@lippsmith.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEVENS PLLC
          1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 682-5600
          Fax: (206) 682-2992
          Email: jdennett@tousley.com
                 kboyd@tousley.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William A. Delgado, Esq.
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2130
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 335-6999
          Fax: (213) 335-7802
          Email: wdelgado@dtolaw.com


INTERFACE INC: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Sched
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS S. SWANSON,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
INTERFACE, INC., DANIEL T. HENDRIX, JAY D. GOULD, BRUCE A. HAUSMANN
and PATRICK C. LYNCH, Swanson v. Interface, Inc. et al, Case No.
1:20-cv-05518-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties conferred and agreed
that, subject to approval of the Court, the briefing schedule on
the Class Motion should be modified as follows:

   1. The Class Motion shall be        January 12, 2023
      filed on or before:

   2. The Defendants' opposition to the Class Motion shall
      be filed by the later of:

         (i) sixty (60) days after the filing of the Class
             Motion;

        (ii) if the Motion to Compel is granted in whole or in
             part, 45 days after Defendants' receipt of all of
             the compelled discovery; or

       (iii) 30 Days after an order denying the Motion to Compel
             in full.

   3. Lead Plaintiff's reply in further support of the Class
      Motion shall be filed no later than 45 days after
      Defendants' opposition to the Class Motion is filed.

Interface is a global manufacturer of commercial flooring with an
integrated collection of carpet tiles and resilient flooring,
including luxury vinyl tiles and nora brand rubber flooring.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EWR3Rt at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel J. Kramer, Esq.
          Harris Fischman, Esq.
          Shane D. Avidan, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6064
          Telephone: (212) 373-3306
          E-mail: dkramer@paulweiss.com
                  hfischman@paulweiss.com
                  savidan@paulweiss.com

ISRAMCO INC: Special Committee Defendants Dismissed From Ligos Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH LAWRENCE LIGOS, Plaintiff v. HAIM TSUFF, MAX
PRIDGEON, ASAF YARKONI, and NIR HASSON, Defendants, C.A. No.
2020-0435-SG (Del. Ch.), Judge Sam Glasscock, III, of the Court of
Chancery of Delaware grants Defendants Max Pridgeon, Asaf Yarkom,
and Nir Hasson's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Verified
Shareholder Class Action Complaint pursuant to Court of Chancery
Rule 12(b)(6).

In 2019, Isramco, a Delaware corporation, was acquired by former
Defendant Naphtha Israel Petroleum Corp. Ltd. and its affiliates
(collectively, "Naphtha"). All entities on both sides of the
transaction were indirectly controlled by Defendant Tsuff. Ligos is
a former stockholder of Isramco. He continuously owned shares of
Isramco stock from the announcement to the consummation of the
Merger.

Non-party Isramco is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Houston, Texas. In October 2019, Isramco's controller -- Defendant
Naphtha -- and its affiliates consummated a going-private
transaction by purchasing all of Isramco's unaffiliated stock for
cash consideration. Prior to the consummation of the Merger,
Isramco was publicly traded on the NASDAQ Capital Market.

Non-party Naphtha Israel Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is an Israeli
public company whose securities trade on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange. Its principal businesses are exploration and production
of oil and natural gas. That company beneficially owned 70.74% of
Isramco's outstanding common stock in September 2019 prior to the
Merger.

Tsuff served as Isramco's President and the Chairman of its Board
of Directors from May 1996 until consummation of the Merger on Oct.
25, 2019. He served as the company's Chief Executive Officer from
May 1996 until November 2017, and as Co-Chief Executive Officer
from November 2017 until consummation of the Merger in October
2019. Tsuff serves as the Chairman of Naphtha Israel Petroleum
Corp. Ltd.'s board and sits on the boards of several of that
company's subsidiaries. Prior to the Merger, Tsuff owned 61,679
shares of Isramco common stock and, through his interest in
Naphtha, indirectly owned an additional 1,922,517 shares, which
collectively totaled approximately 73% of the Isramco's outstanding
shares.

Pridgeon served as a member of the Isramco Board from April 2001
until the closing of the Merger. From 2015 until Oct. 25, 2019,
Pridgeon also served as a member of Isramco's two-member Conflict
Committee of the Board. Pridgeon was a member of the special
committee formed to negotiate on behalf of Isramco in the proposed
Merger.

Yarkoni served as a member of the Board from December 2010 until
the closing of the Merger on Oct. 25, 2019. He also served as a
member of the Conflict Committee from 2012 to Oct. 25, 2019 and as
a member of the Special Committee.

Hasson served as a member of the Board from August 2014 until the
closing of the Merger on Oct. 25, 2019. He also served as a member
of the Special Committee.

Ligos contends that the transaction was not fair to the minority
stockholders. He brought this action against, among others, Tsuff
and the Defendant directors of Isramco who comprised a special
committee that negotiated the transaction (collectively, the
"Special Committee Defendants"). Isramco attempted to fit the
transaction under the MFW rubric, to qualify for application of the
business judgment rule.

The Plaintiff filed his complaint June 4, 2020. The Complaint
alleges that Tsuff, Naphtha Israel Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Naphtha Holding LTD. ("NHL"), I.O.C. -- Israel Oil Co., LTD.,
Naphtha US Oil, Inc. ("US Oil"), United Kingsway Ltd., YHK
Investment L.P., YHK General Manager Ltd. ("YHK Manager"), Equital,
Ltd., and J.O.E.L Jerusalem Oil Exploration Ltd. breached their
fiduciary duty and were unjustly enriched (Counts I and III),
Tsuff, Joseph From, Frans Sluiter, and the Special Committee
Defendants breached their fiduciary duty (Count II), Isramco Negev
2 Limited Partnership aided breaches of fiduciary duty (Count IV),
and Kingsway, YHK, YHK Manager, Equital, JOEL, Naphtha Israel
Petroleum Corporation Ltd., I.O.C., and US Oil aided breaches of
fiduciary duty (Count V). On Aug. 5, 2020, the Plaintiff dismissed
his claims against JOEL, Equital, YHK, YHK Manager, and Kingsway
without prejudice.

On Sept. 21, 2020, three groups of defendants filed separate
motions to dismiss: (i) Naphtha Israel Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
NHL, I.O.C., US Oil, and Tsuff; (ii) From, Sluiter, and Isramco
(the "Isramco Motion"); and (iii) Pridgeon, Yarkoni, and Hasson.
Negev 2 moved to dismiss on Dec. 14, 2020.

The parties completed briefing these motions by Feb. 26, 2021.
Judge Glasscock heard oral argument on all motions on May 21, 2021.
The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed From, Sluiter, and Isramco on
May 26, 2021. That dismissal mooted the Isramco Motion.

On Aug. 31, 2021, Judge Glasscock denied Tsuff's motion to dismiss.
In a memorandum opinion, he found that, although a majority of the
minority stockholders in Isramco voted in favor of the merger, the
facts pled rendered it plausible that the vote was not fully
informed.

Negotiations ensued. The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Naphtha
Israel Petroleum Corporation Ltd., NHL, I.O.C., US Oil, and Negev 2
on March 1, 2022.

On Aug. 12, 2022, the Special Committee Defendants and the
Plaintiff informed the Court that they could not reach an agreement
and stated no further argument was necessary for it to rule on the
Special Committee Defendants' motion to dismiss. Judge Glasscock
considers the matter fully submitted as of that date.

Judge Glasscock's Memorandum Opinion deals exclusively with the
motion of Max Pridgeon, Asaf Yarkoni, and Nir Hasson (together, the
Special Committee Defendants) to dismiss Ligos' claims stemming
from Isramco's completed cash-out merger with its controller,
Naphtha. The denial of Tsuff's motion to dismiss surveys the
notably complex entity structures and Tsuff's role in the
transaction.

Though the Plaintiff's claims against Tsuff survived the motion to
dismiss, Judge Glassock holds that Ligos has not pled sufficient
allegations against the Special Committee Defendants to sustain a
claim. Specifically, the Plaintiff failed to plead with specificity
any facts impeaching the loyalty of the Special Committee
Defendants.

Even under the plaintiff-friendly inferences applicable, Judge
Glasscock cannot find it reasonably conceivable that any Special
Committee Defendant lacked independence from Tsuff. Although the
complaint alleges that these Defendants were selected (presumably
by Tsuff) to perform inadequately at their jobs, if true this does
not implicate their duty of loyalty. There is also no indication
that the Special Committee acted in bad faith in the negotiations
with Naphtha. Allegations of the bad faith omission of material
from the Merger proxy also fail. As no unexculpated claims survive,
the Complaint fails to state a claim.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Glasscock grants the Special
Committee Defendants' Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/26k63fr4 from
Leagle.com.

Corinne Elise Amato -- ceamato@prickett.com -- Kevin H. Davenport
-- khdavenport@prickett.com -- Samuel L. Closic --
slclosic@prickett.com -- and Jason W. Rigby -- jwrigby@prickett.com
-- of PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; OF
COUNSEL: Eric L. Zagar -- ezagar@ktmc.com -- and J. Daniel Albert
-- dalbert@ktmc.com -- of KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP,
Radnor, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Joseph Lawrence Ligos.

William B. Chandler III -- wchandler@wsgr.com -- Brad D. Sorrels --
bsorrels@wsgr.com -- Daniyal M. Iqbal -- diqbal@wsgr.com -- and
Nora M. Crawford -- ncrawford@wsgr.com -- of WILSON SONSINI
GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Steven
Guggenheim -- sguggenheim@wsgr.com -- of WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI, P.C., Palo Alto, California, Attorneys for Defendants Max
Pridgeon, Asaf Yarkoni, and Nir Hasson.

S. Mark Hurd -- shurd@morrisnichols.com -- and Miranda Gilbert --
mgilbert@morrisnichols.com -- of MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNEL,
LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; OF COUNSEL: Danny David --
danny.david@bakerbotts.com -- and Amy Pharr Hefley --
amy.hefley@bakerbotts.com -- of BAKER BOTTS L.L.P., Houston, Texas,
Attorneys for Defendant Haim Tsuff.


JENSEN-LEWIS CO: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jensen-Lewis Co.,
Inc. The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Jensen-Lewis Co., Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07200 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2022).

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

Jensen-Lewis -- https://www.jensen-lewis.com/ -- is New York's best
contemporary and modern furniture store for bedroom, dining room
and living room.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Certifies Class of Consumers in Noohi
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NARGUESS NOOHI, v. JOHNSON
& JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03575-TJH-JEM (C.D.
Cal.),  the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order
granting the motion for class certification.

   -- The class shall be defined as all consumers who purchased
      Neutrogena Oil-Free Moisture Sensitive Skin in California
      between April 17, 2016 and November 30, 2022.

   -- It is further Ordered that Plaintiff Narguess Noohi is
      appointed as the named class representative.

   -- It is further Ordered that Todd M. Friedman of Law Offices
      of Todd M. Friedman PC be is Appointed as class counsel.

The Court has considered Plaintiff Narguess Noohi's motion for
class certification, together with the moving and opposing papers.
In her Second Amended Complaint ["SAC"], Noohi alleged that, on
March 23, 2020, she purchased Neutrogena Oil-Free Face Moisturizer
for Sensitive Skin, manufactured by Defendant Johnson & Johnson
Consumer, Inc.

Noohi alleged that she purchased the Product because of a
representation on the packaging that the Product was oil-free.
Later, Noohi learned that the Product contained ethylhexl palmitate
and soybean sterols, which, allegedly, are oils or byproducts of
oils.

The SAC alleged four claims: Common law fraud; Violation of
California's False Advertising Law; Violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law; and Violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Unx5Fb at no extra charge.[CC]

KOHL'S CORP: Continues to Defend Shanaphy Class Suit in Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kohl's Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 1, 2022, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Shanaphy class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

On September 2, 2022, Sean Shanaphy, an alleged shareholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company,
its directors, and its Chief Financial Officer alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934. Shanaphy v. Kohl's Corporation, No. 2:22-cv- 01016-LA (E.D.
Wis.).

The plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between
October 20, 2020 and May 19, 2022, and seeks compensatory damages,
interest, fees, and costs.

The complaint alleges that members of the putative class suffered
losses as a result of (1) false or misleading statements and
withholding of information regarding the conception, execution, and
outcomes of the Company's strategic plan announced on October 20,
2020 and the Company's financial results for the first quarter of
fiscal 2022 and (2) the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting, disclosure controls, and corporate governance
mechanisms.

The case is in its early stages. Lead plaintiff applications were
submitted on November 1, 2022, and a lead plaintiff has not yet
been selected.

The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the complaint and
to vigorously defend against these claims.

Kohl's Corporation operates as an omnichannel retailer. The
Company's stores and website sells private and national brand
apparel, footwear, accessories, beauty, and home products, as well
as offers online shopping and store credit cards. Kohl's serves
customers in the United States. [BN]

KPS AFFILIATES: Seeks More Time for Conditional Cert Bid Response
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Monalisa Johnson-Cradle
vs. KPS Affiliates Inc., PPB Inc. d/b/a Prime Protective Bureau,
and Terry English, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01052-PGG-SLC
1:22-cv-01052-PGG-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting a second extension of time of one week (to
December 7, 2022) to respond to Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification.

The reason for this extension is the unexpected announcement of the
departure of lead counsel in this action (Vincent Avery, Esq.) and
the need for replacement counsel to step in to review and complete
the response, the Defendants' counsel says.

KPS is a security agency.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3isGL45 at no extra
charge.[CC]

KRUGER FOODS: Ball Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kruger Foods, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Douglas Ball, on behalf of himself,
the State of California, and others similarly situated and
aggrieved v. Kruger Foods, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2022-0011019
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 30, 2022).

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

Kruger Foods, Inc. -- https://www.krugerfoods.com/ -- provides food
products. The Company offers pickles, peppers, mayonnaise and
dressing, pumpables, and refrigerated products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Phone: (310) 496-5818
          Fax: (310) 510-6429
          Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com

KUNES AUTO GROUP: Fairchild Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kunes Auto Group. The
case is styled as Travis Fairchild, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Kunes Auto Group, Kunes Country RV of
Green Bay Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01235-WCG (E.D. Wis., Oct. 19,
2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Kunes Auto Group -- https://www.shopkunes.com/ -- is a car dealer
in Macomb, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI LLC
          235 N Executive Dr-Ste 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Phone: (262) 780-1953
          Fax: (262) 565-6469
          Email: dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
                 jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


LAIRD SUPERFOOD: Loses Bid to Junk Gwinn Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOVELYNN GWINN, v. LAIRD
SUPERFOOD, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02883-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Denise Cote entered an order denying the defendant's motion
to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.

The Plaintiff Lovelynn Gwinn has brought this suit, on behalf of
putative classes of similarly situated consumers, against Laird for
inaccurately describing the serving size of its powdered creamer
products on their nutrition labels.

Gwinn alleges that a teaspoon of each Product in fact weighs more
than 2 grams, and that the nutrition labels therefore exaggerate
the number of teaspoon -- or 3/4-teaspoon -- sized servings in each
container.

Gwinn brought claims for false or deceptive advertising in
violation of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350,
unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, and breach of
implied warranty.

The plaintiff opposed the motion on July 6, but agreed to dismiss
without prejudice its claim for breach of implied warranty and its
request for injunctive relief.

Laird sells powdered coffee additives, including six Superfood
Creamer products described as Unsweetened, Original with Functional
Mushrooms, Original, Chocolate Mint, Turmeric, and Pumpkin Spice,
as well as Performance Mushrooms.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ba9qRX at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Abiri, Esq.
          CUSTODIO & DUBEY LLP
          445 S. Figueroa St. Suite 2520
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jacob Harper, Esq.
          Heather F. Canner, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          865 S. Figueroa St., 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017

                - and -

          Mohammed Basim Pathan, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1251 6th Ave, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10020


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Amended Sched Order Entered in COI Rate Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: LINCOLN NATIONAL 2017 COST OF
INSURANCE (COI) RATE LITIGATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-04150-GJP (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald J. Pappert entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:

   1. Class Plaintiffs' New Motion for     February 21, 2023
      Class Certification shall be
      filed on or before:

   2. Opening expert reports on issues     February 21, 2023
      where parties have the burden of
      proof due on or before:

   3. The parties' shall produce           February 23, 2023
      materials relied on by experts
      in opening reports on or before:

   4. Rebuttal expert reports due          May 2, 2023
      on or before:

   5. The parties' shall produce           May 4, 2023
      materials relied on by
      experts in rebuttal reports
      on or before:

   6. Expert Discovery shall be            June 26, 2023
      completed on or before:

   7. Defendants' opposition to            July 17, 2023
      New Motion for Class
      Certification, and any
      Daubert Motion relating to
      expert opinions relied upon
      by Class Plaintiffs in
      connection with class
      certification shall be filed
      on or before:

   8. Class Plaintiffs' Reply in           August 7, 2023
      Support of New Motion for
      Class Certification, and
      Opposition to Defendants'
      Daubert Motion(s) shall be
      filed on or before:

   9. Class Plaintiffs' Daubert            August 7, 2023
      Motion(s) relating to expert
      opinions relied upon by
      the Defendants in connection
      with class certification shall
      be filed on or before:

  10. Defendants' Reply in support         August 21, 2023
      of any Daubert Motion and
      Opposition to any Daubert Motion
      Plaintiffs file shall be
      filed on or before:

  11. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support        September 6, 2023
      of any Daubert Motion shall be
      filed on or before:

Lincoln National Corporation operates multiple insurance and
investment management businesses through subsidiary companies.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gWJPVO at no extra charge.[CC]

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Conestoga
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONESTOGA TRUST, et al.,
v. LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION and LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-02379-GJP (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Gerald J. Pappert entered an amended scheduling order as follows:

   1. Class Plaintiffs' New Motion for     February 21, 2023
      Class Certification shall be
      filed on or before:

   2. Opening expert reports on issues     February 21, 2023
      where parties have the burden of
      proof due on or before:

   3. The parties' shall produce           February 23, 2023
      materials relied on by experts
      in opening reports on or before:

   4. Rebuttal expert reports due          May 2, 2023
      on or before:

   5. The parties' shall produce           May 4, 2023
      materials relied on by
      experts in rebuttal reports
      on or before:

   6. Expert Discovery shall be            June 26, 2023
      completed on or before:

   7. Defendants' opposition to            July 17, 2023
      New Motion for Class
      Certification, and any
      Daubert Motion relating to
      expert opinions relied upon
      by Class Plaintiffs in
      connection with class
      certification shall be filed
      on or before:

   8. Class Plaintiffs' Reply in           August 7, 2023
      Support of New Motion for
      Class Certification, and
      Opposition to Defendants'
      Daubert Motion(s) shall be
      filed on or before:

   9. Class Plaintiffs' Daubert            August 7, 2023
      Motion(s) relating to expert
      opinions relied upon by
      the Defendants in connection
      with class certification shall
      be filed on or before:

  10. Defendants' Reply in support         August 21, 2023
      of any Daubert Motion and
      Opposition to any Daubert Motion
      Plaintiffs file shall be
      filed on or before:

  11. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support        September 6, 2023
      of any Daubert Motion shall be
      filed on or before:

Lincoln National Corporation operates multiple insurance and
investment management businesses through subsidiary companies.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H72mt9 at no extra charge.[CC]

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in LSH Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LSH CO, et al,, v. LINCOLN
NATIONAL CORPORATION, et al, Case No. 2:18-cv-05529-GJP (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Gerald J. Pappert entered an amended scheduling
order as follows:

   1. Class Plaintiffs' New Motion for     February 21, 2023
      Class Certification shall be
      filed on or before:

   2. Opening expert reports on issues     February 21, 2023
      where parties have the burden of
      proof due on or before:

   3. The parties' shall produce           February 23, 2023
      materials relied on by experts
      in opening reports on or before:

   4. Rebuttal expert reports due          May 2, 2023
      on or before:

   5. The parties' shall produce           May 4, 2023
      materials relied on by
      experts in rebuttal reports
      on or before:

   6. Expert Discovery shall be            June 26, 2023
      completed on or before:

   7. Defendants' opposition to            July 17, 2023
      New Motion for Class
      Certification, and any
      Daubert Motion relating to
      expert opinions relied upon
      by Class Plaintiffs in
      connection with class
      certification shall be filed
      on or before:

   8. Class Plaintiffs' Reply in           August 7, 2023
      Support of New Motion for
      Class Certification, and
      Opposition to Defendants'
      Daubert Motion(s) shall be
      filed on or before:

   9. Class Plaintiffs' Daubert            August 7, 2023
      Motion(s) relating to expert
      opinions relied upon by
      the Defendants in connection
      with class certification shall
      be filed on or before:

  10. Defendants' Reply in support         August 21, 2023
      of any Daubert Motion and
      Opposition to any Daubert Motion
      Plaintiffs file shall be
      filed on or before:

  11. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support        September 6, 2023
      of any Daubert Motion shall be
      filed on or before:

Lincoln National Corporation operates multiple insurance and
investment management businesses through subsidiary companies.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OWo9Wg at no extra charge.[CC]

LITIGATION PRACTICE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due April 17, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beech v. Litigation
Practice Group, PC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00057 (S.D. Miss.), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Bradley W. Rath entered an order that the deadline
for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification is April 17,
2023.

The nature of suit states other statutory actions.[CC]


MAJSETIC STAR: Order on Class Cert. Deadlines Entered in Rodriguez
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISO RODRIGUEZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE
MAJSETIC STAR CASINO, LLC, d/b/a HARD ROCK CASION NORTHERN)
INDIANA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00198-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), the
Hon. Judge John E. Martin entered an order regarding class
certification related deadlines as follows:

   1. Rule 26(a)(1) initial exchanges       December 9, 2022
      must be completed, but not filed
      with the Court, by:

   2. The deadline for the parties to       February 15, 2023
      seek leave to amend the pleadings
      is:

   3. The deadline to complete all          June 1, 2023
      discovery for the initial
      bifurcated stage of discovery
      is:

   4. The Plaintiff's motion for            June 30, 2023
      conditional certification
      and/or Rule 23 class
      certification is to be filed
      by:

Majestic Star was a gaming holding company founded in Gary, Indiana
by Don H. Barden and was based in Las Vegas, Nevada.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VPIxKO at no extra charge.[CC]

MARINOSCI LAW: Burke Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROY M. BURKE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. MARINOSCI LAW GROUP,
P.C., P.A., Case No. 9:22-cv-80725-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)
      action as a class action under Rule 23:

      "All persons (a) with a Florida address, (b) to whom
      Marinosci Law Group, P.C., P.A. mailed a "debt validation
      notice," (c) which was not returned undeliverable, (c) in
      connection with the collection of a consumer debt, (d)
      between April 26, 2021 and April 25, 2022, (e) which debt
      validation notice listed at least three entities other
      than Marinosci Law Group, P.C., P.A. under the heading
      "our information shows.""

   2. appointing him as class representative; and

   3. appointing his counsel as class counsel.

On March 26, 2022, the Defendant sent a "debt validation notice" to
Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a consumer debt.

The March 26, 2022 letter was the first written communication
Plaintiff received from Defendant.

The Plaintiff did not receive any other written communications from
Defendant within five days of the March 26, 2022 communication.

Here, Plaintiff has diligently pursued this case—including
responding to written discovery and sitting for deposition—with
the goal of obtaining relief for the members of the class and
forcing Defendant to comply with the law.


Marinosci is a law practice company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 2,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VyUi94
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson
          Jesse S. Johnson
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Matisyahu H. Abarbanel
          Matthew Bavaro
          LOAN LAWYERS
          3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312
          Telephone: (954) 523-4357
          E-mail: Matthew@Fight13.com

MELINDA MASTERS: Court Junks Longino Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL LONGINO AND WILLIS
BAILEY, v. MELINDA MASTERS, JON CARNER, COURTNEY JONES, AND KERI
FITZPATRICK, Case No. 2:22-cv-00672-JES-NPM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge John E. Steele entered an order:

   1. dismissing Plaintiffs' class action complaint without
      prejudice to any individual resident filing his own
      complaint along with a filing fee or motion to proceed as
      a pauper; and

   2. directing the Clerk of Court to deny any pending
      motions as moot, close this case, and enter judgment.

The Court said, "Because they have not alleged an actual or
imminent injury, the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action
capacity. In addition, Plaintiffs may not bring a class action case
on behalf of other residents of the FCCC. Accordingly, the
complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief
may be granted.

Because this dismissal is based on circumstances that cannot be
changed in an amended complaint (standing and class certification),
providing Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the complaint would be
futile, the Court adds.

The Plaintiffs complain that the FCCC does not have an adequate law
library. Instead, the facility has a computer lab with twenty
computers for the entire resident population, with only ten of
those designated as legal computers.

Moreover, the FCCC employee who runs the lab is untrained in the
law and has no experience in conducting legal research via Lexis
Nexis, and FCCC residents residents.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OVZj8V at no extra charge.[CC]

META PLATFORMS: Sued Over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------
John Doe & Jane Doe, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-07557
(N.D. Cal., Dec. 1, 2022), is brought against the Defendant's
breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law.

Meta's "Pixel" is piece of code that logs users' activities on
third-party websites and sends the details back to Meta. It has now
emerged that major online tax-filing services such as H&R Block,
TaxAct, and TaxSlayer embedded the Pixel in their websites and sent
tens of millions of filers' tax-return data to Meta without their
consent in violation of federal law.

The Pixel sent Meta the tax-filers' names, email addresses,
adjusted gross incomes, tax-filing statuses, refund amounts,
dependents' college scholarship amounts, and their dependents'
names--and perhaps more. It did so regardless whether the filer had
an account on Meta's social media platforms like Facebook or
Instagram. And even when filers expressly declined to share their
information, the Pixel collected it anyway.

In its contract with Facebook users, Meta promised that it
"requires" businesses that use the Pixel "to have lawful rights to
collect, use, and share your data before providing any data to us."
In actuality, Meta makes no effort to enforce that promise--relying
on a broken honor--system that has resulted in repeated, documented
violations of Meta's own contractual promises and state and federal
law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were amongst the Americans whose confidences were
breached.

Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., is an
American multinational technology company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marshal J. Hoda, Esq.
          THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC
          12333 Sowden Road, Suite B, PMB 51811
          Houston, TX 77080
          Phone: (832) 848-0036
          Email: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com

               - and -

          Steven C. Vondran, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN C. VONDRAN, PC
          One Sansome Street, Suite 3500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (877) 276-5084
          Email: steve@vondranlegal.com


METROPOLITAN TOWER: Court Junks Pitt Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN A. PITT,
Individually, as Successor-In-Interest to Michael A. Pitt,
Decedent, on Behalf of the Estate of Michael A. Pitt, and on Behalf
of the Class, v. METROPOLITAN TOWER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00694-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert S.
Huie entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification of:

   "All owners, or beneficiaries upon a death of the insured, of
   the Defendant's individual life insurance policies that were
   renewed, issued, or delivered by the Defendant in California,
   and in force on or after January 1, 2013, and which the
   Defendant lapsed or terminated for the non-payment of premium
   without Defendant first providing all the notices, grace
   periods, and offers of designation required by Insurance Code
   Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72."

The Court said, "The Plaintiff's suggestion that the Court "certify
a legal issue" in lieu of certification of the "entire class" does
not make sense. To the extent that the Plaintiff is proposing a
Rule 23(c)(4) class, the scope of that proposed class is unclear,
and the Plaintiff has failed to establish that such a certification
would materially advance the disposition of the litigation. The
Court declines Plaintiff's alternative proposal."

The Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief is likewise not a
basis for certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class. The Plaintiff
seeks a declaratory judgment that "Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72
applied as of January 1, 2013, to the Defendant's California
policies in force as of or at any time after January 1, 2013,
including Plaintiff's Policy."

In October 2003, while living in Illinois, Michael Pitt purchased a
$2 million term life insurance policy from Metropolitan Tower Life
Insurance Company.

In September 2016, Mr. Pitt applied for reinstatement and tendered
the full annual premium amount of $7,290. In February 2017, Tower
rejected Mr. Pitt's reinstatement application. In May 2018, Michael
Pitt passed away. ECF No. 76-2 ¶ 9. In August 2018, Plaintiff
Susan Pitt, the named beneficiary under the Policy, filed a claim
with Tower for death benefits. Tower denied her claim.

Metropolitan Tower provides life, health, auto, dental, home,
vision, accident, and disability insurance services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FpTNZ9 at no extra charge.[CC]


MIRAPATH INC: Liendo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diego Gonzalo Lluen Liendo, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. MIRAPATH, INC., a California
Corporation, and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. 22CV404785 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Oct. 17, 2022), is brought against the
Defendants' violations of California's laws by failing to pay
minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the Class
Members, as a class action, against Defendants for: failure to pay
all minimum wages, failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to
pay accrued vacation wages, failure to provide rest periods and pay
missed rest period premiums, failure to provide meal periods and
pay missed meal period premiums, failure to maintain accurate
employment records, failure to pay wages timely during employment,
failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation, failure
to indemnify all necessary business expenditures, failure to
furnish accurate itemized wage statements, and Violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants within the State of
California.

The Defendants were authorized to and doing business in Santa Clara
County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          Megan E. Ross, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 824-3828
          Fax: (310) 862-6851
          Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
                 megan@melmedlaw.com


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Mills Seeks to Certify ERISA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michelle Mills, et al., v.
Molina Healthcare, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01813-SB-GJS (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying case as a class action; and

      "All participants and beneficiaries of the Molina
      Healthcare Salary Savings Plan from March 18, 2016 through
      the date of judgment, excluding Defendants;" and

   2. appointing Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP as class
      counsel.

The Plaintiffs Michelle Mills, Coy Sarell, Chad Westover, Brent
Aleshire, Barbara Kershner, Paula Schaub, and Jennifer Silva are
participants in the Molina Salary Savings Plan (the Plan), a
defined contribution plan governed by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

The Defendants are current and former fiduciaries of the Plan, who
owe ERISA-imposed duties to the Plan and all participants.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and caused prohibited transactions by causing the Plan to
include imprudent investment options and to incur unreasonable and
excessive fees.

The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendants under 29
U.S.C. section 1132(a)(2) and seek to recover all losses to the
Plan resulting from Defendants' ERISA violations, as well as
equitable relief as provided for in 29 U.S.C. section 1109(a).

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 2,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XVP5tl
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Nathan D. Stump, Esq.
          Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
          Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  nstump@uselaws.com
                  ssoyars@uselaws.com
                  kstruckhoff@uselaws.com

                - and -

          William H. Edmonson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILL EDMONSON
          9157 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 213
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (424) 248-9581
          E-mail: will@whelawfirm.com

NCINO INC: Continues to Defend Live Oak Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
nCino Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 29, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 30, 2022, that the Company
continues to defend the Live Oak class action in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

On March 12, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina (the "District Court"). The sole class representative in
the suit is one individual alleging a contract, combination or
conspiracy between and among the Company, Live Oak Bancshares, Inc.
and Apiture, Inc. not to solicit or hire each other's employees in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and N.C. Gen Stat. §§
75-1 and 75-2.

The complaint seeks treble damages and additional remedies,
including restitution, disgorgement, reasonable attorneys' fees,
the costs of the suit, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
The complaint does not allege any specific damages. On April 28,
2022, the District Court approved settlements between the plaintiff
and defendant Live Oak in the amount of approximately $3.9 million
and unnamed party Apiture in the amount of approximately $0.8
million.

Although there can be no assurance with respect to the outcome of
this matter, the Company believes the alleged claims are not
meritorious and intends to defend itself vigorously.

nCino Inc. is a financial technology company.

NESTLE PURINA: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Dec. 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Salinas v. Nestle Purina
PetCare Company, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01140 (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order setting class
certification deadlines and hearings:

  -- The parties shall have until December 12, 2022, to file a
     joint status report informing the Court of the status of
     mediation and to submit their proposals regarding deadlines
     concerning class certification or a motion for approval of
     settlement.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment.

Nestle Purina Petcare, or simply Purina, is an American subsidiary
of the Swiss corporation Nestle, based in St. Louis, Missouri. It
produces and markets pet food, treats, cat and dog litter. Some of
its pet food brands include Purina Pro Plan, Purina Dog Chow,
Friskies, Beneful and Purina One.[CC]

NETAPP INC: Securities Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
NetApp Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 28, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 1, 2022, that the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a
securities class action suit with prejudice on September 1, 2022.

On August 14, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, naming as defendants NetApp and certain of our
executive officers. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or
misleading statements with respect to our financial guidance for
fiscal 2020, as provided on May 22, 2019.

Members of the alleged class are purchasers of the Company's stock
between May 22, 2019 and August 1, 2019, the date we provided
revised financial guidance for fiscal 2020.

The complaint alleges unspecified damages based on the decline in
the market price of our shares following the issuance of the
revised guidance on August 1, 2019.

The defendants' Motion to Dismiss was granted and on February 26,
2021 and the judge entered judgment in favor of NetApp and the
other defendants.

On March 26, 2021, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

The parties subsequently engaged in settlement discussions, and on
July 30, 2021 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
providing for the settlement of the class action.

Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, NetApp has agreed to pay
approximately $2.0 million in connection with the settlement, and
this amount was accrued during the three months ended July 30,
2021.

The parties subsequently executed a stipulation of settlement,
which contains no admission of liability, wrongdoing or
responsibility by any of the parties, and which provides that the
class action will be dismissed with prejudice, with mutual releases
by all parties, upon final court approval.

On September 24, 2021, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion seeking
court approval of the settlement.

On May 2, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the settlement.

On September 1, 2022, the court held a final approval hearing,
approved the settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.

NetApp is a global cloud-led, data-centric software company based
in California.


NETFLIX INC: Maple Heights Can't Enforce Ohio's FCCOA, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THE CITY OF MAPLE HEIGHTS v. NETFLIX, INC., ET AL.,
Case No. 2021-0864 (Ohio), Judge Michael P. Donnelly of the Supreme
Court of Ohio answers "no" to the following certified state-law
questions certified by the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, for review:

   (1) Are Netflix and Hulu video service providers under Ohio
       law? and

   (2) Can Maple Heights sue Netflix and Hulu to enforce Ohio's
       video service provider provisions?

Respondent Maple Heights filed a federal class-action and
declaratory-judgment lawsuit against petitioners, the
video-streaming services Netflix and Hulu. In that lawsuit, Maple
Heights asserts that Netflix and Hulu are in violation of the Fair
Competition in Cable Operations Act, R.C. Chapter 1332.21, 2007
Am.Sub.S.B. No. 117 ("the Act"). Specifically, Maple Heights argues
that Netflix and Hulu are illegally providing video services in
Ohio -- including in Maple Heights -- without authorization from
the director of commerce and without paying the requisite fees to
Maple Heights. Netflix and Hulu separately filed motions to dismiss
Maple Heights's complaint against them in federal court, arguing
that their streaming services do not fall within the Act.

Netflix and Hulu are video-content providers that stream on-demand
shows and movies to their subscribers over the Internet. Netflix's
and Hulu's members may stream as much content as they want --
anytime, anywhere, and on any public Internet-connected device.
Because Netflix and Hulu make their content available through the
public Internet, they do not maintain wires, cables, or other
infrastructure in any Ohio public rights-of-way. Netflix began its
streaming media service in 2007. Hulu began streaming to the public
in 2008.

Netflix and Hulu claim that the Act does not pertain to them
because neither Netflix nor Hulu construct or operate wires,
cables, facilities, or networks in the public rights-of-way.
Rather, subscribers connect to Netflix's and Hulu's services
through the subscribers' own Internet-connected devices. They
further argue that because they have never held video-services
authorizations pursuant to R.C. 1332.21 through 1332.34, they do
not meet the statutory definition of a video-service provider.
Netflix and Hulu each assert that a business without that
authorization is, by definition, not a video-service provider. The
parties agree that neither Netflix nor Hulu have a video-service
authorization.

In Netflix's and Hulu's motions to dismiss in federal court, they
each asserted that (1) they do not offer video-programming services
that are comparable to broadcast television under R.C. 1332.21(I),
(2) they offer their programming and content over the public
Internet, which they assert is exempted from the definition of
"video service" under R.C. 1332.21(J), and (3) they do not own,
operate, or use video-service networks in the public-rights-of-way
under R.C. 1332.21(J).

Maple Heights countered that even if Netflix and Hulu do not own,
operate, or use video-service networks, they are video-service
providers as defined by R.C. 1332.21(J) because the services that
they provide -- i.e., shows, movies, and other similar content --
are comparable to broadcast television as provided in R.C.
1332.21(I). Maple Heights also asserted that Netflix and Hulu do
not offer programming over the public Internet and, even if they
did, their programming is not offered as "part of and via a service
that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail,
or other services offered over the public internet," as required by
R.C. 1332.21(J) to be excluded from the definition of "video
service."

The parties also disagree about the reach of R.C. 1332.32, which
imposes a quarterly fee that video-service providers owe to
municipalities.

As to the first certified state-law question, the federal court
asks the Supreme Court to determine whether Netflix and Hulu are
video-service providers under the Act. As to the second certified
state-law question, the federal court asks to determine whether
Maple Heights may sue Netflix and Hulu as a means of enforcing the
Act, particularly in light of Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct.
2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975), and Anderson v. Smith, 196 Ohio App.3d
540, 2011-Ohio-5619, 964 N.E.2d 468 (10th Dist.), which consider
the circumstances under which a statute implies a private right of
action.

Judge Donnelly holds that (1) Netflix and Hulu are not
video-service providers under the Act and (2) the Act does not
expressly or impliedly give Maple Heights the authority to bring a
cause of action such as the one at issue. He states that Netflix
and Hulu are online-streaming businesses that service their
subscribers over the public Internet.

The General Assembly defined video service to the exclusion of
those who provide "video programming * * * solely as part of and
via a service that enables users to access content, information,
electronic mail, or other services offered over the public
internet." And the purpose of the Act as expressed by its language
is to eliminate the authority of local governments, like Maple
Heights, over video-service franchises. The director of commerce
has the sole authority to grant video-service authorizations and to
investigate allegations that a video-service provider is violating
or failing to comply with the Act. To read the Act as granting
Maple Heights an implied right to bring the underlying action under
Cort would be contrary to its stated intent.

Therefore, Judge Donnelly answers both certified state-law
questions in the negative.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ytzj2du7 from Leagle.com.

DiCello, Levitt & Gutzler, L.L.C., Mark A. DiCello --
madicello@dicellolevitt.com -- and Justin J. Hawal --
jhawal@dicellolevitt.com -- for the Respondent.

Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., Amanda Martinsek -- amartinsek@ulmer.com --
and Gregory C. Djordjevic -- gdjordjevic@ulmer.com; and Latham &
Watkins, L.L.P., Mary Rose Alexander -- mary.rose.alexander@lw.com
-- Robert C. Collins III -- robert.collins@lw.com -- and Jean A.
Pawlow -- jean.pawlow@lw.com -- for Petitioner Netflix, Inc.

Brouse McDowell and Kerri L. Keller -- kkeller@brouse.com; and
Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Victor Jih --
vjih@wsgr.com -- and Eric T. Kohan -- ekohan@wsgr.com -- for
Petitioner Hulu, L.L.C.

Tucker Ellis, L.L.P., and Jeffrey C. Sindelar Jr. --
jeffrey.sindelar@tuckerellis.com; and Kilpatrick, Townsend &
Stockton, L.L.P., and Adam H. Charnes, in support of petitioners
for amicus curiae DIRECTV, L.L.C.

Public Knowledge and John Bergmayer -- john@publicknowledge.org;
and Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., James F. Lang --
jlang@calfee.com -- and Colleen M. O'Neil -- coneil@calfee.com --
in support of petitioners for amicus curiae Public Knowledge.

Calfee, Halter & Griswold, L.L.P., James F. Lang, Colleen M.
O'Neil, and Madeline H. Shanahan -- mshanahan@calfee.com; Steptoe &
Johnson, L.L.P., Pantelis Michalopoulos --
pmichalopoulos@steptoe.com -- and Matthew R. Friedman --
mfriedman@steptoe.com; and Crosscastle, P.L.L.C., and Jared R.
Butcher, in support of petitioners for amici curiae DISH Network
Corp. and DISH Network, L.L.C.

Dave Yost, Attorney General, Benjamin M. Flowers, Solicitor
General, and Mathura J. Sridharan, Deputy Solicitor General, in
support of petitioners for amicus curiae state of Ohio.


NEW JERSEY: Class Cert. Oral Argument Set for Jan. 4, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GALICKI et al., v. STATE
OF NEW JERSEY, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00169 (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Julien Xavier Neals entered an order setting oral argument on
the motion to certify class for Jan. 4, 2023.

New Jersey is a northeastern U.S. state with some 130 miles of
Atlantic coast. Jersey City, across the Hudson River from Lower
Manhattan, is the site of Liberty State Park, where ferries embark
for nearby Ellis Island, with its historic Immigration Museum, and
the iconic Statue of Liberty.

The nature of suit states Conspiracy/Deprivation Civil Rights..[CC]

NFL: Application to File Documents Under Seal Submitted
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE'S "SUNDAY
TICKET" ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:15-ml-02668-PSG-JEM (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs submit an application requesting that the
Court lodge provisionally under seal the following documents:

   1. The sealed Declaration of Ian M. Gore in Support of
      Plaintiffs'

   2. The unredacted version of the Reply Brief in Support of
      Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification

   3. The Rebuttal Declaration of Sarah Butler

   4. The Rebuttal Declaration of Doug Zona

   5. The Rebuttal Declaration of Daniel Rascher

   6. Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Tyler Finn in Support of
      Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply Brief

   7. Class Certification Reply Brief

   8. Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Tyler Finn in Support of
      Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply Brief

   9. Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Tyler Finn in Support of
      Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply Brief

  10. Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Tyler Finn in Support of
      Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply Brief

  11. Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Tyler Finn in Support of
      Plaintiffs'

  12. Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Tyler Finn in Support of
      Plaintiffs' Class Certification Reply Brief

The National Football League is a professional American football
league that consists of 32 teams

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iwCFbc at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Arun Subramanian, Esq.
          William C. Carmody, Esq.
          Seth Ard, Esq.
          Tyler Finn, Esq.
          Ian M. Gore, Esq.
          Armstead Lewis, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
                  asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com
                  bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
                  sard@susmangodfrey.com
                  tfinn@susmangodfrey.com
                  igore@susmangodfrey.com
                  alewis@susmangodfrey.com

                - and -

          Scott Martin, Esq.
          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq.
          Farhad Mirzadeh, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 357-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
          E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
                  clebsock@hausfeld.com
                  sgosselin@hausfeld.com
                  fmirzadeh@hausfeld.com

                - and -

          Howard Langer, Esq.
          Edward Diver, Esq.
          Peter Leckman, Esq.
          Kevin Trainer, Esq.
          LANGER GROGAN AND DIVER PC
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 4020
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-5660
          Facsimile: (215) 320-5703
          E-mail: hlanger@langergrogan.com
                  ndiver@langergrogan.com
                  pleckman@langergrogan.com
                  ktrainer@langergrogan.com

NIGHT TEETH INC: Zucker Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Night Teeth, Inc. The
case is styled as B. Zucker, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Night Teeth, Inc., Benjamin R. Pugh
and Doe One through and including Doe Ten, Case No.
2:22-cv-07551-FMO-AFM (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Avenue, 17th Fl.
          Glendale, CA 91203

NOMI HEALTH: Servidori Seeks Conditional FLSA Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES SERVIDORI, and all
others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), v. NOMI HEALTH,
INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-01475-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying the
proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action:

    -- VRE Collective

       "All Couriers employed by Defendant in the State of
       Florida during the previous 3-years who were required to
       utilize their own person vehicle and incur expenses in
       any week in which they worked more than 40 hours;" and

    -- Non-Discretionary Bonus Collective

       "All Couriers employed by Defendant in the State of
       Florida during the previous 3-years  who worked more than
       40 hours in a workweek and whose non-discretionary
       bonuses were not calculated into the overtime
       compensation paid."

The Defendant owns and operates a direct healthcare company that
employs Couriers like Plaintiff to deliver medical packages
throughout the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff worked as a Courier for Defendant from on or about
October 25, 2021 until August 8, 2022. The Plaintiff filed a
Collective Action seeking overtime wages for himself and similarly
situated Couriers on August 18, 2022.

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff, Servidori, and Opt-In Plaintiffs
Christine Byron, and Ruth Rowe, filed their consents to sue under
the FLSA and joined this lawsuit.

The Plaintiff contends that all Couriers have substantially similar
duties, were required to possess and utilize their own personal
vehicle for Defendant's benefit, incurred expenses in the operation
and maintenance of their vehicle which were not
reimbursed, and regularly performed more than 40 hours of work per
week.

Nomi Health is a direct healthcare company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes
dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3OUUywq at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew Mckinley, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          1075 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3958
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
          E-mail: amckinley@seyfarth.com

NORTHWEST MICHIGAN SURGERY: Challender Seeks Conditional Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELINDA CHALLENDER,
JESSICA GREENE, BRITTANY KRITZ, DARNELL MUDGETT, and ASHLEY TRYLCH,
on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. NORTHWEST MICHIGAN SURGERY CENTER, L.L.C. d/b/a COPPER RIDGE
SURGERY CENTER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00459-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying and allowing
judicial notice of this action to be sent to the following
potential collective members:

   "Defendant Northwest Michigan Surgery Center, L.L.C. d/b/a
   Copper Ridge Surgery Center's employees who worked any time
   during the three years prior to the filing of Plaintiffs'
   Complaint (i.e., since May 20, 2019), who received overtime
   pay and at least one (1) quarterly bonus pursuant to
   Defendant's Performance Incentive Bonus (PIB) Policy, and
   whose bonus(es) were not included when determining the rate
   on which the employee's overtime pay was based."

The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against Northwest Michigan
Surgery alleging failure to pay sufficient overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA)

Northwest Michigan is an Ambulatory Surgical Center in Traverse
City, Michigan.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BvL71d at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
          Kara F. Krause, Esq.
          HURWITZ LAW PLLC
          617 Detroit St. Ste. 125
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (844) 487-9484
          E-mail: noah@hurwitzlaw.com
                  kara@hurwitzlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gregory M. Meihn, Esq.
          Matthew T. Wise, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
          37000 Woodward Ave., Ste. 225
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (313) 426-9815
          E-mail: gmeihn@grsm.com
                  mwise@grsm.com

NORTHWEST MOTORSPORT: More Time to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Seth Villafan, a single
man; WOLFGANG OLSON, a single man; and JOSH GRAVES, a married but
separated man, v. Northwest Motorsport LLC, et al., Case
No.2:20-cv-01616-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting their stipulated motion for the extension
of:

  -- The deadline for filing motions related to class
     certification from current deadline of Dec. 1, 2022 to a
     proposed deadline of Dec. 29, 2022.

The Defendants include NORTWE3T MOTORSPORT, LLC, a Washington
limited liability company; HILT VENTURE CAP INC., a Washington
limited liability company; DONALD FLEMING and JANE DOE FLEMING,
residents of Texas, and the marital community composed thereof;
NORTHWEST MOTOSPORT, INC., a Washington  limited liability company;
RICHARD FORD and JANE FORD, residents of Texas, and the marital
community composed thereof; RFJ AUTO PARTNERS NORTHERN HOLDINGS,
INC., a Delaware corporation; JOHN and JANE DOES 1-5 and the
marital communities composed thereof; and RFJ AUTO GROUP, INC., a
foreign corporation.

Northwest Motorsport was founded in 1996. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of used cars.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iqfNKi at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

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

OKTA INC: Continues to Defend O'Dell Shareholder Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Okta Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the O'Dell shareholder derivative suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On November 28, 2022, a purported shareholder filed a derivative
lawsuit on behalf of the Company in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against certain of
its current and former executive officers and directors, captioned
O’Dell v. McKinnon et al., No. 3:22-cv-07480.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by making false or misleading
statements or omissions concerning the Company's cybersecurity
controls, vulnerability to data breaches, and the Company’s
integration of Auth0, Inc.

The lawsuit seeks an order permitting the plaintiff to maintain
this action derivatively on behalf of the Company, awarding
unspecified damages allegedly sustained by the Company, awarding
restitution from the individual defendants, and requiring the
Company to make certain reforms to its corporate governance and
controls.

The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

Okta, Inc. is an independent identity Provider based in
California.


OKTA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Okta Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 1, 2022, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Securities class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On May 20, 2022, a purported shareholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
executive officers, captioned In re Okta, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 3:22-cv-02990. The lawsuit asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
alleging that the defendants made false or misleading statements or
omissions concerning the Company's cybersecurity controls,
vulnerability to data breaches, and the Company's integration of
Auth0, Inc.

The lawsuit seeks an order certifying the lawsuit as a class action
and unspecified damages.

The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

Okta, Inc. is an independent identity Provider based in
California.



PARAMOUNT FLORIDA: Cerda Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura M. Cerda, for herself, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. PARAMOUNT FLORIDA SECURITY GROUP INC, GOLDEN SECURITY
GUARD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC, and PEDRO MORA, individually, Case
No. 1:22-cv-23884-JEM (S.D. Fla., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought to
recover money damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and
retaliation under the laws of the United States, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

During the Plaintiff's employment time, she always worked more than
40 hours every week. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff never was
adequately compensated for overtime hours worked. The Plaintiff did
not take bonafide lunch periods. Furthermore, during her employment
with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was paid less than the required
minimum wages required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff did not clock in
and out, but Defendants were able to track and monitor the hours
worked by the Plaintiff. Therefore, during the relevant period of
time, Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime
wages at the rate of time and one-half her regular rate for every
hour that she worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff had security guard duties working at La Belle Perfume
Distributor, located in Miami, Florida.

The Defendants are companies providing security and surveillance
services that provide security services to businesses, residential
communities, construction sites, etc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PENN CREDIT: Messinger Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Penn Credit
Corporation. The case is styled as Yisroel Messinger, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Penn Credit
Corporation, Case No. 7:22-cv-10153 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022).

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

Penn Credit -- https://penncredit.com/ -- is a nationwide accounts
receivables management firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Thomas Yusko, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com


PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Beadle Sues Over Unlawful Communication Time
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Beadle, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY
PARENTS' ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER
EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, Case No. 159750366 (Fla. 12th Judicial
Cir. Ct., Sarasota Cty., Oct. 21, 2022), is brought against the
Defendants for violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices
Act as a result of unlawful communication time.

The FCCPA prohibits persons from communicating with a debtor
between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the debtor's time zone
without the prior consent of the debtor. On August 30, 2021, the
Defendant sent an electronic mail communication to the Plaintiff
(the "Communication"). The Communication was a communication in
connection with the collection of the Consumer Debt. The
Communication advised that "Pennsylvania Higher Education
Assistance Agency (PHEAA) is attempting to contact you regarding
your past due student loan account. Options are available to
resolve this issue, but you must call one of our representatives
immediately." The Communication was sent by Defendant to Plaintiff
at 10:37 PM in Plaintiff's zone. As a result, the Defendants
violated the FCCPA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of
Florida, residing in Sarasota County, Florida.

The Defendant is a Pennsylvania Non-Profit Corporation, with its
principal place of business located in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-907-1136
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                 jen@jibraellaw.com

PERATON INC: Ewers Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Ewers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PERATON, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01374 (E.D. Va., Dec.
1, 2022), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant does not pay overtime to its technicians. Instead,
the Defendant pays them by the hour at the same hourly rate for all
hours worked, even though they work many hours in excess of forty
hours per week. Because this pay practice, commonly known as
"straight time-for-overtime," results in non-payment of overtime
wages to the Plaintiff, the Defendant violated the FLSA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Electrician
Technician.

Peraton is a national security company headquartered in Herndon,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harris D. Butler, Esq.
          Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
          BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Phone: 804-648-4848
          Facsimile: 804-237-0413
          Email: harris@butlercurwood.com
                 craig@butlercurwood.com
                 zev@butlercurwood.com
                 samantha@butlercurwood.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                 dmoulton@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Phone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                 adunlap@mybackwages.com


PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Paschal, et al., Seek to Certify Collective
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDICE PASCHAL and PEDRO
ZARAZUA JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) v. PERRY'S RESTAURANTS LTD
d/b/a Perry's Steakhouse and Grille; and CHRISTOPHER V. PERRY,
individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-00027-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order certifying and sending
court-authorized notice to the proposed collective of similarly
situated employees defined as:

   "All individuals who worked as servers for Defendants in
    Texas at any time during the three year period preceding the
    filing of this lawsuit and were paid a direct cash wage of
    less than minimum wage."

The Plaintiffs and Collective Members were all paid a direct
subminimum hourly wage of less than $7.25 per hour and, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Perry's Restaurants provides grilled food processing services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 2,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VvGI6e
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 840-5102
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
                  pamela@herrmannlaw.com

PHH MORTGAGE: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edward F. Martin, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-06925
(D.N.J., Dec. 1, 2022), is brought to redress violations by the
Defendant of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law, or, in the alternative, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
by failing to pay proper overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs proper overtime compensation in
violation of said laws. The Defendants failed to pay overtime on
commission to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individual. As a result of the aforesaid unlawful actions, the
Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs have suffered harm, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from December 2019 until
July 2022.

PHH Mortgage Corporation is an entity located in Mount Laurel, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          9 Tanner St. Ste 101
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: (856) 685-7420
          Fax: (856) 685-7417


PIERRE FABRE: Bojko Sues Over Defective Products
-------------------------------------------------
Magdalena Bojko and Courtney Heeren, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PIERRE FABRE USA INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-06728 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 1, 2022), is brought on behalf of
persons who purchased for normal household use the Defendant's dry
shampoo products that are defective because they contain benzene,
and which were formulated, designed, manufactured, marketed,
advertised, distributed, and sold by the Defendant.

The Defendant distributes, markets, and sells to consumers across
the United States, both in retail establishments and online,
including in Illinois, certain dry shampoo products under the
"Klorane" brand (the "Products"). The Products are adulterated
and/or contaminated with benzene, a known human carcinogen. The
Products are defective because they contain significant amounts of
the chemical benzene, a known human carcinogen; yet despite the
presence of benzene, Defendant represents that the Products are
safe and effective for their intended use.

The presence of benzene in the Defendant's Products was not
disclosed to consumers in the Products' labeling, advertising or
otherwise, in violation of state and federal law. The Plaintiffs
and the putative class suffered economic damages due to Defendant's
misconduct and seek injunctive relief and restitution for the full
purchase price of the Products. The Plaintiffs allege the following
based upon personal knowledge as well as investigation by counsel,
and as to all other matters, upon information and belief.
Plaintiffs further believe that substantial evidentiary support
will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a reasonable
opportunity for discovery, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs have purchased for household use Defendant's dry
shampoo Products.

Pierre Fabre Group, also known as Laboratories Pierre Fabre, is a
French multinational pharmaceutical and cosmetics company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Erin J. Ruben, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          900 W. Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Phone: (919) 600-5000
          Email: eruben@milberg.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 cardoso@kolawyers.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          Email: swestcot@bursor.com


PORSCHE AG: Grayson Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Ing. h.c. F.
Porsche AG, et al. The case is styled as Peter Grayson, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dr. Ing. h.c. F.
Porsche AG, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Volkswagen AG,
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-06105-MAS-TJB
(D.N.J., Oct. 17, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, usually shortened to Porsche --
http://www.porsche.com/international-- is a German automobile
manufacturer specializing in high-performance sports cars, SUVs and
sedans, headquartered in Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg,
Germany.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          305 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 421-6492
          Fax: (212) 421-6553
          Email: lee@sfclasslaw.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Lapides Sues Over Incorrect Statements
----------------------------------------------------------
Esther Lapides, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No.
534719/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought under the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act as a result of the Defendants
incorrect and deceptive statements in collecting debt.

On December 21, 2021, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a debt
validation letter regarding the alleged debt originally owed to
Synchrony. The letter ostensibly provides the Defendant Portfolio's
response as required by the FDCPA regarding the Plaintiff's dispute
of the debt. However, the balance stated on the Defendant's Letter
is not reflected within any of the alleged proofs and/or statements
provided by the Defendant.

Specifically, the Defendant's Letter indicates a "Balance" of
$833.26." Despite providing what it asserted to be verification of
the disputed debt, the figure "$833.26" is not reflected within the
actual proofs provided. Rather, Defendant Portfolio included a
single letter from Synchrony which indicated a balance of "$833.26"
along with three separate statements, none of which include a
reference to the amount of "$833.26."

The first statement, with a closing date of November 27, 2019,
notes a "New Balance" of "$562.67." The next statement, with a
closing date of April 27, 2020, notes a "New Balance" of "$793.26."
The final statement, with a closing date of May 26, 2020, appears
to reflect a charge off of the account and notes a "New Balance" of
$0.00 while indicating both a "Prior Balance" and a "Credit" of
"$793.26." The Letter, nor the allegedly supporting documentation
provided, attempt to explain the difference between the two amounts
quoted or provide instructions concerning which amount is the
accurate amount due.

Based on the documentation provided by Defendant in response to the
Plaintiff's dispute letter and request for verification, it is
apparent that the amount stated as owed is incorrect, deceptive,
and not supported by the actual statements associated with the
account. Specifically, the highest amount owed, including at the
time of the apparent charge off of the account, was $793.26;
however, the Defendant now improperly seeks to collect $833.26.

The Defendant provided as part of its alleged investigation into
the Plaintiff's dispute, the Plaintiff was misled and made
uncertain as to what was the correct balance of debt. The deceptive
accounting of the debt left the Plaintiff wary of potential fraud
and fearful as to how to proceed. Listing conflicting balances
between the correspondence sent by the Defendant and the statements
provided by its predecessor in interest, without further
clarification, misled the Plaintiff as to the proper payment amount
for the alleged debt, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York, County of
Kings.

The Defendant is a "debt collector."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christofer Merritt, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201)282-6500
          Email: cmerritt@steinsakslegal.com

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Pierni Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Amanda Pierni, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-12020-LTS (D. Mass.,
Nov. 28, 2022).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc., specializes in working with people in debt repayment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicola S. Yousif, Esq.
          157 Belmont Street
          Brockton, MA 02301
          Phone: (508) 588-7300
          Email: nick@yousiflaw.com


PRECISION OF NEW HAMPTON: Grainger Files Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVIN GRAINGER, on Behalf
of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, v. PRECISION OF NEW
HAMPTON, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-02043-LTS-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class
certification on all his claims:

The Plaintiff contemporaneously is filing a brief containing a
statement of the grounds for class certification and citations to
authorities upon which Plaintiff relies.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h1PSs1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan Willems, Esq.
          RUSH & NICHOLSON, P.L.C.
          115 First Avenue SE, Suite 201
          P. O. Box 637
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-0637
          Telephone (319) 363-5209
          Facsimile (319) 363-6664
          E-mail: nate@rushnicholson.com


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Thurston Suit Removed to D. Maine
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Matthew Thurston, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Progressive Casualty Insurance
Company, United Financial Casualty Co., Case No. ELLSC-CV-22-00034
was removed from the Hancock County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine on Nov. 30, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00375-NT to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. -- https://www.progressive.com/
-- is an insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Z. Steed, Esq.
          ISLAND JUSTICE
          P.O. BOX 771
          Stonington, ME 04681
          Phone: (207) 374-2573
          Email: jsteed@ellenbestlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas S. Marjerison, Esq.
          NORMAN, HANSON & DETROY
          Two Canal Plaza
          P. O. BOX 4600
          Portland, ME 04112
          Email: tmarjerison@nhdlaw.com


PROSPECT HOTEL: Jimenez Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prospect Hotel
Management LLC, et al. The case is styled as Flor Jimenez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Prospect Hotel Management LLC doing business as: AutoCamp, Does 1
to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-07679-JLS-SK (C.D. Cal., Oct.
20, 2022).

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

Prospect Hotel Management LLC doing business as AUTOCAMP --
https://autocamp.com/ -- is a camping ground often provided with
cabins or tents and designed for the accommodation of automobile
tourists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Moreland Seeks to Certify Policy Owner Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOCORRO MORELAND,
Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, v. THE PRUDENTIAL
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New Jersey Corporation; PRUCO LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona Corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-04336-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:

   1. certify the proposed Class:

      "All owners, or beneficiaries upon a death of the insured,
      of the Defendants' individual life insurance policies
      issued in California before 2013 that Defendants lapsed or
      terminated for the non-payment of premium in or after 2013
      without first complying with all the requirements of
      California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72;"

   2. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Nicholas & Tomasevic as well as Winters &
      Associates as Class Counsel.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America operates as an
insurance company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 2,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3B8Lrmc
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

                - and -

          Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
          Sarah Ball, Esq.
          WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
          8489 La Mesa Boulevard
          La Mesa, CA 91942
          Telephone: (619) 234-9000
          Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
          E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
                  sball@einsurelaw.com

QUAID HARLEY: Denial of Bid for Arbitration in Hill Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LISA HILL, Plaintiff and Respondent v. QUAID
HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. D080076
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth
District, Division One, affirms the trial court's order denying
Quaid's petition to compel arbitration of the claims of a subset of
the class.

In a second amended complaint (complaint) filed in May 2019, Hill
asserted causes of action against Quaid arising from her purchase
of a motorcycle from Quaid. Her complaint included individual
claims as well as proposed class claims.

In support of the proposed class claims, Hill alleged, among other
things, that Quaid charged her a $1,299 dealer preparation fee
(also referred to as a "pre-delivery inspection and setup fee") in
connection with her motorcycle purchase. Unknown to Hill, Quaid was
already being compensated for the dealer preparation work by
Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. She alleged Quaid routinely and
systematically charged its customers dealer preparation fees
without disclosing that it was being paid twice for the same work.

Hill alleged such "'double-billing' schemes" are prohibited by
title 13, section 262.03 of the California Code of Regulations,
which provides that "a dealer may not identify a separate charge or
charges for services performed on vehicles prior to delivery to the
extent the dealer is or will be reimbursed for such expenditures by
another party."

On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Hill stated
causes of action for false advertising (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section
17500), violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code,
Section 1750), unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code,
Section 17200), negligent misrepresentation (Civ. Code, Sections
1572, 1709, 1710), fraud, and unjust enrichment. On behalf of the
class, Hill sought damages, restitution, and an injunction.

Quaid filed an answer to the complaint in which it asserted failure
to arbitrate as its eighteenth affirmative defense to Hill's
individual claims. The parties then engaged in written discovery
and depositions to investigate the class claims and prospects for
certification. Quaid did not contend in its responses to written
discovery that the class members other than Hill had signed
arbitration agreements.

In May 2021, Hill moved for certification of a proposed class
consisting of consumers who purchased or leased a new motorcycle
from Quaid from Oct. 5, 2014, through the date of final class
notice, or trial.

In June 2021, the trial court issued an order certifying the
following class: "All consumers who purchased or leased a new
motorcycle from Quaid Harley-Davidson and were charged a
pre-delivery inspection and set up fee or 'DLR PREP' fee between
March 4, 2015 and the day before the class notice is mailed." It
appointed Hill's counsel, Ross Hyslop, to serve as the class
counsel, and directed the parties to meet and confer and present a
joint motion on the subject of class notice. In August 2021, the
court approved a class notice that was to be sent to the class
members in September that year.

Before class notice was served, Quaid filed a petition to compel
arbitration pursuant to section 1281.2. It sought an order
compelling class members who signed sales contracts containing or
incorporating arbitration agreements to arbitrate their disputes.
Hill filed an opposition to Quaid's petition. She argued, among
others, Quaid failed to establish a prior demand and refusal to
arbitrate as required by section 1281.2 and Quaid waived its right
to arbitrate disputes of unnamed members by taking actions
inconsistent with assertion of a right to arbitrate.

The trial court heard Quaid's petition to compel arbitration on
Oct. 4, 2021. That same day, it issued a minute order denying
Quaid's petition. The order simply stated, "Quaid's Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is denied."

On Oct. 18, 2021, Quaid filed an ex parte application for an order
extending the time for requesting a statement of decision. It
stated it wanted to request a statement of decision to address "the
principal controverted factual issues determined by the court." It
argued it would be irreparably harmed if it was not granted an
extension of time to request a statement of decision because the
absence of factual detail in the Minute Order may result in the
Appeals Court making implied factual findings.

On Oct. 19, 2021, the trial court denied the ex parte application.
Quaid then filed a notice of appeal of the October 4 minute order
denying its petition to compel arbitration.

The Court of Appeals opines that the trial court impliedly found
that Quaid's petition to compel arbitration was not preceded by a
demand and refusal to arbitrate by class members purportedly bound
by arbitration provisions, and that Quaid waived the right to
compel arbitration through conduct inconsistent with assertion of a
right to arbitrate. These implied factual findings are subject to
substantial evidence review. Quaid fails to establish otherwise.
For these reasons, Quaid has forfeited its challenges to these
findings on appeal. Either of these issues, on its own, would
support affirmance of the court's denial of Quaid's petition. As a
result, the Court of Appeals' finding of forfeiture compels
affirmance of the trial court's ruling.

Even if the Court of Appeals were to overlook Quaid's forfeiture
and reach the merits of its appeal, it opines that the result would
be no different. It is required to uphold the trial court's ruling
if it was correct on any ground. Even if Quaid had not forfeited
its challenges to the foregoing issues, the Court of Appeals would
uphold the trial court's ruling on the ground it did not err in
impliedly finding Quaid's petition was not preceded by a demand and
refusal to arbitrate.

In sum, the Court of Appeals concludes that Quaid neglected to
request the trial court issue a statement of decision explaining
the factual and legal bases of its order. It did not address the
consequences of this omission in its opening brief on appeal. The
Court of Appeals concludes Quaid has forfeited two of its appellate
challenges by failing to articulate and tailor its arguments to the
correct standard of review, and by failing to acknowledge evidence
unfavorable to its position. It further concludes Quaid's appeal
lacks merit notwithstanding any forfeiture.

Substantial evidence supported the trial court's implied
determination that Quaid's petition was not preceded by a demand
and refusal to arbitrate. It did not err in denying the petition.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirms the order denying Quaid's
petition to compel arbitration. Hill will recover her costs on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bdeyvskp from Leagle.com.

Scali Rasmussen, Halbert B. Rasmussen -- hrasmussen@scalilaw.com --
and Juliet S. Pearson -- jpearson@scalilaw.com -- for the Defendant
and Appellant.

Pestotnik and Ross H. Hyslop, for the Plaintiff and Respondent.


REALPAGE INC: Armas Sues Over Price Fixing Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------
Lena Armas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REALPAGE, INC., GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC, CH
REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC, LINCOLN PROPERTY CO., FPI MANAGEMENT,
INC., MID-AMERICA APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, INC., AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL,
LLC, EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, ESSEX MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, AVALONBAY
COMMUNITIES, INC., CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST, ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST,
INC., THRIVE COMMUNITIES MANAGEMENT, LLC, SECURITY PROPERTIES INC.,
B/T WASHINGTON, LLC D/B/A BLANTON TURNER, INDEPENDENCE REALTY
TRUST, INC., CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC., BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
LLC, and UDR, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-07543 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 30,
2022), is brought as an antitrust class action alleging that
certain major residential landlords illegally exchanged and agreed
on prices through a data analytics software rather than compete to
attract renters, and is brought against the Defendants' price
fixing conspiracy.

The RealPage Platform 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 set forth below demonstrate, RealPage and the property
managers who use the RealPage Platform constitute a price-fixing
cartel, and the revenue growth they have achieved is possible only
through coordinated price setting.

In 2016, Defendants replaced these independent pricing and supply
decisions with collusion. With its growing popularity within the
industry, Lessors agreed to use the RealPage Platform. Defendants
agreed to follow RealPage Platform's rental pricing recommendations
80-90 percent of the time and faced disciplinary action for
non-compliance based on the expectation that competing Defendants
would do the same.

As the property managers acknowledge, they are competitors. Yet,
RealPage's clients shared a common goal of increasing rent prices
across the board and understood that RealPage--which has been
explicit that its aim is to help its clients "outperform the market
by 3% to 7%"--was the means by which to do it. RealPage's clients
include many of the nation's largest property managers who often
control a majority of rental units in desirable neighborhoods of
major cities. A recent analysis conducted by ProPublica showed that
rents in areas where RealPage clients control a high percentage of
rental units have increased at a significantly higher rate than
those where the company's influence is weaker.

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. As a direct result of the
anticompetitive and unlawful conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff is a resident of Charlotte, North Carolina who rented
a multifamily residential unit.

RealPage is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Richardson,
Texas and has nearly 31,700 customers that together control the
critical mass of rental real estate in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REALPAGE INC: Uses Software to Raise Rent Prices, Silverman Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAINA SILVERMAN and TYLER KIMBROUGH, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
REALPAGE, INC.; BROOKFIELD RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES LLC; CUSHMAN &
WAKEFIELD, INC.; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS,
LLC; AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES INC.; TF CORNERSTONE, INC.; and ROSE
ASSOCIATES INC.; Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-09850 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
18, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs under Section
1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act to recover damages, as well as
trebled damages, and injunctive relief, on behalf of all others
similarly situated.

Plaintiffs Silverman and Kimbrough bring this action on behalf of
themselves and a class of all persons in the New York City-metro
area who have leased multifamily residential real estate units (or,
"rental units") directly from a Defendant or a co-conspirator from
as early as November 18, 2018 through the present.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, prices for
rental units in the New York City-metro area, which is already
among the most expensive housing markets in the United States, have
been artificially higher than they otherwise would have but for the
Defendants' conspiracy to fix, stabilize, or increase prices
artificially. The way that the conspiracy operates is as follows:
Lessor Defendants, who are property managers, owners, and operators
in the geographic area, like Defendant Greystar Real Estate
Partners LLC, subscribe to a software platform produced by
Defendant RealPage, Inc. called YieldStar. YieldStar, which is
applied to tens of thousands of apartments in the geographic
market, assesses hundreds of variables particular to each unit and
proposed lease offered by the Lessor, like Defendant Greystar. Then
YieldStar uses an algorithm to determine pricing for each unit -
and said pricing is shared amongst the Lessor Defendants. YieldStar
advertises itself as having the ability to "track your
competition's rent with precision." And, as YieldStar pushes prices
higher, the participating Lessors reap supracompetitive profits,
says the suit.

RealPage, Inc. provides products and services to the multifamily
real estate industries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Israel David, Esq.
          ISRAEL DAVID LLC
          17 State Street, Suite 4010
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 739-0622
          Facsimile: (212) 739-0628  
          E-mail: israel@israeldavidllc.com

RED APPLE GROUP: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Apple Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Red Apple Group, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-07270 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022).

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

Red Apple Group is a conglomerate that owns and operates assets in
the energy, real estate, finance, insurance, and supermarket
industries.[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


RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC: Discovery Deadline Extended in Ford Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ford v. Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Case No. 1:20-cv-00470 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Christian F Hummel entered an order granting in part Letter
Motion from Donald W Boyajian for Ethan Deecher, Morgan Ford, Grady
Habicht requesting 60 Day extension of the Discovery deadline:

The Deadlines are extended about 45 days and are reset as follows:


   -- Discovery now due by:                 Jan. 17, 2023

   -- The Plaintiffs Expert Disclosure      Jan. 15, 2023
      Deadline is:

   -- The Defendants Expert Disclosure      March 1, 2023
      Deadline is:

   -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure            March 28, 2023
      Deadline is:

   -- Motions to be filed by:               May 30, 2023

   -- Motion for Class Certification        April 28, 2023
      is due:

The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.

Rensselaer is a private research university in Troy, New York, with
an additional campus in Hartford, Connecticut. A third campus in
Groton, Connecticut closed in 2018.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]

RIDDLE'S GROUP INC: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Riddle's Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Riddle's Group, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-10169 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022).

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

Riddle's Jewelry -- https://www.riddlesjewelry.com/ -- is a local
jewelry store with men's and women's watches, diamond engagement &
wedding rings, necklaces, earrings and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


SAM DOWIES: Court Junks Hicks Class Action Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLIS RAY HICKS JR v. SAM
DOWIES, Case No. 5:21-cv-01896-EEF-MLH (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge
Mark L. Hornsby entered an order that there is no basis for
granting class action status, which the court discussed in more
detail in an order issued in September 2022.

The court has previously specifically addressed Plaintiff's
complaints about the discovery process, and relief has been
afforded Plaintiff in some respects.

The filing also asks for summary judgment, but it merely quotes
Rule 56 and asks for judgment in favor of Plaintiff. That is
insufficient to warrant any relief.

Mr. Hicks filed this civil action in June 2021. He alleges that an
inmate at the Claiborne Parish Detention Center called him
and passed on a message from Sheriff Sam Dowies that included a
threat that Plaintiff get out of Louisiana or be arrested, that
Plaintiff drop or dismiss a civil rights complaint, and that
Plaintiff not contact certain individuals to assist him.

The Plaintiff filed in June 2022 a document titled Omnibus Petition
for: Motion to Contest for Disposition by Defendant's Counselor(s);
Motion Seeking Summary Judgment; and Class Action Status. The
filing argues that the sheriff's attorneys have attempted to thwart
Plaintiff from receiving discovery, that class action status is
warranted because the issues affect a number of citizens in
Claiborne Parish, and that summary judgment is appropriate. The
motion is denied.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vu2Uxp at no extra charge.[CC]

SAYBONE INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saybone, Inc. The
case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Saybone,
Inc. doing business as: Capitol, Case No. 3:22-cv-00560-MOC-DSC
(W.D.N.C., Oct. 18, 2022).

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

Saybone, Inc. doing business as Capitol --
https://www.shop-capitol.com/ -- is a luxury clothing boutique in
Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sanjay R. Gohil, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SANJAY R. GOHIL, PLLC
          2435 Plantation Center Drive, Suite 200
          Matthews, NC 28105
          Phone: (704) 814-0729
          Fax: (704) 814-0730
          Email: srg@gohillaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amanda Pickens Nitto, Esq.
          Cary Baxter Davis, Esq.
          ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
          101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1900
          Charlotte, NC 28246
          Phone: (704) 377-8184
          Fax: (704) 373-3984
          Email: anitto@robinsonbradshaw.com
                 cdavis@robinsonbradshaw.com


SCOTT SEMPLE: Scheduling Order Entered in Vega Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRY VEGA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT SEMPLE, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00107-JBA (D.
Conn.), the Hon. Judge Janet Bond Arterton entered a scheduling
order as follows:

   1. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint      Dec. 12, 2022

   2. Motion to Dismiss shall be filed by:     Dec. 27, 2022

   3. Any opposition shall be filed by:        Jan. 10, 2023

   4. Any reply shall be filed by:             Jan. 20, 2023

   5. Motion for Class Certification           Jan.  0, 2023
     shall be filed by:

   6. Opposition will be filed by:             Feb. 20, 2023

   7. Reply, if any, shall be filed by:        March 2, 2023

   8. Plaintiffs' medical expert               Jan. 30, 2023
      reports will be served by:

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H93755 at no extra charge.[CC]

SENTINEL INSURANCE: Zunino Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff PAULINA F ZUNINO DMD LLC filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Order dated Oct. 14, 2022 entered in
the lawsuit entitled Paulina F. Zunino DMD LLC v. Sentinel
Insurance Co Ltd., Case No. 2-20-cv-01260, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Paulina F. Zunino, DMD, LLC, a licensed dental office located in
Pennsylvania, alleges that its commercial property insurer,
Sentinel, wrongfully denied its claims for business losses that it
sustained due to the COVID-19 pandemic and/or government orders
issued to mitigate the COVID-19 virus's spread. The Defendant has
filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims.

The Plaintiff's claims and supporting factual allegations, the
arguments that the Defendant has advanced in its Motion to Dismiss,
and the arguments that the Plaintiff has advanced in opposing the
Motion are all substantially similar to the claims, factual
allegations, and arguments advanced by the parties in three other
COVID-19 business interruption insurance matters before the Court
and in a multitude of actions in state and federal courts -- In re:
Erie COVID-19 Business Interruption Protection Insurance
Litigation, No. 21-mc-1 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2022) and
Hirschfield-Louik v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-816 (W.D. Pa.
Oct. 14, 2022).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Mark R. Hornak of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
entered an Order dated Oct. 14, 2022 granting the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.

Judge Hornak held that the terms of the Plaintiff's insurance
Policy with the Defendant, the Plaintiff's factual allegations, and
its legal arguments are substantially similar to those in In re:
Erie and in Hirschfield-Louik. Thus, for the reasons explained in
the Opinions as to the Motions to Dismiss in those cases, the
Plaintiff has not plausibly pleaded that the COVID-19 pandemic
caused "direct physical loss of or damage to" its property such
that it was entitled to coverage for its business losses.

Judge Hornak further concluded that given the basis for the Court's
decision, the Plaintiff could not amend their complaint to allege
additional facts or law that would plausibly show that they are
entitled to such coverage. Thus, any amendment to the Complaint
would be futile.

The appellate case is captioned as Paulina F. Zunino DMD LLC v.
Sentinel Insurance Co Ltd., Case No. 22-3154, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on Nov. 17,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant PAULINA F ZUNINO DMD LLC, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243

               - and -

          Howard M. Louik, Esq.
          750 Washington Road
          Pittsburgh, PA 15228
          Telephone: (412) 889-7541

Defendant-Appellee SENTINEL INSURANCE CO LTD is represented by:

          Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON
          227 West Monroe Street, Suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 577-1265

               - and -

          Ryan M. Chabot, Esq.
          Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR
          7 World Trade Center
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 295-6513

               - and -

          Richard D. Gable, Jr., Esq.
          BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG
          1818 Market Street Suite 2740
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 405-9191

               - and -

          Sarah D. Gordon, Esq.
          Caitlin R. Tharp, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-8005

SEPM MARKETING INC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SEPM Marketing, Inc.
The case is styled as Frank Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. SEPM Marketing, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10081 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 28, 2022).

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

SEPM Marketing Inc. -- http://www.sepmmarketing.com/-- is a
company that operates in the Marketing and Advertising
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEROOGY'S HOLIDAY HOUSE: Brown Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seroogy's Holiday
House, Ltd. The case is styled as Lamar Brown, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Seroogy's Holiday House, Ltd.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10171 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022).

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

Seroogy's Holiday House, Ltd. -- https://seroogys.com/ -- are proud
to continue our grandfather's 1899 legacy of traditional homemade
chocolates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


SHOREFRONT OPERATING: Chow Seeks to Certify Seagate Resident Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER CHOW, as
Administrator of the Estate of LEROY CHOW, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SHOREFRONT OPERATING
LLC d/b/a SEAGATE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER; SHAINDY BERKO;
ROCHEL DAVID; LEAH FRIEDMAN; DEENA LANDA; ESTHER FARKOVITZ; AVI
PHILIPSON; BERISH RUBINSTEIN; DAVID RUBINSTEIN; BRUSCHA SINGER;
JOEL ZUPNICK; SHOREFRONT REALTY LLC; SENTOSACARE, LLC; and DOES
1-25, Case No. 1:19-cv-03541-FB-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed class under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)
      (3); and

   2. appointing Walter Chow and Rita Skolkin as class
      representatives.

The Plaintiff seeks the certification of a class comprising all
residents of the Seagate Rehabilitation and Nursing Center
(Seagate) from November 27, 2015 to the present.

The Plaintiff brings a one count claim arising under New York's
Public Health Law (PHL) section 2801-d, because he and every other
resident of Seagate suffered injury caused by Defendants' callous
decision to prioritize profits over paying for sufficient nursing
staff to care for residents' needs.

Shorefront Operating is a Skilled Nursing Facility (organization)
practicing in Brooklyn, New York.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XU1cHg at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          John D. Sardesai-Grant, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP
          FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          One North Broadway, Suite 900
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                  jsardesaigrant@fbfglaw.com

SIDNEY FEDERAL CREDIT: Brasiel Files Suit in N.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sidney Federal Credit
Union. The case is styled as Dewayne Brasiel, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Sidney Federal Credit Union,
Case No. 3:22-cv-01276-GTS-ML (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking for Other
Contract.

Sidney Federal Credit Union -- https://sfcuonline.org/ -- is a
credit union in Sidney, New York who provides personal & business
financial tools to make our community stronger.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL GOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW-4th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: (202) 615-3948
          Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL GOLD PLLC
          950 Gilman Street-Suite 200
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: (202) 350-4783
          Email: sgold@kalielgold.com


SIRIUS XM RADIO: Campbell Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Campbell, Keith Sadauskas, Diana Bickford and Kerrie
Mulholland, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-02261-CSB-EIL
(C.D. Ill., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought to try to stop the
Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing calls and/or harassing
calling practices in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991.

The Defendant has engaged in a business model of placing
unsolicited telemarketing calls urging persons who own or lease
cars to sign up for the Defendant's satellite radio service. The
Defendant, or companies acting on its behalf, made these calls in
violation of the TCPA. Among other things, the TCPA and its
accompanying regulations prohibit telemarketers from making
telephone solicitations to persons who have listed their telephone
numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, a database
established to allow consumers to exclude themselves from
telemarketing calls unless they consent to receive the calls in a
signed, written agreement. It also requires companies like the
Defendant to maintain and use an Internal Do-Not-Call Registry to
record and honor requests from individuals who ask the Defendant to
stop calling them. Each of the Plaintiffs has spent years receiving
unwanted telemarketing calls from the Defendant, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs received dozens of calls from the Defendant.

The Defendant and is in the business of providing satellite radio
programming for a fee.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mason A. Barney, Esq.
          Laura M. Carroll, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 532-1091
          Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
                 lcarroll@sirillp.com

               - and -

          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Phone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          Email: dhutchinson@lchb.com

               - and -

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          1105 Milford St,
          Houston, TX 77006
          Phone: (888) 350-3931
          Email: Jarrett@ellzeylaw.com

               - and -

          Carl R. Draper, Esq.
          FELDMAN WASSER
          1307 South 7th Street
          Springfield, IL 62703
          Phone: 217-544-3403
          Email: cdraper@feldman-wasser.com


SK TRADING: Amended Class Certification Schedule Entered
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: GASOLINE SPOT MARKET ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order amending the class
certification schedule as follows:

-- Class Certification/Supporting         January 6, 2023
    Expert Report(s) Due:

-- Class Certification                    April 14, 2023
    Opposition/Supporting Expert
    Report(s) Due:

-- Class Certification Reply Due:         June 5, 2023

-- Class Certification Hearing:           July 12, 2023

The Court will hold a further video case management conference on
February 9, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. with an updated joint case
management conference statement due one week in advance.

The. Plaintiffs filed this class action bringing federal and state
antitrust claims as well as state law unfair competition and unjust
enrichment claims against SK Trading International Co., Ltd., SK
Energy Americas, Inc., Vitol Inc., and two individual defendants.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XY4Ksj at no extra charge.[CC]

SORELLAS PIZZA: Cuahquensi Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sorellas Pizza &
Pasta, Inc. The case is styled as Pascual Cuahquensi, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Sorellas Pizza &
Pasta, Inc., Raffaele S. Barca, Case No. 3:22-cv-06134-ZNQ-DEA
(D.N.J., Oct. 18, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Sorellas Pizza & Pasta, Inc. -- https://sorellaspizzaandpasta.com/
-- specialize in a wide variety of gourmet pizzas and fine Italian
food.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Glenn, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Phone: (201) 687-9977
          Fax: (201) 595-0308
          Email: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Ganzfried Sues Over Deceptive Statements
----------------------------------------------------------
Yakov Ganzfried, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, L.P., Case No. 534754/2022
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Nov. 29, 2022), is brought under the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act as a result of the Defendants
inaccurate and deceptive statements in collecting debt.

On April 11, 2022, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection
letter ("Letter") purporting to validate the subject debt. The
Letter sets forth a charge off amount of $371.19. The Letter also
sets forth the total adjustments made since charge off for $2.74.
However, the Letter's accounting of the current balance does not
make mathematical sense. Specifically, the Letter goes on to
provide a total current balance of $371.19, despite the $2.74
adjustment(s) since charge off. Thus, the Letter is open to more
than one reasonable interpretation of the amount due, at least one
of which is inaccurate.

The Letter leaves the Plaintiff with only one option which is to
call the Defendant to get even the most basic information about
this debt. Plaintiff was fearful to call and be pressured to take
an action he may not have wanted to take. The conflicting nature of
the Letter left the Plaintiff concerned that the Letter was
fraudulent and/or a scam. As a result of the Defendant's multiple
FDCPA violations, Plaintiff was unable to evaluate his options of
how to handle this debt. Because of this, the Plaintiff expended
time, money, and effort in determining the proper course of action,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York.

The Defendant is a "debt collector."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert T. Yusko, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: ryusko@steinsakslegal.com

SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORTS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Speedway Motorsports,
LLC. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Speedway Motorsports, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-10086 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2022).

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

Speedway Motorsports, LLC -- https://www.speedwaymotorsports.com/
-- is a leading marketer, promoter and sponsor of motorsports
entertainment in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (917) 796-7437
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com


SPINX GAMES: Class Action Settlement in Croft Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALMA SUE CROFT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SPINX GAMES LIMITED, GRANDE GAMES LIMITED, and BEIJING BOLE
TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., Case No. 2:20-cv-01310-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Ricardo S. Martinez entered an order granting final
approval of class action settlement.

   -- Class Certification

      The Court confirms its certification for settlement
      purposes of the following Settlement Class under Rule
      23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

      "All Persons who played the Applications on or before
      January 31, 2022, while located in the state of
      Washington."

   -- Settlement Approval

      The Court grants final approval to the Settlement and
      finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair,
      reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the
      Settlement Class.

   -- Objections or Exclusions from the Settlement Class

      Class Members were given a fair and reasonable opportunity
      to object to the settlement. Two members of the Class have
      timely and validly requested to be excluded from the Class
      and the Settlement.

   -- No Admission

      Neither this Final Judgment nor the fact or substance of
      the Settlement Agreement shall be considered a concession
      or admission by or against Defendants or any other related
      party, nor shall they be used against Defendants or any
      other released party as an admission, waiver, or
      indication with respect to any claim, defense, or
      assertion or denial of wrongdoing or legal liability.

   -- Dismissal with Prejudice

      Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the action
      (including all individual claims and class claims) is
      dismissed with prejudice on the merits, without costs or
      attorney's fees to any Party except as provided under the
      terms of the Settlement Agreement, this Final Judgment,
      and the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's Motion for
      Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses and Issuance of
      Incentive Award.

   -- Attorneys' Fees and Expenses

      Pursuant to the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's
      Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and
      Issuance of Incentive Award, the Court awards $875,000 in
      attorneys' fees and $22,295.01 in costs and expenses to
      Class Counsel.

   -- Incentive Award

      Pursuant to the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's
      Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and
      Issuance of Incentive Award, the Court awards $5,000 to
      Alma Sue Croft for her services as a Class Representative.

   -- Continuing Jurisdiction

      Without affecting the finality of the Final Judgment for
      purposes of appeal, the Court retains continuing and
      exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties and all
      matters relating to the Settlement Agreement, including
      the administration, interpretation, construction,
      effectuation, enforcement, and consummation of the
      Settlement and this Order.

SpinX Games is a game development company that offers casino game
mobile apps.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FzbFkB at no extra charge.[CC]

SPLUNK INC: Response to Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 15, 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Splunk Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 1, 2022, that the Defendant's
response to class certification motion is due on February 15,
2023.

A putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal
securities laws was filed on December 4, 2020 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company,
its former Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial
Officer.

The initial complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), for allegedly making
materially false and misleading statements regarding our financial
guidance and asserted a putative class period of October 21, 2020
to December 2, 2020.

On March 16, 2021, the Court appointed Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension
& Relief Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its selection of lead
plaintiff counsel in the case.

On June 7, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
which expanded the putative class period to run from March 26, 2020
to December 2, 2020 and alleges that defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding our marketing efforts,
hiring practices, and retention of personnel.

The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

On July 27, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On March 21, 2022, the Court issued a decision granting in part and
denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss.

On July 22, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a motion seeking to
certify a class of investors who purchased Company stock between
May 21, 2020 and December 2, 2020.

Defendants' response to the motion for class certification is due
February 15, 2023.

Splunk Inc. provides innovative cloud services and licensed
software solutions that deliver and operationalize insights from
the data generated by digital systems.


STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Negreanu Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Starbucks
Corporation. The case is styled as Donnie Negreanu, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Starbucks
Corporation, Case No. 8:22-cv-02421-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla., Oct. 21,
2022).

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

Starbucks Corporation -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- is an
American multinational chain of coffeehouses and roastery reserves
headquartered in Seattle, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bogdan Enica, Esq.
          PRACTUS, LLP
          66 West Flagler, Suite Unit # 937
          Miami, FL 33130
          Phone: (305) 539-9206
          Email: bogdan.enica@practus.com

               - and -

          Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
          PRACTUS, LLP
          490 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 1
          Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
          Phone: (630) 677-6745


STUDENT LOAN: Shadrin, et al., Seek Final Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YURY SHADRIN, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STUDENT LOAN SOLUTIONS, et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-03641-CCB (D. Md.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting final approval of the certification of the Class
      for settlement, appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative;

   2. appointing his counsel as Class Counsel; and

   3. finally approving the Class Settlement and allow entry of
      a dismissal with prejudice of the Claims asserted for the
      Class.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ulYDjJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter A. Holland, Esq.
          Emanwel J. Turnbull, Esq.
          THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          914 Bay Ridge Rd. Ste 230
          Annapolis, MD 21403
          Telephone: (410) 280-6133
          Facsimile: (410) 280-8650
          E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com
                  eturnbull@hollandlawfirm.com

STUDIO FOUR: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Studio Four NYC, LLC.
The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Studio Four NYC, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-07274 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2022).

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

Studio Four NYC -- https://studiofournyc.com/ -- is a New York City
textile design studio & showroom located near Union Square.[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


SUTTER VALLEY: Wins Bid to Strike Tinnin Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEENA TINNIN, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SUTTER
VALLEY MEDICAL FOUNDATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00482-JLT-EPG (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered an order:

   1. granting the defendant's ex parte application;

   2. granting defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's motion
      for class certification; and

   3. setting the following briefing schedule regarding
      Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification:

      -- Deadline to file renewed             Dec. 5, 2022
         motion for class certification:

      -- Deadline for opposition:             March 24, 2023

      -- Deadline for reply:                  April 14, 2023

      -- Hearing date:                        April 28, 2023

On November 18, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On November 23, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion
to strike, or in the alternative, stay Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

On that same day, the Defendant filed an ex parte application
requesting the Court to suspend all deadlines connected to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

A Joint Statement, not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages, must be
filed 7 calendar days before the scheduled hearing date. Prior to
the filing of the Joint Statement, the parties must meet and confer
as set forth in Local Rule 251(b). In addition to filing the Joint
Statement electronically, a copy of the Joint Statement in Word
format must be sent to Magistrate Judge Grosjean's chambers via
email to epgorders@caed.uscourts.gov. Courtesy copies for any
pleading in excess of 25 (including exhibits) shall also be
delivered to chambers via US mail, or hand delivery, at the time
the Joint Statement is electronically filed. Sutter Valley offers
urgent care, physical therapy, radiology, health tips, research and
clinical trials, ebola update, as well as hospital management
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3F3eI2D at no extra charge.[CC]

TCP HOT: Prelim Approval of Rider to Class Settlement Deal Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OTTO DELCID, LUZ ROMAN,
MINA KALLAMNI, MARY MOLINA, CARLO GARCIA, and ANDREA FAHEY on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TCP HOT
ACQUISITION LLC and IDELLE LABS, LTD, Case No. 1:21-cv-09569-DLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the rider to the previously
      preliminarily approved Settlement Agreement nunc pro tunc;

   2. granting approval of the revised Long Form Notice and
      Short Form Notice nunc pro tunc; and 3) fully
      incorporating this approval to the previously issued
      Preliminary Approval Order nunc pro tunc.

By way of background, the Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
Settlement Agreement fully executed on October 14, 2022.

The Plaintiffs moved this Court for preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement, certification of the Settlement Class, and
approval of the Notice Plan on October 20, 2022 which attached the
executed Settlement Agreement with exhibits.

Individuals who submitted for a refund for that product through the
voluntary recall, however, received direct email notice of the
Settlement.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iDh8Oh at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-Mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

                - and -

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

                - and -

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

                - and -

          Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
          Jennifer Czeisler, Esq.
          Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq.
          Russell Busch, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
                  jczeisler@milberg.com
                  gwhitener@milberg.com
                  rbusch@milberg.com

TOOTSIE ROLL: Order Sustaining Demurrer to Beasley Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAXINE BEASLEY, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v.
TOOTSIE ROLL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
A164199 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
First District, Division Four, affirms the trial court's judgment
in favor of Tootsie Roll.

In this putative class action, Beasley sued Tootsie Roll, alleging
violations of federal and state law arising from the use of
partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) in Tootsie Roll's products
between 2010 and 2016. In her operative first amended complaint
(FAC), Beasley asserted the use of PHOs was unlawful and unfair
under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section
17200 et seq.) and breached the implied warranty of
merchantability.

Beasley alleged in the FAC that, during the proposed class period
-- Jan. 1, 2010 through Dec. 31, 2016 -- Tootsie Roll manufactured,
distributed, and sold products (Tootsie Rolls and Tootsie Pops)
that contained artificial trans fats in the form of PHOs. The FAC
alleged trans fats are harmful and cause cardiovascular disease,
type 2 diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and organ damage.

Beasley alleged she purchased Tootsie Roll products containing PHOs
during the class period. She sought to represent a class defined
as: "All citizens of California who purchased Tootsie Products
containing partially hydrogenated oil in California between Jan. 1,
2010 and Dec. 31, 2016."

As to injury, Beasley alleged she had suffered physical injury in
the form of harm to her cells and her cardiovascular and other
systems. She also alleged her consumption of Tootsie Roll's
products placed her at increased risk of disease and death.
Finally, Beasley alleged she sustained economic injury in the
amount she paid for Tootsie Roll's products. She would not have
purchased the products if she had known of Tootsie Roll's conduct.
Beasley also stated her economic injury included "medical
monitoring costs," but she did not include any details about such
costs.

Beasley asserted claims for violation of the UCL (first cause of
action) and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability
(second cause of action). In her UCL claim, Beasley alleged Tootsie
Roll's use of PHOs was both "unfair" and "unlawful" within the
meaning of that statute. As to unfairness, Beasley alleged in part
that the harmful health effects of PHOs outweigh any utility they
may have, and that their use violated public policy as reflected in
federal and state statutes. As to the unlawful prong of the UCL,
Beasley alleged Tootsie Roll's use of PHOs violated the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA or federal FDCA) (21 U.S.C.
Section 301 et seq.) and California's Sherman Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Law (Health & Saf. Code, Section 109875 et seq.) (Sherman
Law).

Finally, in her warranty claim, Beasley alleged Tootsie Roll
breached the implied warranty of merchantability because its
products containing PHOs were not fit for their ordinary purpose in
that they were not safe, wholesome, and legal food products.
Beasley alleged Tootsie Roll's products were not fit for human
consumption and had a value of $0. Beasley and the class did not
receive goods as impliedly warranted by Tootsie Roll to be
merchantable in that they were not fit for their ordinary purpose
of human consumption.

The FAC sought damages, restitution, and other relief.

Beasley filed her initial complaint in this matter on Jan. 25,
2021. Tootsie Roll demurred, arguing (1) Beasley had not pleaded a
cognizable injury, (2) her claims were preempted by federal law,
(3) her claims were barred by the applicable statutes of
limitations, and (4) she failed to state a claim under the UCL or
for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

The trial court sustained Tootsie Roll's demurrer to the FAC
without leave to amend, concluding (1) Beasley failed to allege
cognizable injury, (2) her claims were barred by statutes of
limitations, and (3) her claims were preempted by federal law
(specifically a congressional enactment providing the use of PHOs
is not to be deemed violative of food additive standards until June
18, 2018).

Beasley appeals, and the parties have joined issue on the grounds
for demurrer reached by the trial court -- preemption, injury, and
the statutes of limitations -- as well as the question whether the
FAC states a claim for violation of the UCL or breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability.

The Court of Appeals concludes that the FAC does not state a claim
under the UCL and that portions of that claim are preempted by
federal law. It explains that the UCL defines "unfair competition"
to include "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or
practice." Beasley failed to state a cause of action under either
"unlawful" and "unfair" prong and that portions of her claim are
preempted by federal law.

Pursuant to section 754, Tootsie Roll's use of PHOs in its products
prior to the June 18, 2018 compliance date specified by the FDA and
confirmed by Congress did not violate the FDCA's prohibition on
adulterated food (the theory of federal liability asserted by
Beasley). Because Beasley alleges only that Tootsie Roll used PHOs
before the June 18, 2018 compliance date (i.e., during the 2010 to
2016 class period), she has failed to state a cause of action under
the unlawful prong of the UCL predicated on a violation of the
federal FDCA.

Moreover, Beasley's invocation of general Sherman Law provisions
about the meaning of "adulterated" food is not sufficient to show
Tootsie Roll's use of the same PHOs during the same time period
violated the Sherman Law. She failed to state a cause of action
under the unlawful prong of the UCL. As an alternative ground for
affirmance, even assuming the provisions of the Sherman Law cited
by Beasley could support a cause of action under the unlawful prong
of the UCL, that claim would be preempted by federal law.
Construing California statutory or common law to penalize PHO use
before the compliance date selected by the FDA and ratified by
Congress would present an obstacle to the accomplishment of the
objectives of federal law.

The Court of Appeals also concludes that the claim for breach of
warranty is preempted. It holds that federal law permitting PHO use
before the 2018 compliance date preempts Beasley's attempt to use a
general state law doctrine (in the case, the implied warranty of
merchantability) to impose liability for the same conduct.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's
judgment in favor of Tootsie Roll.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 30, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ypc9b7ck from Leagle.com.

The Weston Firm, Gregory S. Weston -- greg@westonfirm.com -- for
the Plaintiff and Appellant.

Donahue Fitzgerald, David M. Jolley -- djolley@donahue.com -- for
the Defendant and Respondent.


TRANS UNION: Scheduling Order Entered in Coffey Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN COFFEY v. TRANS
UNION, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00271-DCR-MAS (E.D. Ky.), the Hon.
Judge Danny C. Reeves entered a scheduling order as follows:

  -- No later than July 7, 2023, the plaintiff is directed to
     disclose the identity of expert witnesses who may be used
     at trial and written reports by the expert witnesses as
     required by Rule 26(a)(2).

  -- No later than September 1, 2023, the defendants are
     directed to disclose the identity of expert witnesses who
     may be used at trial and written reports by the experts as
     required by Rule 26(a)(2).

  -- No later than October 31, 2023, the parties are directed to
     complete all discovery (with discovery requests served in a
     manner calculated for responses compliant with this
     deadline).

  -- No later than February 1, 2023, the parties are directed to
     file any motions to amend pleadings and/or join additional
     parties.

  -- The plaintiff may file a motion for conditional
     certification or class certification no later than December
     1, 2023.

  -- The parties are directed to file all dispositive motions
     and Daubert motions no later than December 1, 2023.

Transunion offers total credit protection all in one place from
credit score, credit report and credit alert.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3VxhWCP at no extra charge.[CC]

UMITJON KAMOLOV: Kargar, et al., Seek to Proceed Collectively
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABINA KARGAR, SERGIO
PEREZ DIAZ, and SHAINA FOSTER, in their individual capacities and
on behalf of others similarly situated, v. UMITJON KAMOLOV FARIDA
GABBASSOVA-RICCIARDELLI, FV COM CORPORATION, d/b/a Farida UMKA PUFF
PIES, and FARIDA ONLINE KITCHEN, d/b/a Farida Authentic Delicious
Food 24/7, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:22-cv-00664-JMF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to
proceed collectively, requiring the Defendants to provide complete
contact information for similarly situated individuals, issuing
judicial notice of this action, and for such other and further
relief as this Court deems just and proper.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vt2VSk at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Penn Dodson, Esq.
          ANDERSON DODSON , P.C.
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 961-7639
          Facsimile: (646) 998-8051
          E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com

VENICE HMA: Seeks to Stay Discovery & Class Cert Briefing
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RITA KENT, INGRID
TETREAULT, MARITZA SAAVEDRA, DEBRA CATLETTE, CATHERINE CLOUTIER,
and CALLIE WHITE, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. VENICE HMA HOLDINGS, LLC, VENICE HMA,
LLC, d/b/a SHOREPOINT HEALTH VENICE, Case No. 8:22-cv-01989-CEH-AEP
(M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order
granting their motion to stay discovery and class certification
briefing pending resolution of the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint.

Accordingly, the Defendants request that the Court decide these
jurisdictional issues before Defendants are required to endure the
burdens of discovery and briefing concerning class.

Due to threshold issues concerning subject matter jurisdiction that
should be resolved prior to the commencement of discovery, this
Court should stay discovery and briefing concerning class
certification in this case pending its ruling on Defendant's
Motions to Dismiss.

On August 29, 2022, the Plaintiff White filed a class action
Complaint on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, which
purports to assert a cause of action under the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act").

Thereafter, Defendants moved to dismiss this complaint for lack of
standing and sought a stay of discovery pending the resolution of
these jurisdictional issues. Following the filing of Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint on November 14, 2022, the court dismissed
Defendants' Motion as moot.

On November 28, 2022, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, which similarly asserts that
fundamental questions continue to exist concerning Plaintiffs' WARN
act claim despite the addition of new Plaintiffs and allegations,
specifically that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
the Plaintiffs' claim because it is not ripe and thus plaintiff
lacks standing as a proper class representative.

Venice HMA provides health care services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Vt0VcM at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  aheystek@wfclaw.com
                  gnichols@wfclaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tracey K. Jaensch, Esq.
          Emily Chase-Sosnoff, Esq.
          Shannon L. Kelly, Esq.
          FORD H ARRISON LLP
          401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2500
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813-261-7800
          Facsimile: 813-261-7899
          E-mail: tjaensch@fordharrison.com
                  echase-sosnoff@fordharrison.com
                  skelly@fordharrison.com

VF OUTDOOR: Court Junks Valencia Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANA VALENCIA, an
individual, on behalf of all persons similarly situated on behalf
of the State of California, as a private attorney general, and on
behalf of all aggrieved employees, v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-01795-ADA-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K. Oberto
entered an order that:

    1. The findings and recommendations filed September 23, 2022
       are adopted in full;

    2. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is denied.

    3. The Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is denied; and

    4. The Defendant's Motion to Strike is denied as moot.

On August 27, 2019, the Plaintiff Briana Valencia filed this
putative class and representative action in Alameda County Superior
Court, alleging:

     (1) failure to pay minimum wages;

     (2) failure to pay overtime compensation;

     (3) failure to provide rest periods;

     (4)  failure to provide meal periods;

     (5) failure to pay wages owed in a timely manner; and

     (6) failure to provide accurate wage statements.

The Defendant removed the action to federal court, invoking
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Defendant
then filed a motion to transfer the action to this Court, which was
granted on December 17, 2020.

On November 15, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. VF Outdoor filed its opposition on January 31, 2022.
On February 14, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her reply, along with a
motion to strike five video files submitted in support of
Defendant's opposition to the Motion for Class Certification.

VF Corporation (formerly Vanity Fair Mills until 1969) is an
American global apparel and footwear company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XKRmHI at no extra charge.[CC]


VIESTE SPE: Crossfirst Bank Must File Class Cert Reply by Dec. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crossfirst Bank, et al.,
v. Vieste SPE LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01637 (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs unopposed motion to extend time to file reply in support
of Class Certification.

The deadline for Plaintiffs' to file a reply in support of the
Motion for Class Certification is extended to and including Dec.
30, 2022.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]

VITAMIN COTTAGE: Seeks Decertification of FLSA Class in Levine
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LEVINE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS, INC. d/b/a NATURAL GROCERS,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00261-STV (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court
to enter an order decertifying the conditionally certified
collective pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Discovery has revealed that the Opt-Ins' claims and Natural
Grocers' defenses are so highly individualized that decertification
is required as a matter of law. While cross-examination of 101
individual Opt-Ins at trial is a necessity as a matter of due
process, such effort is simply not feasible and would destroy the
very efficiencies Section 216(b) of the FLSA is designed to
promote, the Defendant contends.

Finally, if the Court decertifies this action, all parties' rights
will be protected. Mr. Levine's claims will proceed, while the
Opt-Ins will be dismissed without prejudice.

As has already been shown by Plaintiff's counsel through recent
filing of numerous individual arbitrations that are currently
pending, the plaintiffs do not have a barrier to bringing their
claims individually if they chose to do so. Thus, fairness and
procedural concerns militate strongly in favor of decertifying this
collective action, the Defendant adds.

Vitamin Cottage is a Colorado based health food chain.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OZ1Sak at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason J. Conway, Esq.
          CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
          1700 Market Street Suite 1005
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 278-4807
          E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com

                - and -

          Brian David Gonzales, Esq.
          BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
          2580 East Harmony Road Suite 201
          Fort Collins, CO 80528
          Telephone: (970) 214-0562
          E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steven M. Gutierrez, Esq.
          Austin W. Jensen, Esq.
          Jeremy B. Merkelson, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          555 17th Street Suite 3200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 295-8000
          E-mail: sgutierrez@hollandhart.com
                  awjensen@hollandhart.com
                  jbmerkelson@hollandhart.com

WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Parties Must File Settlement Approval Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrea Wilkerson,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
v. Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy LLC and Healthcare Support Staffing
Incorporated, Case No. 2:21-cv-01427-JAT (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge
James A. Teilborg entered an order that the parties have until
January 4, 2023, to file a motion for approval of the settlement.

If the parties file a motion for Court approval of the settlement
by the above deadline, upon the filing of that motion, the
deadlines in will be automatically stayed.

The portion of the motion for class certification that remains
pending following this Court's Order is denied without prejudice.

Walgreens provides specialized care, therapies, and medications
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3W73T6X at no extra charge.[CC]

WALMART INC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------
Walmart Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2022 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 30, 2022, that the Company filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint in the opioid securities
class suits on November 16, 2022.

The Company is the subject of two securities class actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws regarding the Company's
disclosures with respect to opioids, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware on January 20, 2021 and March 5,
2021 purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who acquired
Walmart stock from March 30, 2016 through December 22, 2020. Those
cases have been consolidated.

On October 8, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities action.

After the parties had fully briefed the motion to dismiss, on
September 9, 2022, the Court entered an order permitting the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, which was filed on October
14, 2022 and which revised the applicable class of investors to
those who acquired Walmart stock from March 31, 2017, through
December 22, 2020.

On November 16, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States.


WASHINGTON, DC: More Time to File Class Certification Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE PAPPAS, et al., v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02800-RC (D.D.C.),
the the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the
briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class
certification, which is currently due on December 1, 2022.

The Parties request that the Court extend the deadline for
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to January 9, 2023, that
Defendants' opposition be due on February 17, 2023, and that
Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion be due on March 3,
2023.

The Court set the current deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on July 7, 2022. On September 12, 2022, the Court
granted in part Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery. Since that
time, Defendants have made several productions of documents, but
need additional time to complete their productions. To provide
Plaintiffs with sufficient time to review and incorporate those
documents into their motion for class certification as appropriate,
the Parties are seeking to extend the current deadline for
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ixbYDp at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eve Hill, Esq.
          Andrew D. Levy, Esq.
          James Strawbridge, Esq.
          BROWN , GOLDSTEIN & LEVY , LLP
          120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 2500
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 962-1030
          Facsimile: (410) 385-0869
          E-mail: ehill@browngold.com
                  adl@browngold.com

                - and -

          Ellen Eardley, Esq.
          Cyrus Mehri, Esq.
          MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
          2000 K Street, NW, Suite 325
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 822-5100
          Facsimile: (202) 822-4997
          E-mail: eeardley@findjustice.com
                  cmehri@findjustice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Karl A. Racine, Esq.
          Attorney General for the District of Columbia

          Chad Copeland, Esq.
          Deputy Attorney General
          Civil Litigation Division

          Matthew R. Blecher, Esq.
          Chief, Civil Litigation Division, Equity Section

          Micah Bluming, Esq.
          Richard P. Sobiecki, Esq.
          Amanda C. Pescovitz, Esq.
          Assistant Attorneys General
          Equity Section
          400 Sixth Street, N.W., Suite 10100
          Washington, D.C. 20001
          Telephone: (202) 724-7272
          Facsimile: (202) 730-1833
          E-mail: micah.bluming@dc.gov

WHITEFISH, MT: Beck, et al., File Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF BECK, individually;
AMY WEINBERG, individually; ZAC WEINBERG, individually; ALTA VIEWS,
LLC; RIVERVIEW COMPANY, LLC; and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons and entities, v. CITY OF WHITEFISH, a Montana
governmental entity, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 9:22-cv-00044-KLD (D.
Mont.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
       P. 23.

   2. defining the class as:

      "Any and all persons or entities who paid impact fees for
      water and wastewater services to Defendant City of
      Whitefish from January 1, 2019 to the present;"

   3. defining the class claims and issues; and

   4. appointing counsel of record for Plaintiffs as class
      counsel.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 30, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H6gDpX at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cory R. Laird, Esq.
          Lindsay A. Mullineaux, Esq.
          Riley M. Wavra, Esq.
          LAIRD COWLEY, PLLC
          2315 McDonald Avenue, Suite 220
          Missoula, MT 59801
          P.O. Box 4066
          Missoula, MT 59806-4066
          Telephone: (406) 541-7400
          Facsimile: (406) 541-7414
          E-mail: claird@lairdcowley.com
                  lmullineaux@lairdcowley.com
                  rwavra@lairdcowley.com

                - and -

          Mark M. Kovacich, Esq.
          Ben A. Snipes, Esq.
          Caelan G. Brady, Esq.
          KOVACICH SNIPES JOHNSON PC
          21 3rd Street North, Suite 301
          Great Falls, MT 59401
          Telephone: (406) 550-5000
          E-mail: mark@justicemt.com
                  ben@justicemt.com
                  caelan@justicemt.com

ZYNGA INC: Class Action Settlement in Ferrando Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONDA FERRANDO and DEX
MARZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ZYNGA INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-00214-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik
entered an order granting final approval of class action
settlement.

  -- Dismissal with Prejudice

     Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the action
     (including all individual claims and class claims) is
     hereby dismissed with prejudice on the merits, without
     costs or attorney's fees to any Party except as provided
     under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, this Final
     Judgment, and the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's
     Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses and
     Issuance of Incentive Awards.

  -- Releases

     This Order incorporates the Releases set forth in the
     Settlement Agreement and makes them effective as of the
     Effective Date. All Settlement Class Members who have not
     properly sought exclusion from the Settlement Class are
     hereby permanently barred and enjoined from filing,
     commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating
     (as class members or otherwise) in any lawsuit or other
     action in any jurisdiction based on the Released Claims, as
     set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

  -- Attorneys' Fees and Expenses

     Pursuant to the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's
     Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and
     Issuance of Incentive Awards, the Court awards $3,000,000
     in attorneys' fees and $22,500 in costs and expenses to
     Class Counsel.

  -- Incentive Awards

     Pursuant to the Court's Order Granting Class Counsel's
     Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and
     Issuance of Incentive Awards, the Court awards $5,000 to
     Tonda Ferrando and $5,000 to Dex Marzano for their services
     as Class Representatives.

  -- Continuing Jurisdiction

     Without affecting the finality of the Final Judgment for
     purposes of appeal, the Court retains continuing and
     exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties and all matters
     relating to the Settlement Agreement, including the
     administration, interpretation, construction, effectuation,
     enforcement, and consummation of the Settlement and this
     Order.

  -- Class Certification

     The Court confirms its certification for settlement
     purposes of the following Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)
     (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     "All individuals who, in Washington (as reasonably
     determined by billing address information, IP address
     information, or other information furnished by Platform
     Providers), played the Applications on or before
     Preliminary Approval of the Settlement."

  -- Class Notice

     The Class Notice given by the Settlement Administrator to
     the Class was the best practicable notice under the
     circumstances and was reasonably calculated, under the
     circumstances, to apprise Settlement Class Members of the
     pendency of the Action, their right to object to the
     Settlement or exclude themselves from the Settlement Class.

     Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) any Judge or
     Magistrate presiding over this Action and members of their
     families, (2) the Defendant, Defendant's subsidiaries,
     parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity
     in which the Defendant or its parent have a controlling
     interest and their current or former officers, directors,
     and employees, (3) persons who properly execute and file a
     timely request for exclusion from the Settlement Class, and  
     (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any
     such excluded persons.

Zynga is an American developer running social video game services.


A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 1, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uGrM9L at no extra charge.[CC]



                            *********

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 ***